You know that Zero Rating is not a core part of Network Neutrality, right? It's, as you said, a loophole put in place by the people who don't want Network Neutrality to function.
Don't mistake bad regulation to mean that regulation is bad.
a law that protects against discrimination on the basis of "sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, or sexual orientation."
So how does kicking Taylor off Twitter run afoul of that?
Twitter has enforced its policy on “Violent Extremist Groups” in a way that discriminates against Plaintiffs on the basis of their viewpoint.
Sorry, where does it say that a person's viewpoint is protected?
From what I've read about it, yes it summarizes how your ISP handles files differently based on header information and TLS settings. It does NOT measure throughput of apps on your phone as many summaries assume. It supplies the same file from the researcher's servers twice: once with and once without popular streaming headers attached.
If the file transfers consistently slower when it says it is from Netflix, but doesn't when identified as originating from CBS Sports, then it's a good be your ISP is filtering/throttling Netflix data based on that header information.
I thought using everyone's publicly viewable, and 4th amendment exempt, face as their password was Apple's concession to making encryption law-enforcement friendly.
I believe you need to be legally deceased in order for a cryonics company to freeze you. Otherwise the company is responsible for killing you, since they don't technically know how to resuscitate someone yet.
We don't need to split hairs on this, but I will anyway.
YouTube provides access to its service via an API which requires authorization credentials. Yes, Amazon developed their own app, but they absolutely did it with support from YouTube. Withdrawing that authorization is different than blocking and entity's access to some public endpoint.
I tend to agree, there's no justification for this change and it shouldn't survive judicial review. Unfortunately the ISP lobbyists are waiting to malign the court and scream that SOMETHING must be done on a legislative level. It will be 100% AstroTurf and generous campaign contributions driving our own congressional representatives to codify rules based on an unpopular fiction.
Sorry, I was obliquely referring to the fact that ISPs seem to believe they can buy federal legislation to preempt the FCC from doing its job. That's what this whole gambit is about, trying to create a situation where it's "necessary" for Congress to write new rules which permanently benefit corporations instead of constituents.
Is it worth pointing out that there was Internet Access before Broadband? We used to connect to ISPs via modems and the connecting phone system utilities were governed by Title II. Just because the bits per second are higher doesn't change the rationale behind these rules.
Yes all these arguments center around the idea that "everything must belong to someone" which is explicitly countered in the U.S. Constitution's Copyright Clause. ALL "Writings and Discoveries" MUST after "limited Times" belong to NO ONE.
Again: Please say "Network Neutrality" in full rather than referencing just "net" neutrality. ISPs operate networks to provide their customers with access to the Internet (a network of networks). They are common carriers delivering goods as contracted, and those networks should not be conflated with the Internet. Websites and website content, while seen by some as "the Internet" are not networks, and need no neutrality enforcement.
Can I, as a public citizen, request and receive these location records about anyone with 3rd party phone records? No? Then it's not public information, is it? The only reason the government has access to this info is because it's the government, and any analogy you draw trying to claim this private information is akin to public is invalid.
On the post: Washington State Laughs In The Face Of FCC Attempts To Ban States From Protecting Net Neutrality
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Don't mistake bad regulation to mean that regulation is bad.
On the post: Famous Racist Sues Twitter Claiming It Violates His Civil Rights As A Racist To Be Kicked Off The Platform
I read it again...
Sorry, where does it say that a person's viewpoint is protected?
On the post: Israeli Tech Company Says It Can Crack Any Apple Smartphone
Re: Re: Re: Cellebrite claims it can crack any Apple device
On the post: Apple's Incoherent App Approval Process Strikes Again, Net Neutrality App Banned For No Real Reason
Re: Re: But does it work?
On the post: Apple's Incoherent App Approval Process Strikes Again, Net Neutrality App Banned For No Real Reason
Re: But does it work?
If the file transfers consistently slower when it says it is from Netflix, but doesn't when identified as originating from CBS Sports, then it's a good be your ISP is filtering/throttling Netflix data based on that header information.
On the post: FBI Says Device Encryption Is 'Evil' And A Threat To Public Safety
Face It
On the post: Hopefully For The Last Time: The US Has Zero New Works Enter The Public Domain On January 1st
Re: Re: Re: We need to extend copyright
https://waitbutwhy.com/2016/03/cryonics.html
On the post: Google And Amazon Are Harming Consumers And Behaving Like Obnoxious Toddlers
Re: "no longer supporting"
YouTube provides access to its service via an API which requires authorization credentials. Yes, Amazon developed their own app, but they absolutely did it with support from YouTube. Withdrawing that authorization is different than blocking and entity's access to some public endpoint.
https://developers.google.com/youtube/registering_an_application
On the post: Mark Cuban Still Has Absolutely No Idea How Net Neutrality Works
Re:
On the post: Ajit Pai's Big Lie
Re: Re:
On the post: Ajit Pai's Big Lie
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Ajit Pai's Big Lie
Re:
Newsflash the FCC is the legislative solution and it was working okay until we let regulatory capture get so out of control. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/151
Pretty sure the new "legislative solution" to this is to end corporate campaign donations and other "free speech" that sure looks like bribery.
On the post: Ajit Pai's Big Lie
Re:
On the post: Ajit Pai's Big Lie
History
On the post: Monkey Selfie Photographer Says He's Now Going To Sue Wikipedia
Re: Re: Work for hire.
On the post: Monkey Selfie Photographer Says He's Now Going To Sue Wikipedia
Re: Re: Photo booths
No one, and everyone. It's like beautiful, man.
On the post: Monkey Selfie Photographer Says He's Now Going To Sue Wikipedia
Re: Re: Some legacies are better than others
On the post: Monkey Selfie Photographer Says He's Now Going To Sue Wikipedia
Re:
On the post: Dear Al Franken: Net Neutrality Is Not A Magic Wand You Can Wave At Any Company
Public Service Announcement
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_carrier
It's as different as requiring a carrier deliver packages from any store VS requiring a store to sell items from any manufacturer.
On the post: Law Prof Argues Cell Location Records Shouldn't Need Warrants Because Cell Phones Have Encryption
Stop Right There
Next >>