* Starts on Jan. 1st, 2020
* Users can opt-out of data sales
* For users under 16, no sharing/selling unless opt-in.
* Users can have their data deleted
* Users cannot have service turned off or diminished because they asked for their data to be removed or not to be sold.
* Companies can charge extra for users who opt-out, but they must show that the price difference is proportional to the data value.
* Companies can offer a discount for users who opt-in (or do not opt-out)
* Companies have to reveal what information they have on a user upon request.
* Companies have to disclose who they sell the data to upon request.
* Last, but not least, any liability waivers in contracts about data privacy are void. They cannot waive liability for data breaches.
Man how'd this beautiful thing get through but they stuffed up the net neutrality bill so badly?
It's a California law,not federal
I sort of wonder about it's reach. Given the number of businesses that are based, store data, or have customers in CA, this could have a lot of national impact... i think.
It's the internet
A change anywhere is a global change
I work in Boston for a company based in Missouri and this CA law is already taking future dev cycles.
Does it cover servers in CA, users in CA, or both?
Probably simpler and cheaper to treat everyone as from CA than trying to determine who is and isn't from CA, and the lawsuits that could come as a result of false positives/negatives.
True, but some of those measures may reduce revenues; to what extent would determine if the cost of differentiation is worth it. Example: Even if the cost of opting out is equivalent to the ad revenue at the time, ad revenue may decrease if the opt-out user base lowers the ad rate you can get.
(This would be true of broadcast ads, not sure if there's a "ratings" component to online ad sales)
Its computers. We can do anything. We could definitely present a different site and experience to folks from CA, and treat their data differently in the back end...
However as a tester I really don't want to have to spoof my location to test the CA presentation of my site. Nor do I want to have to test everything twice just so CA can have its own implementation.
CA essentially just set policy for the US in total, and I loath to think of multiple states setting up different policies for this because it will make my job exponentially harder.
* Starts on Jan. 1st, 2020
* Users can opt-out of data sales
* For users under 16, no sharing/selling unless opt-in.
* Users can have their data deleted
* Users cannot have service turned off or diminished because they asked for their data to be removed or not to be sold.
* Companies can charge extra for users who opt-out, but they must show that the price difference is proportional to the data value.
* Companies can offer a discount for users who opt-in (or do not opt-out)
* Companies have to reveal what information they have on a user upon request.
* Companies have to disclose who they sell the data to upon request.
* Last, but not least, any liability waivers in contracts about data privacy are void. They cannot waive liability for data breaches.
Man how'd this beautiful thing get through but they stuffed up the net neutrality bill so badly?
It's a California law,not federal
I sort of wonder about it's reach. Given the number of businesses that are based, store data, or have customers in CA, this could have a lot of national impact... i think.
It's the internet
A change anywhere is a global change
I work in Boston for a company based in Missouri and this CA law is already taking future dev cycles.
Does it cover servers in CA, users in CA, or both?
Probably simpler and cheaper to treat everyone as from CA than trying to determine who is and isn't from CA, and the lawsuits that could come as a result of false positives/negatives.
Eh, it depeends. I know at one point Xbox Live couldn't remove you CC from an account unless you replaced it even if you were prepaid....except in those states that required it by law.
* Starts on Jan. 1st, 2020
* Users can opt-out of data sales
* For users under 16, no sharing/selling unless opt-in.
* Users can have their data deleted
* Users cannot have service turned off or diminished because they asked for their data to be removed or not to be sold.
* Companies can charge extra for users who opt-out, but they must show that the price difference is proportional to the data value.
* Companies can offer a discount for users who opt-in (or do not opt-out)
* Companies have to reveal what information they have on a user upon request.
* Companies have to disclose who they sell the data to upon request.
* Last, but not least, any liability waivers in contracts about data privacy are void. They cannot waive liability for data breaches.
Man how'd this beautiful thing get through but they stuffed up the net neutrality bill so badly?
It's a California law,not federal
I sort of wonder about it's reach. Given the number of businesses that are based, store data, or have customers in CA, this could have a lot of national impact... i think.
It's the internet
A change anywhere is a global change
I work in Boston for a company based in Missouri and this CA law is already taking future dev cycles.
Does it cover servers in CA, users in CA, or both?
Probably simpler and cheaper to treat everyone as from CA than trying to determine who is and isn't from CA, and the lawsuits that could come as a result of false positives/negatives.
True, but some of those measures may reduce revenues; to what extent would determine if the cost of differentiation is worth it. Example: Even if the cost of opting out is equivalent to the ad revenue at the time, ad revenue may decrease if the opt-out user base lowers the ad rate you can get.
