This is a major breach of net neutrality. T-Mobile wants to give customers free bandwidth to one type of service, while charging for bandwidth going eleswhere. The network costs are identical: it's not the place of a neutral ISP to discriminate on the contents of the bytes!
(edit to correct error -- it's not restricted to T-Mobile's own music service. Mea culpa)
I honestly don't understand your position. This was data that was being charged for before, now as a service to their customers they aren't charging for it. This is an attempt to gain more customers, it's not charging extra for other services, you have everything you had before, now if you choose to use these services you don't get the data billed to your account. It's not charging more for a fast lane, it's giving something away for advertising purposes. I am a web developer, net neutrality is very important to me, I just don't see how this is a major offense to that. Can you explain your position some more?
First off, I take issue with your argument that this data costs money, and therefore making it free isn't an issue. The data costs money because the telecom industry has spent the last decade prying unlimited data plans out of the cold dead hands of your grandfathers. Do you remember AOL and the whole 600 minutes free spectacle? Do you remember how stupid that was? How many people do you know who either still have a grandfathered cell phone plan? How many people do you know who are angry that their grarndfathered plans are gone?
Secondly, I take issue here because I have a strong libre-culture philosophy, and I really strongly believe you should be able to stream, download, remix, or publish everything. This policy by T-Mobile means that any hope of libre content on mobile is getting dimmer. This, combined with the artificial scarcity I mentioned before, make the game feel rigged.
> I take issue with your argument that this data costs money
I don't get what you are trying to say here. It certainly costs T-Mobile something to provide additional data, and pretending otherwise isn't an effective argument.
T-Mobile customers will be much more likely to stay with the established brand (e.g. Spotify) because they get free data for it, whereas an indie-Spotify, because it is smaller and doesn't have the awareness, doesn't have a deal with T-Mobile, and thus customers will be less inclined to choose such an alternative.
That's a marketing problem for indie-Spotify, not a net neutrality problem.
When Google's Chromecast offered 3 free months of Netflix with a purchase was that an attack on net neutrality issue too since it didn't drive equal sign up opportunities to Hulu?
They get to my phone the same way the music does... from a cell tower. I don't really care how the carrier got them to the tower. Bits are bits, right?
This position seeks to establish the concept that bits have a color, and that different colors have different costs. The tactic is to create market segmentation out of whole cloth. The next step is to report data usage as different buckets -- "Web Site-colored bits", "Popular Web Site-colored bits", "Music-colored bits", and "Video-colored bits". Eventually, they will charge different rates for different colors of bits.
Now, today, yeah, sure, it looks like a Too Good To Be True giveaway. My advice? Look twice.
If nothing else, it's normalizing the idea that ISPs treat different kinds of data differently instead of being the dumb pipes they want them to be.
It's also not available on all of their plans. So now we're basically seeing, "pay more for better access to Spotify etc." Which is not all that far from something like, "Verizon FiOS brought to you by Bing! ($5/month additional charge for access to Google.)"
This seems like a loss leader [1] for T-Mobile. Despite your theoretical indie label service it doesn't have anything to do with net neutrality. T-Mobile deciding to forego revenue as marketing gimmick is different than T-Mobile double dipping by charging streaming service providers to utilize capacity the customer has already paid for.
I don't see how they are "treating" data from Rhapsody different than how they are treating data from XBox Music or Beats differently when examined at the network level. This promotion is at the accounting level only. When the two become intertwined like Netflix/Verizon/Level 3 peering drama then I agree with you. But unless somebody can demonstrate T-Mobile degrading the quality of the network traffic for non-Rhapsody streamers I don't think this has anything to do with net neutrality.
There is a line between marketing/cross promotions business relationships and encroachment on net neutrality, consumers need to be vigilant, but the line does exist.
They are treating Rhapsody data different from Hacker News data. Or data from my personal blog. That they are consistent among their partners is irrelevant.
> Despite your theoretical indie label service it doesn't have anything to do with net neutrality.
I respectfully disagree. Net Neutrality is not simply about carriers charging for" double dipping. It is, at its heart, a free speech issue. It is about certain forms of speech being treated with economic preference. It is about maintaining the low barrier of entry that makes the internet so valuable.
The money comes from somewhere. If it does not come from usage of other services (it does - it probably means their profit margin is fat enough to allow this), it'll come from the funds used for long term investments in their core network structure.
