This is misleading. The article should be captioned as:
"Verizon's Hand, Shoved So Far Up Ajit Pai's Ass, Refuses To Guide Him To Brief Congress"
That man doesn't say a word until Verizon tells him to.
Wouldn't it just be easier to build a wall?
White Supremacy website advocating [politician name here]: "We've been blocked by Facebook!"
Sen Rye: Complain, and your stuff will be restored or hell hath a fury of $75k per instance!
WS website: "Awesome!"
Politicians hell bent on removing hate speech from the internet: "What the ever loving hell, Rye? Now ISIS is going to..."
ISIS: "Put our shit back up."
Rye: "Tell Facebook to do it."
America: "WHAT THE EVER LOVING HELL, RYE?!"
Trump: "Nothing wrong with Rye's proposal. Allows websites and news adoring me back at top of searches. Admiration of me will knock those other nasty pages down in search so no one sees. Win-win."
Me: *turns off the computer*
"The change will take effect on January 14, 2019"
Under AT&T's new stupidity, shouldn't this be rounded up to Feb 1, 2019?
Asking for a friend.
"I get fatigued every time the President changes, the head of the FCC changes, and regulations swing from left to right,” Stephenson said in remarks tonight at the Wall Street Journal’s WSJ Tech D. Live conference in Laguna Beach."
There's a way to remove your frustration and fatigue:
Stop AT&T from being assholes to its customers.
I'm lost here.
Denuvo claims piracy is the reason for a loss of $21 million.
However, as I read the reviews of most sports games released today, I see people upset over the use of microtransactions to force players to pay even more for a game which should have been complete upon release.
These reviews rarely exceed 3 stars (out of 5) or garner a rating of 4 (out of 10), which the majority being disappointment.
While I will give some credit to Denuvo's claim piracy can affect *some* sales loss, it's blatant fraud to ignore the true factors resulting in a loss of sales.
True piracy is getting people to pay much more for a game released incomplete.
Excuse me, I need to make sure I understand your statement correctly.
You're stating because I refuse to allow comments into my own personal area, unsolicited, it is the same thing as entering a public area and asking the speaker to cease?
You sir, are a moron, but feel free vomiting vile rhetoric on the belief you're making a point. I assure you I will not flag your comment for being a moron.
I'll simply excuse myself as your ignorance gives me a headache.
Throughout human history, it has always been the few who work to silence the voice of the many through various laws, regulation, and tools.
Remember, the original point of copyright law wasn't to protect works, it was to prevent works from being spread to others.
The internet is no different a technology than was the first printing press. Immediate reaction was information could spread quickly, educating people, or seeding thoughts of uprising against governments, thus it was necessary to ban such spreading of ideology.
This is what we're seeing, from the EU to the US, governments are working to ban the "printing press", and history repeats itself.
What's even more troubling is this regulation isn't directly tied to government. People, daily, tell others to "shut up" because of information they disagree with.
How is it an intelligent species, who prides itself on ideology and culture, then immediately turn and try to ban any ideology or culture which is not in alignment with their own?
Techdirt often reported the many sites which have turned off comments over the years and have even introduced their own comment-blocking system on the site.
All so others can easily carry out their own moderation, while voicing opposition when others do the same.
Typical the hypocrisy spreads.
You're either against all forms of censorship or for it. There is no middle ground.
The second one presses the "flag comment" button, they are for censorship in all its forms.
So perhaps remember this as governments continue to work having sites moderate their own content.
Poetic justice, I'm afraid.
Finally, before anyone throws out that idiotic xkcd comic, remember: tossing someone out for being an asshole is still stifling the speech of another, or moderating the conversation.
Don't like what someone has to say? Then perhaps the one removed from conversation need not be the one speaking.
If the French get their way, all the jokes about their role in WWII will be "forgotten", replaced with "facts" on how the country won the war instead.
I will never understand why so few people can have the power to silence so many.
In every country around the world, every government body is trying to censor the internet.
I should point out the police were called thanks to Monsanto, who were upset a civilian was removing weeds without Roundup.
I had to add a bit of levity against another example of fear mongering destroying common sense as outlined in the article.
Mario Puzo: "I'll make him an offer he can't refuse."
ISPs: "We'll make you an offer you can't get cheaper anywhere else."
The internet is the greatest human invention, allowing the world to freely distribution ideas and works all the while immediately making it easy to ban the stuff they don't like.
"Both your companies have benefited enormously from the free and open internet protected by the United States and its allies"
Would this "free and open internet" be before or after Google pays the $5 billion to an ally.