(This would be true of broadcast ads, not sure if there's a "ratings" component to online ad sales)
If your company is small enough you can't afford to spend time figuring this stuff out. Someone got sued in CA doing X, you stop doing X immediately and proceed with the other problems of the day.
I know I've had to make phone system changes due to stuff like that, as well as changes to our websites. If we could afford to have someone on-board who could navigate this stuff for us that'd be great, but we can't, so we just don't screw around. Someone in CA sued a company for monitoring phone calls without announcing them properly? Well we could try navigating the 100% proper way to notify customers that calls are being monitored, but it's 10x easier to just not monitor them anymore altogether. Done. On to the next project I'm 8 months behind on.
So I just saw an AT&T commercial that offered unlimited streaming for 30 different channels. Like hbo, Pandora, etc.... they touted this as a feature.
This is due to net neutrality correct?
It's due to a LACK of net neutrality.
That's what I meant, but I figured it's what it was when I saw it.
At first I thought they were offering 30 free TV channels to be able to stream a month, and maybe they're trying to mislead. Either way they're selling it as a feature, and having you choose companies, which I'm sure leads to all sorts of shenanigans and corporTe deals.
So I just saw an AT&T commercial that offered unlimited streaming for 30 different channels. Like hbo, Pandora, etc.... they touted this as a feature.
This is due to net neutrality correct?
It's due to a LACK of net neutrality.
It depends. HBO, at least, doesn't give their content away for free. So if AT&T had some package for one price that included subscription content from multiple content providers it could be a good deal.
Actually, taking a look at it the list of channels on their web site, several of the channels aren't things you can stream for free. So if you get unlimited access to them, they're just reselling a variety of streaming subscriptions in a package deal. I didn't see any pricing, so I have no idea if it's worth it.
As an example, for HBO streaming through Amazon, you have to have a Prime subscription, and then pay another $15 a month for unlimited HBO content. Or you can buy the episodes individually for $4 per episode. Starz content is a separate subscription for another $9 monthly.
So if you're actually watching a ton of this content, it might be worth it if it's cheap enough.
The end of Net Neutrality is a problem, but I don't think this is really a symptom.
+3
Options
Ninja Snarl PMy helmet is my burden.Ninja Snarl: Gone, but not forgotten.Registered Userregular
Cell coverage providers have been adding unlimited streaming data for a variety of services for years now, I don't think Net Neutrality has anything to do with it. As telcomms do, they begrudge every fraction of a cent they give the consumer in service and so have only reluctantly been adding streaming services into their plans so that your 50GB high-speed plan doesn't burn up all its data in a day of streaming Netflix.
It basically costs them nothing, but they can tout it as a feature to make it look like they're giving you something special rather than something that has become pretty standard.
El SkidThe frozen white northRegistered Userregular
edited July 2018
Yeah, the net neutrality angle will come in later, when these packages will include faster access to these services (ie everybody throttles the download speed of HBO unless either the customer buys a fast-access plan or HBO pays that ISP to not throttle them)
I had this exact argument with a guy back in the dial up days, when a friend got dinged for using too much data. It was a short discussion about that very word, and he ended up seeing our side and waiving the charges, but it still led to my friend changing services.
It’s why, to this day, when I get “unlimited data” I make sure to verify with them to an extreme degree. “So, if I use fifty terabytes, that’s still okay?” kind of thing.
First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKER!
Actually, this has less to do with net neutrality, per se, and more to do with the fact that AT&T bought DirecTV last year. So they now own all the access/service/streaming/verb contracts that DirecTV used to have. Essentially, they are using DirecTV to piggyback the service to you for essentially free on their end. Then, yes, absence of Net Neutrality means they can zero-rate streaming content for a service they already own.
I haven't checked the fine print, but I would not be surprised if you get all that for free but it requires a DTV account be made (and their app used, for at least a sign-in); even if a plan isn't selected.
I'm almost impressed that instead of immediately fucking with individual customers they went straight to threatening emergency response teams during a natural disaster.
I'm almost impressed that instead of immediately fucking with individual customers they went straight to threatening emergency response teams during a natural disaster.
I'm almost impressed that instead of immediately fucking with individual customers they went straight to threatening emergency response teams during a natural disaster.
This situation has nothing to do with net neutrality or the current proceeding in court. We made a mistake in how we communicated with our customer about the terms of its plan. Like all customers, fire departments choose service plans that are best for them. The customer purchased a government contract plan for a high-speed wireless data allotment at a set monthly cost. Under this plan, users get an unlimited amount of data, but speeds are reduced when they exceed their allotment until the next billing cycle.
