Ignoring that Google actually opposed the rules because, like ISPs, they didn't like that consumers had to OPT IN to let companies track and sell private financial data and browsing history.
The corresponding Google letter to the FCC opposing their privacy rules:
Yep. I mean, they were modifying user data packets to track people around the internet for TWO YEARS before security researchers even noticed. It took another six months and an FCC fine to get them to even provide opt out tools.
And that was WITH inconsistent regulatory privacy oversight. Imagine what happens now.
Not enough. Verizon's Unique Identifier Header actively modifies the packet to make cookies irrelevant. In the deep packet inspection age, cookies are kind of a relic.
Noted and corrected, thanks. That's amazing I've always assumed to table meant the exact opposite of what it means in the Senate. Appreciate the correction.
Wireless wasn't included in the 2010 rules, but was included in 2015's do-over.
They have long included wireless (capped, expensive) and satellite (capped, expensive) as examples of the incredible wave of competition in the sector, ignoring, intentionally, the high price of both.
"FCC has done nothing to indicate it actually is a consumer watchdog."
Right, except for net neutrality. Or the new privacy rules that force transparency and working opt out tools. Or its attempts to stop Comcast from using state laws to hamstring competitors. Or its efforts to ensure a functional shift from copper to IP without screwing people on legacy systems. Or the constant effort by Wheeler to highlight the lack of competition above 25 Mbps. Or....
You folks insisting this latest FCC suffered from the faults of past iterations are simply seeing what you want to see.
"boycotting businesses and a free market principle"
That requires having alternatives to choose from. That's kind of hard when you have people who profess to adore "free markets" letting AT&T, Verizon and Charter write state laws protecting their legacy fiefdoms from competition.
In fact I'd bet 90% of the folks I see going on about "free markets" when talking about telecom work tirelessly to ensure the exact opposite.
"I might be wrong but it smacks of "this wouldn't be happening if Hillary got in" articles despite the fact that it totally would."
Yeah, you're wrong.
I wrote that article too. I don't like her policy positions and didn't vote for her. Because somebody is pointing out the dumb things Donald is doing does not automatically mean they support Hillary.
"These things are connected due to TD's perceived pro Hillary bias. It might not be a lot but it is definitely there."
I wrote this article, don't like Hillary, don't support a huge swath of her positions, and didn't vote for her.
So if somebody is detecting "pro hillary bias" coming from me just because I'm pointing out the awful choices Donald Trump is making (running in viciously-stark contrast to his pre-election promises), that's entirely cognitive dissonance occurring in their own head.
I think we do a pretty good job here of looking beyond partisan patty cake and calling a spade a spade, regardless of what color-coded jumpsuit the person in question is wearing.
After 16 years of writing about telecom I have a real nose for this bullshit, as it gives off a very specific odor. This sort of disinformation works incredibly well. These tactics have done real damage in terms of ISPs being able to pass state laws that hamstring towns and cities' ability to make their own local broadband infrastructure decisions.
I think you'll start seeing a push this direction. In large part because many telcos are giving up on residential DSL, meaning that the incumbent cable providers are only going to get stronger and have a broader monopoly.
They really like to light up already buried fiber in a single housing development, then insist the entire market has "launched." There's a few areas (North Carolina, Austin) where they're really working because they've been forced to, but by and large these deployments are just cherry picking a few small locations.
Depends. Fiber has faster top speeds upwards of 1 to 10 Gbps, much faster than cable or DSL. It's also cheaper to maintain and more reliable that coax or DSL. But it also depends on how much speed you need. For many, 25 to 100 Mbps is more than enough (for now).
On the post: Trump's Internet Brigades Shocked To Realize The Government Just Sold Them Out On Privacy
InfoWars
https://www.infowars.com/google-soros-behind-fake-news-on-internet-privacy/
Ignoring that Google actually opposed the rules because, like ISPs, they didn't like that consumers had to OPT IN to let companies track and sell private financial data and browsing history.
The corresponding Google letter to the FCC opposing their privacy rules:
https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/100319291940/2016-10-03%20Google%20Letter%20(WC%2016-106).pdf
On the post: Consumer Broadband Privacy Protections Are Dead
Re: Re: That didn't take long...
