Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).
AT&T can charge Netflix extra money for making a "Fast Lane" available on its network. Then, it can turn around and let the customer "choose" to pay an extra $20 a month to actually USE this "Fast Lane". Rinse and Repeat with every type of service you can think of: YouTube, Twitch, online gaming, Skype, etc. Soon the customer could have an extra $50-100 tacked onto his or her bill every month. Huge win for ISPs.
I can see the advertising now! Subscribe to three fast lanes and get a 20% discount on your bundle!
However, I have a few thoughts on it.
- It's insinuated that Julie is being deceitful by hiding the fact that the engineer is an ex-boyfriend. If it is, in fact, true that it was an ex-boyfriend, it's equally reasonable that Julie excluded that part of the story from her public side of the tale in order to protect his identity and not publicly call him out. Keep in mind Julie didn't even mention the founder or his wife by name.
- It's insinuated that the engineer's advances were "OK" because he was an "ex". This is simply false. Just because you had a relationship with someone doesn't make it OK to harass you.
- It's insinuated that Julie didn't have any issues with the retaliation that the engineer used against her. However if you read Julie's story, she obviously did. She may just not have come forward about it immediately, which is what happens in MANY cases of retaliation and harassment. It's easier and more comfortable to deal with the issue on your own, hope it blows over by itself, etc.
- The back-and-forth regarding the wife just sounds like meaningless he-said she-said. I'll believe it if the wife comes forward publicly and says something about it, but this just sounds like 3rd person rumor mongering to me.
- The insinuation that the "Passion Projects" at GitHub was somehow a bribe to get Julie to stop "threatening" the founder's family is a pretty serious allegation to make without any factual information to back it up, and posted anonymously.
May then offers up a straw-man argument, saying that forcing a la carte pricing for cable companies is similar to forcing The Washington Post sell parts of their paper separately. "readers should not be required to pay for the news section, which, with a war on, contains some "violent" content, or the style section, which contains some content that may be considered "indecent.""
May approaches a la carte from the sole perspective that it is being used as a government censorship tool to keep violent channels out of family homes. What Martin fails to mention is that if cable companies offered a la carte pricing, that does not force them to not include channels, and families can still opt-in to whichever channels they wish.
It also does not necessarily preclude cable companies from continuing to offer bundled channel packages, for those T.V. watchers who want to still have a huge selection of channels."