I understand the appeal of this, codifying the subjective enforcement that already happens, but I think there are some heavy downsides. It's transferring onus from an objective action, to a subjective state. I don't think anyone pulls out their phone and says, I'm going to drive while distracted now. When you're distracted, you don't notice you're not paying attention. This encourages drivers, instead of a flat ban on holding a phone, to approach that nebulous divide between attentive and distracted. Dance back and forth with injury and death, and see if you come out a winner today. Smart. I can't see reduced enforcement and higher penalty making a difference, we should all watch to see what happens to the accident rates in CO.
What percent of the "Don't Know" folks would have an opinion if we were talking about a utility they better understood? These surveys should try to gauge support for consumer protections instead of leaving the results at "it's too complicated for a fifth of respondents".
We also have to be careful of ISPs co-opting the language. If we get a million people just saying they want net neutrality and Open Internet, Comcast and Verizon are planning to hold that up as proof that people don't want government oversight of "the Internet". It's doublespeak and it's false.
Don't let them muddy the waters, be clear in the terms you use and what they mean. We DO need regulation of Internet Service Providers, but NOT censorship of the Internet in general.
Re: They're not lying. They're just not telling the truth.
Yes, they see the infrastructure as private property, and they intend to do whatever they want with it. You can see this mindset in his poor sidewalk analogy. The Mayor is the FCC, the mailman is Netflix, and the homeowner is the ISP. The people/customers/constitutes are... well... uhhh... I guess maybe they're the groceries in the ISP homeowner's fridge?
To have consumers embodied in any human role in that analogy, the ISP needs to be a guy who owns the concrete sidewalk on someone else's land. Of course that makes it entirely reasonable for the homeowners (customers) to ask the mayor(FCC) to prevent Sidewalk dude from denying people entrance to their homes. It also makes it painfully obvious why installing 10 different sidewalks in your front yard isn't a viable solution.
So there's a chance that maybe this violent criminal will have to financially pay for the damage he caused? Uh, how about the criminal nature of his actions? How about his violations of the Authority vested in him by the State? This should be a much WORSE crime than if it was perpetrated by a random mugger.
Yup, the asymmetrical nature of all these transfer speeds is indicative of how they view Internet connectivity as a consumption platform. Forcing consumers to consume more is beneficial to them in two additional ways, they can continue to claim that it is an Information Service (not Telecommunication) to avoid regulation, and they can charge for the asymmetric peering which occurs because of their captive consumer base.
Seems like they've seen too many episodes of "cop consultant" show where the "not cops" go out an violate all kinds of laws/rights and then report back where the evidence is likely hiding.
There's no such thing as unlimited data. The physical limitations of the specification and the duration paid for comprise a hard limit on the amount of data that can be provided.
I'm fine with "unlimited" plans going away because they never provided them and they never intended to. What they should sell are unmetered plans which provide access to X bit-rate for Y time-period. It's the customers' decision whether they make use of the connection or allow it to idle.
Trump administration making it very clear the goal is to defang and defund the FCC, Google Fiber's path could get even more complicated in the form of fewer regulatory allies in the fight against incumbents.
With fewer rules and regulations we will see TONS of new competitors pop up in the completely free market! Right? Unless, maybe there's some fundamental preexisting barrier to entry in this market, keeping incumbents up and innovation down...
Wikipedia says it's also a symbol for St. Eustace; both patron saints of hunters. See?!?! This is what happens when people don't properly defend their trademarks!
If other video providers don't like it, they're all free to build national wireless data distribution networks and unfairly leverage them as they see fit.
Oh, wait. No. No, they're not allowed to do that at all.
Re: Re: Just because they can't drive themselves safely
It's a spectrum. There are classifications vehicles fall into relating to how much human control or oversight they require. There's also an argument that cars become more dangerous when they require less human oversight without offering full autonomy, because the operator will inevitably lose focus.
On the post: Colorado Legalizes Another Vice: Texting While Driving
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Colorado Legalizes Another Vice: Texting While Driving
Glad it's not my state.
