I could buy their arguments (I wouldn't agree with them, just buy into them), if it weren't for the copyright levies. See, the levies are already paying legacy media companies for your second copy. You can't say you aren't. And therefore, banning personal archival copies on the basis that your second copy is lost revenue is bunk.
Obama has spent most of his term in office pandering to Republicans while at the same time giving lip service to the Democratic party. His biggest successes have supported republican policies. He'll just be showing his true colors when he signs in TPA without TAA.
Its happened twice, and while the technical folks have said this isn't supposed to happen (and the customer was told its impossible), Comcast has implied there currently exists no technical limitation preventing this from happening. This is implied by the statement from Comcast that they might be able to implement a technical measure to prevent this from happening, quoted in the Ars Technica article.
So for something thats not supposed to happen, its gonna keep happening, cause there is nothing to prevent it from happening.
Given the fact that any free email host has a 'technical measure' to prevent this very action, I wonder if Comcast's lack could be considered negligence?
Re: We Need to Aim for Perfection not this Crap Story
Other commentors have mentioned this general case, but i have some specific examples, and a better question. See, at a junior high (5th-8th grade) near my home, it has become common for the children to decide that playing frogger in the traffic is a fun past time. I have been in an accident because some kid mistimed his jumps, and a car had to swerve to dodge the kid. The real cost of that 4 car accident was potentially higher then if the car had hit the kid. So here's the real question, do we cause the multi car accident or do we hit the kid? The automated cars might be able to all swerve and reduce the multi-car accident's damage, but you can not eliminate the pedestrians and bicycles on the road and you can not predict the actions of those not tied into the automated network.
NIcve of you to pull out of the threaded duscussion. I have done my homework. I do not read what you read. I am asking for you to explain your conclusions so I understand them, because clearlyI do not. You elsewhere have given us this:
"...provides guidance in the form of factors on how the Commission will apply the standard in practice..."
to support your claims, which is the last sentance for this block:
A Standard for Future Conduct: Because the Internet is always growing and changing, there must be a known standard by which to address any concerns that arise with new practices. The Order establishes that ISPs cannot “unreasonably interfere with or unreasonably disadvantage” the ability of consumers to select, access, and use the lawful content, applications, services, or devices of their choosing; or of edge providers to make lawful content, applications, services, or devices available to consumers. Today’s Order ensures that the Commission will have authority to address questionable practices on a case-by-case basis, and provides guidance in the form of factors on how the Commission will apply the standard in practice.
Your quoted line reads to indicate that The Order provides factors to guide the application of the general standard that ISPs can not unreasonably disadvantage or unreasonably interfere with general access to the internet.
I fail to see how this provision does anything to grant the FCC power to compel where users go, and what users read. This regulation has no authority over website operators and other content creators, and so can not compel the injection of content as they could with broadcast television.
So, I again plead with you, please provide the analysis of the quoted region to explain how your 3 claims of regulatory horrors are proven by this section.
Yeah, I kinda assumed you were pointing me at the actual rules document, rather then the press release version without the actual legal language. That was my mistake Read the summary. Still don't know which provisions support the claims you made. Pointing me at a 5-page summary without the specific language which could easily make or break your claim does not prove your point. Pointing me at a specific passage would be the way to do it. You are attempting to state a conclusion from a legal analysis, but refuse to share the actual analysis, or point to any details.
Pointing me at an 80+ page document and telling me to read it does not bequeath your understanding of what is likely a paragraph buried in the middle of the document. That's why Other commentators and I are all asking for you to cite a specific passage. You have instead told us that all the evidence is on your site, but the last entry for net neutrality was in 2011 (based on using your search tool and typing in Net neutrality).
I am beginning to believe you aren't interested in reasoned debate.
Could you please point either directly to the sections of the rules that support these claims or to an article that does? I've read the rules, I did not see that anywhere in the proposed Title II rules, but I am not a lawyer, so the true impact of a section may have been missed. I would love to be properly educated on the subject.
Re: ADP has "no legitimate reason for ADP to cut off Zenefits"? -- AT WILL.
Except that they claim to have legitimate reasons (beyond greed) to cut off Zenefits. They have repeatedly claimed either traffic spikes or security, but have failed to provide any evidence. They have lied to a court about their motives in cutting off Zenefits.
Why are they trying to give a reason? What they are cutting Zenefits off from is standard industry practice. That could cost them far more then Zenefits customers, as large HR/Accounting firms might not want to work with a product that has shown the willingness to cut them off. They need to somehow dodge the PR bullet they just ate, and this article is about their flailing attempts to do that.
The way to shame ADP into admitting the truth is highlighting the attempt to hide the fact that ADP requires money if your firm is big enough.
Re: Re: Re: Net Neutrality Embraced by the dumbest among us
While I support many of Obama's economic sucesses, I certainly dont support his entire economic platform (bank bailouts bah!), and beyond economics I have few good words to say about his actions. I would in general not consider myself an Obama supporter, and I did not vote for him in the last election. Nor does the fact that Obama supports Title II make it an 'Obama Regulation" (evidence suggests that Title II was on the table before the White House gave it's support). However your attempted Ad Hominim does not address my questions.
You see, in a debate, the normal discourse is for two sides to present their view, and then present evidence/analysis to back up their claim. I asked a question for you to clarify your point, your response was to attack my character, dismiss my points off hand without actually refuting them and suggest I research your position for you. As I noted that I did not see your point having read the rules, I do not see how reading them again would improve things. Except, I expect your true goal is to drive me to read your site to learn the truth. However, I will give you another chance. If the truth is important to you, could you at least direct me to an article on your site with a detailed analysis of the regulations? I would love to properly debate the merits of your position, but I need to understand the details of your position to do so.
Re: Net Neutrality Embraced by the dumbest among us
And yet we have a number of small ISPs that welcome Title II. Most of the complaints about Title II coming from small businesses are concerns that also applied and were completely ignored back during the years of active Title II-less Neutrality rules. Somehow now that we are looking at Title II based rules, they are big concerns. There is one truely new regulation that could actually prove burdensome to a small business, and that's the as yet undetermined privacy regulations. But those regulations are something we need, in light of all the efforts public and private to get our data by any means possible.
You argue against your very point. The reason we have NN rules is because of those very shortsighted companies. We only have Title II because of...those shortsighted companies (who want you to forget they sued to end the rules, and are the reason a court told the FCC to use Title II).
So, remind me, which burdensome regulation is it that drive the small ISPs out of business?
Could you go into more detail on this? Perhaps explain how the rules as currently enacted perform as you claim? The NN rules as currently listed require ISPs to deliver the requested data regardless of source or potential interference with the other businesses of the ISP. Could you please explain how these rules implement FCC control over what content you are allowed to access, because I dont see that, having read the rules.
Actually, its an alleged copyright violation, which is both a US law and an Indian law. The poster is being threatened with criminal penalties under Indian law, but Github received a US-law based copyright complaint. The two actions are related, but distinct.