Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


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) 144

If T-Mobile is successful with this plan there is nothing to stop AT&T, Verizon, Sprint, etc from creating a similar service. AT&T and Verizon actually offer their own services

That's right. Were AT&T or Verizon to offer the same program as T-Mobile there would be nothing to stop them, because THEY TOO would not be violating net neutrality. It doesn't matter if they have their own services (I don't know what streaming video services AT&T or Verizon wireless provide, don't care, don't need to.) What matters is if they unfairly exclude content providers from their version of Binge On. If they provide a level playing field, there is equal opportunity for content providers to participate. But you cannot prove they would not have a level playing field, all you can do is fictionalize and demonize and make it up about a non-existing AT&T/Verizon program, just like you are making things up about Binge On and T-Mobile. OMG, a provider having to register with T-Mobile before T-Mobile will modify the streaming content for them is so, I mean, it's just, umm, a GOOD THING.

You have absolutely no interest in pondering what it means for a company to prefer specific web-services over others.

You still haven't comprehended that Binge On has nothing to do with web services, it's a video and audio streaming issue.

There is a very big restriction there. They have to apply.

Which isn't much of a restriction.

why have an application process involved at all?

BECAUSE THEY CANNOT SIMPLY ASSUME THAT A VIDEO SERVER WANTS TO PARTICIPATE IN BINGE ON, THEY HAVE TO HAVE A REQUEST TO BE PART OF THE PROGRAM. JFC, do you read nothing anyone says to you? Read the damn technical brief for goodness sake. Look at option 2 in particular. T-Mobile will OPTIMIZE YOUR VIDEO STREAM FOR YOU -- if you are a participating provider. How do they know if you are a participating provider WITHOUT YOU TELLING THEM YOU WANT TO BE? That's the "application" you keep whining about.

So NO, they cannot simply assume you as a content provider WANT to participate, so YOU HAVE TO TELL THEM. Is that really that hard to understand?

And NO, trying to force people who want to stream video while avoiding data limits to buy a "1Mbps unlimited" service is asinine, arrogant, and technically stupid. People do more than just stream videos with their phones, and forcing them into a pitiful slow data rate for ALL activities so they don't have to pay extra for video streaming is, as I said, arrogant, asinine, and technically moronic.

You have no argument against T-Mobile, 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. You keep complaining how T-Mobile is prioritizing web sites when web traffic is not the issue. You keep claiming that T-Mobile is excluding content providers without a shred of evidence to back that up. The truth is, T-Mobile is NOT violating net neutrality with Binge On no matter what other vendors are doing, and hammering on them for their evil wrongdoings here is just trolling.

Comment Re:Binge on (Score 1) 144

... until after your application is sent in.

Which you have never done, so you have no idea what happens after that. According to T-Mobile, there is no "choosing", it's "meet the technical standards." Whether you do that or not is YOUR choice, not theirs.

Really? Heh. I told you several times.

No, you haven't. You claimed I was making up some "fictional backstory" for you, and I have idea what the hell you are talking about. Nor do you, it seems.

Comment Re:Binge on (Score 1) 144

... Okie dokie. Well, give me a little credit, at least I didn't make up something about you and act as if it's true.

More troll talk.

So they don't pick and choose, but they decide to use an approach where they must pick and choose...

So who is making things up and pretending they are true? There's no "pick and choose". YOU choose to meet the technical requirements or you choose not to. They don't choose anything.

Do you have me mixed up with someone else or did you just hallucinate a fictional backstory for me?

I have no idea what you're complaining about here. We're talking about a video streaming service provided by certain content providers to their customers. Why would ANYONE, you included, want to screw over their customers by refusing to some technical limits to the streaming rate of their content so those customers have to pay full rate for the content -- that they can't use any faster than the limit T-Mobile wants the provider to limit itself to. Whether that's YOU or some other content provider, the question is the same.

But all you can do is avoid the question, so I guess that answers it. You don't want to participate so damn if anyone should be able to.

