Failbucks. Google certainly doesn't need to know when I stop for coffee, nor who I interact with when I do. Which I suspect is what this is all about: Data mining Starbucks users for ad tracking purposes, then shoveling that data wholesale to the NSA as fast as they can.
More and more, I find I'm leaving WiFi off and sticking to LTE (which oftentimes is faster than WiFi anyway).
Then it's your service provider collecting location and usage data from you to use for advertising and marketing purposes. ATT and Verizon both do so you know. Again, ads aren't evil anyway IMO.
Shouldn't the title of this article really be "Critics Incorrectly Claim Google has Backpedalled on Net Neutrality". With a subtitle, "Critics clearly don't understand how every personal use ISP has operated for well over a decade but conveniently ignored that fact for the purpose of stirring up anti-Google sentiment."
Of course, that wouldn't serve to rile up the Google critics to get them to click on the link and create more ad impressions. The irony being that the business model everyone so fears about with Google (collecting data to support internet advertising) is the very thing that keeps AI free for all of us to read...and then post our comments about how evil Google's busines model is.
Comcast provides web server usage when purchasing their business internet package. Of course, they also include Google AdWords credit on most of their hosted servers. I read their business acceptable use rules, http://www.comcast.com/corporate/customers/policies/highspeedinternetaup.html, and it didn't have the sentence about hosting a server outside your premises network like the non-business rules state. Of course, it might be buried somewhere or you have to use one of their servers.
Even so, everyone knows Google will be harvesting data from the connection and that's all that matters.
Shouldn't the title of this article really be "Critics Incorrectly Claim Google has Backpedalled on Net Neutrality". With a subtitle, "Critics clearly don't understand how every personal use ISP has operated for well over a decade but conveniently ignored that fact for the purpose of stirring up anti-Google sentiment."
Of course, that wouldn't serve to rile up the Google critics to get them to click on the link and create more ad impressions. The irony being that the business model everyone so fears about with Google (collecting data to support internet advertising) is the very thing that keeps AI free for all of us to read...and then post our comments about how evil Google's busines model is.
How dare you, using common sense in this place. Begone, evildoer!
It's a standard policy for every ISP that I can think of. It's hardly an issue of "net neutrality".
You're hardly an authority. This is common practice for ISPs that want to up-sell customers to a costly "business" plan to be able to operate a server (e.g., linking a personalized domain name to a static IP associated with a personal mail server.) An argument that's often used by ISPs for the hefty price barrier is that it reduces the impact of spambots, but we all know how effective that is. Another argument is the limited availability of IPv4 addresses, but with IPv6 available that's not an excuse either.
Google's server policy has the intended consequence of placing a formidable obstacle in the way of customers that would like to operate their own personal mail server, thus coercing the average consumer into using a hosted mail service instead (like gmail.com) that provides companies like Google and the government with more privacy-invasion opportunities.
Very few people in this forum or other forums would complain about Google & ads if Google and Apple weren't competitors. Few complained about Google's ads prior to Android. But people feel they need to justify their position (on both sides) by painting the competition as evil.
The competition between Apple and Google has certainly increased awareness, but some of us have always avoided Google services (e.g. gmail) whenever possible and practical. This is not "high school" behavior. It's about our right to privacy and an open Internet.
Peet's coffee is terrible in my opinion. Both Starbucks and Peet's roast their coffee to dark. They do this so that it masks the defects in the coffee since they buy the cheapest coffee they can find, and also to make the coffee always taste the same even when it is sourced from completely different growing regions. Charcoal always tastes the same. It's no wonder people dump so much sugar and milk in their coffee. They have to dilute the bitterness somehow. At least Starbucks recently introduced their lighter roast Blonde. I haven't tried it but it has to be better than their standard roast.
I haven't been in a Starbucks for years, but as I recall you either had to be on an AT&T device or sign into your AT&T account to get free Wifi. I think you were also able to buy some time if you didn't qualify for free access. I wonder if you will have to have Google account now? In another article I read that there will be no time limit for Starbucks customers. I'm curious how the logistics of this implementation will be administered.
Claims made by corporations about their lofty moral principles are only useful as PR until they cost too much. Then they are discarded and rationalized away.
You're hardly an authority. This is common practice for ISPs that want to up-sell customers to a costly "business" plan to be able to operate a server (e.g., linking a personalized domain name to a static IP.)
Google's server policy has the intended consequence of placing a formidable obstacle in the way of customers that would like to operate their own personal mail server, thus coercing the average consumer into using a hosted mail service instead (like gmail.com) that provides companies like Google and the government with more privacy-invasion opportunities.
The standard industry practice of only providing dynamic DHCP IP addresses is because it makes better use of the available IP's, cuts support costs, since there is no user access to the routing configurations, and allows asynchronous bandwidth. A consumer Internet account is not designed for commercial use such as running a mail server. Most mail servers will not even accept mail from a server that doesn't have reverse look up so are planning to run a DNS server as well and get an Arin account and have your cable company register your IP address with them? They won't do it.
You're hardly an authority. This is common practice for ISPs that want to up-sell customers to a costly "business" plan to be able to operate a server (e.g., linking a personalized domain name to a static IP.)
Google's server policy has the intended consequence of placing a formidable obstacle in the way of customers that would like to operate their own personal mail server, thus coercing the average consumer into using a hosted mail service instead (like gmail.com) that provides companies like Google and the government with more privacy-invasion opportunities.
This has been common practice since we moved past dial-up ISPs. Every ISP I've ever had since then, including the big boys and local mom-and-pop shops, have had similar provisions. The assumption is that a server operating on their network is going to utilize more network resources and therefore should pay more to use those resources.
Now, you can argue that in today's world, your personal mail server uses far less bandwidth than your teenager downloading video all day. And you'd be absolutely correct. But that wouldn't change the fact that it's very common practice for ISPs (and TV servicve providers, phone service providers, etc, etc...this has been common since long before Google even existed) to delinate what's "personal" use and what's "business" use and charge different rates. It's not perfect, they can't really tell if your personal mail server is really just personal or if you are running a business with it. So they simply say "no servers" or "no static IP addresses" or other similarly coarse methods for delineating personal vs business.
Perhaps it's not fair to someone such as yourself who is operating a purely for personal use mail server, but that also makes you very much an outlier of the general population and you can't expect businesses to jump through hoops to satisfy 0.001% of their customer base. We accept that Apple has dumbed down OS X to address the needs of the masses, why would we expect anything better of an ISP.
Peet's coffee is terrible in my opinion. Both Starbucks and Peet's roast their coffee to dark.
That is your opinion, of course. Peet's is the original and IMHO still the best by far. Peet's is best enjoyed black. Sugar and cream are for lesser coffees (and in robusta coffee for sure!)
Starbucks' Pikes Peak is the only one that comes close to Peet's.
It is unfortunate that Peet's has often chosen to serve Sumatra for the coffee-of-the-day, which is IMHO hideous. If your experience is based on Sumatra, try another. One of the most distinctive and popular coffees is Garuda Blend.
Peet's coffee is terrible in my opinion. Both Starbucks and Peet's roast their coffee to dark.
One of the most distinctive and popular coffees is Garuda Blend.
I never drink blends. Single origin is the only way to go for me. I only drink micro-lots, preferably shade grown above 1400 meter on west facing slopes of a volcano near the coast with onshore prevailing wind.
Perhaps it's not fair to someone such as yourself who is operating a purely for personal use mail server, but that also makes you very much an outlier of the general population and you can't expect businesses to jump through hoops to satisfy 0.001% of their customer base. We accept that Apple has dumbed down OS X to address the needs of the masses, why would we expect anything better of an ISP.
We can't expect ISPs to jump through easy hoops when they can so easily squeeze big money from businesses just because the government won't enforce an open Internet.
If ISPs didn't restrict the Internet, I'm confident we'd see some easy turnkey solutions for Jane and Joe Consumer to host their own personal mail and web services.
You're hardly an authority. This is common practice for ISPs that want to up-sell customers to a costly "business" plan to be able to operate a server (e.g., linking a personalized domain name to a static IP associated with a personal mail server.) An argument that's often used by ISPs for the hefty price barrier is that it reduces the impact of spambots, but we all know how effective that is. Another argument is the limited availability of IPv4 addresses, but with IPv6 available that's not an excuse either.
Google's server policy has the intended consequence of placing a formidable obstacle in the way of customers that would like to operate their own personal mail server, thus coercing the average consumer into using a hosted mail service instead (like gmail.com) that provides companies like Google and the government with more privacy-invasion opportunities.
Wouldn't it be better to list several ISP's that don't' put any limits on the use of consumer data connections for commercial server purposes? Otherwise you've done nothing to disprove what I said.:???:
If ISPs didn't restrict the Internet, I'm confident we'd see some easy turnkey solutions for Jane and Joe Consumer to host their own personal mail and web services.
I'm not sure if you know this but you can get hosting for like $10 a month and you don't even have to pay for the electricity.
The other difference between business and home Internet service is for business they have guaranteed service uptime where as at home they can interrupt the service for outages, maintenance whatever and you do not usually get any compensation.
Also for business you often get a direct fiber connection all the way to the data center where in a home situation you are on a shared network that can bog down when too many users are online in your neighborhood.
Comments
Then it's your service provider collecting location and usage data from you to use for advertising and marketing purposes. ATT and Verizon both do so you know. Again, ads aren't evil anyway IMO.
Of course, that wouldn't serve to rile up the Google critics to get them to click on the link and create more ad impressions. The irony being that the business model everyone so fears about with Google (collecting data to support internet advertising) is the very thing that keeps AI free for all of us to read...and then post our comments about how evil Google's busines model is.
Then welcome to Comcast and their monetizing of user data for ad delivery.
http://www.comcastaddelivery.com/privacy
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wiggin
Shouldn't the title of this article really be "Critics Incorrectly Claim Google has Backpedalled on Net Neutrality". With a subtitle, "Critics clearly don't understand how every personal use ISP has operated for well over a decade but conveniently ignored that fact for the purpose of stirring up anti-Google sentiment."
Of course, that wouldn't serve to rile up the Google critics to get them to click on the link and create more ad impressions. The irony being that the business model everyone so fears about with Google (collecting data to support internet advertising) is the very thing that keeps AI free for all of us to read...and then post our comments about how evil Google's busines model is.
How dare you, using common sense in this place. Begone, evildoer!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
It's a standard policy for every ISP that I can think of. It's hardly an issue of "net neutrality".
You're hardly an authority. This is common practice for ISPs that want to up-sell customers to a costly "business" plan to be able to operate a server (e.g., linking a personalized domain name to a static IP associated with a personal mail server.) An argument that's often used by ISPs for the hefty price barrier is that it reduces the impact of spambots, but we all know how effective that is. Another argument is the limited availability of IPv4 addresses, but with IPv6 available that's not an excuse either.
Google's server policy has the intended consequence of placing a formidable obstacle in the way of customers that would like to operate their own personal mail server, thus coercing the average consumer into using a hosted mail service instead (like gmail.com) that provides companies like Google and the government with more privacy-invasion opportunities.
I wonder if this means Apple will discontinue their AppStore freebies program with SBux...?
I've picked up quite a few songs and apps in this manner; I'd hate to see it discontinued.
Quote:
Originally Posted by drblank
The thing now is can Google make any money being an ISP. That's where the rubber meets the road.
This gives them the ability to harvest far more data about what people do online than ever before. So likely yes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by allenbf
Very few people in this forum or other forums would complain about Google & ads if Google and Apple weren't competitors. Few complained about Google's ads prior to Android. But people feel they need to justify their position (on both sides) by painting the competition as evil.
The competition between Apple and Google has certainly increased awareness, but some of us have always avoided Google services (e.g. gmail) whenever possible and practical. This is not "high school" behavior. It's about our right to privacy and an open Internet.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SockRolid
Yet another reason to avoid Starbucks.
I'm a Peet's fan.
Peet's coffee is terrible in my opinion. Both Starbucks and Peet's roast their coffee to dark. They do this so that it masks the defects in the coffee since they buy the cheapest coffee they can find, and also to make the coffee always taste the same even when it is sourced from completely different growing regions. Charcoal always tastes the same. It's no wonder people dump so much sugar and milk in their coffee. They have to dilute the bitterness somehow. At least Starbucks recently introduced their lighter roast Blonde. I haven't tried it but it has to be better than their standard roast.
I haven't been in a Starbucks for years, but as I recall you either had to be on an AT&T device or sign into your AT&T account to get free Wifi. I think you were also able to buy some time if you didn't qualify for free access. I wonder if you will have to have Google account now? In another article I read that there will be no time limit for Starbucks customers. I'm curious how the logistics of this implementation will be administered.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cpsro
You're hardly an authority. This is common practice for ISPs that want to up-sell customers to a costly "business" plan to be able to operate a server (e.g., linking a personalized domain name to a static IP.)
Google's server policy has the intended consequence of placing a formidable obstacle in the way of customers that would like to operate their own personal mail server, thus coercing the average consumer into using a hosted mail service instead (like gmail.com) that provides companies like Google and the government with more privacy-invasion opportunities.
The standard industry practice of only providing dynamic DHCP IP addresses is because it makes better use of the available IP's, cuts support costs, since there is no user access to the routing configurations, and allows asynchronous bandwidth. A consumer Internet account is not designed for commercial use such as running a mail server. Most mail servers will not even accept mail from a server that doesn't have reverse look up so are planning to run a DNS server as well and get an Arin account and have your cable company register your IP address with them? They won't do it.
As in free for Google to track your every click?
You're hardly an authority. This is common practice for ISPs that want to up-sell customers to a costly "business" plan to be able to operate a server (e.g., linking a personalized domain name to a static IP.)
Google's server policy has the intended consequence of placing a formidable obstacle in the way of customers that would like to operate their own personal mail server, thus coercing the average consumer into using a hosted mail service instead (like gmail.com) that provides companies like Google and the government with more privacy-invasion opportunities.
This has been common practice since we moved past dial-up ISPs. Every ISP I've ever had since then, including the big boys and local mom-and-pop shops, have had similar provisions. The assumption is that a server operating on their network is going to utilize more network resources and therefore should pay more to use those resources.Now, you can argue that in today's world, your personal mail server uses far less bandwidth than your teenager downloading video all day. And you'd be absolutely correct. But that wouldn't change the fact that it's very common practice for ISPs (and TV servicve providers, phone service providers, etc, etc...this has been common since long before Google even existed) to delinate what's "personal" use and what's "business" use and charge different rates. It's not perfect, they can't really tell if your personal mail server is really just personal or if you are running a business with it. So they simply say "no servers" or "no static IP addresses" or other similarly coarse methods for delineating personal vs business.
Perhaps it's not fair to someone such as yourself who is operating a purely for personal use mail server, but that also makes you very much an outlier of the general population and you can't expect businesses to jump through hoops to satisfy 0.001% of their customer base. We accept that Apple has dumbed down OS X to address the needs of the masses, why would we expect anything better of an ISP.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone
Peet's coffee is terrible in my opinion. Both Starbucks and Peet's roast their coffee to dark.
That is your opinion, of course. Peet's is the original and IMHO still the best by far. Peet's is best enjoyed black. Sugar and cream are for lesser coffees (and in robusta coffee for sure!)
Starbucks' Pikes Peak is the only one that comes close to Peet's.
It is unfortunate that Peet's has often chosen to serve Sumatra for the coffee-of-the-day, which is IMHO hideous. If your experience is based on Sumatra, try another. One of the most distinctive and popular coffees is Garuda Blend.
Absolutely agree. I've never understood the attraction.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cpsro
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone
Peet's coffee is terrible in my opinion. Both Starbucks and Peet's roast their coffee to dark.
One of the most distinctive and popular coffees is Garuda Blend.
I never drink blends. Single origin is the only way to go for me. I only drink micro-lots, preferably shade grown above 1400 meter on west facing slopes of a volcano near the coast with onshore prevailing wind.
How dare you, using common sense in this place. Begone, evildoer!
I'm not sure how to interpret "evildoer" accusations from someone whose post count is 666. LOLQuote:
Originally Posted by Wiggin
Perhaps it's not fair to someone such as yourself who is operating a purely for personal use mail server, but that also makes you very much an outlier of the general population and you can't expect businesses to jump through hoops to satisfy 0.001% of their customer base. We accept that Apple has dumbed down OS X to address the needs of the masses, why would we expect anything better of an ISP.
We can't expect ISPs to jump through easy hoops when they can so easily squeeze big money from businesses just because the government won't enforce an open Internet.
If ISPs didn't restrict the Internet, I'm confident we'd see some easy turnkey solutions for Jane and Joe Consumer to host their own personal mail and web services.
Wouldn't it be better to list several ISP's that don't' put any limits on the use of consumer data connections for commercial server purposes? Otherwise you've done nothing to disprove what I said.:???:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cpsro
If ISPs didn't restrict the Internet, I'm confident we'd see some easy turnkey solutions for Jane and Joe Consumer to host their own personal mail and web services.
I'm not sure if you know this but you can get hosting for like $10 a month and you don't even have to pay for the electricity.
The other difference between business and home Internet service is for business they have guaranteed service uptime where as at home they can interrupt the service for outages, maintenance whatever and you do not usually get any compensation.
Also for business you often get a direct fiber connection all the way to the data center where in a home situation you are on a shared network that can bog down when too many users are online in your neighborhood.