Telecoms and content providers should NEVER, EVER, EVER mix. This raises not only zero rating issues, but also speech issues. An online or TV commentator is less likely to criticize the failures of the broadband industry if said industry owns said commentators (see: John Oliver). Also this may be the primary reason they are doing so, to control the narrative through more misinformation and outright lies over truth and facts.
They have the presumption, the audacity to think that Canada, UK, Turkey, or Australia has absolutely ZERO pharmaceutical production standards, they are insinuating that these countries are akin to India, Malaysia, or some other country with lower standards in producing pharmaceuticals.
the inherent flaw in the "The backdoor only for good guys" argument is two-fold, 1) it assumes that encryption can determine who is a "good guy" from a "Bad guy" and 2) AND MORE IMPORTANTLY it assumes that *WE* can determine the "good guys" from the "bad guys". Even "good guys" do not so good things when presented the opportunity (See: LoveINT)
I propose that to hold a public office (mayor, governor, legislator), you NEED to pass a High School Equivalency test in Social Sudies/US Civics every 6 months, because politicians have the memory of a goldfish apparently. These are BASIC CIVICS lessons folks, and our public officials are failing at that.
what the CoC and the Forbes article is potentially unconstitutional. I will tell you why.
lets take the 2 pres debates and VP debate. I am involved on a community that has streamed them, even though they are free elsewhere (youtube, etc.), the purpose of the single stream is to have everyone on the same page when discussing the debates, instead of part of us watching Fox, part watching CNN, part watching NBC, etc.
so to shut these "nano-piracy" (Whatever the fuck that means, i think they just technobabbled straight from star trek, but ehh..) sites down, imo, is nothing short of the government restricting the dissemination and discussion of relevant information, ie. free speech, ie. a 1st amendment violation.
Undoubtedly by freeing up entry into the taxi entertainment business the new ordinance will reduce the revenues of individual taxicab companies; that is simply the normal consequence of replacing a cartelized with a competitive market. But the plaintiffs exaggerate when they predict ruination for themselves. Buses and subways and livery services and other taxi substitutes have not destroyed the taxi business; nor has Uber or Lyft or the private automobile or for that matter the bicycle. Taxicabs will not go the way of the horse and buggy— at least for some time.
The same argument could be made for the entertainment industry, and internet providers, VERBATIM (changing taxis for respective industries ofc).
so by your definition, you people want to cancel said contract and revert control BACK to the US government, from a private entity. THAT makes you not only a leftist, but FULL ON COMMUNIST (See:Venezuela, USSR).
Aside from that, that is a VERY dangerous move, as the USGovt cannot be trusted with ANYTHING having to do with the internet, as it is a) incapable to do due to resources, or more importantly technical reasons. and b) cannot be impartial when administering the internet. (What happens when a war breaks out between the US and another state?)