Yes, I am am TMO customer, and when I travel in Maine, I sometimes end up where they have no service, I roam to US Cellular. This is Hell.
First, US Cellular and TMO limit me to 50MB of data in a given period, and it hardly matters if the period is measured in anything less than hours, since that's not enough data to survive merely checking for software updates and location updates in 24 hours.
They also seem to throttle data speeds before the 50MB limit is reached, though I cannot tell quite when.
And US Cellular has had the habit of latching your connection even when you've gone back into home service, a trick they have used since the 90s in Maine, which sometimes requires you restart your phone 3 times to re-register correctly and get back to home base.
Roaming in the US is often a punishing experience.
You've got it backwards. Government regulation ensures that competitors can't differentiate themselves easily, and so defeats the free market and any chance it has of actually impacting prices and benefiting consumers.
Get the government out of all but technical regulation.
Since Sprint doesn't intend to compete for rural customers, they do have all the spectrum they care about. TMO seems really interested in rural service, so they went and got a bunch of Band 71, aggressively worked with the departing users to move them along (as in paid them $), and deployed. I'll perhaps ditch my U11 early and get a 600-capable phone, since this will probably be the vest service where I vacation, and the current PCS band is still marginal at best.
TMO is determined to compete with the Big Two on equal terms. Sprint hasn't been aggressive since they bought Nextel, and that died on the vine a long time ago.
0. The summary offered a link to, not TFA, but to another/. article, where TFA was actually linked. Um, hey,/. editors, are you clickfarming?
1. TFA, dated February 2015 (yes, more than 2 years old), makes some interesting points:
- One report claimed the user was viewing content on the Plex server. Seems as if a media server wouldn't prevent ad insertion, much to the chagrin of current commentators who purport that a media server would defeat this 'feature'. - Another report claimed the problem appeared approximately a year after purchase. Seems as if the excerpt in the summary; 'software glitch that caused this. They left a function on by default that should have been off when they shipped the TVs', is at odds with the original Samsung response, 'This was a result of an error that occurred as part of a recent software update that was not intended for the Australian market.'. Who's right? I'm trusting the original report.
For those of you scoring at home, that's Truth 2, Summary 0, current commentators 0. So far.
- This was reported in Australia. Not the US, so far as I know.
- And this tidbit: 'On my Samsung, at least, the Yahoo Privacy Policy terms and conditions are delightfully Orwellian: "By either selecting that I agree or by not selecting that I disagree, I agree to the Yahoo Connected TV Terms of Service." The kicker? There is no "I disagree" option. Only the "Agree" button shows at the top of the window; scrolling through the complete terms does not produce a disagree option. Lovely. Thanks Samsung!' Either someone delightfully 'forgot' to include a 'disagree' option, or someone deliberately chose to employ a catch-22 in this. I vote for the former, as we should not mistake ignorance for malice in these matters.
2. Referring to TFA, at the time this was only reported iN Austraila. I found some random reports since:
- The Verge, May 2016, 'adding interactive advertisements to the menu bars of its high-end smart TVs'. Menu bars, not content,allegedly. The Verge ran the copy from the CNet report also back in February 2015. - In May 2016, Engadget ran a report that stated Samsung 'will increase the number of tile ads that it displays in the menu bar of its smart TVs. These small squares are currently only available in the US, although the paper believes that Europe will be added to the program in the near future. In addition, older models will get the ads delivered to the home screen thanks to a future software update.'. Interesting, Samsung already showing ads in menu bars in the US. Well, at least they weren't interrupting your sixth binge run of Lost, right?
3. If Samsung decided to try inserting ads into content, I suspect the various discouragements available to those content providers affected could include:
- Demanding that certain 'partners', such as Hulu, Roku, and other apps included in Samsung TVs cancel their arrangements and remove themselves from Samsung products - this causing some brand damage, alerting consumers to the issue and perhaps influencing buying decisions... - Demanding that broadcast partners, such as 'cable TV' (how ya like that characterization, CenturyLink?) providers, challenge Samsung on their behalf, for failing to provide to viewers the content they desired, unchanged, and are either censoring or altering content without permission... - Appeal to the government, claiming on behalf of copyright holders or IN COLLUSION WITH those copyright holders that this would be an alteration not protected by fair use or other provision.
