Doesn't seem that long ago that Police were demanding we outlaw entire technologies that would destroy evidence or make it more difficult to obtain, and result in "good guys" unable to take "bad guys" off the streets. What changed?
Securitas AB pulls up Scooby-Doo villain mask to reveal Pinkerton and asks the gang to stop telling people about things it did in the past.
"Jinkies, you're still alive?"
This is a win-win play for Content Company ISPs. They get us to argue that regulation of content on the Internet is anathema to American ideals, and then they get to turn around and proclaim "SEE?!?! We TOLD you that Net Neutrality was a bad thing" because they're constantly trying to conflate the Internet with the private Networks they operate.
Access to the Internet is not the Internet. Content is not a utility, access is. Regulating access is not regulating content. The faster we split these companies into Access components and Content components, the faster we'll be able to actually improve price, availability, and clear consumers' rights for all Americans.
First thing I thought when reading this headline:
"Good thing I've already got New Zealand crossed off my list."
(╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻
Sorry, just "balancing" this table. What were you saying about National Security and the farce of inspecting information at the border?
This FCC seems like a child who's through playing with a toy and has cast it aside, yet when someone shows interest in it they "were still using it!!!" even when they've clearly stated otherwise. They don't want it, but they don't want anyone else using it either.
It's also an interesting argument that the State can't step in to fill the void until the courts resolve whether the FCC's abdication was legitimate in the first place. Is that how these policies usually go into effect, void AND in-place until overturned by a court?
If ISPs are operating as if the FCC has no mandate over them, then the State should also be able to operate similarly. At least until the courts replace that mandate.
Yes, it seems one of the goals here is to keep children, and therefore young adults, ignorant on the persons and policies which govern their lives.
I bought a gallon of milk in the grocery store last week, and I actually got a measured gallon of the listed substance for the posted price. It also didn't make me ill when I consumed it.
https://www.fda.gov/downloads/food/guidancecomplianceregulatoryinformation/guidancedocuments/foodlabelingnutrition/foodlabelingguide/ucm265446.pdf
https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfcfr/CFRSearch.cfm?fr=101.7
https://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceRegulation/GuidanceDocumentsRegulatoryInformation/Milk/default.htm
I'd wager that the government does thousands of things right in your life, it's just transparent when it's running smoothly.
There may be years of litigation before we prove that we have done what we said we would.
I'm not clear how it would take so long to prove what you've already done if it was anywhere close to as cut and dried as he tries to say. Unless litigation is a stalling tactic while you run around laying fiber you said was already lit.
Yes, it's not just that the math doesn't work out, it's that the philosophy of the request doesn't work. He might as well ask "why can't we put the sound of one hand clapping on the moon?"
I assume you're being sarcastic and are attempting to build a straw-man to argue against. I also assume you have no issue with this blatant false advertising because you read their use of "unlimited" as sarcastic.
"you get more data and information about a customer that then allows you to do things like monetize through alternate models of advertising as well as subscriptions"
I canceled my HBO after reading this yesterday.
Does Facebook stream? I don't pay them much attention, but I wasn't under the impression they had an a la carte or subscription streaming media consumption model. Or are they just included because they're a big tech company AT&T thinks is taking their ad money?
What does that have to do with the price of tea in China?
Yup, this was my thought as well. How does anyone know if there was even a recording unless it is preserved, presented in court, and the administrator testifies that it's him being recorded without consent?
The cameras and officers all went back into service despite having proven to be utterly useless when it mattered most.
How do we get to a world where officers are in deep shit if they don't have a recorded record of what happened at the end of the day?
Re: Re: Re: 'What's that, I can't hear you over the shredder.'