A driver could lock a box. But, I want to keep it simple enough that a driver will actually use it.

I've seen boxes with digital codes (what if you get more than one package delivered), with directions to put the code in the TO address. Then, lots of stories about about drivers not using them. Even adding an open pad lock to attach is a big step.

Something like this: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B079...

Offer it in 2 or 3 colors, slap an Amazon swoosh on each side and the top that's less than an eighth of the area, and drop the price to $25 if you have Amazon Prime. Maybe a little smaller than that example, 50 gallon instead of 70.

The goal is to is to flood the market with them. This way there is a critical mass and delivery drivers might actually use them. Along with making it simple, "lift the lid drop the package in". It's still more than "drop it on the landing from the bottom step". That's what we're trying to overcome. If the trip is to far, it's not going to get used.

The added friction to the delivery driver needs to be as close none as possible. The added friction to the thief just needs to be enough to slow them down making it a pain. It doesn't need to defeat the guy following the delivery tuck and carrying a crow bar.

Amazon should provide (or sell really cheap) delivery boxes as part of Prime. Something that's just a resin deck box with a lid, no lock or anything.

They have to train drivers on the "key" process for home or garage access. Training them to just put packages in the box with the (small) Amazon logo and "Deliveries" sign should be easier.

With enough of them in use, all the delivery companies will get good at it. When it's just one house, it's a unique solution that's easy to not do.

Just a box keeping packages out of sight and dry is probably enough to stop a huge percent of theft and rain damage. I'm guessing rain damage happens more often than theft. Along with theft from someone driving down the street happening way more often than a thief following the delivery tuck. A box with no lock doesn't solve that one, since they'll know something is there, they saw the driver deliver it.

The problem is, it's more nuanced than just "zero rating" is a violation of NN or not.

As an entire type of service, "zero rating" isn't always a violation of NN. However, that just means some "zero rating" is a violation and others are not.

Zero rating for an entire class of something, or available to all providers at no cost, or at the customers control without the third party provider needing to care are all perfectly find zero rating schemes that do not conflict with NN at all.

Examples:
All video from any source, perhaps in exchange for limiting the speed or quality, controlled by the user or open to all video providers to sign up for at no cost.
All streaming audio from any source, perhaps to entice customers onto the network. Maybe audio providers still need to sign up, but at no cost to them.
All "data X" from any source, at a reduced quality, with no choice by the user or the data providers, applied to all providers of "data X" with no exceptions.

Zero rating is a violation of NN when it's used to create winners and losers. When it creates a barrier between a network customer and a third party that's not involved in a business relationship with the network provider. In this scenario, the network provider is treating it's customers as a product to be sold to new content providers instead of as paying network customers looking for access to all content providers.

Examples:
All video from provider X is zero rated and provider X pays the network provider for this privilege.
All video from provider X is zero rated and provider X is owned by the network operator.
All audio from provider X is zero rated and audio from other providers quality limited while provider X pays the network provider for this privilege.

In all the cases where it's an acceptable thing, it's a neutral network management practice. Something available for an entire class of data independent from whomever provides it. In all of these, the practice may impact the network provider in the market but it doesn't have any impact on the content provider market. One market isn't creating any advantage in the other market.

In all the cases where it's a violation, it's an example where the network customer is turned into a product with access to them being sold to a third party. It's using the network market to influence and distort the content market (or the reverse, but less likely). When the third party is the content arm of a large muti product corporation, it's using the one market to distort the other to give one an unequal advantage.

While the customer is currently enjoying the zero rating of Snorklewhack streaming audio on Flurble's network. It's a short term benefit that's actually not in the customers interest. In the long term it means that Snorklewhack doesn't need to provide as good a service as the next provider. After a time, the customer will be getting inferior service from Snorklewhack, locked in unless they change network providers in addition to streaming audio providers, assuming any other streaming audio providers can overcome the advantage Snorklewhack has and even exist.

There's probably other ways beyond NN to solve this problem. But, they all require regulation of some type. It's a choice of which regulation is the preferred one.

Bonus, because it costs money instead of selling ads, you're the actual customer and not a product being sold to someone else.

Also a customer, with 165 feeds, including Slashdot.

Poor Vermont. Left behind, stuck between NY and NH both an hour ahead.

It's fine to add this and get it on the table. And to correctly point out that it needs to change. Getting to a root cause and fixing it there is a great idea.

But, the flip side is, you can't throw out the protections that are required because that root cause isn't fixed until AFTER you fix the root cause.

Saying we're going to get rid of B because while B provides some relief it doesn't actually solve problem A. But, at the same time, we're only going to work on solving A a some undefined future date. This doesn't help anyone.

Get up on a big platform, shout and advocate for fixing A as much as you can. Once A is actually fixed, THEN we can trash B as no longer needed. Until then, we should keep B as trashing B will just make A worse not better.

The debate today is that the FCC wants to get rid of the protection but hasn't offered any solution to the root cause at all. Getting them to fix local competition sounds great. But, we'll be dammed if the get rid of the protection before they even look at fixing competition. All the action and news, and the current fight is to say "Keep the protections in place now, don't trash them". None of this prevents work on fixing the root cause. None of it prevents changing the protection rules once there the competitive landscape changes.

Arguing we don't need the protection because they don't solve competition without actually getting any competition reform into any policies doesn't help.

