i think it would be fair to say 5 years or so, at the lowest, 20 years at the most. Otherwise you would get creepy assholes trying to capitalize on the surge of recognition for the dead person when the death is publicized.
Imagine if right now people were able to use Robin Williams to advertise something he wasn't involved in.
and you would maybe have a leg to stand on if the telcos and cable runners haven't demonstrated a long history of shady reporting and billing, horrible customer service, regulatory capture, and exploitative monopolistic intent.
No one would be screaming about regulations if the companies involved acted like they gave 2 shits about their customers.
I didn't think it was possible to type while plugging your ears and burying your head in the sand, guess i was wrong.
No one does these things BECAUSE if they tried, the REGULATIONS they are subject to would quickly remove them from their natural monopoly position.
But keep telling us how the telcos would never do something like take massive tax money infusions to build out a better network and then not build anything... oh wait- they did that.. several times even...
The 'theoretical' problems you talk about are either really happening already in smaller scale, or are part of PUBLICLY AVAILABLE future plans. The one the telcos openly admit to having. God help us from the secret bullshit.
its so refreshing when the shills identify themselves with proper references.
Daniel, your argument follows the same barebones structure as the NRA's for the last decade... "this solution isn't absolutely perfect so it should never even be considered". Fast forward to current, and not only has nothing been done about the issue, but the bickering over it has grown into a ridiculous partisan screaming match with both sides abandoning reason entirely.
The thing i see missing from all of the anti-neutrality arguments is the explanation for why all of their parade of horribles that come along with a neutral interconnection policy haven't already happened. We have had a neutral internet (for the most part) by default for almost all users because of the rate of tech adoption being fast enough that no company had time to corner any markets and impose their monopolistic will before the next jump in speeds/delivery methods forced them to upgrade the whole network. Every time neutrality has been broken/bent so far has been a negative effect.
TL;DR - The crux of neutrality is just codifying what has already been the nature of things since the 'net was born. Anyone arguing against it is either ignorant on the subject, or advocating the subjugation of users. Keep the free and open internet.
i'm sorry, but that is just flat bullshit. A performance being public or private has zero to do with whether it was paid for in the first place. Either it is public or private, period. You can then address whether that performance was authorized or not - two distinctly separate issues.
I don't think you can infer demand from consumers solely on the fact that someone put an item up for sale online... These products are printed on demand, they are not stocked on a shelf somewhere. The cost to the seller to advertise an image on a mug/tshirt/mousepad is essentially zero - so they can put as many of them up for sale as they feel like bothering with.
This is really not that shocking for CoL, if you take into account how the organization works. It is the most corporate-friendly government because corporations actually have the right to vote there, and dictate a supermajority of all council seats.