This will not be successful by any manufacturer. Seemed like a bright idea at the time, but if I were HBO, an ad bar appearing below an episode of Game of Thrones would have my lawyers descending on the manufacturer(s) as locusts, with similar effect.
This I do not believe is going to be a big problem, witness no real impacts since the 2015 Australian reports.
"a TV is just a computer display with a content box on it. And you can't go putting adverts into a computer monitor without destroying someone's ability to work, so people would just use those if it really came to it."
I don't associate watching TV with 'work' as I know it. What is this 'work' you refer to that is done on a consumer television set as we commonly know it?
Or, perhaps, you have found a computer monitor with this consumer-oriented advertising insertion capability included? Please, let us know, that we may avoid it without even opening the box and reading the EULA, Ts&Cs, and instructions...
0. Using a co workers's credentials gets your both fired on the spot.
1. Physical access to networking equipment is restricted by lock and key. Installing a switch of your own world be grounds for dismissal and prosecution. It's been tried.
I work for a well-known financial company. I guarantee you that if I accessed the information of any even marginally well known celebrity, public figure, even a notable individual, I would be asked why and expected to offer clear evidence of the need. I occasionally see personally identifiable information for any of our clients, and I do not pursue any I happen to come across that I recognize, and of course I would not.
I would also be asked if I accessed MY information - that usually results in one warning. Then dismissal.
But it's evident these Internet companies haven't worked out the confidentiality protections they should have in place, and so we read these reports. Kinda sad.
"30+ years ago, news organizations mostly stuck with *objectively reporting the news"
Somehow this ignores the Reagan era. For my childhood and adulthood, spanning more than 40+ years now, all I recall of newspapers is the perfunctory 'objective' reporting mixed in with opinion, bias, and slant. Most major metropolitan newspapers were not merely legendary for their activism, they were unapologetic and celebrated for it.
At least in the US. My memories of this are clear back to 1971, when my American History teacher showed us examples from all viewpoints, and from newspapers as far back as pre-Civil War. But one man's bias is another's defense of truth, justice, and the American Way.
True, but it's some of the very limited reporting that isn't speculation and innuendo. This so-called 'Russian collusion' narrative has up to now been without substantial evidence. Now that there are verifiable statements pointing in a different direction the 'standard of proof' has suddenly been raised...
We'll see soon enough. This will speed up, and go in a different direction than tax evasion and agent registration 3 years before the events of interest.
My devs persist in designing pages I have to scroll down to show the 'Submit' button. Pages that, in a browser with an address and bookmarks bar, force that key element below the bottom of the maximized window. Why? The white space is available, the other elements could be spaced differently, this is unnecessary.
When 8514/A and XGA came out, web developers jumped at the extra screen space. Most users still stuck at SVGA.
If you want to see usability, corporate devs, look at Amazon. There is a Submit or Order button handy always. Yes, you scroll to show 50 results, but you don't have to look hard for the action button. On my app, you always, always have to scroll.
And the pleas of the users fall on deaf ears. Moar Features. Moar whitespace. Moar corporate theming.
Feh. Web app design is a wasteland. Injection hardening is how they deny that people have apostrophes in their names, or speak any language other than English in your globalized app world. Injection hardening and input sanitizing was the big push in 2007. What happened since then? Laziness.
This issue alone will be profitable for the lawyers. It's a slam dunk case of obstruction, intentional or not, and the intention only changes the numbers.
