“I have a say in how the gov’t operates. I don’t have any say in Verizon’s operations.”

You are kind of mixing the issues up here. In a broader discussion, I absolutely see the relevancy of cable/fiber broadband competition. However, with regard sponsored data, the issue is pretty much entirely with wireless carriers (at least today), where there is substantially more competition.

This specific issue of sponsored data is mostly applicable to wireless carriers, where most of the country has several options.

Just to be clear, this is your opinion of approaching this with no bias?

Right. No debate there. But has the “bad end result” happened? I.e. Is go90 making a market-changing impact? IMO *that* should be the trigger for further scrutiny, not the act of preferential treatment.

If anything, it’s an example for why sponsored data regulation isn’t necessary (now or potentially ever). If go90 isn’t very successful, then it wasn’t a problem. The only reason you look at this and ominously state “this is a model of what’s to come” is because you already believe it’s a generally bad thing. But…

And that's an opinion. An opinion based in fear and not fact. I refuse to agree with fear-driven public policy.

But it hasn’t happened. All of these arguments are based on what people think might happen. It’s completely fear based. I refuse to agree with fear-driven public policy.

Pretending that there is no free market only makes you appear grossly unaware.

I completely agree that this may result in some added business for go90. But, if this alone isn’t enough to change the entire market, then why does it matter? You say that “carriers shouldn’t get advantages just because they own the pipes” as if it’s a fact. Why shouldn’t they? My problem with these arguments is that…

But it’s going to fail. Because go90 sucks. What if the free market will solve this on its own? Only crappy services would want to engage in a sponsored data deal, and it ain’t gonna help them. Why would a Netflix want to pay for their customer’s data? They already have the market.

Not really, because if sponsored data doesn’t actually influence the market, then it’s not really a problem. If Go90 goes on to be this wildly popular, yet sucky service, running established competitors out of business, because of sponsored data, then it’s time to declare it a problem. Just because Verizon wants to…

Now, this isn’t the apocalypse or anything. Go90 isn’t going to be the downfall of the internet, or even Netflix. In fact, it’s unlikely that go90 will become a video powerhouse at all solely based on this promotion. But this is one of the most crystal clear examples we’ve seen yet of how carriers can use your capped…

Me too. So Hillary’s should be a photo of her and a stack of still-classified documents in plain sight and Bernie’s should be him doing literally anything except math.

It’s simple, and well-designed. More than I can say for facebook.com haha

I didn’t know about it...

Interesting tidbit, thanks!

Interesting. I wish I had screenshot it. When I searched for “Donald Trump” before, when I posted my first comment, that picture was third. Now, I see it as first as well. Odd.

But it’s not the most popular picture. I thought the same thing at first. However, there are two more popular results(in terms of Google Images result rankings). Then I thought, maybe Google arbitrarily takes the third photo for some reason - checked the other candidates: Nope. Maybe it’s from Wikipedia? Nope. Maybe…

Right, I saw that much as well - was just curious if anyone had any idea how it’s selected.