Comment Re:Lower cost, because 75%-85% less bandwidth (Score 1) 144

Close. I'm wrapped up in net neutrality...

And you're complaining that T-Mobile offers different services than other carriers as proof their violation.

They. Control. Who. Gets. Zero. Rated.

Meet. The. Technical. Standards. And. Register. That. Fact. With. Them. And. You. Can. Play., Too. That's the underlying fact.

Gee., if only computers were advanced enough to provide a simple solution to that problem.

Are you really so dense that you cannot see that forcing people who want to watch videos without overstepping their data limits into a 1Mbps plan (just so you can feel good about screwing them, I guess) means that anything not video related will take forever to download? No, there is no "computer" solution to that problem. If you are on a 1Mbps plan then that's what you get.

Oh, wait, there IS a computer solution: provide a video stream to T-Mobile that meets the technical standards (for the computer) and be a part of Binge On and your customers get the data without it counting against their limits, and they can still download non-video content at full speed. There's the solution -- but you can't allow it because you don't want to even try to participate.

"This is inconvenient so I will make a fart noise and pretend that's a rebuttal."

You're still talking out your ass. It's your "fart noise" that is pretending to be a rebuttal.

If it's only a matter of meeting technical requirements, then there's no need for an application process.

Asked and answered. Yes, there is. Move on to some other excuse.

I don't want my ISP choosing which websites it likes best.

T-Mobile isn't doing that. YOU are choosing not to participate in a system that will save them money. YOU choose, not T-Mobile. But you can't stand that some people have chosen to do so, so it must be eliminated for all, even though it doesn't hurt you in any way. And it has nothing to do with websites, it has to do with video and audio streaming services. That you cannot differentiate between the two means you have no technical background to discuss this.

Comment Re:Binge on (Score 1) 144

Settle down.

Troll talk.

Then why not automate the process?

Because they don't want to. Because they can't. I don't know. You don't know.

Or, better yet, just offer a one megabit pipe and just publish the specs so those sites can provide good service to their customers?

I've already covered this, but this screws people who actually use their mobile device for more than just watching videos. A 400 second wait to download a 50Mb PDF is unacceptable; a 400 second video that takes 390 seconds to stream is just fine.

Why not just meet the technical standards and talk to T-Mobile so YOUR CUSTOMERS can benefit from this program? What do you have against your own customers? You want them to pay full rate for your streaming video instead of getting a break, so you must really dislike them.

Comment Re:Lower cost, because 75%-85% less bandwidth (Score 1) 144

They're offering specific services for free to differentiate themselves from other cellular carriers.

Oh My God, how DARE they offer specific services for free to differentiate themselves from other cellular carriers. I guess you're too wrapped up in your net neutrality hysteria to recognize that one cellular company offering different services than another has NOTHING to do with net neutrality.

If they really were being altruistic they'd just offer a 1mb unlimited plan and just ask the service providers to fit within that pipe,

You're trying to screw the people who want more than 1Mbps for some things but also want to watch video on their phones without it counting against their data plan. I know when I'm downloading a 50Mb PDF of some manual, I don't want to wait more than five minutes to get it, but I would be perfectly happy if the 5 minute video I'm watching takes 4:59 to transport across the net.

none of this "Fill out these forms and we'll get back to you in 6-8 weeks" nonsense.

Since you've never done it, and you've never been told "we'll get back to you in 6-8 weeks", you're talking out your ass. And so what if the registration process isn't instantaneous? You're setting up a long-term relationship and it's benefiting YOUR CUSTOMERS to do it. Why are you so outraged that you can do something simple to save YOUR CUSTOMERS money?

Comment Re:Binge on (Score 1) 144

Then why even have an application process?

You've got to be kidding, or a troll. So they can know which sources are participating and which aren't, of course. They can't just throttle all video and audio streams that pass through their systems, because maybe their customer isn't streaming them, maybe they're downloading them and want to pay for that service and use their data that way.

