TechDirt (and the rest of the tech community, as far as I can tell) never met a pirate it didn't love.
So online theft, copyright violations, etc. are not problems, as far as they are concerned. Where is your righteous indignation when pirates copy wholesale the intellectual property of others? Is that how you advocate for authors' rights, by advocating for the "rights" of pirates?
Oh, I forget, you don't recognize "copyright" as a right.
The Dallas Morning News is traditionally a very conservative newspaper. Its direct competition, the Dallas Times Herald (not exactly liberal, but certainly less conservative than the DMN) went out of business in the early 90s, so there isn't an alternative voice to challenge the DMN's conservative pronouncements.
"The tl:dr version is that AT&T's taking existing (and in some cases finished) deployments, pretending they're totally new deployments only made possible by the DirecTV merger, and the FCC's helping them".
It amazes me that Bode, a third party w/o access to all the merger data, can figure this out, but the FCC staff, with all the merger info at the fingertips, cannot.
Is the FCC really that dumb or is Bode really that smart?
So how do you come down on the Garland, TX gathering of Muhammad cartoonists?
I believe they have a First Amendment right to draw such cartoons. As to whether Muslims take offense: yes, they can take offense (just as Christians took offense at piss Jesus and shit-stain Mary), but Christians didn't take up arms against those so-called artists.
And despite protests from veterans, I think Under Armour can print its Iwo Jima-basketball t-shirt if it wants to. But it can expect disapproval from some (as well as support from others).
"Does the FCC have the authority to, I don't know, eliminate the binding arbitration agreement clause in all ISP-customer contracts?"
That clause is consistent with the Federal Arbitration Act, which favors binding arbitration. Binding arbitration has been a feature of cellular contracts for probably a decade, so if the FCC had a problem with such clauses, it has had plenty of time to eliminate them in the wireless context.
For once, I think I agree with just about everything you wrote.
One side or the other (or maybe both) will be pissed when the FCC releases its final NN decision, but like you said, it won't be because the pro-NN comments were ignored. By law (the APA) all relevant comments must be considered.
It's too bad that so many of the pro-NN comments were devoid of facts, and heavy on vitriol. Simply relating the problems that users have with their ISPs is just one example of how citizens could submit facts instead of opinions.
But it is so much easier to fire off a tirade without even reading the very document they are commenting on.
the largest period of investment in broadband infrastructure happened before the big Brand X Supreme Court decision, when broadband was still considered to be under Title II.
It is true that DSL was considered a Title II service before it was reclassified in 2005. But the largest providers of broadband Internet access in the U.S. are by far the cable TV companies. And their infrastructure was never classified as Title II.
In the 2002 decision that classified cable modem service as a Title I Information Service, rather than a Title II Telecommunications Service, I think the FCC made a mistake, but what they didn't do was reclassify cable modem from telecom to information service; it was never a telecom service to begin with.
So to say all broadband was Title II before Brand X is nowhere near correct.
According to the government, Microsoft was a monopoly and even filed an antitrust lawsuit against them. So my question stands: would the government have made a better monopoly than Microsoft when it came to OS software?