There need not be a court order to preserve evidence for the act to be 'obstruction of justice'. The officials who are responsible for the system knew or should have known that the devices they altered would be expected to be evidence, and so their actions are at best negligent, and, in the absence of compelling evidence to the contrary, deliberate acts, and obstructionist in nature. The standard of proof may be higher than that, but at the least dismissal is appropriate. I doubt that happens until the suit is resolved, since it would appear to be an admission of at least incompetence, and possibly malfeasance, and the plaintiffs' case would be strengthened.
"It is unclear who ordered the destruction of the data, and why"
Oh yea, it doesn't matter as much as the actual act does, but if the officials, elected or appointed claim they don't know, they can be dismissed for incompetence. Oh well, again, not until the suit is resolved.
"but they have raised yet more suspicions of collusion between the Trump campaign team, the Republican Party, and the Russian government."
Why? you think state officials in Georgia are engaged in collusion with Russian actors? Really? Since we have compelling evidence that the entire Russian collusion narrative is actually one of DNC, FBI, and Clinton campaign interaction, this is nonsense on two fronts; first, the players involved are in fact not Trump people, and second, the intention was to benefit the Clinton campaign.
This is so twisted it's hard to decipher, but my Clinton and anyone-but-Trump supporting friends are so lost in the narrative that they can't even hear the current evidence being made public. They are so far gone they can't tolerate competing reports, no matter the content, and the recent revelations are at least as credible as the initial ones, and I believe are, in fact, true.
"If people get sick of the Internet, going back to radio and TV and newspaper will be nigh well impossible."
The Internet is the new Radio, Newspaper, Television, and some new things. Going back is neither necessary nor helpful. Moving forward and making new media is the solution, if needed.
Beware Net Neutrality. The government would love to regulate the Internet as if it were broadcast technology.
Hey, let's talk about that bridge thing. I've got this ICO coming up, and you could really, really cash in. Simple exchange, and BOOM! you're a Blockchain Billionaire!
Keep the Island, I've got a blockchain toll app in development.
So instead of cheap paper, television, or radio, the youth are using Internet on whatever device suits them.
Same news. Same sources. Same problems. The nail cares not how big the hammer is, or if it's a rock, or your neighbor's dog's head. It's still getting pounded.
"No, the product will become even more shit and the viewership will continue to decline"
And the news business will lose customers and influence, and diminish.
As it deserves. If the news business wants to expand its influence and profitability, the competition out there is either unbiased or 'honest' (as in stating up front the bias held), and the mainstream news businesses either reestablish credibility or suffer.
I'm not hopeful, since bias and political activism in the news business is both fundamental - they are now predicated on supporting their chosen political movements, whatever they are -, and pervasive - this is the assumed normal state of affairs by not only the owners, but management, experienced team members, and the incoming rookies. It is their business model now. To pivot and become journalists may not be possible in the time remaining before they are forced to retract and take the crumbs of a huge, growing market they should be the dominant players in for perpetuity. They chose this path, the 'mainstream media'. They have no complaint, though the dominant politics is also based on a contrived philosophy that cannot survive objective analysis.
And yes, the competing political movement suffers from leadership that has abdicated their position as 'opposition', and have no moral standing with their supposed followers. those who look for an alternative to the force-fed politics of the alleged mainstream have had to look elsewhere for a leader, and compromise for the sake of doing something else, rather than cave in and surrender.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, I am am TMO customer, and when I travel in Maine, I sometimes end up where they have no service, I roam to US Cellular. This is Hell.
First, US Cellular and TMO limit me to 50MB of data in a given period, and it hardly matters if the period is measured in anything less than hours, since that's not enough data to survive merely checking for software updates and location updates in 24 hours.
They also seem to throttle data speeds before the 50MB limit is reached, though I cannot tell quite when.
And US Cellular has had the habit of latching your connection even when you've gone back into home service, a trick they have used since the 90s in Maine, which sometimes requires you restart your phone 3 times to re-register correctly and get back to home base.
Roaming in the US is often a punishing experience.