Regardless of the plan emergency responders choose, we have a practice to remove data speed restrictions when contacted in emergency situations. We have done that many times, including for emergency personnel responding to these tragic fires. In this situation, we should have lifted the speed restriction when our customer reached out to us. This was a customer support mistake. We are reviewing the situation and will fix any issues going forward.
This is a bad/dumb policy. Emergency / First Responders should never get throttled. Price the plan as such to remove any potential to throttle, and maybe set a policy to reach out to responders if data usage gets egregious to see if something is up instead of just throttling critical infrastructure.
This doesn't make you look any better Verizon.
SW-4158-3990-6116
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
To be fair it doesn't have anything to do with net neutrality per se, as it's not throttling a particular source just throttling in general. But it does show why ISPs should be regulated as utilities.
While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
+17
Options
zepherinRussian warship, go fuck yourselfRegistered Userregular
I had this exact argument with a guy back in the dial up days, when a friend got dinged for using too much data. It was a short discussion about that very word, and he ended up seeing our side and waiving the charges, but it still led to my friend changing services.
It’s why, to this day, when I get “unlimited data” I make sure to verify with them to an extreme degree. “So, if I use fifty terabytes, that’s still okay?” kind of thing.
I stream roughly 300-400 gigs a month on my cell phone. Sprint throttles me during prime hours, which is fine I'm on wifi during those times.
I had this exact argument with a guy back in the dial up days, when a friend got dinged for using too much data. It was a short discussion about that very word, and he ended up seeing our side and waiving the charges, but it still led to my friend changing services.
It’s why, to this day, when I get “unlimited data” I make sure to verify with them to an extreme degree. “So, if I use fifty terabytes, that’s still okay?” kind of thing.
I stream roughly 300-400 gigs a month on my cell phone. Sprint throttles me during prime hours, which is fine I'm on wifi during those times.
Holy fuck what the... I get 6 gigs a month. 300-400 would cost me literally thousands of dollars, even if I was paying in advance rather than getting hit with overage charges.
I know Canada and Australia (to name a few off the top of my head) have substantially more expensive mobile data plans than most of the world, but that's a hell of a jump.
First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKER!
I do not know why Verizon is not giving away their service to emergency services as a donation.
Oh wait, greed.
No. We should not be arguing that private organizations are obligated to provide services gratis to the government, only that they do so in a fair manner. The problem isn't that Verizon charged for coverage, but that they used it as leverage to force more money to be paid.
I do not know why Verizon is not giving away their service to emergency services as a donation.
Oh wait, greed.
No. We should not be arguing that private organizations are obligated to provide services gratis to the government, only that they do so in a fair manner. The problem isn't that Verizon charged for coverage, but that they used it as leverage to force more money to be paid.
What if we argued that the services that private organizations like Verizon monopolize are a vital public utility and should instead of being a for-profit business be handled as a government funded and managed infrastructure that belongs to the public?
Maybe the problem is that a profit motive for communication infrastructure inevitably breeds the interest to charge rents in private industry, which rarely see use in the improvement in the infrastructure but instead pools within the executive class and stockholders of the company, as a modern society cannot simply do without access because of the demands of modern life.
Short Version: Maybe Verizon, et al are bad and we should nationalize wired and wireless broadband infrastructure before these fuckers get people killed because they'd rather bilk everyone for every cent they have.
I do not know why Verizon is not giving away their service to emergency services as a donation.
Oh wait, greed.
No. We should not be arguing that private organizations are obligated to provide services gratis to the government, only that they do so in a fair manner. The problem isn't that Verizon charged for coverage, but that they used it as leverage to force more money to be paid.
What if we argued that the services that private organizations like Verizon monopolize are a vital public utility and should instead of being a for-profit business be handled as a government funded and managed infrastructure that belongs to the public?
Maybe the problem is that a profit motive for communication infrastructure inevitably breeds the interest to charge rents in private industry, which rarely see use in the improvement in the infrastructure but instead pools within the executive class and stockholders of the company, as a modern society cannot simply do without access because of the demands of modern life.
Short Version: Maybe Verizon, et al are bad and we should nationalize wired and wireless broadband infrastructure before these fuckers get people killed because they'd rather bilk everyone for every cent they have.
You could PERHAPS make an argument for private companies if we had a powerful Bureau of Competition operating according to its original intent, in that companies which have anything close to a monopoly or wish to form one must actively and continually prove that this monopoly benefits consumers in terms of prices and quality. If there is a question as to whether it does, the company will be immediately broken up.
I do not know why Verizon is not giving away their service to emergency services as a donation.
Oh wait, greed.