On the post: Sorry East Texas: Supreme Court Slams The Door On Patent Jurisdiction Shopping
On the post: Cable Industry's Own Survey Shows Majority Support Net Neutrality Rules
Under a Rock
On the post: A John Oliver Net Neutrality Rant Has Crippled The FCC Website A Second Time
Re:
We also have to be careful of ISPs co-opting the language. If we get a million people just saying they want net neutrality and Open Internet, Comcast and Verizon are planning to hold that up as proof that people don't want government oversight of "the Internet". It's doublespeak and it's false.
Don't let them muddy the waters, be clear in the terms you use and what they mean. We DO need regulation of Internet Service Providers, but NOT censorship of the Internet in general.
On the post: New Verizon Video Blatantly Lies About What's Happening To Net Neutrality
Re: They're not lying. They're just not telling the truth.
Yes, they see the infrastructure as private property, and they intend to do whatever they want with it. You can see this mindset in his poor sidewalk analogy. The Mayor is the FCC, the mailman is Netflix, and the homeowner is the ISP. The people/customers/constitutes are... well... uhhh... I guess maybe they're the groceries in the ISP homeowner's fridge?
To have consumers embodied in any human role in that analogy, the ISP needs to be a guy who owns the concrete sidewalk on someone else's land. Of course that makes it entirely reasonable for the homeowners (customers) to ask the mayor(FCC) to prevent Sidewalk dude from denying people entrance to their homes. It also makes it painfully obvious why installing 10 different sidewalks in your front yard isn't a viable solution.
On the post: Guy Fined $500 For Criticizing Government Without A Permit Sues Oregon Licensing Board
On the post: Legal Threat From Creator Of Wall St. Bull Statue Even More Full Of Bull Than Expected
On the post: Deputy Loses Immunity For Battering Arrestee, Tightly Handcuffing Him For Three Hours As 'Punishment'
New Australia
On the post: FCC Commissioner Thinks Ultra-Fast Broadband Just a 'Novelty'
Re: Re: 640K ought to be enough for anyone....
On the post: Rudy Giuliani To Head Up Trump's Cybersecurity Team As The Internet Laughs At Giuliani's Security Bona Fides
You guys, these are the "best people" out there. So Great. You wouldn't believe how smart. Trust me.
This is how we're rewarded ambiguity in campaign statements. Would anyone have been excited if he'd been naming these names the whole time?
On the post: Court Documents Appear To Confirm The FBI Is Using Best Buy Techs To Perform Warrantless Searches For It
Re:
Great entertainment; poor due process.
On the post: Verizon Cracks Down On Unlimited Data Users, Claims Nobody Wants Unlimited Data Anyway
Re: Find and Replace
On the post: Verizon Cracks Down On Unlimited Data Users, Claims Nobody Wants Unlimited Data Anyway
Re:
I'm fine with "unlimited" plans going away because they never provided them and they never intended to. What they should sell are unmetered plans which provide access to X bit-rate for Y time-period. It's the customers' decision whether they make use of the connection or allow it to idle.
On the post: Top US Surveillance Lawyer Argues That New Technology Makes The 4th Amendment Outdated
Not 'what' search, but 'who' does it!
I'm terrified to consider what this man thinks visiting your doctor for a colonoscopy entitles him to do.
On the post: Google's Larry Page Got Bored Of Disrupting The Telecom Sector With Google Fiber
Proof is in the Pudding.
With fewer rules and regulations we will see TONS of new competitors pop up in the completely free market! Right? Unless, maybe there's some fundamental preexisting barrier to entry in this market, keeping incumbents up and innovation down...
On the post: Dunks And Drunks: Jagermeister Blocks Milwaukee Bucks Logo Trademark Application
Re:
On the post: AT&T, Verizon Laugh At The FCC's Last-Minute Attempt To Crack Down On Zero Rating
Spectrum Competition
Oh, wait. No. No, they're not allowed to do that at all.
On the post: Snowden's 'Proper Channel' For Whistleblowing Being Booted From The NSA For Retaliating Against A Whistleblower
Re: Obama loves war
On the post: Uber And California DMV Fight Over Definition Of Self-Driving Cars
Re: Re: Just because they can't drive themselves safely
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autonomous_car#Classification
Next >>