5 ms·

Interesting, you swapped one telecom who violates net neutrality for yet another telecom who violates net neutrality. [1] [2] I wouldn't be tooting that horn to

by urda 9y ago

Interesting, you swapped one telecom who violates net neutrality for yet another telecom who violates net neutrality. [1] [2] I wouldn't be tooting that horn too loudly. We need legal protections, not good feelings from these carriers in their positions of power. [1] https://www.extremetech.com/mobile/234186-t-mobiles-new-unlimited-plan-is-a-blatant-violation-of-net-neutrality https://www.extremetech.com/mobile/234186-t-mobiles-new-unli... [2] https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/08/eff-accuses-t-mobile-of-violating-net-neutrality-with-throttled-video/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/08/eff-accuses-t-mo...

nderzero 9y ago
Interesting, you presume to know what network they are using now when they could have left T-mobile before your precious footnotes occurred. Good try at a gotcha though, really raising the discourse.
- urda 9y ago
  > Interesting, you presume to know what network they are using now Crazy thought, but perhaps I based it on their comment that simply said: > It's one of the multitude of reasons I left for T-Mobile. Which, in most educated circles, means they are still with T-Mobile. If they weren't I would have expected another note that they moved on to another carrier. But guess what, all the other carriers play the same game so I'm still on the right side here. > Good try at a gotcha though, really raising the discourse. Drop the snark, you know exactly what both comments were going after.
  - nderzero 9y ago
    Likewise, you knew what he meant. They did something unpleasant and he left and your response was "they're all that bad" as if technically minded people aren't aware of that? What were you contributing exactly?
    - urda 9y ago
      > Likewise, you knew what he meant. Clearly not, and here's why: - I would have expected someone who knows that the major carriers all have something to gain from this Decembers vote not to list that as a reason. Listing that as a reason makes T-Mobile look "better" in the realm of NN, when that isn't true. - Raises awareness to other HN readers like yourself that T-Mobile has also taken advantage of their position of power. - Sure, there can be plenty of other factors of moving carriers as a consumer, but this shouldn't be counted among them. > and your response was "they're all that bad" as if technically minded people aren't aware of that? Bingo. Yet, here we are where I'm having to explain that this is the case. The comment added plenty to the discussion, you just wanted to attempt to slip some snark in. This is where I'll go ahead and stop engaging with you in comments, because this is an explained point and you have no interest in having a meaningful conversation around it.
  - nderzero 9y ago
    > you have no interest in having a meaningful conversation around it. Likewise, you wanted to show off your superior knowledge. Have a good one.
  - TallGuyShort 9y ago
    As a bystander who really doesn't give a crap about NN either way, I'd like to say that your comments are the rudest I've read on HN all day. Heed the feedback of those who are replying to you. It's not what you're saying, it's how you're saying it.
- StudentStuff 9y ago
  Huh? He is just pointing out that T-Mobile has no qualms with violating net neutrality to arbitrarily throw away your packets from Netflix and others.
  - nderzero 9y ago
    That could be true without the qualifier "Interesting." Then it becomes a game of I know more than you.
- abakker 9y ago
  This is not a high quality comment. Why the snark? It isn’t a competition on here, it’s a discourse.
  - nderzero 9y ago
    Pedants get snark. Got a better idea?
    - sctb 9y ago
      There's no good reason to violate the guidelines, which ask us not to post like this. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
getsugablitz1 9y ago
I don't think he said at any point that T-Mobile was perfect, just that they didn't screw him over as hard as AT&T, your response seems presumptuous and holier-than-thou.
- urda 9y ago
  The OP said they had not forgotten AT&T violated net neutrality, and then used that as one of the points for moving to T-Mobile which also violated net neutrality. Either OP didn't know (which is fine) or didn't care but wanted to try and make a comment out of it (which isn't good).
  - getsugablitz1 9y ago
    The title of the article is that AT&T wants you to forget that it blocked FaceTime. OP responded saying he did not forget the blocking of FaceTime and that along with other reasons prompted him to move to T-Mobile. Nowhere did OP say he had not forgotten that AT&T violated net neutrality, that is an assumption you made.
  - CyberDildonics 9y ago
    No, the OP said they had no forgotten that AT&T blocked face time traffic.
mikestew 9y ago
I’m happy with my choice, and I shall toot it as loudly as I damned well please. Because if you think the two choices are equivalent, then we have little to discuss. Beside, that of which you complain about T-Mobile happened after I’d already switched. Tell ya what, though, were my mind not already made up on NN, your sanctimonious, self-righteous post would drive me right to the arms of those you oppose. You will feel that you have righted that egregious wrong on the Internet, but you will have changed no minds.
vvanders 9y ago
Spoiler: they all fucking suck. I used to have a Kyocera 7135[1] on Verizon with Minutes of Use(!) for data long before any unlimited data plan existed. This was a device that didn't support cellular data in the traditional sense so they couldn't bill extra for for it. Once the Treo 650+ started rolling out they started coming out with the $50 data plans. Mysteriously everyone with a Kyocera 7135(including myself) started having "issues" where those devices wouldn't authenticate on Verizon's CDMA network. They offered a Treo 650 as a replacement with a promise no plan change. Of course, plan change and $500+ bill the next month as it moved me over to a per-KB data plan. Fought them a long time on it and eventually had to give up and pick up the $50/mo extra. They weren't allowing Kyocera 7135s or Minutes of Use plans any more. Found out a while later that everyone else on HowardForums hit the exact same thing and yet other CDMA providers outside the US had no issues the the 7135. Verizon, ATT, T-Mobile. Take your pick they're all going to probably try to screw you one way or another. Although I'll give that T-Mobile tends to better about what devices they let you bring and what they open their network to. [1] https://www.phonearena.com/phones/Kyocera-7135_id400 https://www.phonearena.com/phones/Kyocera-7135_id400
stevenwliao 9y ago
If you want to use the mobile Internet, you're going to hand money to a NN violator. Aside from abstaining, the only rational option is to pick the least worst. Blocking a service is much worse than throttling classes of high-bandwidth connections.

