Well, to be fair, the common naming style for '80s Computer Software was short, descriptive names. It was still a new industry, so there wasn't much confusion. They weren't marketing decisions like "Stream". Even today a fair amount of Linux software follows that paradigm.
Glad somebody else gets why these zero-rating programs are not pro-consumer.
Data caps are completely arbitrary, with the sole purpose of bilking every last dollar from customers. As I've said elsewhere, lauding T-Mobile for these moves is like thanking someone for only punching you once. Yeah, he could have punched you twice, but that's not really a good deed.
There's a better way to deal with congestion (fairly) if the telcos actually cared. You just need to throttle the heavier users on towers approaching capacity. Bandwidth not used is wasted. There's no reason to place a cap on data transferred when what you're trying to balance is bandwidth.
T-Mobile already has mechanisms in place to throttle certain users. They just need to make it dynamic in response to current load. When load is light, everyone gets full speed without arbitrary caps. When load approaches capacity, those users who have historically added the most load get throttled down.
Solves congestion, no arbitrary caps, and fairly allocates bandwidth between heavy/light users.
Oh, one other thing. The Binge On program lowers the quality of any zero-rated video. So claiming that it's an improvement for customers is rather disingenuous. It's a trade-off, at best. (And only because customers can opt-out.)
Did you just imply that Donald Trump or Ben Carson would be a better president than G.W. Bush? I'm gonna have to disagree there. Bush was a bad president, but he wasn't the worst president we've ever had. Obama hasn't been much better, but at least he's balanced out his aggressive authoritarian overreach with a couple of good initiatives.
Some of the current candidates, though...
Clinton would be Obama, but worse. Jeb would be Dubya, but worse. Trump would probably lose half the country to China in a poker match. Carson is just bit-shit crazy.
I do like Sanders, though. He's an independent, so is less likely to push for the political super-class. He might be a socialist, but Congress is not, so any reforms he could get through would be small, incremental steps. Just because he wants to go 10 miles, and I want to go 5 miles, doesn't preclude us from agreeing on making that first mile.
He's not likely to win the Democratic primary, though. I'm an Independent, and my state has Closed primaries, so I can't do a damn thing about it.
Kinda reminds me of the short-lived X-Files spin-off (lot of hyphens there...) The Lone Gunmen. The first episode was about the US pulling a false flag op, flying commercial planes into the World Trade Center in order to justify a war to increase arms sales and defense contractor profits. This aired in March of 2001.
Except you still miss the point that it doesn't matter what baseline you choose. In your example, YouTube is $65/mo more expensive than baseline before zero-rating, and $65/mo more expensive than baseline after zero-rating.
$65/mo - $65/mo = $0/mo = No change.
The act of implementing the zero-rating does not change the price of a non-zero-rated service, by definition. The only changes in price are to those services which are zero-rated. This is a bad thing, because it gives those services an unfair advantage.
Yeah, there's a reason we got off the gold standard. The reason, though, why some people like the idea of a gold standard or BitCoin is Fiat currency is complicated. Anybody of reasonable intelligence can figure out the economic rules of BitCoin. Understanding all the effects and secondary effects and tertiary effects of Fiat currency takes a degree in macroeconomics. What happens if you introduce 10% more currency into circulation this year? Will it increase spending? Will it raise prices? Will it cause a panic? Hell if I know.
We're creatures of patterns. Simple systems appeal to us.
I think BitCoin was an interesting experiment, but I don't really think it will ever become "mainstream". (And I say that as someone who made ~$1000 during the early days.)
Not quite. These types of things get lauded even by some net neutrality advocates as "consumer friendly" because the cost of some services is being dropped compared to the existing baseline. This does not, via an absolute measurement, cause other services to cost more. The problems are:
1. Relative costs certainly are changed, putting the ISPs in the position of picking winners and losers. This kind of influence usually results in antitrust actions. 2. ISPs often provide competing services. They certainly should not be allowed to zero-rate their own services. 3. That they are able to zero-rate the most bandwidth intensive services proves that Caps were never about Network Congestion. They have been abusing their market power for years to gouge consumers. This, to me, is the most damning piece. That they've decided to gouge a little less is not something to be applauded.
Assuming everything in your in post is accurate (and I have no reason to believe otherwise), censorship is still taking place here. If someone in the Chinese government contacted Lego and said "If you give this guy Legos we'll ban you from doing business in our country.", then China is abusing it's economic position in order to censor political speech. (Concerning, though not exactly breaking news.) On the other hand, Lego might be self-censoring out of fear of Chinese reprisal, but without a direct threat. I'd argue Lego holds a bit more of the blame in that case, though obviously China is at the heart of the problem.
You're undoubtedly correct, but there are a bunch of laws on the books prohibiting Internet Gambling. Mainly due to interstate concerns, as each state has decided for themselves whether or not gambling is ok, and allowing Internet Gambling would enable citizens in those states who don't like gambling to still do so with out of state partners. Overruling state's rights is never a popular decision, especially in a Republican controlled congress.
So, Internet Gambling (at least interstate internet gambling, anyway), is expressly forbidden by law.
You might ask, then, how are these Fantasy Sports gambling sites getting away with this?
There is a specific exemption in the statute for Fantasy Sports, 31 U.S. Code §5362(1)(E)(ix):
participation in any fantasy or simulation sports game or educational game or contest in which (if the game or contest involves a team or teams) no fantasy or simulation sports team is based on the current membership of an actual team that is a member of an amateur or professional sports organization (as those terms are defined in section 3701 of title 28) and that meets the following conditions
FanDuel and DraftKings were specifically designed to abuse that loophole. I assume that exemption is only there because some senator absolutely refused to give up his Fantasy Sports addiction.