I've always wondered why the cable companies aren't paid by the content provider for the carriage rather than vice versa as now. After all if the content provider broadcasts its product it has paid the govt for the bandwidth.
The current AT&T is nothing more than a re-named Cellular One, not the Bell system of your memory. And if you remember Cellular One wasn't the the fastest bit on the cell network either. The current "Cellular One" was the left-overs no-one wanted.
Let requester petition the EU court because you'll only consider an "erasure" if it comes from the court -- they passed the "law" let them enforce it. And if you get one, block the requester, i.e. forget them !
Too bad we can't tape the crude, rude, and down-right MEAN mouth of our Prez. He's now expanded his meanness from Puerto Rico hurricane, to the Dreamers, onto the 17 year Salvadorian refugees, and now to "half" of the world. Guess his PR for his "base" was running low.
... should have the same answer as Google's problem of removing "forget mes" and that is if a court decree or govt law "requires" such the court or govt should provide not just parameters but the EXACT account BY NAME or EXACT POST by URL in writing signed by THE JUDGE or an govt official.
I've always wondering why the cable transport company (Cable) pays the content "generator" (CG) and not the other way around since the CG gets an audience they wouldn't otherwise have, and they (CG) gets the increased ad revenue.