The fact remains. Meet the criteria, you're good. Don't care to meet them, go on about your life as if nothing was different and let other people benefit from something you can't or won't do. Being sour-grapes because you can't benefit from something is ridiculous.

Comment Re:Binge on (Score 1) 144

First of all, that "technical criteria" is way too vague to be useful in actually implementing a Binge-On-compliant service.

From the requirements pdf I've already provided a link to:

T-Mobile will work with content providers to ensure that our networks work together to properly detect video. We will continue to work with content providers as new traffic identification means are needed in the event of future technology enhancement or changes.

Oh My God, a PDF overview of a complicated technical system doesn't provide you immediately with enough information to be able to implement it. How could they DARE be so obtuse?

Second, it still requires that the content provider in question "partner" (i.e., create a business agreement) with T-Mobile.

Wow, what a burden: "provide video in a format we can detect is video and you're good". That's some onerous "business agreement".

What they need is a specific set of technical requirements such that anyone running a web server can configure it in a certain way and the content will automatically qualify for the program, with no business agreement required.

First, Binge On is not directed towards generic "web servers", it's specific to video and audio media. "Web servers" aren't the best servers for that kind of material, although they can.

Second, have you asked them if they have such a technical document? And I'm sure they thank you for your demands on how they need to run their business.

Do you have ANY reference that says that participating in Binge On is such a hardship to anyone? Not just "I doubt that" or "probably", but "I tried and couldn't"?

Comment Re: Binge on (Score 1) 144

but I doubt T-Mobile's business partnerships department has the time to talk to me (or the millions upon millions of other non-commercial operators).

That you think there are millions upon millions of content providers who would want to qualify for Binge On shows how far out in left field you really are. And the fact that you are basing your rant against T-Mobile on "I doubt that" instead of "they won't let me" shows a lot, too.

If you go look at the requirements, you'll see:

As with the Music Freedom offering that came before it, T-Mobile wants to encourage as many content providers as possible to participate. In any event, there is no charge regardless of your choice.

No charge to the provider. All you have to do is coordinate your service with T-Mobile. Your customer gets cheaper service, you get a happier customer, and T-Mobile is able to better manage the limited 4G data service they provide. They also get to advertise you as a Binge On content provider. Win-win-win.

If you want to be a dick and screw your customer by first refusing to participate, and then trying to demand that he has to pay for every byte he gets, then why should he be your customer in the first place?

Comment Re:Binge on (Score 1) 144

The issue is they get to pick and choose which services they allow a zero rating on. If that doesn't worry you a lot,

No, they don't pick and choose, so no, that doesn't worry me a lot. In fact, even if they DID pick and choose it wouldn't worry me at all. If someone will voluntarily slow their traffic down so that everyone else can get a bigger piece of the limited pie, then I'm fine with that, and if their data doesn't get counted because of that, I don't really care.

Comment Re:Binge on (Score 2) 144

T-Mobile's Binge on does offer free streaming (both radio and tv) for qualified rate plans.

No, it offers streaming that does not count against your 4G data limits. You pay for the streaming, just not on a per-byte basis.

But I was under the impression that any provider could opt in or out of the program once they met the technical criteria for the reduced bitrate streams.

That's right.

It saves the provider bandwidth to get the stream to T-mobile, and it saves t-mobile bandwidth to get it to the customer.

Yes, and that's why it's a good deal for everyone involved. EVERYONE. And that's also why it doesn't prove that bandwidth caps are unnecessary, because this is, in effect, a bandwidth cap too. If you voluntarily limit your bandwidth so that other people can share the same resources, then your bandwidth doesn't get counted.

Let me say that again: Binge On is a bandwidth cap. It is not a total use cap, it is a speed cap. And speed is more important in determining service levels than totals.

nor prioritizing any service over another as far as I can tell (but could be wrong).

You are right. Content providers who complain about Binge On only do so because they choose not to limit streaming speeds and don't charge rates that can compete once you include the data plan charges that their service would incur.

And consumers who complain about this are just dog-in-the-manger or sour-grapes fools.

