Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?
Check out the brand new SourceForge HTML5 speed test! Test your internet connection now. Works on all devices. ×

Comment Re:Binge on (Score 1) 157

Actually, I can do you one better. I can apologize to you because I finally ran across the video re-compression detail you were talking about and...oopsie... I jammed my foot in my mouth.

You see, I recently ran across an article that basically describes Binge On as a throttled pipe. While describing that, they left out the part that the video streams pass through T-Mobile's servers to recompress the stream. Either I read a bad article or only read half of that. I clearly need to to go research this some more. This is news to me as of ten minutes ago.

So I have two things for you: First is that I'm sorry for using my ignorance to frustrate you. Second is I think I see what you might say about the human interaction, and you may have a point, but I do say that with hesitation.

I really thought this was just a slow pipe that uses a whitelist, my whole discussion with you was based on that error.

I still feel this violates Net Neutrality. Even if I concede that the human intervention is a necessary evil, I say 'nope! find another approach!'. As I said before, the very nature of these companies compels them to under-deliver.

Now is my turn to leave you with the last word. There'll be no lost honor in using words like dipshit or moron. I only have me to blame.

Comment Re:This is why (Score 1) 82

"Government censorship" is not redundant. Anyone with a channel can censor their channel. That's just what the word means. Google has a very important channel, so it matters when they censor it. Your yard signage is less important, but "censorship" nevertheless.

Okay. The word 'molest' works that way, too. I could use it to describe something very mundane, but my choice to use that word paints a picture in a rather ugly light. So are we talking about "Google choosing what their services are used for" or are we talking about the stopping of... please pardon the metaphor... book burning? I mean we did collectively choose to use private entities for our free speech platform. Another commenter suggested the idea of a public search engine, if that happened would it mean Google would be off the hook?

Comment Re:This is why (Score 1) 82

Serious question: When did it stop mattering that these companies are private entities that can do what they please with their services? I'm not, at all, arguing in favor of censorship, I would just like to know where the line is that they crossed where suddenly they have to uphold the message?

Or, to put it another way: What would have to happen for it to be censorship if I don't allow a particular presidential candidate to put their sign on my lawn?

Comment Re:Binge on (Score 1) 157

All over the place? Heh. If that were actually true it'd work to your benefit, you'd have something to argue with. I've said the same thing over and over again. Consistently. I even went as far as to not stray off-topic. That one thing that I've said over and over again is the one thing that neither you or the other participant has been able to provide an answer to. THAT is why you're bailing.

So yes, I am going to take you up on that last word. The goal of a mobile ISP is to take your money and send you as little data as possible. In fact, this whole Binge On concept, is strictly about sending less data out. The less data they send out, the more money in their pockets. They've created a system to serve this purpose with the feel good word 'unlimited', but it violates Net Neutrality. Your acceptance of that little issue is that you trust them. That's it. You have provided no reason to find their human-based application process acceptable other than you like them. You're willing to cannibalize Net Neutrality because: free shit!

Okie doke, I'm done. We're cool. I do hope you have the good rest of your Sunday.

Comment Re:Binge on (Score 1) 157

I 'ignored' it for brevity. Everything you quoted supports me. The whole point I've been making this entire time is that there is a human being making the decision. The argument is that the rules are purely technical in nature so it doesn't matter that there's a human there. The question about the application process was to draw out an answer as to why a human has to be involved in the first place. Not one person has provided one. In fact, I have a nice lonely little question earlier in this thread still waiting to be replied to.

Oh and the "set this up for me" button... it bypasses the need for an application process. Yes, you are still being hasty in your replies.

Further, I never attempted to bail on the discussion...

Yes, you did. That was the whole point of the "no point in continuing to discuss this..." comment you made. It was a dare for me to produce something you can nitpick with an out that lets you jab your nose in the air. I wouldn't normally mind, but we're talking about human beings here and you want to nitpick an alternative to a process that is already flawed.

Comment Re:Binge on (Score 1) 157

That you think I would find them frivolous speaks volumes...

Heh. I didn't say the ideas were frivolous. Actually what I said was that you would find frivolous reasons to dismiss them, like the willful lack of reading comprehension that you demonstrated right here and again later in your post.

So you never claimed there was no reason for Binge-On to have an application process and that it should be able to be fully automated?

why have a human-required application process at all?

Again, you are in such a hurry to find something to be critical of you're cannibalizing your own point. A "set this up for me" button is automation. A form to fill out and email to T-Mobile is not.

Heh. I'm sorry, this is amusing. It's almost like you included my rebuttal for me to save time or something.

First of all, what was off-topic?

Your attempt to bail on the discussion because I didn't bother writing an essay on using well-established tools on the internet to send a few strings of data around to which you would find issue with then humorously declare impossible. That's not what we're actually discussing.

