Where is the outrage over the multiple wifi access point databases which already exist and _don't_ give anyone the ability to opt out? (skyhook, navizon, etc)
Just because a service is marketed as having a feature doesn't mean they have an excuse to undo a user setting in their OS that explicitly says they don't want to use it. Maybe they do want to connect to the advertised network when traveling but auto connect shouldn't be forced on them.
I don't understand why you are trying to defend this so adamantly.
So they don't want to deal with the hassle of supporting two kinds of networks at once. Big deal. Either find an alternative, deal with their decision which is driven by other customers (not some sort of imaginary corporate sociopathy), or start your own. Whining helps no one.
I think that is a pretty user-hostile attitude and I suspect you probably wouldn't really love it if every network operator was doing that kind of thing.
It brings more functionality like Messenger to interface with businesses - which I have found value in. For instance United service there was quicker and better than using the phone line to change/re-book flights.
I don't even know where to start with that thread. It is filled with instances of complete misinformation.
I really don't understand how users there can support something that will probably result in them paying more for Internet access and limiting what they can access.
Please explain how a system that saves the average user a ton of bandwidth quota, reduces network congestion, and is trivial to opt out of, is "actually screwing people over". I'm very pleased with their Netflix policy, because it means I don't have to bother with shitty hotel DSL for Netflix while I'm traveling.
I think people are confusing lock in with lack of choice.
Any network platform is creating lock in through network effects and your data that is stored there is also creating some amount of lock in. You could choose to abandon that network for any other one, there will be some pain felt in regards to personal data but that's about it.
In a lack of choice context, you literally have no choice. Like with many locations and the cable provider that you use. If you don't use them, you have no alternative.
Most of these lock-in platforms are really not a necessity, and the reality is that it's not the data as much as the network itself that becomes the large lock in mechanism.
But either way, it's not the same thing as having only one option available. Then you truly have no ability to move elsewhere.
How about the common person being able to host without having to sign up for a "business" plan. Lookin' at you Spectrum for not providing the capability to manage PTR records in DNS without an artificial barrier and rent-seek.
Companies continue to encroach on what should be basic freedom to do network management. It's entirely intentional; to the point that I've about accepted there's a high-level of society push to enact as many barriers to reasonable liberty as humanly possible, all in the name of "Public safety" or some other transparent on further examination excuse.
It's not "free connectivity" and shouldn't be discussed as such. It's "free access to a bundle of sites", which isn't the same thing - basically it's a monopoly doing a loss-leader program.
That's because it wasn't an argument for banning users from running servers on their Fiber accounts.
I was responding to the parent (perlgeek), not the original submission. It was an argument for why business-class services exist, who might require them, and the value they bring.
Good luck to them. I'm tired of all this prioritization, bundled services not counting against data caps, and using angry e-mails to make Tier-1 providers null-route websites.
reply