No. We should not be arguing that private organizations are obligated to provide services gratis to the government, only that they do so in a fair manner. The problem isn't that Verizon charged for coverage, but that they used it as leverage to force more money to be paid.
I'm arguing that Verizon is acting as a utility and providing a service that is required for emergency responders to do their job. Would you be ok if the water company gated their water supply due to excess consumption and demanded more money to have it restored?
I do not know why Verizon is not giving away their service to emergency services as a donation.
Oh wait, greed.
No. We should not be arguing that private organizations are obligated to provide services gratis to the government, only that they do so in a fair manner. The problem isn't that Verizon charged for coverage, but that they used it as leverage to force more money to be paid.
I'm arguing that Verizon is acting as a utility and providing a service that is required for emergency responders to do their job. Would you be ok if the electric company gated their water supply due to excess consumption and demanded more money to have it restored?
No, but that isn't what you were arguing. You were arguing that the government should have the right to demand that a private vendor give their services to the government for free.
Edit: Again, what Verizon did wrong was to use an emergency to extract further payment. They have every right to set up a contract with the government to provide service and get paid for doing so.
I do not know why Verizon is not giving away their service to emergency services as a donation.
Oh wait, greed.
No. We should not be arguing that private organizations are obligated to provide services gratis to the government, only that they do so in a fair manner. The problem isn't that Verizon charged for coverage, but that they used it as leverage to force more money to be paid.
I'm arguing that Verizon is acting as a utility and providing a service that is required for emergency responders to do their job. Would you be ok if the electric company gated their water supply due to excess consumption and demanded more money to have it restored?
No, but that isn't what you were arguing. You were arguing that the government should have the right to demand that a private vendor give their services to the government for free.
Edit: Again, what Verizon did wrong was to use an emergency to extract further payment. They have every right to set up a contract with the government to provide service and get paid for doing so.
Considering the circumstances, Verizon should have been tripping over themselves to get the data situation resolved gratis as a temporary solution, then settling a new contract after the fires had passed.
The State Assembly Committee on Communications and Conveyance voted 8-2 Wednesday to move forward with Senate Bill 822, which offers the strongest protections yet guarding net neutrality. A second bill, SB 460, which additionally restricts companies that violate the first bill from working with the state, likewise won approval.
There still needs to be a broader vote, but Wednesday's move is a key step toward making the proposed regulation into law.
...
Wiener and Santiago have worked to negotiate a fix to the bill to bring back some of the protections that were weeded out in the committee process.
I thought this was mostly a free speech issue because he fucking hates freedom of the press but then I realized the one target of his ire with this article was google and how news is aggregated and shown online.
I really think he’s gearing up for China-esque internet off switches.
He’s citing an article from a right wing conspiracy site that complains how news notifications are comprised mainly of actual news sites and not opinion sites as a bad thing.
Google search results for “Trump News” shows only the viewing/reporting of Fake New Media. In other words, they have it RIGGED, for me & others, so that almost all stories & news is BAD. Fake CNN is prominent. Republican/Conservative & Fair Media is shut out. Illegal? 96% of...
....results on “Trump News” are from National Left-Wing Media, very dangerous. Google & others are suppressing voices of Conservatives and hiding information and news that is good. They are controlling what we can & cannot see. This is a very serious situation-will be addressed!
Posts
Its computers. We can do anything. We could definitely present a different site and experience to folks from CA, and treat their data differently in the back end...
However as a tester I really don't want to have to spoof my location to test the CA presentation of my site. Nor do I want to have to test everything twice just so CA can have its own implementation.
CA essentially just set policy for the US in total, and I loath to think of multiple states setting up different policies for this because it will make my job exponentially harder.
Eh, it depeends. I know at one point Xbox Live couldn't remove you CC from an account unless you replaced it even if you were prepaid....except in those states that required it by law.
If your company is small enough you can't afford to spend time figuring this stuff out. Someone got sued in CA doing X, you stop doing X immediately and proceed with the other problems of the day.
I know I've had to make phone system changes due to stuff like that, as well as changes to our websites. If we could afford to have someone on-board who could navigate this stuff for us that'd be great, but we can't, so we just don't screw around. Someone in CA sued a company for monitoring phone calls without announcing them properly? Well we could try navigating the 100% proper way to notify customers that calls are being monitored, but it's 10x easier to just not monitor them anymore altogether. Done. On to the next project I'm 8 months behind on.
This is due to net neutrality correct?
That's what I meant, but I figured it's what it was when I saw it.
At first I thought they were offering 30 free TV channels to be able to stream a month, and maybe they're trying to mislead. Either way they're selling it as a feature, and having you choose companies, which I'm sure leads to all sorts of shenanigans and corporTe deals.