T-Mobile is claiming that they are not sponsorships and that Spotify, Rhapsody, Pandora, and the other launch partners are not paying for data-exempt status[1]. That said, this still raises serious net-neutrality red flags.
How? I imagine it's implemented as "don't meter packets going to these IPs", for Pandora/whatever's streaming IP addresses. Adding some extra firewall/software rules doesn't violate privacy IMHO.
Why is that a concern to me though (I'm representing the public)? Net neutrality proponents regularly couch their rhetoric in being an issue for the public's interest. To me it seems like one industry (tech/web companies) jockeying over another industry (telcos/cable) to accrue the benefits/cost savings to themselves. Start ups and other businesses that exist on the web don't like the idea of sponsored data because it could possibly raise their costs of doing business, but again why is that something the public should care about and that government should step in to prevent? No one is providing Jolla with protections or subsidies to better compete with Apple or Samsung, but yet the web companies in pushing for net neutrality (and waging a great PR campaign that enlists the greater public to their side) are essentially asking for one. Maybe your music start up will have to pay carriers to better compete with Spotify or Apple, that's really your problem and perhaps you'll have to suck up the additional operating expense.
I'm not necessarily saying that the carriers should regulate. I'm just saying that T-Mobile just lost every bit of goodwill that they had earned by becoming a "european" style carrier.
I don't own a smart phone, I don't stream music. I listen to free or libre music mostly.
I think the entire Net Neutrality is based on a stupid and foolish assumption that we have to stream (or more accurately, download and delete) entertainment.
Because without Net neutrality we are going back to the AOL closed Network Model of the 90s where everyone has to use the services the ISP thinks are right for you and with prices they decided are fair. Nobody in their right mind wants that! Unless you are an ISP or bribed politician of course.
This is something what was very common when 3G first became available in Australia - you'd have a very low data limit (~200MB) but could pay extra for unlimited access to other services (like $4/m for unlimited Facebook or whatever) - basically that 'nightmare scenario' net nutrality image which has been going around for years[1]. I don't think it was very sucessful (this was before the the iPhone and the changes it brought so browsing the internet on your dubmphone sucked anyway) and was gradually phased out.
Another comparison, many Australian providers already have a 'freezone'[2] which does not count towards your download limit. This is sometimes paid sponsorship (Australian Football streaming is free on Telstra) and sometimes due to peering agreements or house run servers (many ISPs run their own Steam content servers) which make data through certain channels considerably cheaper for the ISP.
That said, from a consumer perspective, I would be stoked if my telco said that I could have free music streaming at no extra cost, though. It might just be a positive customer benefit, or it may be something more sinister - who knows.
Yeah it is a breach of net neutrality... but mobile hasn't ever really had net neutrality anyway, not like we've had with fixed line internet. Mobile and fixed line connect to the same internet, but through very different means and with very different obstacles in implementation (mobile having far more), so I'm not 100% sure that this is a bad thing... but it could become one.
Step 2) Report monthly bandwidth usage by bit color
Step 3) Bill monthly by colored segments
Step 4) Ratchet up the price of bandwidth by increasing the charges related to one colored bit bucket while periodically offering discounts on other colored bit buckets to maintain market share and drive marketing messages.
Not the typical 3 steps to profit, but close -- and without a hand-wavy step 2. If this works, expect the rest of the industry to follow shortly.
Sorry they decided to adjust their formula so people can use their connections better? As was pointed out elsewhere, streaming music is comparatively low-bandwidth. T-Mobile already offers unlimited plans where the first $X amount is at LTE speeds, so what they're doing here is saying "for things we tag as streaming music, we'll just go ahead and count that from the other side of unlimited, since the effect on you/us is nil, and you won't burn LTE time on things that can't utilize LTE speeds anyways"
It's funny that in Australia the carriers realised that offering free data on facebook, twitter etc would increase the number of people that would move to the service, and from my POV seemed like a good deal for all involved.
The state of the US carrier system has messed itself up so badly that a carrier trying to offer something for FREE is now being attacked by the customers it's trying to serve.
Because it's directly at loggerheads with net neutrality. And it's not free. Rhapsody may be paying for data costs. Imagine you are a small startup competing against Rhapsody. Customers will always go for Rhapsody since it doesn't count against data caps. And as a small startup you can't afford to pay required money to carrier and even if you can afford then it's at the mercy of your carrier. Why do you need gatekeepers?