You've got it backwards. Government regulation ensures that competitors can't differentiate themselves easily, and so defeats the free market and any chance it has of actually impacting prices and benefiting consumers.
Get the government out of all but technical regulation.
Really? What company is that?
Since Sprint doesn't intend to compete for rural customers, they do have all the spectrum they care about. TMO seems really interested in rural service, so they went and got a bunch of Band 71, aggressively worked with the departing users to move them along (as in paid them $), and deployed. I'll perhaps ditch my U11 early and get a 600-capable phone, since this will probably be the vest service where I vacation, and the current PCS band is still marginal at best.
TMO is determined to compete with the Big Two on equal terms. Sprint hasn't been aggressive since they bought Nextel, and that died on the vine a long time ago.
0. The summary offered a link to, not TFA, but to another /. article, where TFA was actually linked. Um, hey, /. editors, are you clickfarming?
1. TFA, dated February 2015 (yes, more than 2 years old), makes some interesting points:
- One report claimed the user was viewing content on the Plex server. Seems as if a media server wouldn't prevent ad insertion, much to the chagrin of current commentators who purport that a media server would defeat this 'feature'.
- Another report claimed the problem appeared approximately a year after purchase. Seems as if the excerpt in the summary; 'software glitch that caused this. They left a function on by default that should have been off when they shipped the TVs', is at odds with the original Samsung response, 'This was a result of an error that occurred as part of a recent software update that was not intended for the Australian market.'. Who's right? I'm trusting the original report.
For those of you scoring at home, that's Truth 2, Summary 0, current commentators 0. So far.
- This was reported in Australia. Not the US, so far as I know.
- And this tidbit: 'On my Samsung, at least, the Yahoo Privacy Policy terms and conditions are delightfully Orwellian:
"By either selecting that I agree or by not selecting that I disagree, I agree to the Yahoo Connected TV Terms of Service." The kicker? There is no "I disagree" option. Only the "Agree" button shows at the top of the window; scrolling through the complete terms does not produce a disagree option. Lovely. Thanks Samsung!' Either someone delightfully 'forgot' to include a 'disagree' option, or someone deliberately chose to employ a catch-22 in this. I vote for the former, as we should not mistake ignorance for malice in these matters.
2. Referring to TFA, at the time this was only reported iN Austraila. I found some random reports since:
- The Verge, May 2016, 'adding interactive advertisements to the menu bars of its high-end smart TVs'. Menu bars, not content,allegedly. The Verge ran the copy from the CNet report also back in February 2015.
- In May 2016, Engadget ran a report that stated Samsung 'will increase the number of tile ads that it displays in the menu bar of its smart TVs. These small squares are currently only available in the US, although the paper believes that Europe will be added to the program in the near future. In addition, older models will get the ads delivered to the home screen thanks to a future software update.'. Interesting, Samsung already showing ads in menu bars in the US. Well, at least they weren't interrupting your sixth binge run of Lost, right?
3. If Samsung decided to try inserting ads into content, I suspect the various discouragements available to those content providers affected could include:
- Demanding that certain 'partners', such as Hulu, Roku, and other apps included in Samsung TVs cancel their arrangements and remove themselves from Samsung products - this causing some brand damage, alerting consumers to the issue and perhaps influencing buying decisions...
- Demanding that broadcast partners, such as 'cable TV' (how ya like that characterization, CenturyLink?) providers, challenge Samsung on their behalf, for failing to provide to viewers the content they desired, unchanged, and are either censoring or altering content without permission...
- Appeal to the government, claiming on behalf of copyright holders or IN COLLUSION WITH those copyright holders that this would be an alteration not protected by fair use or other provision.
This will not be successful by any manufacturer. Seemed like a bright idea at the time, but if I were HBO, an ad bar appearing below an episode of Game of Thrones would have my lawyers descending on the manufacturer(s) as locusts, with similar effect.
This I do not believe is going to be a big problem, witness no real impacts since the 2015 Australian reports.