Awesome job congress.
It depends. HBO, at least, doesn't give their content away for free. So if AT&T had some package for one price that included subscription content from multiple content providers it could be a good deal.
Actually, taking a look at it the list of channels on their web site, several of the channels aren't things you can stream for free. So if you get unlimited access to them, they're just reselling a variety of streaming subscriptions in a package deal. I didn't see any pricing, so I have no idea if it's worth it.
As an example, for HBO streaming through Amazon, you have to have a Prime subscription, and then pay another $15 a month for unlimited HBO content. Or you can buy the episodes individually for $4 per episode. Starz content is a separate subscription for another $9 monthly.
So if you're actually watching a ton of this content, it might be worth it if it's cheap enough.
The end of Net Neutrality is a problem, but I don't think this is really a symptom.
It basically costs them nothing, but they can tout it as a feature to make it look like they're giving you something special rather than something that has become pretty standard.
*actually has many limits
I had this exact argument with a guy back in the dial up days, when a friend got dinged for using too much data. It was a short discussion about that very word, and he ended up seeing our side and waiving the charges, but it still led to my friend changing services.
It’s why, to this day, when I get “unlimited data” I make sure to verify with them to an extreme degree. “So, if I use fifty terabytes, that’s still okay?” kind of thing.
I haven't checked the fine print, but I would not be surprised if you get all that for free but it requires a DTV account be made (and their app used, for at least a sign-in); even if a plan isn't selected.
I'm almost impressed that instead of immediately fucking with individual customers they went straight to threatening emergency response teams during a natural disaster.
This came up as part of the arguments of an ongoing legal case where 22 state attorneys general are trying to get the rules reimposed.
This right here? This is why there's things like eminent domain.
Verizon's statement on the matter:
This is a bad/dumb policy. Emergency / First Responders should never get throttled. Price the plan as such to remove any potential to throttle, and maybe set a policy to reach out to responders if data usage gets egregious to see if something is up instead of just throttling critical infrastructure.
This doesn't make you look any better Verizon.
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
Holy fuck what the... I get 6 gigs a month. 300-400 would cost me literally thousands of dollars, even if I was paying in advance rather than getting hit with overage charges.
I know Canada and Australia (to name a few off the top of my head) have substantially more expensive mobile data plans than most of the world, but that's a hell of a jump.
Even without trying, I regularly go over 6GB per month.
Oh wait, greed.
No. We should not be arguing that private organizations are obligated to provide services gratis to the government, only that they do so in a fair manner. The problem isn't that Verizon charged for coverage, but that they used it as leverage to force more money to be paid.
What if we argued that the services that private organizations like Verizon monopolize are a vital public utility and should instead of being a for-profit business be handled as a government funded and managed infrastructure that belongs to the public?
Maybe the problem is that a profit motive for communication infrastructure inevitably breeds the interest to charge rents in private industry, which rarely see use in the improvement in the infrastructure but instead pools within the executive class and stockholders of the company, as a modern society cannot simply do without access because of the demands of modern life.
Short Version: Maybe Verizon, et al are bad and we should nationalize wired and wireless broadband infrastructure before these fuckers get people killed because they'd rather bilk everyone for every cent they have.
You could PERHAPS make an argument for private companies if we had a powerful Bureau of Competition operating according to its original intent, in that companies which have anything close to a monopoly or wish to form one must actively and continually prove that this monopoly benefits consumers in terms of prices and quality. If there is a question as to whether it does, the company will be immediately broken up.
I'm arguing that Verizon is acting as a utility and providing a service that is required for emergency responders to do their job. Would you be ok if the water company gated their water supply due to excess consumption and demanded more money to have it restored?
No, but that isn't what you were arguing. You were arguing that the government should have the right to demand that a private vendor give their services to the government for free.
Edit: Again, what Verizon did wrong was to use an emergency to extract further payment. They have every right to set up a contract with the government to provide service and get paid for doing so.
Considering the circumstances, Verizon should have been tripping over themselves to get the data situation resolved gratis as a temporary solution, then settling a new contract after the fires had passed.
Yes, but SCOTUS hasn't said if they actually could do that.
So it's a stalling motion until the head of the FCC is replaced?
I think the idea is State just goes ahead and does it. Worst case, the FCC sues which leads to the Supreme Court, eventually, having to rule on it.
I really think he’s gearing up for China-esque internet off switches.
He’s citing an article from a right wing conspiracy site that complains how news notifications are comprised mainly of actual news sites and not opinion sites as a bad thing.
Daniel Dale on the case showing how ludicrous those tweets are. (He's the Washington correspondent for the Toronto Star.)
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar