* If he raises prices, he will lose subscribers so there's no money to be made there.
That's exactly what's supposed to happen, it's just unusual in the US ISP business that there's enough competition that it works properly. If he's operating in a competitive market, it's his job to figure out how to deliver his services profitably. If he can't do that, well most businesses fail after all, he would have plenty of company.
I just do not like the wording that allows the FCC to pretty much decide on its own who is a fuck-up or not.
Very true, and hopefully this will be a (brief?) intermediate stage on the way to regulations that produce healthy competition. Then the FCC won't need to be so active in the market, because there will be actual market forces that can sort a lot of this out.
The core of it (IMO) is this part (not to say that this satisfies your request to Karl):
"Reasonable network management . A network management practice is a practice that has a primarily technical network management justification, but does not include other business practices. A network management practice is reasonable if it is primarily used for and tailored to achieving a legitimate network management purpose, taking into account the particular network architecture and technology of the broadband Internet access service.
6. Section 8.5 is amended to read as follows: § 8.5 No blocking. A person engaged in the provision of broadband Internet access service, insofar as such person is so engaged,shall not block lawful content, applications, services, or non-harmful devices, subject to reasonable network management. 7. Section 8.7 is amended to read as follows: § 8.7 No throttling. A person engaged in the provision of broadband Internet access service, insofar as such person is so engaged,shall not impair or degrade lawful Internet traffic on the basis of Internet content, application, or service, or use of a non-harmful device, subject to reasonable network management. 8. Section 8.9 is redesignated section 8.19 . 9. New section 8.9 is added to read as follows: § 8.9 No paid prioritization. (a) A person engaged in the provision of broadband Internet access service, insofar as such person is so engaged, shall not engage in paid prioritization. (b) “Paid prioritization” refers to the management of a broadband provider’s network to directly or indirectly favor some traffic over other traffic, including through use of techniques such as traffic shaping, prioritization, resource reservation, or other forms of preferential traffic management, either (a) in exchange for consideration (monetary or otherwise) from a third party, or (b) to benefit an affiliated entity. (c) The Commission may waive the ban on paid prioritization only if the petitioner demonstrates that the practice would provide some significant public interest benefit and would not harm the open nature of the Internet. 10. New section 8.11 is added to read as follows: § 8.11 No unreasonable interference or unreasonable disadvantage standard for Internet conduct. Any person engaged in the provision of broadband Internet access service, insofar as such person is so engaged, shall not unreasonably interfere with or unreasonably disadvantage(i) end users’ ability to select, access, and use broadband Internet access service or the lawful Internet content, applications, services, or devices of their choice, or (ii) edge providers’ ability to make lawful content, applications, services, or devices available to end users. Reasonable network management shall not be considered a violation of this rule."
If you start improvising/reciting a poem, and I film you, I may get copyright over the video, but not over your poem.
You have a copyright over the video and I may or may not have a copyright over the poem (as you say, depending on whether it's been fixed). Nobody has any copyright of my reading of the poem, because that's not copyrightable. The same with acting - the actor's performance isn't copyrightable, only a recording of it is. I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you, just trying to clarify.
I seriously hope that the Obama Administration keeps tightening its grip around the necks of the American People because we're heading close to a revolution in this country where the people are starting to get fed up with the perverted sense of entitlement that our government thinks it's entitled to.
You're hoping for a violent revolution in the next year and a half?
In this case, the content/cable industry are aware, because they have spent a good twenty years testing the market, that while their consumers will talk, they won't do much else. They are also aware, because they have spent money to make sure of it, that their regulators are in their pockets.
I think both of those things are starting to change.
This does not mean that the only two alternatives are shut up and deal with it, or do without. Publicizing and criticizing are perfectly legitimate ways to try to get companies to change their behavior. Even for something that is not a life or death situation.
In this case, I think nothing is going to save them. They will not acknowledge that they are tied to the train tracks until it's too late. Their size and inertia will not permit them to get out of the way of the Cord Cut Express and they are going to get run over. In the end, the very lack of competition they have set up is going to be their downfall. That's my prediction anyway.
It's not the programmer that put the entertainment system on the same network as the flight control system.
Indeed, if there is any physical connection at all between those systems, or any way to control flight systems wirelessly by any means, that is a disaster waiting to happen. I hope that part of the story is incorrect.
There wouldn't be so many complaints if the prices were more reasonable. If you're paying $30 a month for 500 channels and watching 10 of them, not many people are going to complain about that (some people will complain about anything). If you're paying $150/month for the same thing, that's going to be a lot harder to swallow.
That's the real problem. It should be illegal to advertise a price that's impossible to actually pay. If you want to add a carryon baggage fee and checked bag fee and water fee headphones fee and anything else that's optional, I have no problem with that. However, I cannot decline many of these fees they charge, therefore the advertised price is nothing short of false advertising.
I keep hoping that people who have grown up with technology like computers, smartphones and the internet will be more reasonable but there is still quite a few years until they come to power and by then, it might be too late.
It will be, because they will have exactly the same reaction to whatever the next big thing is - 3D printing, space travel, whatever. Unless society is destroyed by the riots after the robots take all our jobs...
But in this case, from my understanding, the actor was fraudulently induced to sign the contract, which would potentially cause a problem with the work for hire ownership.
I don't think the case hinges on this being a work for hire. It's not the cameraman claiming copyright because he's the one who fixed the work. The actor just doesn't have a copyright claim in the film, whether there was a contract or not. My understanding, anyway.