"a TV is just a computer display with a content box on it. And you can't go putting adverts into a computer monitor without destroying someone's ability to work, so people would just use those if it really came to it."
I don't associate watching TV with 'work' as I know it. What is this 'work' you refer to that is done on a consumer television set as we commonly know it?
Or, perhaps, you have found a computer monitor with this consumer-oriented advertising insertion capability included? Please, let us know, that we may avoid it without even opening the box and reading the EULA, Ts&Cs, and instructions...
0. Using a co workers's credentials gets your both fired on the spot.
1. Physical access to networking equipment is restricted by lock and key. Installing a switch of your own world be grounds for dismissal and prosecution. It's been tried.
I work for a well-known financial company. I guarantee you that if I accessed the information of any even marginally well known celebrity, public figure, even a notable individual, I would be asked why and expected to offer clear evidence of the need. I occasionally see personally identifiable information for any of our clients, and I do not pursue any I happen to come across that I recognize, and of course I would not.
I would also be asked if I accessed MY information - that usually results in one warning. Then dismissal.
But it's evident these Internet companies haven't worked out the confidentiality protections they should have in place, and so we read these reports. Kinda sad.
"completely unbiased new reporting" is something that is not actually possible."
Of course it is. But it would be uninteresting to most and occupy very little attention.
Oh, and not much volume. Facts are dense compared to opinion.
"30+ years ago, news organizations mostly stuck with *objectively reporting the news"
Somehow this ignores the Reagan era. For my childhood and adulthood, spanning more than 40+ years now, all I recall of newspapers is the perfunctory 'objective' reporting mixed in with opinion, bias, and slant. Most major metropolitan newspapers were not merely legendary for their activism, they were unapologetic and celebrated for it.
At least in the US. My memories of this are clear back to 1971, when my American History teacher showed us examples from all viewpoints, and from newspapers as far back as pre-Civil War. But one man's bias is another's defense of truth, justice, and the American Way.
True, but it's some of the very limited reporting that isn't speculation and innuendo. This so-called 'Russian collusion' narrative has up to now been without substantial evidence. Now that there are verifiable statements pointing in a different direction the 'standard of proof' has suddenly been raised...
We'll see soon enough. This will speed up, and go in a different direction than tax evasion and agent registration 3 years before the events of interest.
My devs persist in designing pages I have to scroll down to show the 'Submit' button. Pages that, in a browser with an address and bookmarks bar, force that key element below the bottom of the maximized window. Why? The white space is available, the other elements could be spaced differently, this is unnecessary.
When 8514/A and XGA came out, web developers jumped at the extra screen space. Most users still stuck at SVGA.
If you want to see usability, corporate devs, look at Amazon. There is a Submit or Order button handy always. Yes, you scroll to show 50 results, but you don't have to look hard for the action button. On my app, you always, always have to scroll.
And the pleas of the users fall on deaf ears. Moar Features. Moar whitespace. Moar corporate theming.
Feh. Web app design is a wasteland. Injection hardening is how they deny that people have apostrophes in their names, or speak any language other than English in your globalized app world. Injection hardening and input sanitizing was the big push in 2007. What happened since then? Laziness.
It pleases me to no end to use the Washington Bleep as a source for this
And all that juicy evidence that it was Democrats involved? That raises suspicions of the Trump campaign being involved?
Wow.
Not illegal, but irresponsible, and obviously so.
This issue alone will be profitable for the lawyers. It's a slam dunk case of obstruction, intentional or not, and the intention only changes the numbers.
There need not be a court order to preserve evidence for the act to be 'obstruction of justice'. The officials who are responsible for the system knew or should have known that the devices they altered would be expected to be evidence, and so their actions are at best negligent, and, in the absence of compelling evidence to the contrary, deliberate acts, and obstructionist in nature. The standard of proof may be higher than that, but at the least dismissal is appropriate. I doubt that happens until the suit is resolved, since it would appear to be an admission of at least incompetence, and possibly malfeasance, and the plaintiffs' case would be strengthened.