Sounds lovely. However, NONE of this is on the table today.

On the table today, is keeping the lack of competition status quo until some future undefined change. And then either keeping the neutrality rules in place that offer protections to offset that lack of competition or destroying those protections.

It's nice to say, let's add competition. But, please, actually DO THAT BEFORE you gut and destroy all the protections. There's a definite sequence that needs to be followed to prevent harm.

Possible. I like to hope they would, but it's totally possible.

But, what it would do is hopefully break and void any Public Utility Commission agreement and impact access to the right of way. All those things were done to deliver "Internet Access" not just some walled garden "online service" only. Of course the only impact that might have is to lower the number of Internet providers people have access to from the current few to 0. :(

I did not "admit" that people wanted priority by source. I pointed out that even YOU don't want priority by source.

You want your stuff to be faster than others stuff, for whatever site you happen to be using vs whatever site they're using. It's not the same thing.

ISPs already sell this difference. You can buy access at any speed they offer. If you buy 100 Mbps and others by 20 Mbps, they've sold you faster access than the other person.

I took your use of "that kids" to mean "other users of the network", could be anyone doesn't have to be kids. But, if you really meant, "kids in the same house as you", then just setup you own router to do QOS for the internal network to give them less priority. That's totally fine on your internal network and not a problem.

If you really did mean, "other users of the ISPs network", we're back at that the ISP should not be in the business of deciding which content is more important or which customers are more important than others. They sell an access product. They can sell different speeds of access already, or quantity of access (which I dislike caps, but that's at least neutral when applied to all and not when stuff is exempted), or committed vs best effort service. All fine. They don't get to pick which content is "better" though, that's abuse.

Because that's the entire definition of being an ISP, and Internet Service Provider.

If you're not going to actually deliver Internet, why call it an Internet service? Maybe build something like an "AOL Network" or a "CompuServe Network", "Your Company's Closed System Network" and sell that instead. Maybe people will buy it, maybe they will not. But, it's NOT "Internet Service" anymore, it's something else.

QOS is fine. As long as it wasn't source based by applied to everyone. If you want to set bittorrent traffic to a lower priority than other traffic so when the pipe is full it's slower, go for it. For bittorrent traffic to every source. If you as a company run you own bittorrent stuff for distributing whatever, it just needs to follow the same QOS rules.

You don't really want traffic priority by source. You want your traffic to be more important than someone else's traffic. That's not the same thing.

If you watched YouTube Red and the kids watched Netflix, you would want the reverse. Which would really be the same, your's over theirs.

That may very well be the legal definition. But, it's a really crappy marketing definition.

Normally, if you don't have a seat assignment, you might not get a seat. Having a reserved seat greatly increases your chance of actually getting on a flight, but doesn't guarantee it.

Having a boarding pass normally guarantees that you're on the plane.

Anyone that's a "no show" doesn't have a boarding pass. Trouble getting a boarding pass usually means you're late to check in and the flight was oversold. You'll be lucky to get on now. Similar to when you cannot reserve a seat at reservation time when normally possible. Presumably, people that checked in and got boarding passes are out the ticket if they "no show" after that.

Finally, actually getting on the plane and sitting in a seat that matches the boarding pass you scanned to get on, would mean you're on the flight, all risk of not making it because of overbooking is gone at this point. By the time you get here, all your checked baggage and carry-on bags are stowed and ready for the trip too.

What United is saying is that even at this point, there's a chance you're not making the trip. For whatever reason, nobody is talking about it in this light. That's one hell of a strong marketing message that "Even though you've reserved a ticket, paid for it, checked in, gotten a boarding pass, and boarded the plane, THERE'S STILL a chance we'll just kick you off because we need the seat and to bad you had plans".

People already have travel anxiety. Usually it let's up by the time they're in a seat. Now, you'll have entire United flights that are anxious right up until the door closes and you push back.

This is exactly the problem.

Normally, if you don't have a seat assignment, you might not get a seat. Having a reserved seat greatly increases your chance of actually getting on a flight, but doesn't guarantee it.

Having a boarding pass normally guarantees that you're on the plane.

Anyone that's a "no show" doesn't have a boarding pass. Trouble getting a boarding pass usually means you're late to check in and the flight was oversold. You'll be lucky to get on now.

Finally, actually BOARDING the plane and sitting in a seat that matches the boarding pass you scanned to get on, would mean you're on the flight, all risk of not making it because of overbooking is gone at this point. By the time you get here, all your checked baggage and carry-on bags are stowed and ready for the trip too.

What United is saying is that even at this point, there's a chance you're not making the trip. For whatever reason, nobody is talking about it in this light. That's one hell of a strong marketing message that "Even though you've reserved a ticket, paid for it, checked in, gotten a boarding pass, and boarded the plane, THERE'S STILL a chance we'll just kick you off because we need the seat and to bad you had plans".

People already have travel anxiety. Usually it let's up by the time they're in a seat. Now, you'll have entire United flights that are anxious right up until the door closes and you push back.

If someone else wins the jackpot, then the other payouts aren't increased and the "investment" plan doesn't work out. So there is some risk and it goes up with the more people that are counting on the increased payouts and playing, since there's more likely to be a single winner. Since the payout are split across all winners, the more people that play at the same time dilute the winnings until it will no longer be profitable. At 2 or 3 or 4 groups gaming it this way, it works. At 50 no so much.