When you pay attention, you realize that they are both demo sites, and both are things being worked on since 2013. They are not "live" for the public or in general use, from what I can see.
Also, in both cases the projects appear to be "joint operations" between the two partners, which would permit your user data to be shared as part of the project. The companies are not third parties buying data.
Good story, but a few sniffs and the fun goes away.
There are a group of problems that sort of butt up against each other and cause the current problems in the US:
1 - the ISPs are mostly content providers / creators / distributors and the internet hurts their existing business
2 - there is little incentive (cost / benefit) for companies to fix the last mile.
3 - the costs for new players to come in and install the last mile on a full mandate (non cherry picked) basis is exorbitant and a very low return business
4 - technology is moving fast enough that any investment today must pay off quickly or be lost. Existing physical plants are still being paid off from the last round of upgrades.
5 - all of this could turn out to be meaningless the moment wireless last mile becomes viable and cost effecient
6 - the costs would be handed to consumers, who, facing already high costs would just have to pay a whole bunch more.
Google found out, it's not a good business to be in. It's expensive, there are cumbersome regulations, it's hard to make a buck - and they were cherry picking to the maximum. You don't see Google lining up to run fiber to rural, 1 ever 5 mile farm houses and little cluster villages. Yet, somehow, that is what is expected of the existing companies.
Remember too: it's not just the cost of your personal last mile. It's the cost of all of the downstream equiipment, network backhaul, and of course the amount of IP transit that has to be purchased to fulfill your service. With the short lifecycle of the equipment, standards, and standard accounting practices it would all have to be written off in a very short few years - which means it would have to go to your bill pretty much directly.
Remember too: Most ISPs are at this point on their fifth or sixth cycle of the internet equipment already. Changing the network to use Fiber would be a huge upgrade for them, they would literally have to replace every piece of equipment from end to end. It's not cheap or easy.
Ask Google. They pretty much stopped investing because they figured out they couldn't get reasonable return on their money, and it was actual hard work!
Cosplay isn't a professional thing. Cosplayers aren't getting paid to perform. They are dressing that way in tribute, and nothing else.
I don't see Disney (or any other major player) getting upset about Cosplay. They don't like companies who make and sell unlicensed "complete" costumes, but they have not and generally will not go after the cosplay crowd.
I know that. However, Techdirt people are quick to flag posts they don't agree with, and very slow to flag actual trolling. Want to make a difference? Flag the guy trying to troll me. He fails because he is way too obvious!
It's not hard to see the verdict in this one, because there is little to really debate.
The last thing the courts would want to do is create a situation where companies are encouraged to offshore data to avoid responsibilities for it. It would be easy to see every American company putting it's data into a "haven" countries strictly to avoid any and all government regulation. Think of it on par with tax avoidance, every big company does it.
I think in the end the will end up having to deal with the basic concept that if the company is here in the US, and the data is accessible and used in the US, then there is no doubt that it should be accessible via warrant or court order.
You could also consider the question from Europe of offshoring data. There is plenty of push back in making sure that the data stored in the US is respecting European privacy standards and what not. Clearly, as far as the Euro side is concerned, the data belongs to them no matter where it's been farmed out to. It's not unreasonable for SCOTUS to come to the same conclusion for data created in the US, held by companies based in the US, or for US citizens, residents, and the like.
It's in the interest of every creator, every writer, and everyone related to this sort of thing, and indirectly in the public's own interest.
You have to remember that this isn't just an abstract IP issue - it's also a performance issue. When they do the Dark Lord and Hairy Guy thing, they aren't just making pictures or whatever, they are offering a performance. They appear at your event and perform as those characters.
The question is pretty simple: if they can do this in public, then why not also allow them to make videos, movies, do theater shows, all without licensing and without consideration for the original creators?
There is little tangible benefit for Disney to turn a blind eye, but there is plenty of potential harm and creeping of the line of "acceptable abuse".
Reversing your questions is simple: What is the tangible benefits for letting Characters for Hire to continue without obtaining a license? Do you not think that if they let this one go that a 1000 other shops will set up and do the same? That would fairly obviously dilute the value of a characters and lower very directly what Disney would be able to charge for a similar service.
When you go to a Disney theme park and pay your ticket price to get in, it includes the value (especially for your younger ones) of meeting the characters. On a recent trip to the mouse trap with my family, we met storm troopers, Darth Vader, Iron Man, Baymax from Big Hero 6, The mouse and his minions, and so on. For my son especially, the pictures with the "real" Iron Man is something he loves to show his friends, and is his phone screen background. If they were common on every street corner, the value even for him would be diminished.