We're tired of our cell carriers telling us how we can use their service.
For example, it's common for carriers to charge extra for tethering. That is to say, they want more money to transmit bytes to and from your phone if your phone is forwarding for your laptop than if your phone is using that data itself. Even though their costs are identical and they actually have to go through contortions to catch people doing this using the more clever schemes for it, they still insist on charging more.
We want dumb pipes that deliver data and care not for what kind of data it is. Any step away from that is bad. That's what this represents, and "free" doesn't make up for that.
You talk about free data to Facebook as if it's a universally good thing. Imagine if someone is making the next great Facebook competitor. Now, instead of a level playing field, they'll have to contend with the fact that people get to access Facebook for "free" while they use up their data quota talking to the new service.
Any time someone gives you something for "free", look around to see if you can spot the sucker. It might be you.
The people sharing concerns with what T-Mobile are doing aren't looking at it through a short sighted consumer lens.
It's a great move for consumers right now who stream music. However it is encouraging a tighter coupling between content producers and service providers - which dismantles the neutrality of the Internet.
In the long run, consumers are said to loose out because only the biggest businesses will be able to afford to maintain their tight coupling. Smaller players will lose out.
They are taking a vote to add other services to the data-free list. They have just about every major one listed including Amazon Music, Beats, TuneIn, SoundCloud, and Xbox Music. Google Music is currently taking a huge lead over the others.
I'm not sure why everyone is freaking out about this. Remember when you got so many minutes of talk time a month? Now we get unlimited talk. Remember when you had to pay for texts? Now we all get unlimited texts. Remember when streaming music ate your data limit? Now we all get unlimited music streaming. Not sure what the issue is.
Q: Will you add more streaming providers over time?
A: Absolutely! And we want to hear from you! Who do you think we should add next? Vote at #MusicFreedom and be heard!
Q: Can any streaming services ask to become part of Music Freedom?
A: Yes. Any lawful and licensed streaming music service can work with us for inclusion in this offer, which is designed to benefit all of our Simple Choice customers. Click here, send us an email and we’ll get back to you to begin the process.
> If it were unlimited music streaming, that'd be pretty much fine.
To be fair, it's unclear how you'd actually implement this.
Would you suggest a special bit on the TCP packet saying "this is for music streaming" (cf RFC 3514)?
Or, more seriously, would T-Mobile have some form where anybody could enter a Bro filter to identify traffic coming from "their" "music streaming" service? Setting aside the fact that writing and running an arbitrary number of arbitrarily-complex DPI filters is hard, how would T-Mobile filter out people abusing the system ("my music streaming service also lets you stream one of ten songs, or you can torrent; the traffic is designed to be indistinguishable") without appearing to be biased towards big incumbents?
Seems like they think it makes sense to do that. From the fine print at the bottom of the page:
> Licensed music streaming from included services does not count toward Simple Choice high speed data allotment on T-Mobile’s network; song downloads, video content, and non-audio content excluded.
They state that the following music services will not count against your data plan: "Pandora, iHeartRadio, iTunes Radio, Rhapsody, Spotify, Slacker, and Milk Music."
Good question. I assumed it was only when using the streaming apps (which I already assumed have some sort of unique signature) but I see they don't explicitly say that it is app only. They mostly just call them streaming services. Only once do they refer to apps when they say: App after app, we’re setting streaming music free.
Looking into this a little, I don't understand it at all.
The plans already include unlimited data. They say "no overages. Ever."
They do have one limit, which is 1GB on LTE (per month, I assume). After that, your speeds are reduced to 3G.
What makes this hard to understand is that 3G is perfectly adequate for music streaming. You really only need about 100kbps to stream high-quality music, and even half-assed 3G is adequate for that. Hell, I've managed to stream music over EDGE before, with the only problem being the injection of lots of annoying GSM buzz into my stereo system.
So I guess what it comes down to is, they're making it so that a certain class of slow-and-steady LTE usage, which doesn't need anything close to LTE speeds, will no longer affect your ability to get LTE speeds when you actually need it. Or something like that. Which is nice, but nowhere near the big deal they make it out to be.
It's a huge deal. I use iTunes Radio and similar when I'm driving to listen to music. I get 5GB per month of LTE-speed, after which they crank me down to sad-town speeds.
