I think the feeling is they don't want to pay for bandwidth again since they already paid for the HBO library and are already storing/transferring bits related to it.
You know, that sounds remarkably like the little spat they had with Netflix, where they demanded Netflix pay them for the 'privilege' of carrying their service, even though both Netflix and Comcast's customers had already paid their share.
Sadly, I'm sure the humor based upon their hypocrisy is lost on them.
"If that tool is taken away from us, 215, and, some untoward incident happens which should have been thwarted had we had it, I hope everyone involved in that decision assumes the responsibility and it not be blamed, if we have another failure, exclusively on the intelligence community."
That statement is a not so subtle 'hint' that if the politicians take away a tool, any tool from the spy agencies, then if something ever happens, they might end up getting blamed for it(never mind that that would happen no matter what they did or did not do).
Politicians are extremely risk averse, and as such will almost always take the 'better safe than sorry' route in order to minimze risk to themselves, and their ability to get re-elected, and as a result almost none of them would be willing to risk opening themselves up to the accusation that they let [random violent attack or event] happen by taking away the tools that might have prevented it from the spy agencies.
Clapper's argument, the idea that despite the fact that his precious spying has accomplished nothing beneficial to the public, it should still remain just in case, may seem incredibly stupid to a member of the public, but to a politician I imagine it's quite persuasive.
Usually those nominated for Darwin Awards are nominated by other people, they don't do it themselves.
Any system which can be hacked, will be hacked, so by forcing people to provide extensive personal details before they are allowed to participate in a forum for reporting corruption, either the ones putting it together are incredibly stupid, or their idea of 'stopping corruption' is the same as the USG's, 'If you can't see it, it isn't there', in which case the best way to get rid of corruption is to get rid of those exposing it.
If a main defense of a program is how thorough and comprehensive the oversight of it is, in order to curb and prevent abuse of it, and it turns out that the oversight is non-existent, especially if the reason for that is the agencies themselves refusing to co-operate, then the response should be simple enough: Shut down the program until real oversight is put in place.
Don't 'take the matter under advisement' or 'suggest (more toothless and ignored) changes', the oversight isn't there, that was a primary defense for the programs, therefor shut down the program.
Most likely because they haven't heard of him before they use his service. Having a reputation for suing people who expose his crap service can make it a dicey choice for people to tell others what a lousy service he's offering, and you can be sure he knows it.
The FCC tried that before, and do you know what it got them? Sued by Verizon, with the judge ruling against the FCC, and telling them that if they wanted to apply the rules that they were trying to, it had to be under Title II, not the framework they were using at the time.
You want to blame someone for the 'nuclear option' being used, blame the ISP's, who couldn't even be bothered to follow the previous, pathetic 'regulations' that they had all but written before.
Did you even read the article you linked to, or did you just see the title and assume it supported your position?
Seriously, two minutes, at most, and you would have run across this half-way in, which rather undercuts the claim that they 'changed their mind':
Company spokeswoman Anne Marie Squeo denied that the online video provider was reversing itself.
“Netflix supports the FCC's action last week to adopt Title II in ensuring consumers get the Internet they paid for without interference by [Internet service providers],” she said in an email to The Hill. “There has been zero change in our very well-documented position in support of strong net neutrality rules."
The article claims that certain groups are accusing Netflix of changing their mind, based upon a statement they made, but the comment by the Netflix spokeswoman makes it pretty clear that that is not the case.
'TechFreedom held a fireside chat on Feb. 27th with two FCC commissioners, Ajit Pai and Mike O’Rielly, and the two of them concurred that the new regulations are far-reaching, largely unchecked and pose a threat to consumer bills and to innovation in the industry.'
Hmm, now where have I seen those names before...
'And, while dissenting commissioners Ajit Pai and Michael O'Rielly have been screaming about the travesty that the rules haven't yet been released publicly, what they conveniently leave out is that currently they are the sole reason for the delay. The FCC can't publish the final rules until the FCC has incorporated their dissents, and neither Pai nor O'Rielly have handed in their dissents. '
They can go on and on about how 'terrible' the rules are, and spin apocalyptic scenarios to their little heart's content, but if they really believe what they are saying, then the absolute best thing they can do is push to make the rules public as soon as possible, so everyone else can judge for themselves.
As long as they refuse to do so, I'd say it's safe to assume that they're just spreading crap as far as the eye can see, throwing a fit over the fact that it wasn't enough to stall, change or eliminate the vote, and acting like petulant children in refusing to do their jobs by turning in their dissents.
Unless they legally cannot offer legal/financial aid to students outside that limited area, I think it would be nice, and ever so funny, if they added a 'Toeppen clause', where the rules regarding aid are waived with regards to lawsuits filed by him, given how blatant his move is to make sure the students can't avail themselves of aid from the school.
It's less 'trust', and more 'we've seen the alternative, and it's not pretty'.
We've had a good look at the 'restraint' shown by the cable companies, and they've shown themselves to have very little when it comes to squeezing as much money out of their customers as they can get. Now it's time to try something else. Maybe it'll work better, maybe it won't, but leaving things as they were wouldn't have helped anyone other than the cable companies.
Again, it's not at all clear why this has become a partisan issue when the public is all for net neutrality, but it is, in fact, now a partisan issue.
It's a partisan issue because the cable companies know that turning it into one is the best way to keep the two sides bickering, making it all but impossible for them to come to a clear agreement about any new laws or rules regarding the issue.
Side A will introduce something, and B will automatically oppose it because they weren't the ones who proposed it. Then Side B will suggest something, and A will shoot it down because they weren't the ones who brought it forward. So on and so forth, and all the while the cable companies do whatever they want, making 'donations' and 'suggestions' as needed to keep the fight going.
You're also generally much safer with a crime syndicate in the area than police.
As long as you don't interfere with a crime syndicate, or threaten your profits, odds are they won't bother with you, as it's counterproductive and a waste of time and money. They're in it for the money, personal whims generally take a backseat to that.
Police though... they get paid the same whether they have a boring day where nothing happens, or a 'fun' day when they get to beat someone black and blue for not groveling enough or 'resisting arrest'. As such they have no real reason not to do so.
'No doubt, the number of affected websites will decrease in the coming hours and days, but, as this post was being prepared, affected sites included NSA.gov, Whitehouse.gov, and FBI.gov, including the page the FBI uses to accept confidential tips.'
Government pushes for intentionally weak encryption, and in turn have their sites vulnerable to it.
a bill designed to expedite the pursuit of everyone but actual infringers at the expense of free speech and online anonymity.
Like pretty much any other 'anti-piracy' bill/law, this will affect everyone but the actual pirates. Pirates are already breaking one law, why would they care about doing so for another? They'll either ignore the law completely, or simply put in some bogus contact information(might I suggest the home address and phone numbers for the idiots proposing this law?).
Meanwhile, with how vague the wording is(what qualifies as a 'substantial part'? What about 'commercial'? How about 'directly or indirectly'?), lots of legitimate sites will be all but forced to put personal contact information on their sites, but hey, I'm sure that couldn't possibly lead to unpleasant results by people who may happen to disagree with the content on the site, or those who enjoy making the lives of others miserable. /s