It's all a bit of a loop - it's often hard to express the value to the public. It's easy to get the short term "cheaper characters for your kids birthday party", but the longer term implications aren't that positive. The short term "now now free gimmie!" is easy, but almost always has implications.
They should be afraid of running stories that are either not true, misleading, or based on flimsy sources. For that, they could get sued.
The difference is pre-Gawker, online companies seemed to act pretty invincible. Since then, many sites have tightened up and you see less speculative articles and quite a bit more with some meat on the bones.
There will always be nuisance lawsuits, but some of them are valid. Honestly, I think Hogan was in the right with his lawsuit, no matter who was funding it or who was arguing it. Gawker did him wrong and continued to do harm after the fact as well. It was ugly, and needed to end up in court.
So if a site / news organization takes a step back from a poorly sourced story or sits on something for a couple of days until they have confirmation, it's probably better anyway.
Crime is a slippery thing to report. Many people just don't bother to report things. Robberies / theft is the most commonly not reported because people don't want to increase their insurance rates, or the police won't come out to take a report for a simple theft, they send you to the station. Many people just give up.
The question also is our tolerance. What wasn't socially acceptable say in 1950 may be acceptable today. A bar fight that might have landed two people in the drunk tank for the night and facing a judge in the morning instead ends up as a "won't press charges" thing of mutual combatants, with the police happier just to send people on their way.
In the US, you are individually less likely to be a victim of crime today than 20 years ago, but the total number of crimes has risen along with the population. When you add in the media echo chamber, it's not unreasonable for the public to be more aware of crime and more concerned.
You could look at the National Crime Victimization Survey - it shows trending down, but also indicates that many people are choosing not to report crimes.
You just have to consider that Harvey Weiner-stein and his ilk have single handedly tilted the stats for unreported sexual crimes... if the reports are true. Also, the MeToo hashtag should give you some good insight into how many women have been victims in their past.
What the whole Gawker lawsuit did was remind many "news" organizations (you know, the ones that are fast with rumor, short of absolute facts) that they can be held liable for crossing the line. Online journalism has gotten a pretty easy ride of it for almost two decades now. It took Gawker to go over the line and prove that there are in fact limits.
Gawker did what no media outlet should do, which is overdo it. They didn't just tell the story of Hulk Hogan and his sexploits (as they were) but rather used it as a spring board to make it personal and offensive. Running the entire video (rather than just a few neatly censored screen shots) is one of those points where it was no longer about telling the story, but about rubbing his face in it and "taking down" a famous person, mostly for promotional value it seems.
Gawker went to far, got their corporate dick slapped in the dirt, and everyone around them went "whoa, there is a limit after all!". Everyone includes lawyers who love to litigate, Mr Harder apparently being one of them. He has proven that, if nothing else, he is willing to go to the end of the battle with clients who can afford to get there.
So now, if you are a website writing a story about sexual shenanigans, you have to think for a second: Is this third hand information and innuendo enough to take the risk with? Are we reporting "Rose McGowen says she was raped" or are we reporting "someone said that they heard someone that told a story about someone getting raped".
The Gawker effect, more than anything, is to make these online sites consider their sources and their material before running it. They found out that they aren't any more special than any other form of media.
"t seemed like the (mostly) one-man War on Encryption had reached a ceasefire agreement when "Going Dark" theorist James Comey was unceremoniously ejected from office"
You started with a fail. The idea of an encryption back door was not the idea of a single man, nor was it something pushed by a single man. It's a concept that more than stretches through the various three letter agencies. In fact, the fire is burning possibly even stronger in Europe. While the Euro parliament considers a "ban", the member states are pretty much all lining up to push the concept.
So thinking some sort of cease fire happened because a single guy got kicking out for failing to lick Trump's boots is a pretty weak opening spot.
You are using standard Techdirt logic, which in this case fails. You are trying to bootstrap stuff by starting in the middle.
"To be fair to the children in question, given how they were treated I'd place more blame on the adults involved than them, and I wouldn't blame them for not calming down at that point."
The children were already hysterical and uncontrollable apparently before anything was done. This is not the creation of the cretin deputy (who should face charges). there has to be something there to start with, do you honestly think they are randomly pulling kids out of class to torture them until the scream?