"It is unclear who ordered the destruction of the data, and why"
Oh yea, it doesn't matter as much as the actual act does, but if the officials, elected or appointed claim they don't know, they can be dismissed for incompetence. Oh well, again, not until the suit is resolved.
"but they have raised yet more suspicions of collusion between the Trump campaign team, the Republican Party, and the Russian government."
Why? you think state officials in Georgia are engaged in collusion with Russian actors? Really? Since we have compelling evidence that the entire Russian collusion narrative is actually one of DNC, FBI, and Clinton campaign interaction, this is nonsense on two fronts; first, the players involved are in fact not Trump people, and second, the intention was to benefit the Clinton campaign.
This is so twisted it's hard to decipher, but my Clinton and anyone-but-Trump supporting friends are so lost in the narrative that they can't even hear the current evidence being made public. They are so far gone they can't tolerate competing reports, no matter the content, and the recent revelations are at least as credible as the initial ones, and I believe are, in fact, true.
We are in a lot of trouble.
"If people get sick of the Internet, going back to radio and TV and newspaper will be nigh well impossible."
The Internet is the new Radio, Newspaper, Television, and some new things. Going back is neither necessary nor helpful. Moving forward and making new media is the solution, if needed.
Beware Net Neutrality. The government would love to regulate the Internet as if it were broadcast technology.
"Except that all of the misinformation in the electorate is from TV commercials."
That's funny. Did I miss the whoosh?
Hey, let's talk about that bridge thing. I've got this ICO coming up, and you could really, really cash in. Simple exchange, and BOOM! you're a Blockchain Billionaire!
Keep the Island, I've got a blockchain toll app in development.
"People under 50 get their news on the cellphone"
So instead of cheap paper, television, or radio, the youth are using Internet on whatever device suits them.
Same news. Same sources. Same problems. The nail cares not how big the hammer is, or if it's a rock, or your neighbor's dog's head. It's still getting pounded.
Like Soros, Slick Bill, Bernie, Chuck, the rest...
When you describe them as 'bigoted, rich, science denying*, sociopathic old white guys', you cover a broad swath of political leadership in the US.
Don't dismiss this. You chose the brush. This is your painting, I'm just observing.
* - Bring it on, all political movements in America deny science when it suits them. And for the same reasons.
"No, the product will become even more shit and the viewership will continue to decline"
And the news business will lose customers and influence, and diminish.
As it deserves. If the news business wants to expand its influence and profitability, the competition out there is either unbiased or 'honest' (as in stating up front the bias held), and the mainstream news businesses either reestablish credibility or suffer.
I'm not hopeful, since bias and political activism in the news business is both fundamental - they are now predicated on supporting their chosen political movements, whatever they are -, and pervasive - this is the assumed normal state of affairs by not only the owners, but management, experienced team members, and the incoming rookies. It is their business model now. To pivot and become journalists may not be possible in the time remaining before they are forced to retract and take the crumbs of a huge, growing market they should be the dominant players in for perpetuity. They chose this path, the 'mainstream media'. They have no complaint, though the dominant politics is also based on a contrived philosophy that cannot survive objective analysis.
And yes, the competing political movement suffers from leadership that has abdicated their position as 'opposition', and have no moral standing with their supposed followers. those who look for an alternative to the force-fed politics of the alleged mainstream have had to look elsewhere for a leader, and compromise for the sake of doing something else, rather than cave in and surrender.
I don't. But apparently the manufacturers do. That's how they are doing it.
Your beef is with them.
ZOMG, higher prices!
And we still are arguing over whether corporate taxes have nay impact on prices.
I'm a Libertarian-leaning Conservative. Enacting laws to force market behavior is usually misguided.
Remember, all legislation is someone's morality. Next thing you know, they will pass a law forcing us to fix things we would really rather throw away.