They contains 16894 line entries, which correspond to every frame from the original file. Every line is composed of several colored vector drawings in the form of cubes. Each one has the size of 1x1 pixels. These lines are aligned with the top left corner, and contain internal newlines to create rows and columns. Every single of these pixels is colored. It is a lossless transformation from the pngs produced to embedding them, so you could recover the original easily. TL;DR: every line contains one frame of video. In the subtitles.
The mishandling part comes from Grab's misguided plan to make the traumatized sexual harassment victim with the sexual harasser. A commenter even said
"It’s like you are trying to form a public opinion on this. Just report it to the police to be investigated. Don’t make it look like the victim doesn’t want to fix the problem.”
This is also not the first time Grab's driver has sexually harassed their passengers. From kissing, sexually testing their passengers, and more.
Indonesia doesn't have net neutrality laws. That's the screenshot of Indosat (Internet Provider)'s app where you can buy data plan from. But as you can see, they sell data plans ala carte, per application in this case. If your favorite app is not there, you're shit out of luck and have to use the more expensive universal data plan.
Not only that, last year, the biggest home internet provider (Indihome), and the biggest mobile internet provider (Telkomsel), which both are owned by the government, banned Netflix under the guise of "Netflix hasn't rated nor censored their contents based on our country's rules". The truth is that both of them are selling their own movie streaming service. Indihome has partnership with iflix, and Telkomsel with HOOQ.
Now, if you buy new prepaid number from Telkomsel, this is the kind of data fuckery you will get. https://i.imgur.com/wb6gMBo.png
Just for the curious, this isn't how every ISP in Indonesia is. Friends and I have had your standard sim cards which allows you to access any site freely.
So maybe these plans are serving a different market segment. Is there any reason to believe an ISP would get rid of all their regular offerings in favour of these site-specific plans?
Okay, so if they do this, then the government should act. Preemptive regulation has all the downsides of regulation (eg lower investment) but potentially none of the benefits. This isn’t the kind of thing that will cause immediate, long-lasting, harm if a few ISPs explore this route before being shut down by the FCC or Congress.
The Internet providers are have already tried to do this. Couple that with the fact that Internet provider are generally a monopoly or duopoly then there is very real harm if only a few explore this route.
The following is from Reddit 6 months ago, link at the bottom. The original comment has links supporting each claim.
>This dude's ridiculous.
>... if you look at the Internet that we had in 2015, we were not living in some digital dystopia. There was nothing broken about the marketplace in such a fundamental way that these Title II regulations were appropriate.
>2005 - Madison River Communications was blocking VOIP services. The FCC put a stop to it.
>2005 - Comcast was denying access to p2p services without notifying customers.
>2007-2009 - AT&T was having Skype and other VOIPs blocked because they didn't like there was competition for their cellphones.
>2011 - MetroPCS tried to block all streaming except youtube. (edit: they actually sued the FCC over this)
>2011-2013, AT&T, T-Mobile, and Verizon were blocking access to Google Wallet because it competed with their bullshit. edit: this one happened literally months after the trio were busted collaborating with Google to block apps from the android marketplace
>2012, Verizon was demanding google block tethering apps on android because it let owners avoid their $20 tethering fee. This was despite guaranteeing they wouldn't do that as part of a winning bid on an airwaves auction. (edit: they were fined $1.25million over this)
>2012, AT&T - tried to block access to FaceTime unless customers paid more money.
>2013, Verizon literally stated that the only thing stopping them from favoring some content providers over other providers were the net neutrality rules in place.
>Like, dude. If you're gonna be a corrupt piece of shit, at least makes your lies more believable. This dude wants 'after-the-fact' regulation as opposed to preemptive regulation. Fucking news flash, you piece of shit. This is already after-the-fact.
>6 month late edit: Replaced Sprint with T-Mobile in the Google Wallet example.
The lower investment argument seems totally backwards to me. If we kill net neutrality, that gives ISPs a path to further monetize their existing infrastructure without any additional investment via paid preferential fast lanes and such. However, with net neutrality in place, the only means by which they have to compete is overall service quality, which means they have to invest in their networks. It seems obvious that ISPs are lobbying for repeal precisely because it allows them to make more money with zero investment.
there needs to be some action - not removing net neutrality rules per se, but the utility/monopoly status has to go so that local provider can compete without being tied in billionaire lawsuits for the control of every municipality
They did. Verizon was throttling Netflix for a long time. Title II regulation was put in place to address ISP abuses. Now they're going to come back, and probably get worse than before.