I don't consider myself too old for technology (yet, anyway), but I will never fathom why anyone would hook an internet cable to their television set.
Let's remove the privacy issue for a moment. Most TVs still use a remote, and last time I checked, these were horrendous to use as "keyboards".
More importantly, none of the software on a television is designed well enough to make the experience pleasant for the user. "Android" != perfection.
There are so many alternatives to attaching the network cord/WiFi that I cannot feel sorry for those whose privacy is lost over their "need" to...
"And, look, to some extent, Red Shell might be getting an overly bad rap here." There is no "some extent". Red Shell deserves everything they're getting, along with the publishers stupid enough to pull this stunt.
What's not addressed in the article is how Red Shell works, along with publisher requirements, which takes Red Shell's "anonymized" data and links it directly to the user's account.
This was discovered by users in Elder Scrolls Online, in which Zenimax Online Studios (ZoS) insisted this was an accidental release (coincidental timing to a job opening of a new marketing specialist who can push sales using an online store).
However, the story didn't add up, and users quickly found themselves being "identified" by the app.
I'm extremely disappointed Red Shell is playing the victim here, when they know full well how publishers are using their tool.
Users have reported Red Shell can be deleted without affecting the game.
For PC users, this is great news.
For console owners: you're screwed.
"With the FCC making it very clear it's a glorified rubber stamp, that leaves the DOJ as the only real wild card in terms of whether any meaningful conditions get applied to this deal."
Customers can do a great deal to force a company to change its behavior.
However, their insatiable selfish desires for the latest shiny quarter all but prevents this.
Twas a day "boycott" actually terrified companies.
Now, they just laugh at the word.
Imagine, briefly, if *every single ISP customer* in the US stood up against these companies by simply not paying their bills.
I highly doubt for a second ISPs would stand their ground.
Perhaps Techdirt reach out to one of the authors of the bill? Here, I'll help: https://www.mpaa.org/who-we-are/#contact-us
"If the gaming industry doesn't correct course soon, we could easily see a slowdown in an industry otherwise primed for massive growth."
Nope. Never going to happen because gamers will not change their behavior.
Almost every game known for having loot boxes continues to climb in sales.
Doesn't matter if the gamer actively buys loot boxes are not, the game is selling.
If consumers want loot boxes to go away, stop buying the damn game.
I don't agree with the chart's assessment cord cutting is responsible for increased rates.
I blame the distributors, who constantly force cable companies more money to charge for shows, including forcing them into "bundles" of channels owned by the same distributor.
These "blackouts" have been just as frequent over the span of 18 years.
Cord cutting has an impact, for sure, but when people are forced to pay $8/mo for ESPN, and this is one channel we're aware of, it makes you wonder how many other "monthly fees" we're paying for other channels.
Cable needs shows to be viable. Without them, what's the point of cable?
Distributors figured this out a long time ago.
This is why cable companies started allowing ads to be injected into broadcasts.
I'm not defending cable companies here, but to ignore the 1.2 trillion ton elephant in the room is ridiculous.
Just as an FYI to support this: notice how many of these distributors are now pulling from places like Hulu and Netflix to push their own monthly service site.
Eventually, distributors behind television shows will become obsolete. There won't be a platform to stream on, and those platforms whose bridges they're burning now are creating their own content, bucking the trend of old school TV.
Can't come soon enough, frankly. Just how many CSI shows does a station need, anyway.
There's a fundamental problem with this article and it's ignoring the obvious: even if there are 4 carriers or just 3 carriers, THERE IS NO COMPETITION IN THIS SPACE.
There hasn't been in decades, just like the cable industry.
Competition means competing on price, which none of these companies have ever lowered. Each has the same, identical entry price point for the same, identical features.
Now with Zero Rating!
No one cares about this merger. No one cars it'll cost jobs. It's between two of the smallest carriers in the US, and even after the merger, will still be the smallest carrier of Big 3.
In addition, the article loves to believe these jobs will be "safe" without the merger, but that's a false position to make.
Sprint has been losing customers over the past 5 years, and it hasn't done much to "expand" its business. Retail shops (or more accurately, kiosks) have been shutting down for a while now.
These people *are* losing their jobs now. This merger won't stop this.
A business can't compete if it doesn't have any customers. History shows this to be true as well.
I'm not harping on the position of the article. I'm harping that it's using the same crap tactics at pushing an agenda most other "point" articles have been making of late.