Comment Re:No liberal bias? (Score 1) 197

If you're in an accident, you're going to the hospital, regardless of any stated belief or political persuasion.

Not correct. Individuals can refuse medical treatment from emergency service providers, which includes telling them you do not want to be transported to a hospital or other care facility.

The question comes up almost every time I am in a first responder care class. You are required to ask the potential patient if they accept your services before you do anything. So, for example, you happen across a choking victim who is still conscious and you ask if you can help. If they shake their head "no", you cannot touch them. This sometimes surprises the newer students, who then ask "what do you do"? The answer is that you stand there until the patient passes out and then you provide assistance. Passing out is a change in status, and he's no longer refusing care, so you are ok to act.

In other words, if you are a paramedic at an accident scene and a conscious and alert victim tells you "I am a Jehovah's Witness and I decline medical care", you move on to the next victim and come back to the JW after he passes out. If he doesn't pass out, even if he's bleeding and has broken stuff, his stated belief means he isn't going to the hospital.

Comment Re: Secret government proceedings? (Score 1) 344

Rights are granted by the people. Nothing is inate.

That was not the assumption of the people who wrote the Constitution, and it is not a reasonable assumption from a societal standpoint. The Bill of Rights was written from the view of people who believed in inalienable rights granted by a creator, and that the government needed written limits to make sure those rights were protected.

You only have the rights that everyone around you allows you to have.

You are confusing the right with the ability to exercise that right. When people complain about "human rights abuse" in some third world country, they never say "those people have only the rights that the people around them allow them to have" and simply walk away from the issue. If someone has only the rights that "the people around them allow them to have", then how can anyone claim that someone's rights are being violated? No, they start from a basis that there are, indeed, "basic human rights" that inherently belong to the individual, but that the "people around them" are improperly restricting the exercise of those rights.

We have more rights today because

We have more "rights" today because we have more people thinking that everything they want should be a basic human right, like the "right to Internet access" and such.

These rights were written into the laws and constitution by the people as an agreement that they would not be infringed.

No. They were written into the US Constitution specifically to keep the US Government from infringing them. The people need not agree upon this, it was an assumed starting point by the founders.

They were not god given, especially considering many of these rights were denied in most major countries at the time.

Again, you demonstrate a serious lack of comprehension of the difference between the existence of a right and the infringement of those rights by abusive governments.

Comment Re: Secret government proceedings? (Score 1) 344

If this means I'm too old to be in the militia that I can be theoretically denied the right to own an assault rifle?

You already need to jump through extra hoops to own what would be honestly referred to as "an assault rifle". Note: an AR-15 is not an assault rifle, except in the mouths of people who think fear is a reason to confiscate inalienable rights from others.

What about females?

They can have my females when they pry them out of my cold, dead hands.

Comment Re:Secret government proceedings? (Score 4, Insightful) 344

Odds of me shooting someone while I don't own a gun: 0.

You lie. You don't need to own the gun you use to shoot someone, it just has to be in your hands at the time it happens. You cannot guarantee that you will never have a gun in your hands, and thus you cannot guarantee that you will never shoot someone.

The difference between us is that I will never kill you, but you cannot guarantee that you will not kill me.

Another lie. You cannot guarantee that you will never kill anyone. You may run someone down while you drive a car, you may drop something heavy on them from a height, you may accidentally replace the contents of their salt shaker with arsenic, etc. There are many more ways of killing someone than with a gun you own, and your mouth makes guarantees that your butt cannot cash.

If you meant to say that you don't intend on killing me, then there is no difference between us at all, even though you claim not to own a gun and I admit that I do. (I don't take your claim at face value, however, because you've already lied.) I also don't intend on killing you, and I can make exactly as binding a guarantee on that intent as you can.

Your argument devolves into a statement of fear of things you don't understand, and that's a marvelously bad reason to create laws and abridge rights.

Slashdot Top Deals

For every bloke who makes his mark, there's half a dozen waiting to rub it out. -- Andy Capp