Previously, on months where I drove more often, I hit the cap. This means I'll not have to care about keeping an eye on my usage.
You're correct about the actual change they made: letting me do something that's comparatively low-bandwidth without it counting against my high-bandwidth concerns. But for me at least, you've underestimated the benefit: I'm unlikely to need to look at my usage again or do math to decide if it's time to stop streaming. I'll just rock on.
Could you not just turn off LTE while streaming music and get most of the same benefit? Or do they give you 1GB of all traffic, after which you get throttled?
OK, now it all makes good sense. From reading T-Mobile's info, I came away thinking it was 1GB on actual LTE, with non-LTE not counting at all. Thanks for explaining.
Actually they bump you down to EDGE if you go over your quota. It's a pretty noticeable difference. Heckuva lot better than charging you some crazy amount per MB in overages though.
We should consider the possibility that non-neutral arrangements will take the form of discounts, not price increases.
This is analogous to the fact that Amazon, WalMart et al can negotiate better shipping rates with Fedex, USPS et al, and can in turn offer free or cheap shipping to the end user.
This is also cheap for T-Mobile. Streaming music is not a zero impact on bandwidth, but (say) a 256K stream is small on (say) a 5mb/s connection. And like most consumer bandwidth, it assumes that most people won’t use it, most of the time.
I'm not sure there is a net neutrality issue here. Let me pose a hypothetical to try to bring into focus what I'm having trouble understanding.
HYPOTHETICAL:
You have internet through an ISP that charges for data. I am a provider of paid content (movies, music, ebooks...whatever) and you are a customer of mine. Your ISP provides detailed billing that breaks down your bill by IP address.
I allow you to send me a copy of your ISP bill each month, and I figure out from the detail billing break down how much of your data costs were due to downloading or streaming content you purchased from me. I reimburse you for that.
QUESTIONS:
1. Is there a net neutrality violation here?
2. If you say that there is, can anything be done to stop it?
3. If there is NOT a violation of net neutrality here...does that change if the ISP makes it easier for me to pay part of your bill? For instance, suppose the ISP offers to save me the hassle of getting and reading a copy of your bill and instead they track your usage of my data and they bill me, and deduct those costs from you bill?
(The situation in #3 is essentially, I believe, what AT&T called "Sponsored Data", and was pretty widely frowned upon by net neutrality advocates).
4. If you say that the original hypothetical was OK, but the ISP getting involved as described in question 3 is not, what is it about ISP involvement that makes a difference? I am assuming that the ISP offers the "pay for your customers' data" service to anyone, for any kind of data.
Is it illegal for me to pay you a commission to sell products for me?
Is it illegal for you to subcontract selling these products?
Is it illegal for the subcontractors to subcontract?
Is it illegal for me to give a signing bonus if you recruit your friends to work for me?
Is it illegal for you to get a bonus based on your direct and indirect contribution to how well the company is doing?
Of course none of these are illegal on their face but if you add them all up into a pyramid scheme you can bet that it's objectionable to many and that in many countries it's illegal.
It's a shade of gray. Many people here believe that the importance of keeping the net neutral is huge (even while giving a wink and a nod to QOS and other realistic compromises). You can even tell by the mixed reactions throughout the comment thread that people believe this to be a very slippery slope, they want this but are worried about even precedents like this one. As your comment highlighted net neutrality can be nebulous so when you push a boundry it is quite possible that there is very little to stop you continuing to push.
Having said that I don't necessarily disagree with your reasoning, it's one of the reasons I support Aero being legal. Possibly a little hypocritically.
86 comments
[ 2.5 ms ] story [ 145 ms ] thread(edit to correct error -- it's not restricted to T-Mobile's own music service. Mea culpa)
(full disclosure: I'm a T-Mobile customer)
Then my immediate next reaction was "NOOOOOOO"
My own reaction was pretty much the same. "Awesome! Wait, awful!"
T-Mobile can't issue a press release about free data, if everybody has unlimited data.
And asking your customers to pay more because you don't have a T-Mobile partnership.
"Letting music be free", as long as it participates in a corporate subsidy, no thanks.
Secondly, I take issue here because I have a strong libre-culture philosophy, and I really strongly believe you should be able to stream, download, remix, or publish everything. This policy by T-Mobile means that any hope of libre content on mobile is getting dimmer. This, combined with the artificial scarcity I mentioned before, make the game feel rigged.
