31–40 of 66 posts
Democracy doesn't always work, but when it does it's a beautiful thing.
That is something. I wonder if there is a similar law to protect my Internet privacy from my boss in the Netherlands.
But what about my freedom to choose a slower connection? Or one without video chat capacities? I propably would be ok with paying half the price if my traffic has not the highest priority.
When I had less income, an internet connection might have been more affordable if I wasn't forced to buy traffic capacities I didn't need. I have a couple of friends who still struggle to afford internet (sadly, the more time passes without internet access, the harder it'll get for them to ever improve on their income).
Does the "net neutrality" concept differentiate between "intent of usage" and "interest of usage"? The first to me seems more important to be kept neutral.
(What I mean by the latter might be better expalined with the 19th century rail-pricing systems where you had 1st, 2nd and 3rd class passengers. 3rd class was dirty, packed and propably pathoenic. But more importantly, the "3rd class" could afford the ride. )
That is something. I wonder if there is a similar law to protect my Internet privacy from my boss in the Netherlands.
Your "internet privacy" is protected just fine as long as you don't use the company's network, e-mail, and laptop . And as long as you don't go sharing all your things to everybody (twitter, f-book).
The situation is not entirely clear even in the US: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125859862658454923.html
It's interesting to note that this legislation was prompted because the incumbent telco (KPN) overplayed its hand. They publicly suggested that they would price traffic from WhatsApp higher to offset their loss in SMS revenue. A public outcry ensued, law makers got involved and this is the result. Democracy doesn't always work, but when it does it's a beautiful thing.
It's interesting to note that this legislation was prompted because the incumbent telco (KPN) overplayed its hand. They publicly suggested that they would price traffic from WhatsApp higher to offset their loss in SMS revenue. A public outcry ensued, law makers got involved and this is the result. Democracy doesn't always work, but when it does it's a beautiful thing.
Not sure how long telcos thought they could get away with charging so much for SMS ( http://www.nickloper.com/2011/02/how-much-does-a-text-messag... ) but now that things have changed it looks as though they thought they had other ways of making incredible profits from message transmission. Ha!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your "internet privacy" is protected just fine as long as you don't use the company's network, e-mail, and laptop . And as long as you don't go sharing all your things to everybody (twitter, f-book).
In a number of countries, companies don't have full rights to snoop on employees' network communications, even at work. In Denmark, I believe email is considered quasi-private. A boss can read an employee's mail, but must go through a process where the reason they need to do so is formally documented. The situation is not entirely clear even in the US: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125859862658454923.html
"Now, courts are increasingly taking into account whether employers have explicitly described how email is monitored to their employees. "
Yes this is why all contracts have been updated. It's in most new contracts. (The 'fine print'). Best thing to do is not use the company e-mail privately (if you value your privacy that is).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not sure how long telcos thought they could get away with charging so much for SMS ( http://www.nickloper.com/2011/02/how-much-does-a-text-messag... ) but now that things have changed it looks as though they thought they had other ways of making incredible profits from message transmission. Ha!
The problem is, the money still has to come from somewhere. When income drops in one area (SMS), and costs do not go down, they'll likely have to increase pricing in another area.
I've always struggled a bit with the concept of net neutrality. Leigislation should improve/secure freedom of choice. If it is about keeping providers from throttling traffic based on the traffic-source ( = prohibition of choices) I'm all for it. But what about my freedom to choose a slower connection? Or one without video chat capacities? I propably would be ok with paying half the price if my traffic has not the hi…
For example, if I get a plan that promises: 1) 5 mbs download 2) 1 mbs upload 3) 15 GB usage cap
The ISP is well within it's rights to provide me with such a slow connection, as long as the packets I access on that slower connection are treated equally.
Net Neutrality is not concerned with providing everyone the same internet speeds, but rather that packets are treated equally (ie throttle all packets equally, instead of discriminating against certain packets).