"They were treated atrociously, and from the sound of it that's practically standard practice('more than ten children have been handcuffed by SROs in schools, and it is possible that the number is more than twenty-five.'),"
Each case is horrible, and should be dealt with. However, considering the number of cases schools have to deal with every day, I think you are way over reaching to suggest it's SRO or even acceptable. This seems like a very extreme case, both in the behavior of the "disturbed" children and the criminal deputy. I don't think it reflects anything other than the concept that society as a whole is trending violent and young children are no exception to that problem.
The porn czar is the leftovers of the concept of the "community standards" way of judging if something is obscene. Essentially, what was acceptable in, say, San Francisco, may not be acceptable in Salt Lake City.
That. of course, came pre-internet. It came when communities were defined by physical location, and not by how people group together. So that standard has pretty much evaporated. No sane prosecutor would be willing to work on the basis of community standards.
But hey, SLC and Utah are special, in that short bus kind of a way. They are sort of like the Amish, stuck in another century.
There is no explaining away handcuffing a child. It's an abomination. It's horrible. It's mindless.
But, as the first poster mentioned, it makes you wonder exactly WHY the child was in such a position to start with. We really have issues when children with this level of behavioral problems are dumped into the school system without a blink. That even after the police arrived that there was no calming the children down really does make you wonder.
The guy who handcuffed them should have the book thrown at them. Then someone should pick the book up and throw it at the parents and the school system who feel it acceptable to have children with significant issues in mainstream settings.
If your remarkable copying machine gets a little too efficient, it will take away too much of the money that pays to make the original. After that, you can copy the blank space, or enjoy the cat videos on YouTube.
Fragmentation is a real issue. Some people will see the positives, and some will see negatives as well.
To me it comes down to, in some ways cutting out a middle man. Cable companies are, in many ways, nothing more than an aggregation middle man. In theory if you cut them out, you can pay less.
But I don't think it's that simple. From what I can tell, many of the cord cutters are doing so with the help of Roku boxes, pirate streaming, and the like. It's a wonderful idea when there is enough content being produced in other places to "borrow". As more people cut cords and pay a whole lot less for content by essentially buying less, they may end up biting the hand that feeds them.
CBS has already made the first move with the new Star Trek series. Making that an "internet only" series (in the US, it's on TV in Canada, example) means they are driving people to sign up for their all access package. For people still paying cable, it's an extra cost, and for cord cutters, it's another bite into your "savings".
As each of the existing players gets into this, it's going to get expensive to subscribe to each service separately. What will end up happening is that new middle men will pop up to aggregate the content, and you will once again end up signing up for monthly packages with channels you don't really want, in order to get the ones you want cheaper.
Aggregation is a natural state of affairs. As you say, fragmentation is a real issue, and it will always be addressed in the same or similar manner - aggregation.
I understand that. The last mile is just a term - and I wasn't trying to imply that the half a mile the FCC is referencing is related in terms of distance.
The point of course is that a half a mile isn't a long run, and could be accomplished in more than one way. It's reasonable (IMHO) for someone within that half mile to be considered able to get service.
Tens of miles would be different, and the FCC isn't suggest that at all.
What I find interesting here is that this isn't as significant a step as reclassifying an entire industry to Title II (without an act of congress) or imposing net neutrality rules (again, without an act of congress). You cheered when they randomly raised the definition of broadband by over 600%.
By your own standards, these are things that are within the prerogative of the head of the FCC. He is doing his job, you just don't like his answers.
Half a mile is a reasonable benchmark. In real world distances, that would be 10 to 15 telephone poles apart. Under normal circumstances, a phone or cable company would be able to obtain rights and bring service if there was demand.
Further, half a mile is a reasonable distance for a short distance radio link or repeater, or even point to point (directional antenna) wi-fi link. There are many ways to bring broadband over the last mile, and certainly the last HALF mile.
You have to accept that not everything the FCC does within it's mandate will please you. The previous chairman randomly and without consultation moved the goal posts significantly, pretty much right off the playing field. You shouldn't be upset when the current one decides that it was a little too extreme and claws them back to the field of play.
Have a problem? Ask congress to do something. Wyden appears to have plenty of spare time to whip up unpassable legislation, ask him!
Any congress critter can propose any law, most of what is proposed dies before even getting a reading, as nobody wants to take it up. So Wyden's latest grandstanding is most likely to be just that, and nothing more.
On the post: Wireless Carriers Again Busted Collecting, Selling User Data Without Consent Or Opt Out Tools
When you pay attention, you realize that they are both demo sites, and both are things being worked on since 2013. They are not "live" for the public or in general use, from what I can see.