I don't get what you are trying to say here. It certainly costs T-Mobile something to provide additional data, and pretending otherwise isn't an effective argument.
When Google's Chromecast offered 3 free months of Netflix with a purchase was that an attack on net neutrality issue too since it didn't drive equal sign up opportunities to Hulu?
'Honey, we need milk from the store': 10 cents
'Bon Jovi are playing Glastonbury this year!': free
People would have been up in arms about that.
Now, today, yeah, sure, it looks like a Too Good To Be True giveaway. My advice? Look twice.
It's also not available on all of their plans. So now we're basically seeing, "pay more for better access to Spotify etc." Which is not all that far from something like, "Verizon FiOS brought to you by Bing! ($5/month additional charge for access to Google.)"
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loss_leader
There is a line between marketing/cross promotions business relationships and encroachment on net neutrality, consumers need to be vigilant, but the line does exist.
I respectfully disagree. Net Neutrality is not simply about carriers charging for" double dipping. It is, at its heart, a free speech issue. It is about certain forms of speech being treated with economic preference. It is about maintaining the low barrier of entry that makes the internet so valuable.
1. http://www.theverge.com/2014/6/18/5822996/t-mobile-music-fre...
What if I'm a musician hacker, and I want to release a album app like Bjork or Jay-Z did?
Do I get free data too?
I don't own a smart phone, I don't stream music. I listen to free or libre music mostly.
I think the entire Net Neutrality is based on a stupid and foolish assumption that we have to stream (or more accurately, download and delete) entertainment.
Based on the FAQ: Yes. Any lawful and licensed streaming music service can work with us for inclusion in this offer
Another comparison, many Australian providers already have a 'freezone'[2] which does not count towards your download limit. This is sometimes paid sponsorship (Australian Football streaming is free on Telstra) and sometimes due to peering agreements or house run servers (many ISPs run their own Steam content servers) which make data through certain channels considerably cheaper for the ISP.
That said, from a consumer perspective, I would be stoked if my telco said that I could have free music streaming at no extra cost, though. It might just be a positive customer benefit, or it may be something more sinister - who knows.
[1] http://i.imgur.com/UguEpIm.jpg [2] http://freezone.iinet.net.au/
Step 2) Report monthly bandwidth usage by bit color
Step 3) Bill monthly by colored segments
Step 4) Ratchet up the price of bandwidth by increasing the charges related to one colored bit bucket while periodically offering discounts on other colored bit buckets to maintain market share and drive marketing messages.
Not the typical 3 steps to profit, but close -- and without a hand-wavy step 2. If this works, expect the rest of the industry to follow shortly.
The state of the US carrier system has messed itself up so badly that a carrier trying to offer something for FREE is now being attacked by the customers it's trying to serve.
What a joke
For example, it's common for carriers to charge extra for tethering. That is to say, they want more money to transmit bytes to and from your phone if your phone is forwarding for your laptop than if your phone is using that data itself. Even though their costs are identical and they actually have to go through contortions to catch people doing this using the more clever schemes for it, they still insist on charging more.
We want dumb pipes that deliver data and care not for what kind of data it is. Any step away from that is bad. That's what this represents, and "free" doesn't make up for that.
You talk about free data to Facebook as if it's a universally good thing. Imagine if someone is making the next great Facebook competitor. Now, instead of a level playing field, they'll have to contend with the fact that people get to access Facebook for "free" while they use up their data quota talking to the new service.
Any time someone gives you something for "free", look around to see if you can spot the sucker. It might be you.
It's a great move for consumers right now who stream music. However it is encouraging a tighter coupling between content producers and service providers - which dismantles the neutrality of the Internet. In the long run, consumers are said to loose out because only the biggest businesses will be able to afford to maintain their tight coupling. Smaller players will lose out.
Q: Will you add more streaming providers over time?
A: Absolutely! And we want to hear from you! Who do you think we should add next? Vote at #MusicFreedom and be heard!
Q: Can any streaming services ask to become part of Music Freedom?
A: Yes. Any lawful and licensed streaming music service can work with us for inclusion in this offer, which is designed to benefit all of our Simple Choice customers. Click here, send us an email and we’ll get back to you to begin the process.
