I've got a pretty simple return, and the online companies have been free the last few years. Any 1040 or 1040EZ is still free to file, but now Form 8889 screws that up. That's the form that has to be submitted if you use an HSA in your health plan, which the government has been pushing.
So they mandate that tax filing has to be free for simple returns, then mandate that you file paperwork that makes your return not simple. This the the effect of tying health care to taxes.
But since we're banning forms of communication that aren't actually being widely used, clearly the best response to a folder titled in English is to ban the use of French. Only 1.12% of the world is a native speaker, so the disruption would be minimal.
That's where we disagree, then. I believe this should be seen as the consumer's traffic.
The result is the same, no matter who is throttling, or optimizing, or whatever it should be called. People are getting a degraded experience, through no affirmative choices of their own, due to the actions of a company somewhere in the chain.
As the party actually displaying the content, that gives Netflix a lot of power to be the one controlling the message. Now they are doing the same thing ("adjusting" the video) but not telling anyone about it since they are doing it by choice. And, surprise!, not being totally up front about it.
I understand why they are doing it, but it seems like a bit of a double standard to throw Verizon to the wolves over throttling without telling people about it, raking T-Mobile over the coals for throttling on an opt-out basis, but completely defending Netflix for doing the same things.
If they had been open and honest about this and provided an opt-in within the app, they could have permanently claimed the moral high ground on the issue. Not that I think it's illegal (the Telcos are just blustering), but it's certainly a missed opportunity.
a) "Google" isn't some generic term that just happens to be used by a tech giant like "Apple" is. Using that very specific term might imply some relationship between the two. b) The ONLY thing covered on the site is news regarding Google. c) The site's logo, while using different colors, seems to use a similar font as the official Google logo.
It's no great leap to think that somebody unfamiliar with the site, and visiting for the first time, might be confused about the source of the content. The initial inquiry certainly could be considered unnecessary, given the limited reach of this site, but hardly evil.
"We don't want Apple to create a back door. We just want them to cut a hole in the wall. But they can totally frame it in and put a covering over it, and even put a lock on it! As long as they give us a key, perhaps one made of gold. But no back door, that would be wrong."
Batteries and all other removable parts (optical drives, RAM, HDD) will have to be removed, transferred to a plane that will fly just behind the passenger jet, then will be returned to the user for a small "security fee" that will cover the cost of the parallel flight (no more than a few hundred dollars each).
They'll buy a whole fleet of new cargo planes, but when people catch on and stop bringing laptops, opting instead to just buy new ones when they land, the TSA will have to start answering questions about how far this "cord cutting" fad will go. Don't worry, they'll say, they didn't want to transport all those old laptop parts around anyway.
They'll keep the fleet of cargo planes, though, and get a massive bailout for being too big to fail.
I'm surprised at how dismissive Glyn was at this clause. Once the data is there, all it takes is access to connect all the dots. That's exactly why mass collection is so dangerous in the first place. Once the government/hackers/anybody has this, it's analysis and release can only be delayed, not stopped forever.
That impact hasn't leaked into ad revenue, nor has it leaked into ratings. The people who’ve traded down have tended to not be sports fans, and have tended to be older and less affluent.
Cord cutters and cord trimmers tend to be young, affluent consumers who are just tired as hell of paying an arm and a leg for channels they don't watch. And, if recent surveys are any indication, there are a lot of users who don't watch ESPN and are tired of paying for it.
You and ESPN are talking about different revenue streams. If all (or rather, most of) the people dropping ESPN aren't watching anyway, then it may be completely true that ratings and ad revenue aren't impacted.
Is there any data showing the percentage of revenue that ESPN gets from carriage fees vs ads? If 90% of subscribers never turn to ESPN, but subscription fees only make up 30% of revenue (just making up numbers), then really only 27% of revenue is at risk to cord cutting, instead of the bigger sexy 90% number that these doom and gloom articles throw around.
ESPN is just a middle-man. Most of their revenue ends up in the hands of the NBA and NCAA, with smaller contracts for other leagues (17 NFL and ~18-20 MLB games/year). I'm sure they license clips of plays/games from nearly every sport, so there will be some impact around the sports world, but it won't be evenly distributed. The college football racket, in particular, may be the bloodiest casualty, as they deal with lawsuits of their own on the other end already.
They award the contract to a new company, who is required to purchase the (newly devalued) IP, then the parks buy those names for pennies on the dollar, and finally, return the facilities to their original names by the end of the year.
SCOTUS is not making any moral statements about Arbitration vs Litigation, it's merely pointing out that the US Congress passed the Federal Arbitration Act, which takes priority over State laws.
Your elected representatives (or those of your great-grandparents, in this case) passed an awful law, with numerous unforeseen consequences, but it is not inherently Unconstitutional. As pointed out many times recently, they refuse to be judges of the wisdom of pieces of legislation, merely judges of its legality.
They got this one right, but that doesn't mean the law is just.