Also, in both cases the projects appear to be "joint operations" between the two partners, which would permit your user data to be shared as part of the project. The companies are not third parties buying data.
Good story, but a few sniffs and the fun goes away.
On the post: Big ISPs Lobby To Kill Attempts At More Accurate Broadband Mapping
Re: If the facts get in the way...
1 - the ISPs are mostly content providers / creators / distributors and the internet hurts their existing business
2 - there is little incentive (cost / benefit) for companies to fix the last mile.
3 - the costs for new players to come in and install the last mile on a full mandate (non cherry picked) basis is exorbitant and a very low return business
4 - technology is moving fast enough that any investment today must pay off quickly or be lost. Existing physical plants are still being paid off from the last round of upgrades.
5 - all of this could turn out to be meaningless the moment wireless last mile becomes viable and cost effecient
6 - the costs would be handed to consumers, who, facing already high costs would just have to pay a whole bunch more.
Google found out, it's not a good business to be in. It's expensive, there are cumbersome regulations, it's hard to make a buck - and they were cherry picking to the maximum. You don't see Google lining up to run fiber to rural, 1 ever 5 mile farm houses and little cluster villages. Yet, somehow, that is what is expected of the existing companies.
Remember too: it's not just the cost of your personal last mile. It's the cost of all of the downstream equiipment, network backhaul, and of course the amount of IP transit that has to be purchased to fulfill your service. With the short lifecycle of the equipment, standards, and standard accounting practices it would all have to be written off in a very short few years - which means it would have to go to your bill pretty much directly.
Remember too: Most ISPs are at this point on their fifth or sixth cycle of the internet equipment already. Changing the network to use Fiber would be a huge upgrade for them, they would literally have to replace every piece of equipment from end to end. It's not cheap or easy.
Ask Google. They pretty much stopped investing because they figured out they couldn't get reasonable return on their money, and it was actual hard work!
On the post: Disney: The Only Fun Allowed At Children's Birthday Parties Is Properly Licensed Fun
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Cosplay isn't a professional thing. Cosplayers aren't getting paid to perform. They are dressing that way in tribute, and nothing else.
I don't see Disney (or any other major player) getting upset about Cosplay. They don't like companies who make and sell unlicensed "complete" costumes, but they have not and generally will not go after the cosplay crowd.
On the post: The 'Gawker Effect' Is Chilling Investigative Reporting Across The US
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Effect this
On the post: Supreme Court Agrees To Hear Case Involving US Demands For Emails Stored Overseas
The last thing the courts would want to do is create a situation where companies are encouraged to offshore data to avoid responsibilities for it. It would be easy to see every American company putting it's data into a "haven" countries strictly to avoid any and all government regulation. Think of it on par with tax avoidance, every big company does it.
I think in the end the will end up having to deal with the basic concept that if the company is here in the US, and the data is accessible and used in the US, then there is no doubt that it should be accessible via warrant or court order.
You could also consider the question from Europe of offshoring data. There is plenty of push back in making sure that the data stored in the US is respecting European privacy standards and what not. Clearly, as far as the Euro side is concerned, the data belongs to them no matter where it's been farmed out to. It's not unreasonable for SCOTUS to come to the same conclusion for data created in the US, held by companies based in the US, or for US citizens, residents, and the like.
On the post: Disney: The Only Fun Allowed At Children's Birthday Parties Is Properly Licensed Fun
Re: Re:
You have to remember that this isn't just an abstract IP issue - it's also a performance issue. When they do the Dark Lord and Hairy Guy thing, they aren't just making pictures or whatever, they are offering a performance. They appear at your event and perform as those characters.
The question is pretty simple: if they can do this in public, then why not also allow them to make videos, movies, do theater shows, all without licensing and without consideration for the original creators?
There is little tangible benefit for Disney to turn a blind eye, but there is plenty of potential harm and creeping of the line of "acceptable abuse".
Reversing your questions is simple: What is the tangible benefits for letting Characters for Hire to continue without obtaining a license? Do you not think that if they let this one go that a 1000 other shops will set up and do the same? That would fairly obviously dilute the value of a characters and lower very directly what Disney would be able to charge for a similar service.
When you go to a Disney theme park and pay your ticket price to get in, it includes the value (especially for your younger ones) of meeting the characters. On a recent trip to the mouse trap with my family, we met storm troopers, Darth Vader, Iron Man, Baymax from Big Hero 6, The mouse and his minions, and so on. For my son especially, the pictures with the "real" Iron Man is something he loves to show his friends, and is his phone screen background. If they were common on every street corner, the value even for him would be diminished.