by urda 9y ago

nderzero 9y ago

Interesting, you presume to know what network they are using now when they could have left T-mobile before your precious footnotes occurred. Good try at a gotcha though, really raising the discourse.

urda 9y ago
> Interesting, you presume to know what network they are using now Crazy thought, but perhaps I based it on their comment that simply said: > It's one of the multitude of reasons I left for T-Mobile. Which, in most educated circles, means they are still with T-Mobile. If they weren't I would have expected another note that they moved on to another carrier. But guess what, all the other carriers play the same game so I'm still on the right side here. > Good try at a gotcha though, really raising the discourse. Drop the snark, you know exactly what both comments were going after.
- nderzero 9y ago
  Likewise, you knew what he meant. They did something unpleasant and he left and your response was "they're all that bad" as if technically minded people aren't aware of that? What were you contributing exactly?
  - urda 9y ago
    > Likewise, you knew what he meant. Clearly not, and here's why: - I would have expected someone who knows that the major carriers all have something to gain from this Decembers vote not to list that as a reason. Listing that as a reason makes T-Mobile look "better" in the realm of NN, when that isn't true. - Raises awareness to other HN readers like yourself that T-Mobile has also taken advantage of their position of power. - Sure, there can be plenty of other factors of moving carriers as a consumer, but this shouldn't be counted among them. > and your response was "they're all that bad" as if technically minded people aren't aware of that? Bingo. Yet, here we are where I'm having to explain that this is the case. The comment added plenty to the discussion, you just wanted to attempt to slip some snark in. This is where I'll go ahead and stop engaging with you in comments, because this is an explained point and you have no interest in having a meaningful conversation around it.
- nderzero 9y ago
  > you have no interest in having a meaningful conversation around it. Likewise, you wanted to show off your superior knowledge. Have a good one.
- TallGuyShort 9y ago
  As a bystander who really doesn't give a crap about NN either way, I'd like to say that your comments are the rudest I've read on HN all day. Heed the feedback of those who are replying to you. It's not what you're saying, it's how you're saying it.
StudentStuff 9y ago
Huh? He is just pointing out that T-Mobile has no qualms with violating net neutrality to arbitrarily throw away your packets from Netflix and others.
- nderzero 9y ago
  That could be true without the qualifier "Interesting." Then it becomes a game of I know more than you.
abakker 9y ago
This is not a high quality comment. Why the snark? It isn’t a competition on here, it’s a discourse.
- nderzero 9y ago
  Pedants get snark. Got a better idea?
  - sctb 9y ago
    There's no good reason to violate the guidelines, which ask us not to post like this. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

getsugablitz1 9y ago

I don't think he said at any point that T-Mobile was perfect, just that they didn't screw him over as hard as AT&T, your response seems presumptuous and holier-than-thou.

urda 9y ago
The OP said they had not forgotten AT&T violated net neutrality, and then used that as one of the points for moving to T-Mobile which also violated net neutrality. Either OP didn't know (which is fine) or didn't care but wanted to try and make a comment out of it (which isn't good).
- getsugablitz1 9y ago
  The title of the article is that AT&T wants you to forget that it blocked FaceTime. OP responded saying he did not forget the blocking of FaceTime and that along with other reasons prompted him to move to T-Mobile. Nowhere did OP say he had not forgotten that AT&T violated net neutrality, that is an assumption you made.
- CyberDildonics 9y ago
  No, the OP said they had no forgotten that AT&T blocked face time traffic.

mikestew 9y ago

I’m happy with my choice, and I shall toot it as loudly as I damned well please. Because if you think the two choices are equivalent, then we have little to discuss. Beside, that of which you complain about T-Mobile happened after I’d already switched. Tell ya what, though, were my mind not already made up on NN, your sanctimonious, self-righteous post would drive me right to the arms of those you oppose. You will feel that you have righted that egregious wrong on the Internet, but you will have changed no minds.

vvanders 9y ago

Spoiler: they all fucking suck. I used to have a Kyocera 7135[1] on Verizon with Minutes of Use(!) for data long before any unlimited data plan existed. This was a device that didn't support cellular data in the traditional sense so they couldn't bill extra for for it. Once the Treo 650+ started rolling out they started coming out with the $50 data plans. Mysteriously everyone with a Kyocera 7135(including myself) started having "issues" where those devices wouldn't authenticate on Verizon's CDMA network. They offered a Treo 650 as a replacement with a promise no plan change. Of course, plan change and $500+ bill the next month as it moved me over to a per-KB data plan. Fought them a long time on it and eventually had to give up and pick up the $50/mo extra. They weren't allowing Kyocera 7135s or Minutes of Use plans any more. Found out a while later that everyone else on HowardForums hit the exact same thing and yet other CDMA providers outside the US had no issues the the 7135. Verizon, ATT, T-Mobile. Take your pick they're all going to probably try to screw you one way or another. Although I'll give that T-Mobile tends to better about what devices they let you bring and what they open their network to. [1] https://www.phonearena.com/phones/Kyocera-7135_id400 https://www.phonearena.com/phones/Kyocera-7135_id400

stevenwliao 9y ago

If you want to use the mobile Internet, you're going to hand money to a NN violator. Aside from abstaining, the only rational option is to pick the least worst. Blocking a service is much worse than throttling classes of high-bandwidth connections.