And that was WITH inconsistent regulatory privacy oversight. Imagine what happens now.
On the post: Consumer Broadband Privacy Protections Are Dead
Re: Modify cookies
On the post: Senator Thune Begins Pushing A 'Net Neutrality' Bill That's Likely To Kill Net Neutrality
Re: Table
On the post: FCC Boss Falsely Claims His Attacks On Net Neutrality Have Already Made The Wireless Sector More Competitive
Re: conflating different types
They have long included wireless (capped, expensive) and satellite (capped, expensive) as examples of the incredible wave of competition in the sector, ignoring, intentionally, the high price of both.
On the post: Happy New Year From Comcast: Usage Caps, Rate Hikes, And More Sneaky Fees In 2017
Re: FCC is a toothless watchdog
Right, except for net neutrality. Or the new privacy rules that force transparency and working opt out tools. Or its attempts to stop Comcast from using state laws to hamstring competitors. Or its efforts to ensure a functional shift from copper to IP without screwing people on legacy systems. Or the constant effort by Wheeler to highlight the lack of competition above 25 Mbps. Or....
You folks insisting this latest FCC suffered from the faults of past iterations are simply seeing what you want to see.
On the post: Happy New Year From Comcast: Usage Caps, Rate Hikes, And More Sneaky Fees In 2017
Re: Re: Re: Comcast Billing
That requires having alternatives to choose from. That's kind of hard when you have people who profess to adore "free markets" letting AT&T, Verizon and Charter write state laws protecting their legacy fiefdoms from competition.
In fact I'd bet 90% of the folks I see going on about "free markets" when talking about telecom work tirelessly to ensure the exact opposite.
On the post: T-Mobile Applauds Likely Death Of Net Neutrality Under Trump
Re: "gutting the FCC as a consumer watchdog"
On the post: Trump Appoints Third Anti-Net Neutrality Advisor To Telecom Transition Team
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Finally!
Yeah, you're wrong.
I wrote that article too. I don't like her policy positions and didn't vote for her. Because somebody is pointing out the dumb things Donald is doing does not automatically mean they support Hillary.
Binary thinking is the enemy, kids.
On the post: Trump Appoints Third Anti-Net Neutrality Advisor To Telecom Transition Team
Re: Re:
On the post: Trump Appoints Third Anti-Net Neutrality Advisor To Telecom Transition Team
Re: Re: Re: Finally!
I wrote this article, don't like Hillary, don't support a huge swath of her positions, and didn't vote for her.
So if somebody is detecting "pro hillary bias" coming from me just because I'm pointing out the awful choices Donald Trump is making (running in viciously-stark contrast to his pre-election promises), that's entirely cognitive dissonance occurring in their own head.
I think we do a pretty good job here of looking beyond partisan patty cake and calling a spade a spade, regardless of what color-coded jumpsuit the person in question is wearing.
On the post: Florida Voters Vote Down Bill Aimed At Hamstringing Solar Competition
Re: as a floridian, couple points to add...
Glad Floridians took notice.
On the post: Florida Voters Vote Down Bill Aimed At Hamstringing Solar Competition
Re:
On the post: Too Little Too Late: FCC Finally Realizes AT&T's Zero Rating Is Anti-Competitive
Re: Re:
On the post: Colorado Voters Continue To Shoot Down Awful Comcast-Written Protectionist State Law
Re: Statewide Referendum
On the post: Gizmodo Completely Misses The Point Of Cord Cutting
Re: Re: Also missing
On the post: Hillary Clinton Thinks Real-World Military Responses To Hacking Attacks Are A Nifty Idea
Re: Re: Re:
I really like your cyber.
On the post: AT&T, Poster Child For Government Favoritism, Mocks Google Fiber For Government Favoritism
Re:
On the post: Broadband Industry Think Tank Claims Comcast Plan To Charge More For Privacy 'Pro Consumer'
Re: Protect piracy?
On the post: Broadband Industry Think Tank Claims Comcast Plan To Charge More For Privacy 'Pro Consumer'
Re: Broadband
Next >>