It's all a bit of a loop - it's often hard to express the value to the public. It's easy to get the short term "cheaper characters for your kids birthday party", but the longer term implications aren't that positive. The short term "now now free gimmie!" is easy, but almost always has implications.
On the post: The 'Gawker Effect' Is Chilling Investigative Reporting Across The US
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Effect this
On the post: The 'Gawker Effect' Is Chilling Investigative Reporting Across The US
Re: Re: Re: Re: Effect this
The difference is pre-Gawker, online companies seemed to act pretty invincible. Since then, many sites have tightened up and you see less speculative articles and quite a bit more with some meat on the bones.
There will always be nuisance lawsuits, but some of them are valid. Honestly, I think Hogan was in the right with his lawsuit, no matter who was funding it or who was arguing it. Gawker did him wrong and continued to do harm after the fact as well. It was ugly, and needed to end up in court.
So if a site / news organization takes a step back from a poorly sourced story or sits on something for a couple of days until they have confirmation, it's probably better anyway.
On the post: Court Tells Sheriff's Dept. Shackling Kids Above The Elbows Is Excessive Force
Re: "... yes, but the /fear/ of crime is rising."
The question also is our tolerance. What wasn't socially acceptable say in 1950 may be acceptable today. A bar fight that might have landed two people in the drunk tank for the night and facing a judge in the morning instead ends up as a "won't press charges" thing of mutual combatants, with the police happier just to send people on their way.
In the US, you are individually less likely to be a victim of crime today than 20 years ago, but the total number of crimes has risen along with the population. When you add in the media echo chamber, it's not unreasonable for the public to be more aware of crime and more concerned.
You could look at the National Crime Victimization Survey - it shows trending down, but also indicates that many people are choosing not to report crimes.
You just have to consider that Harvey Weiner-stein and his ilk have single handedly tilted the stats for unreported sexual crimes... if the reports are true. Also, the MeToo hashtag should give you some good insight into how many women have been victims in their past.
On the post: The 'Gawker Effect' Is Chilling Investigative Reporting Across The US
Re: Re: Effect this
On the post: The 'Gawker Effect' Is Chilling Investigative Reporting Across The US
Effect this
What the whole Gawker lawsuit did was remind many "news" organizations (you know, the ones that are fast with rumor, short of absolute facts) that they can be held liable for crossing the line. Online journalism has gotten a pretty easy ride of it for almost two decades now. It took Gawker to go over the line and prove that there are in fact limits.
Gawker did what no media outlet should do, which is overdo it. They didn't just tell the story of Hulk Hogan and his sexploits (as they were) but rather used it as a spring board to make it personal and offensive. Running the entire video (rather than just a few neatly censored screen shots) is one of those points where it was no longer about telling the story, but about rubbing his face in it and "taking down" a famous person, mostly for promotional value it seems.
Gawker went to far, got their corporate dick slapped in the dirt, and everyone around them went "whoa, there is a limit after all!". Everyone includes lawyers who love to litigate, Mr Harder apparently being one of them. He has proven that, if nothing else, he is willing to go to the end of the battle with clients who can afford to get there.
So now, if you are a website writing a story about sexual shenanigans, you have to think for a second: Is this third hand information and innuendo enough to take the risk with? Are we reporting "Rose McGowen says she was raped" or are we reporting "someone said that they heard someone that told a story about someone getting raped".
The Gawker effect, more than anything, is to make these online sites consider their sources and their material before running it. They found out that they aren't any more special than any other form of media.
On the post: The Cyber World Is Falling Apart And The DOJ Is Calling For Weakened Encryption
You started with a fail. The idea of an encryption back door was not the idea of a single man, nor was it something pushed by a single man. It's a concept that more than stretches through the various three letter agencies. In fact, the fire is burning possibly even stronger in Europe. While the Euro parliament considers a "ban", the member states are pretty much all lining up to push the concept.
So thinking some sort of cease fire happened because a single guy got kicking out for failing to lick Trump's boots is a pretty weak opening spot.
On the post: Court Tells Sheriff's Dept. Shackling Kids Above The Elbows Is Excessive Force
Re: Re: Re:
"To be fair to the children in question, given how they were treated I'd place more blame on the adults involved than them, and I wouldn't blame them for not calming down at that point."
