fgoodwin 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (106) comment rss

  • On the post: Reddit, Mozilla, Others Urge FCC To Formally Investigate Broadband Usage Caps And Zero Rating

    fgoodwin ( profile ), 25 May, 2016 @ 10:53am

    Re: Re:

    Congress allowed SCOTUS to redefine people as corporations?

    Howso? And what could Congress have done to stop them?

  • On the post: Techdirt Reading List: Cryptonomicon

    fgoodwin ( profile ), 15 Apr, 2016 @ 10:21am

    Re: Re: an annual read

    I thought the last third of Seveneves was weaker than the first two-thirds, but not so much as to make me think I'd wasted my time time reading it.

    So far, I've highly enjoyed every one of Stephenson's books that I have read. In addition to "Cryptonomicon" (1999) and "Seveneves" (2015), I've read "Anathem" (2008) and "Reamde" (2011).

    Of the four, I'd say I liked Crypto and Reamde the most, Anathem the least, with Seveneves somewhere in the middle.

  • On the post: Techdirt Reading List: Cryptonomicon

    fgoodwin ( profile ), 14 Apr, 2016 @ 01:07pm

    Great book

    I "read" Cryptonomicon as an audiobook a year or two ago. I thoroughly enjoyed it, and (w/o giving away the plot) how Stephenson tied modern era cryptography to the work of the WWII code-breakers.

    I don't know if this book is classified as "historical fiction", but he does place his characters in historical settings. I loved the discussion of the ethical dilemma of using decrypted information, if using it will save lives, but give away the fact that you now have broken the enemy code.

    Stephenson also talks about Bletchley Park and even makes room for Alan Turing and some mythical friends! Fascinating stuff!

  • On the post: Here's Verizon's Shiny New Assault On Net Neutrality

    fgoodwin ( profile ), 20 Jan, 2016 @ 10:29am

    If Bode says it, it must be so

    Have the courage of your convictions and file a formal complaint with the FCC if you think Verizon is violating the FCC's net neutrality rules.

    While this blog post serves to inform, it does nothing to change anything.

  • On the post: Appeals Court Says US Government Cannot Deny Trademarks For Being 'Disparaging'

    fgoodwin ( profile ), 22 Dec, 2015 @ 10:57am

    Hail to the Redskins!

    Hopefully, this means the end of the federal government's persecution of the Washington Redskins!

  • On the post: Authors Guilded, United, And Representing… Not Authors

    fgoodwin ( profile ), 30 Jul, 2015 @ 10:00am

    Hypocrisy, thy name is TechDirt

    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.

  • On the post: FCC Signs Off on AT&T DirecTV Merger, And Early Indications Are The Conditions Are Hot Garbage

    fgoodwin ( profile ), 24 Jul, 2015 @ 06:30pm

    Re: Not so fast! This is a good thing!

    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.

  • On the post: FCC Signs Off on AT&T DirecTV Merger, And Early Indications Are The Conditions Are Hot Garbage

    fgoodwin ( profile ), 24 Jul, 2015 @ 06:27pm

    Is the FCC really that dumb?

    "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?

  • On the post: AT&T Argues Net Neutrality Violates Its First Amendment Rights

    fgoodwin ( profile ), 27 May, 2015 @ 06:51am

    Re: They are not a person

    @JR: The First Amendment also protects freedom of the press, right?

    Are you saying that the free press clause of the First Amendment does not apply to the New York Times? Because the New York Times is a corporation (and a pretty big one at that).

    If you agree that the New York Times has freedom of the press, then you must also agree that the First Amendment applies to corporations.

  • On the post: Finding And Responding To The Media's Favorite Ridiculous And Misleading Free Speech Tropes

    fgoodwin ( profile ), 20 May, 2015 @ 11:03am

    Garland shooting related to Muhammad cartoons

    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).

  • On the post: Our Shiny New Net Neutrality Rules Won't Be Worth Squat If The FCC Isn't Willing To Act

    fgoodwin ( profile ), 16 Mar, 2015 @ 01:21pm

    Re: BAA

    @TMC:

    "Does the FCC have the authority to, I don't know, eliminate the binding arbitration agreement clause in all ISP-customer contracts?"

    Probably not.

    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.

    It has not done so.

  • On the post: Breaking: House Judiciary Committee Tells FCC It's Going To Block Net Neutrality Rules

    fgoodwin ( profile ), 02 Mar, 2015 @ 12:07pm

    Nothing more than political grandstanding

    Speaking as a Republican myself, I view this as nothing more than political grandstanding.

    They don't have the votes to override the inevitable veto. This strikes as little more then whining. I'm no fan of Title II reclassification, but I think the FCC is on firm legal ground here.

    So in the event the ISPs sue to overturn the NN rules, I think the FCC wins this time around.

  • On the post: Guy Comcast Got Fired Now Suing Comcast For Violating Federal Privacy Law

    fgoodwin ( profile ), 21 Oct, 2014 @ 11:04am

    Plaintiff contradicts himself

    First, O'Rourke claims he never told Comcast he worked for PWC.

    Then, he claims Comcast googled his employment information.

    Assuming both are true, then Comcast got his employment info off the public Internet.

    So how is disclosing public information a violation of privacy laws?

  • On the post: No Matter What Net Neutrality Rules Are Put In Place, There Will Be Legal Challenges

    fgoodwin ( profile ), 09 Oct, 2014 @ 09:03am

    Re: Rule of Law

    So how would you change things?

  • On the post: FCC Comments Aren't 'Votes' And They Shouldn't Be, But That Doesn't Mean Public Opinion Isn't Useful And Important

    fgoodwin ( profile ), 09 Oct, 2014 @ 11:10am

    Splitting the baby

    Mike:

    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.

  • On the post: VoIP Pioneer Worried About Net Neutrality Reclassification — But Without It, Broadband Providers Could Kill VoIP Startups

    fgoodwin ( profile ), 24 Sep, 2014 @ 08:16am

    ROW is not a subsidy

    Mike, you should know better.

    Cable companies pay for the right to occupy the public right of way, it is not a subsidy to them.

    Ever heard of a franchise fee?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cable_television_franchise_fee

  • On the post: Everything You've Wanted To Know About Net Neutrality But Were Afraid To Ask

    fgoodwin ( profile ), 22 Sep, 2014 @ 12:07pm

    Cable modem was never Title II

    Masnick writes:

    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.

  • On the post: Net Neutrality Is Not 'The Government Takeover Of The Internet' — Or Why Republicans Should Support Reclassification

    fgoodwin ( profile ), 19 Sep, 2014 @ 07:13pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Democrats were against Title II before they were for it

    orbitalinsertion writes:

    The letter isn't revisionism.
    Obviously not, so what part of my post is revisionism?

  • On the post: Net Neutrality Is Not 'The Government Takeover Of The Internet' — Or Why Republicans Should Support Reclassification

    fgoodwin ( profile ), 19 Sep, 2014 @ 07:11pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Democrats were against Title II before they were for it

    Anonymous coward writes:

    Because most people connected to the internet through the phone lines back then which were title II.
    True, but what does that have to do with the letter from Dems asking the FCC to not apply Title II to broadband?

  • On the post: Net Neutrality Is Not 'The Government Takeover Of The Internet' — Or Why Republicans Should Support Reclassification

    fgoodwin ( profile ), 18 Sep, 2014 @ 07:26am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    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?

Next >>