|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 04 2012 @ 09:47 PM EST |
Hi RAS,
Here is what a liberal blog site thinks about where the
study came
from ...
here
Language problem in the link name. This may not survive the
censors. Go to crooksandliars.com and search for
"Mercatus". This article
came out December 03, 2012 12:00 PM
--
Bondfire[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Tuesday, December 04 2012 @ 10:34 PM EST |
| This is what winphone users will encounter.
Apps that are generating network
traffic for nothing,
that the user gets to pay for. Well, not for nothing,
it
will help the telcos make more money.
Yes, it happens with other phones too,
but I believe
they have a bit more control over the apps than what
winphone
users will be able to exert.
Time will tell but from what I have seen with
metro,
there is a lot of unneeded traffic.
Here's an article mentioning the
built-in ads
and that every modern/metro app is basically it's own
browser with
network capabilities.
Link
Imagine all of that traffic on your mobile data
plan.
---
You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: mpellatt on Wednesday, December 05 2012 @ 06:19 AM EST |
There's another consequence of the "sender pays" policy for
voice communications not mentioned in that paper - it's
historically been a significant source of fraud. Extending it
to IP traffic would, I contend, make click-through fraud seem
trivial in comparison.
I'm also reminded of the hugely complex systems for capturing
call routing in the international switches at Stag Lane and
Mondial House, and the associated billing systems, all driven
by this policy.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 05 2012 @ 07:31 AM EST |
The problem with "sender pays" (caller pays, in telephone
speak) that I haven't seen anybody mention is the question,
"Who is the sender?".
It's claimed that big companies like Google are getting a
free ride because of all the data they send out, but in fact
the person who benefits is the person doing the search.
It's the end user who "calls" Google (or any other web site)
for information. The end user is therefore the caller, and
should pay.
And, guess what! The end user already pays - he or she has
an Internet connection from an ISP and pays for the
privilege. That's the money that then filters out to fund
the rest of the Net.
An anyway, who is there out there who doesn't realise that
Google (or Facebook or whoever) already pays a staggering
amount for its connectivity?
The ITU is using smoke and mirrors to invent a problem that
doesn't exist so that its members can make a cash grab.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 05 2012 @ 04:37 PM EST |
see
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/
technology-20497719
so nokia want you to power their tech with your
bandwidth.
That's cool. It used to be called 'big brother' but we've
moved
on since 1984.
"
You can already see a hint of the importance of
feedback
data in the colour codes Nokia uses to show which streets
are
suffering from busy traffic. It does this by taking
anonymised GPS and movement
readings from users' phones and
other Nokia-powered sat-nav systems to work out
road
conditions.
"
I must admit I feel slightly conflicted here. When
I use
google's streetmap I sometimes find myself thinking 'what
does it look
like now'. Dilemma. It's very useful tech but
it's also
very
intrusive.
At the end of the day privacy in modern society is becoming
a
bit of an oxymoron and if I could turn back the clock a
couple of decades and
take some key people into
our world today would the equation
"my
access to the world" trump "the world's access to me"
Hey I'm feeling
grumpy[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
