Other countries don't enforce queues to the extent the US does.
The Freakonomics blog mentioned this in the context of World Cup matches. The game was between I think Germany and Poland. I might be remembering that wrong. The people from Germany and countries such as the US and the UK would get at the end of the line, while the Polish people (not to disparage them or anything) would go up to the front of the line at the sides, so rather than just getting longer with people added at the end, the line also got wider and wider, with the people following the German model hardly getting any closer to the front as time passed because of all the people coming in from the sides.
They are getting exactly the amount of money they expected, even if it came from arbitrageurs rather than traditional customers.
They're getting the money they expected minus the restocking fees and plus the hassle of constant returns. Some of the returns were of used goods that they couldn't resell but for some reason had to take back anyway.
I can't speak for other people, of course, but the reason I'm not entirely comfortable with the practice is that - so far as I understand matters - there's currently no way for the provider to determine which packets to handle in which way except by inspecting the contents of the packets, so this can't currently be done without violating the neutrality principles at least in concept.
I'm not sure about neutrality but that would certainly be a privacy issue. However, I don't think deep packet inspection would be necessary.
in practice, there can be some degree of flexibility to allow for traffic shaping, so that e.g. data which needs fast response (e.g. realtime communication) can be given lower ping times at the expense of also getting lower throughput.
Do you have any references for how that tradeoff works? Personally I wouldn't mind if ISPs shaped traffic based on type - prioritize latency on streams (this would cover everything from Netflix to VOIP) and gaming, and deprioritize bittorrent, email, etc. if necessary. That gets some peoples' panties in a twist though, not sure why.
I'm guessing this type of vulnerability exists in Teslas because the company designed the systems to be remotely updateable, including control systems. Which I would say is another word for remotely exploitable (not necessarily easily, but still).
Have you heard of the concept of loop holes? They are built into legislation or regulation on purpose.
The question is how the FCC created this problem. To answer that question you would need to indicate how FCC regulations caused these companies to institute zero rating - that is, they wouldn't have done it if not for the regulations. All you have done so far is demonstrate that the FCC allows zero rating, and we all knew that already.
If a sentence is starting with any variation of "some people", you know it's garbage.
There's a big difference, namely opinion vs. fact. Saying that some people have an argument to make that something is racist could be meaningful depending on the strength of the arguments, because whether it's racist is not a factual matter. When Trump says it, it's about facts. "Lots of people are saying X" where X is an event that did not in fact occur. The number of people saying something factually incorrect is irrelevant.