With wireless, cable, satellite, and the phone company most people probably have at least four or five different means to connect to the Internet.
Wireless and satellite are not generally viable options for home broadband - not for the sort of things people want to do with their internet connections today, let alone in a few years.
Netflix (and I'm a subscriber) is a bandwidth hog that will slow down traffic on the Internet.
Every time someone makes this claim, they're ignoring the fact that the ISP's customer requested that traffic. Netflix is not randomly spamming Verizon's network, rather Verizon's customers are attempting to use the service they're paying for.
The subscribers should.
Right. Netflix should pay their ISP, and I should pay my ISP. Netflix should not have to pay my ISP.
Under net neutrality all traffic is treated equally, so we all pay for the bandwidth hogs either in terms of increased ISP charges (to fund infrastructure) or in reduced performance,
Yes, that is one thing Title II cannot fix - there is no real competition. However, it's still better than the alternative, and we will be made to pay one way or another. The ISPs will make sure of that. The question is whether we want to pay for an open internet or not.
not to mention increased taxes on our Internet access (someone has to pay for all the regulators).
It's true that many rural areas are under served. Government grants can solve this without net neutrality.
Only if the ISPs are forced to actually spend the money on infrastructure, which is not what's happened so far.
Perhaps if the ACLU, EFF, or some other volunteer organization can represent the copy protection holder here and sue UMG to the fullest extent it would teach those responsible for buying our political system that these laws could work against them.
I think the problem here is not that UMG broke the law, but that UMG did all this to the musician and yet didn't break the law.
These corrupt media giants create (undemocratically) create bad laws...
Exactly, so suing them under those laws won't help.
That means that there will be cops, the arresting officer and the one with the tape measure to make sure that some "miscreant" is at the correct distance, or further from the scene.
Any time the police see someone recording them, they have to get out a 25' string and a piece of chalk and draw a circle indicating the no film zone. However, put the camera away and you're welcome to step inside. Makes perfect sense.
Ever wonder why we changed our laws back in the 70's? It was because the US long before came to the realization that it was an outlier in the international community in matters of copyright law, and as a consequence of which US authors were quite often getting shafted in foreign markets.
Are you claiming that lobbying from the US copyright industries had nothing to do with it?
When cameras and tech are so universally available that people will be able to take high resolution photographs from a mile away?
Lenses are not like electronics. A lens that has enough zoom to take a detailed photo from a mile away is not getting significantly cheaper. And a higher resolution sensor only gets you so far, because packing so many pixels on a tiny sensor actually runs into problems with the size of photons, which cannot be solved, so you need a much bigger sensor, which is a lot more expensive to manufacture... there's a reason expensive cameras and lenses are expensive.
Crowdsource it all you like. That will not likely get through the encryption.
That depends on how smart the ABQ police are. If they didn't pick a very strong password, several thousand PCs could definitely brute force guess it in a reasonable amount of time. If they picked something really long and/or really random, it would not be feasible, but my sense is most people don't do that.
you don't encrypt your telphone communications, and these are broadcast across publicly accessable wire lines, listening in on your conversations is completely okay then? right?
Phone lines are not publicly accessible. A better analogy would be if I'm talking to my neighbor with an unencrypted walkie-talkie, and you listen in. Not a problem, because I'm broadcasting in the clear. You have done nothing wrong by receiving my transmission. If you hear something that's clearly meant to be a private conversation, it would be rude to listen in, but IMO not immoral. And it certainly should not be illegal.