To be fair, it's unclear how you'd actually implement this.
Would you suggest a special bit on the TCP packet saying "this is for music streaming" (cf RFC 3514)?
Or, more seriously, would T-Mobile have some form where anybody could enter a Bro filter to identify traffic coming from "their" "music streaming" service? Setting aside the fact that writing and running an arbitrary number of arbitrarily-complex DPI filters is hard, how would T-Mobile filter out people abusing the system ("my music streaming service also lets you stream one of ten songs, or you can torrent; the traffic is designed to be indistinguishable") without appearing to be biased towards big incumbents?
> Licensed music streaming from included services does not count toward Simple Choice high speed data allotment on T-Mobile’s network; song downloads, video content, and non-audio content excluded.
The plans already include unlimited data. They say "no overages. Ever."
They do have one limit, which is 1GB on LTE (per month, I assume). After that, your speeds are reduced to 3G.
What makes this hard to understand is that 3G is perfectly adequate for music streaming. You really only need about 100kbps to stream high-quality music, and even half-assed 3G is adequate for that. Hell, I've managed to stream music over EDGE before, with the only problem being the injection of lots of annoying GSM buzz into my stereo system.
So I guess what it comes down to is, they're making it so that a certain class of slow-and-steady LTE usage, which doesn't need anything close to LTE speeds, will no longer affect your ability to get LTE speeds when you actually need it. Or something like that. Which is nice, but nowhere near the big deal they make it out to be.
Previously, on months where I drove more often, I hit the cap. This means I'll not have to care about keeping an eye on my usage.
You're correct about the actual change they made: letting me do something that's comparatively low-bandwidth without it counting against my high-bandwidth concerns. But for me at least, you've underestimated the benefit: I'm unlikely to need to look at my usage again or do math to decide if it's time to stop streaming. I'll just rock on.
This is analogous to the fact that Amazon, WalMart et al can negotiate better shipping rates with Fedex, USPS et al, and can in turn offer free or cheap shipping to the end user.
This is also cheap for T-Mobile. Streaming music is not a zero impact on bandwidth, but (say) a 256K stream is small on (say) a 5mb/s connection. And like most consumer bandwidth, it assumes that most people won’t use it, most of the time.
HYPOTHETICAL:
You have internet through an ISP that charges for data. I am a provider of paid content (movies, music, ebooks...whatever) and you are a customer of mine. Your ISP provides detailed billing that breaks down your bill by IP address.
I allow you to send me a copy of your ISP bill each month, and I figure out from the detail billing break down how much of your data costs were due to downloading or streaming content you purchased from me. I reimburse you for that.
QUESTIONS:
1. Is there a net neutrality violation here?
2. If you say that there is, can anything be done to stop it?
3. If there is NOT a violation of net neutrality here...does that change if the ISP makes it easier for me to pay part of your bill? For instance, suppose the ISP offers to save me the hassle of getting and reading a copy of your bill and instead they track your usage of my data and they bill me, and deduct those costs from you bill?
(The situation in #3 is essentially, I believe, what AT&T called "Sponsored Data", and was pretty widely frowned upon by net neutrality advocates).
4. If you say that the original hypothetical was OK, but the ISP getting involved as described in question 3 is not, what is it about ISP involvement that makes a difference? I am assuming that the ISP offers the "pay for your customers' data" service to anyone, for any kind of data.
Is it illegal for me to pay you a commission to sell products for me?
Is it illegal for you to subcontract selling these products?
Is it illegal for the subcontractors to subcontract?
Is it illegal for me to give a signing bonus if you recruit your friends to work for me?
Is it illegal for you to get a bonus based on your direct and indirect contribution to how well the company is doing?
Of course none of these are illegal on their face but if you add them all up into a pyramid scheme you can bet that it's objectionable to many and that in many countries it's illegal.
It's a shade of gray. Many people here believe that the importance of keeping the net neutral is huge (even while giving a wink and a nod to QOS and other realistic compromises). You can even tell by the mixed reactions throughout the comment thread that people believe this to be a very slippery slope, they want this but are worried about even precedents like this one. As your comment highlighted net neutrality can be nebulous so when you push a boundry it is quite possible that there is very little to stop you continuing to push.
Having said that I don't necessarily disagree with your reasoning, it's one of the reasons I support Aero being legal. Possibly a little hypocritically.