Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Trust the World's Fastest VPN with Your Internet Security & Freedom - A Lifetime Subscription of PureVPN at 88% off. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. ×

Comment Why is this an issue? (Score 1) 47

Either you don't allow any mobile device on your corporate network, or you set strict mobile management policies that don't allow the installation of *ANY* application by the end user and push all mobile apps through the mobile management platform.

I chose the first option. There's no need for any of our phones or tablets to be on the corporate network.

Comment IT Departments? (Score 4, Insightful) 503

Really, Microsoft? You're preaching about IT security when you have completely taken some Windows 10 security decisions *OUT* of the hands of IT departments? We can no longer disable the Windows App Store in Windows 10 Pro, thanks to you. But if we still want that feature we have to update our licenses from Pro to Enterprise.....because SECURITY. Right? It's not about money, right?

Go fuck yourselves.

Comment Re:Does it really violate net nuetrality? (Score 1) 74

Alright, if you don't care about billing and only how traffic is treated/shaped, how about you sign up for BiasNetISP. Where the BASIC plan is dirt cheap and affordable to all. But it restricts access to only a handful of websites: Facebook, Foxnews, Google, ESPN360, and the homepage of the church of the latter day saints. It also restricts any other Internet traffic other than web access. Shell out another $20/mo for Netflix traffic on their PREMIUM service. But hey! They pay lip-service to network neutrality and if you pay an extra $10K a year for ULTIMATE service, you get full unrestricted Internet access.

Long story short, traffic is restricted for some of their customers. That IS affecting how traffic is being treated in a very non-neutral "We get to decide where traffic goes" sort of way. Once the gatekeepers try and control what roads you use, they can abuse that power to squeeze money out of you.

You completed turned around my point. I don't want traffic shaped or blocked. But if someone is going to get unmetered access to a certain service, I don't really care.

You're falling for the "zero rating" marketing spin.

Imagine a health insurance plan where everybody pays $50, but fat people have to pay $10 extra.
Reaction: WTF?!!? That's not fair! You can't do that!!!

So they re-imagine the health insurance plan where everybody pays $60, but "health conscious" people can get a $10 discount.
Reaction: That's cool, sure wish I went to the gym more :eats more cheetos:

GP is saying these are the same damn thing, it's just that they have different marketing spins.
You are eating cheetos, saying that the second plan is just fine, because it doesn't affect you.

But their rates didn't change for AT&T and T-moble. So what's the problem?

Comment Re:Does it really violate net nuetrality? (Score 1) 74

Alright, if you don't care about billing and only how traffic is treated/shaped, how about you sign up for BiasNetISP. Where the BASIC plan is dirt cheap and affordable to all. But it restricts access to only a handful of websites: Facebook, Foxnews, Google, ESPN360, and the homepage of the church of the latter day saints. It also restricts any other Internet traffic other than web access. Shell out another $20/mo for Netflix traffic on their PREMIUM service. But hey! They pay lip-service to network neutrality and if you pay an extra $10K a year for ULTIMATE service, you get full unrestricted Internet access.

Long story short, traffic is restricted for some of their customers. That IS affecting how traffic is being treated in a very non-neutral "We get to decide where traffic goes" sort of way. Once the gatekeepers try and control what roads you use, they can abuse that power to squeeze money out of you.

You completed turned around my point. I don't want traffic shaped or blocked. But if someone is going to get unmetered access to a certain service, I don't really care.

For example, I'm a DirecTV customer on Verizon. I'm aware that if I was a AT&T customer that it would get me unlimited streaming of AT&T's services including DirecTV. That's fine. It makes me jealous as a Verizon customer, but it doesn't impede my ability or AT&T's customers the ability to choose whatever video streaming service they want to use. DirecTV, Netflix, Hulu, Amazon, etc will all still work and will not be throttled.

Comment Does it really violate net nuetrality? (Score 2) 74

I've always considered net neutrality to be more considered with how traffic is treated/shaped rather than how it is billed. I don't want service providers to change traffic priority that would benefit one content provider over another. But zero-rating, as far as I can tell, does not change traffic priority or speeds.

Slashdot Top Deals

We will have solar energy as soon as the utility companies solve one technical problem -- how to run a sunbeam through a meter.

Working...