The children were already hysterical and uncontrollable apparently before anything was done. This is not the creation of the cretin deputy (who should face charges). there has to be something there to start with, do you honestly think they are randomly pulling kids out of class to torture them until the scream?
"They were treated atrociously, and from the sound of it that's practically standard practice('more than ten children have been handcuffed by SROs in schools, and it is possible that the number is more than twenty-five.'),"
Each case is horrible, and should be dealt with. However, considering the number of cases schools have to deal with every day, I think you are way over reaching to suggest it's SRO or even acceptable. This seems like a very extreme case, both in the behavior of the "disturbed" children and the criminal deputy. I don't think it reflects anything other than the concept that society as a whole is trending violent and young children are no exception to that problem.
On the post: Utah Senator Wants To Revive The State's 'Porn Czar' Office To Combat The Threat Of Women's Magazines
That. of course, came pre-internet. It came when communities were defined by physical location, and not by how people group together. So that standard has pretty much evaporated. No sane prosecutor would be willing to work on the basis of community standards.
But hey, SLC and Utah are special, in that short bus kind of a way. They are sort of like the Amish, stuck in another century.
On the post: Court Tells Sheriff's Dept. Shackling Kids Above The Elbows Is Excessive Force
Re:
There is no explaining away handcuffing a child. It's an abomination. It's horrible. It's mindless.
But, as the first poster mentioned, it makes you wonder exactly WHY the child was in such a position to start with. We really have issues when children with this level of behavioral problems are dumped into the school system without a blink. That even after the police arrived that there was no calming the children down really does make you wonder.
The guy who handcuffed them should have the book thrown at them. Then someone should pick the book up and throw it at the parents and the school system who feel it acceptable to have children with significant issues in mainstream settings.
On the post: Google Fiber Gives Up On Traditional TV, And Won't Be The Last Company To Do So
Re: Re: Market, as much as aggregation
On the post: Google Fiber Gives Up On Traditional TV, And Won't Be The Last Company To Do So
Re:
To me it comes down to, in some ways cutting out a middle man. Cable companies are, in many ways, nothing more than an aggregation middle man. In theory if you cut them out, you can pay less.
But I don't think it's that simple. From what I can tell, many of the cord cutters are doing so with the help of Roku boxes, pirate streaming, and the like. It's a wonderful idea when there is enough content being produced in other places to "borrow". As more people cut cords and pay a whole lot less for content by essentially buying less, they may end up biting the hand that feeds them.
CBS has already made the first move with the new Star Trek series. Making that an "internet only" series (in the US, it's on TV in Canada, example) means they are driving people to sign up for their all access package. For people still paying cable, it's an extra cost, and for cord cutters, it's another bite into your "savings".
As each of the existing players gets into this, it's going to get expensive to subscribe to each service separately. What will end up happening is that new middle men will pop up to aggregate the content, and you will once again end up signing up for monthly packages with channels you don't really want, in order to get the ones you want cheaper.
Aggregation is a natural state of affairs. As you say, fragmentation is a real issue, and it will always be addressed in the same or similar manner - aggregation.
On the post: Groups Battle Trump FCC's Claim That One ISP In A Market Means There's Effective Competition
Re:
The point of course is that a half a mile isn't a long run, and could be accomplished in more than one way. It's reasonable (IMHO) for someone within that half mile to be considered able to get service.
Tens of miles would be different, and the FCC isn't suggest that at all.
On the post: Groups Battle Trump FCC's Claim That One ISP In A Market Means There's Effective Competition
By your own standards, these are things that are within the prerogative of the head of the FCC. He is doing his job, you just don't like his answers.
Half a mile is a reasonable benchmark. In real world distances, that would be 10 to 15 telephone poles apart. Under normal circumstances, a phone or cable company would be able to obtain rights and bring service if there was demand.
Further, half a mile is a reasonable distance for a short distance radio link or repeater, or even point to point (directional antenna) wi-fi link. There are many ways to bring broadband over the last mile, and certainly the last HALF mile.
You have to accept that not everything the FCC does within it's mandate will please you. The previous chairman randomly and without consultation moved the goal posts significantly, pretty much right off the playing field. You shouldn't be upset when the current one decides that it was a little too extreme and claws them back to the field of play.
Have a problem? Ask congress to do something. Wyden appears to have plenty of spare time to whip up unpassable legislation, ask him!
On the post: Supreme Court Leaves Troubling CFAA Rulings In Place: Sharing Passwords Can Be Criminal Hacking
Re: Re: Re: Re: Troubling?
Nice trolling though!
Next >>