Comment Re:Binge on (Score 1) 157

You're ready to pound your fists on the keyboard because I didn't rattle off a quick list of ideas that you were just going to find frivolous reasons to shoot down? The important point is that there are plenty of ways to do it, it has to be done anyway to even apply to Binge On. It would be dirt simple for a site aiming to work with the service to provide an 'Add us to Binge on!' button that gets all of the pertinent info into the right spot.

I know you need to pin something on me to get your easy 'face-saving' way out, but that's just off-topic.

Comment Re:Binge on (Score 1) 157

I'm not sure what you think is consumer-friendly about a service that not only won't work as expected due to technical limitations...

They already have a service that doesn't work as expected due to technical limitations. "Just wait, maybe one day your favorite site will become available!" Some of the reviews go into detail about other surprises that customers of that service encounter, feel free to peruse them at your leisure. As for the problem with whitelisting all the appropriate places, that's such a frivolous issue that I came up with 3 different solutions while walking out to my mailbox. It's just a whitelist for sites to use a slower channel. If it's really that difficult then just make a 'fast and slow' switch, you pick which plan you want to use. Seriously, T-Mobile's solution is so bass-ackwards I don't understand why anybody on this site in particular isn't making a fart noise whenever it's mentioned.

I have to admit you have lost me on the video recompression. I honestly don't have the slightest idea what that is in reference to. All of the 'optimization' that T-Mobile thinks it needs human eyes to verify is making sure the video stream fits within a 1 megabit pipe. If a site fails to do that, which is hard to picture since most sites including Youtube (who took a surprisingly long time to become available...) have a mode like that because of mobile phone usage, then buff...buu...buv.b..buffering. There is no recompression on T-Mobile's end involved. I don't think it would work, I cannot imagine a way it could work, I even agree with you that I don't know how they'd even do it because of encryption. (I do have doubts as to whether that's actually a copyright issue, but I feel that's a very different discussion.)

Comment Re:Binge on (Score 1) 157

This debate I'm having with this guy has been going on in two separate threads, because of that there is some missing context. He is of the opinion that T-Mobile's way of doing it is the *ONLY* way to do it, which frankly I find kind of sickening. That quote of mine is me teasing him for his inability to see past what's in front of him. On a day-to-day basis he sees all sorts of examples that could be applied as alternatives, but that part of his brain was turned off for this discussion.

But I can see how you read it in a completely different way that is totally relevant to this conversation. I meant something completely different but, you're right, it does read exactly the way that you saw it.

So for you I'd like to clarify: I wasn't intending to say the masses should be able to tell T-Mobile who to add. In our debate I suggested that T-Mobile just provide an unlimited 1 megabit channel. That's basically what they're already doing, only they've drawn up their own whitelist to declare which domains get throttled. His complaint was that if you do it that way then you run into problems because some things you want at the faster speeds. He's not wrong about that, in fact some of the people that reviewed Binge On complained that the throttling of those specific sites has had some unintended consequences similar to what he described. I made a remark that it was a solvable problem, to which he insisted it wasn't.

I was poking fun at his willful blindness by suggesting to him that instead of T-Mobile playing gate-keeper, that you just let the customers come up with their own 'slow list' of domains that they get zero-rated on. T-Mobile provides their innovative service and does so without violating Net Neutrality. It's far more consumer-friendly.

Comment Re:Binge on (Score 1) 157

What matters is if they unfairly exclude content providers from their version of Binge On.

Yeah, like taking an endless amount of time to approve applications because there's a meatbag in the way. Show me an automated approval section, or alternatively a user-submitted list of services they would like on the unlimited channel, and you'll see me happily recede into the shadows.

Which isn't much of a restriction.

Serious? How long do you think they can go quiet after a submission?


Right. Somebody in charge at a web-service goes to the T-Mobile website, types in some stuff, clicks "Submit", and the T-Mobile server runs a few tests and goes 'Approved'. You don't need a human for that unless you want things to be slow or you have criteria for choosing services that a computer cannot make.

You have no argument against T-Mobile...

Wrong. They're using humans where they don't need to.

...and that's why you keep bringing up Comcast or Verizon or AT&T as proof why T-Mobile shouldn't be able to do what it is doing.

Bringing it up because it's an example of why "Oh but T-Mobile is a good friendly company that loves me and my family and they've invited me to come join them in candyland!" is a faulty approach to ascertaining the breadth of this issue.

Comment Re:Binge on (Score 1) 157

The burden is yours to provide evidence for the existence of this problem.

I did. They put a human being in between the process for ascertaining the technical validity of the service of a website. It doesn't make sense to do that. That, in and of itself, is a violation of Net Neutrality.

Show us that this problem exists, and THEN we'll get upset about it. .

Heh. History shall repeat itself.

Slashdot Top Deals

"No matter where you go, there you are..." -- Buckaroo Banzai