There have already been a variety of attempts by these corps to undermine net neutrality even while it's been illegal. They lost the benefit of the doubt a long time ago. The telecom giants are as consumer-hostile as it gets
How would eliminating net neutrality increase investment? I think it will cause immediate, long lasting harm if ISPs, which are often incredibly large and serve countless people, force people to do this- imagine if you are poor and need the internet to find a job!
"Our business is being regulated, so let's stop trying to make more money," said no business ever. A business is not going to stop making a good investment in their market just because there is regulation.
> Why would an ISP want to prevent some small, unrelated startup from gaining exposure?
Once the startup takes all the risk to demonstrate market demand, the ISP can come in with their own offering and use the ISP monopoly to destroy the competition.
It sounds like you aren't a fan of how Google and Facebook operate from that comment; I don't think allowing _more_ companies to act like that is a very good remedy to that problem
Google was a small, unrelated startup for a long time. Google Fiber was a real threat to the ISPs, but they already had a lock on municipalities and states. Some new upstart might find a way through that. Why risk it when they can just keep them from gaining traction in the first place?
While the EU does have net neutrality, there are loop-holes for some forms of zero-rating (which is basically the same bullshit, just jumping through a few hoops).
The loopholes were deliberately built in during the drafting of the law, the European Council forced the Parliament to include them. It was widely reported on at the time.
my first question would be how the prices of the unlimited plan compares to the regular plans of other ISPs.
In other words, are these ‘walled garden’ plans aimed towards people who would otherwise buy a regular data plan or are they aimed at people for whom the choice is a walled plan or no plan.
The screenshot in OP's post and this[0] comment, make me think that cheap plans will mostly allow you to use apps/sites where the companies pay the ISP. These will
be things like YouTube and Netflix, who need visitors for profit. Things that will be blocked by default are sites like HN, company websites, personal websites and anything else that isn't a huge company. So in the cheaper plans, the one being visited pays, in the expensive one, the one who visits pays.
In the end, it's just another revenue stream where, if they play it right, the consumer still pays the same, but the content providers also start paying. This means more money from the same bandwidth.
My understanding is that it's not that they're "blocked", it's that "you only can access what you pay for", which in this case is only those specific sites for which you pay to access. In other words, they don't "block" HN, they only provide access to Facebook, for example.
> In other words, are these ‘walled garden’ plans aimed towards people who would otherwise buy a regular data plan or are they aimed at people for whom the choice is a walled plan or no plan.
You say that like there's a hard line between them. No matter what it's "aimed at" it will hit people who want to save a buck and think they only need Facebook. Except that when there is a critical mass of people who no longer have the choice, Facebook's practices can become much more abusive because it becomes that much more difficult to leave. You have to convince everyone you know not only to use something else, but to use something that requires a more expensive data plan.
Moreover, consider what you're asking for, even if only lower income people subscribed. You want to take away the benefits of competition from the people with the least means. Talk about the poor get poorer.
VPN tunnels that go over port 443 SSL are difficult to throttle w/o affecting other services. They'd have to throttle by destination address, which can be more complex when available VPN endpoints are geographically distributed.
Actually, I'm curious about that. I understand that "anime" in japan is a blanket term for all kinds of drawn animation, including western-style - so the meaning is more similar to US "cartoon" or german "Zeichentrick".
But given that the distinct japanese style of animation and storytelling (what the west knows as "anime") has spawned a whole industry and subculture and has become part of japan's image in the world, it would seem to me to be too important to not give it a distinct name. So I wonder, is there a different term in japanese for it?
A weird detail is the Chinese transliteration of "karaoke":卡拉ＯＫ. It starts out with two Chinese characters pronounced "ka" and "la", and then tacks on the English "OK": ka-la-OK. So the English word "orchestra" turned into "OK" after two transliterations.
The associated list page is worth reading too, if only to see how much of the meaning you can guess just by looking at the first 3 columns of that table:
They contains 16894 line entries, which correspond to every frame from the original file. Every line is composed of several colored vector drawings in the form of cubes. Each one has the size of 1x1 pixels. These lines are aligned with the top left corner, and contain internal newlines to create rows and columns. Every single of these pixels is colored. It is a lossless transformation from the pngs produced to embedding them, so you could recover the original easily. TL;DR: every line contains one frame of video. In the subtitles.