I've read position statements from both sides, and it seems the ISPs are trying to claim they have to manually adjust the service rate for every plan.
Rather than, you know, jsut offering a line item discount that can easily be slipped on to any bill. Using mechanisms they absolutely already have to provide statement credits. Because they have those right? They have a way to correct billing errors? Or did they intentionally build a system where every adjustment is bespoke and requires building an entirely new plan in an effort to confuse and shortchange consumers?
I said it with broadband maps, and I'll say it with this billing issue. This shouldn't be an issue. In a healthy market, Comcast would have used the pre-existing postal address database that started popping up decades ago and some manpower to index every home that can be connected or passed. I continue to be baffled that comcast can claim to know exactly how many homes it 'passed' for a broadband deployment, but not how many were actually connected. There is no reason a robust computerized billing system couldn't setup a flag on a customer account for billing subsidies. That flag both triggers the discount, and adds itself to reporting they use to claim the subsidy. The discount isn't a part of the plan, the discount is a part of the customer. Basic OOP! You don't add a discount to the plan, thats stupid. The plan isn't cheaper. The bill is. The discount shouldn't ever require identifying legacy service plans.
"No Pegasus, no services, no secretly obtained information played any role in the 2019 election campaign. They lost because they lost. They shouldn’t look for such excuses today.”
I think this might be a serious unforced error that is exposing much more than they wanted to. At first I was thinking:
Nice job moving the goalposts Poland. Like this is masterful spin. The issue is not that surveilance was used to affect the election - as this quote claims. The issue is that after the election, while the opposition was doing investigations into election irregularities, the government was shown to have engaged in an ongoing use of malware to perform "oversight" of the investigation. at least that appears to be the obvious motive.
But I keep rereading this and I don't recall there ever being a claim the spyware predated the election investigation. But according to this quote, they had that spyware on the prosecutor's phone during the election, and simply didn't use the information gleaned from the illicit surveillance.
Its been a pattern in government scandals in the modern age, with PM Johnson, Guilliani, Trump, and the Cuomos all going through this cycle.Minor scandal breaks, deny. More info comes out, deny. uncontestable proof comes out, simultaneously deny it happened and claim is was all legal. Finally, confess to the wrongdoing, still denying it was wrong, and accidentally admit the scandal was much bigger. Its a very weird spin to use, one that just asks a bunch of questions that weren't in the public eye and only brings more eyes to the problem.
If you don't understand public/private key encryption, you are in good company with the UK government.
Your point is one Techdirt repeatedly makes. Encryption is math. There is no such thing as encryption that can only be decoded by the recipient. As has been true throughout history, encryption (or the codes/cyphers that proceeded it) is only as valuable as the encryption key. Modern Public/Private Key encryption is almost universally based on Diffie–Hellman key exchange, a method for exchanging "public" encryption keys whose encryption is than decoded by a "private" key held by the recipient.
Security comes because these keys should be very large (>= 1024 bits, about 300 decimal digits), each one should be unique, and there is no practical means of factoring very large numbers quickly, a key step in breaking the encryption. Even if the encryption is broken, it only breaks the encryption between those 2 specific people.
The Proposals at question insert a 3rd encryption key into the mix. That 3rd key will be universal by design - a skeleton key for governments and law enforcement. This presents the very problem you are concerned about - once you can break encryption with that key once, you can break any encryption that accepts the law enforcement key. And once you have the single point of failure, even an impractical brute force approach becomes valuable.
Encryption only 'encodes' data. Ever. That is all encryption ever does. its just a much more complex math behind the code. In the end Encryption's results are just a more complex form of Enigma. I don't know how to say any different. While your phone is locked, the contents are encrypted. This prevents low effort data dumps and obscures the contents of the phone if a dump is achieved. This encryption would be strong but various exploits are known that allow phone cracking tech to work, not to mention cloud backups storing encryption keys. End-to-end encryption deals with data in transit. Absent exploits, Duffie-Hellman Key exchange with a unique RSA-1024 or better key is currently near impossible to crack. ARSA-1024 key has not yet been publicly factored and is not expected to break for at least a few years, barring some major breakthrough.
As far as I gathered from Ars Technica, the cartridges in question are for large format printers with less onerous DRM than home office multifuction printers.
I expect that the business class machine has a much higher price point, justifying the less onerous DRM. I find the articles suggestion that Canon is doing this for all ink cartridges to be the most questionable decision.
Right, which is why the focus on big tech is wild. By any metric, Telecom exercises more monopoly control than google. The ability of the consumer to change providers re: google is much higher than for comcast.
I never said that w have to "go after literally everyone else". "Big Tech" is an umbrella term that describes issues with companies in at least 4 separate markets (ads, search, social media feeds, online shopping), each market requiring solutions tailored to the issues and facing that particular market. Proposed solutions to address big tech treat all these markets as the similar enough, treat the entire market as though the biggest players are the only players, and/or completely fail to consider the long term implications of their proposals. Addressing anti-competitive behavior isn't as simple as saying google can only serve the bay area, which is 95% of the existing toolset for antitrust. By contrast, broadband regulatory powers, such as local loop unbundling, already exists and the bureaucratic groundwork can start right now with a comment period.
And thats the core. You've moved the goalposts.
I’m amazed you were allowed to publish this article given that Masnick himself subscribes to the outdated consumer welfare standard and prolly likes the status-quo as it is.
I pointed out that nothing in this article actually opposes Mike's philosophy. That Mike is unhappy with the status quo. Nothing you have said since contrasts that point. Please though, please clarify why Mike would have barred this from publication. What about this article is so antithetical to mike that he would have refused to publish? Be detailed. Use quotes.
Amazed you've missed how Mike has been a long critic of the Big Tech anti-trust push because by any standard, other industries are currently much more harmful to consumers, present a clear monopoly/duopoly, and/or mechanisms exist to address the anti-trust issues already exist and have been seen to work in other countries.
I'm amazed You've missed that Mike's opposition to the Big Tech Anti-trust push is in part due to the fact that proposals to address 'big tech' don't serve to reduce the monopoly power of Big Tech, which is the point of anti-trust, but rather reinforce it.
There be nuance in this here discussion, and you are clearly not tall enough to participate, because it all went over your head.
Which only supports Frank's position. Copyright exists to incentivize creation by allowing monetary exploitation, which the artist has expressly stated isn't the prupose or intent of the work, and he never exploited. The work was intended to be seen and shared by everyone in memory of a government attacking its citizens.
Shouldn't that art be free, without needing the sculptor to authorize such sharing? Why does the sculptor have any say in our ability to see and share a sculpture he gave away as a gift? (other than to, perhaps cynically, demand his gift, the original work, back)
Disclaimer The following discusses poltical movements using terms as understood by political scientists, not neccisarily the common usage (such as the US definition of 'liberal'). The topic is discussed using more casual language and grammatical errors may result from the interaction of these two points.
This. Any group whose beliefs rely on a societal hierarchy expressly believes that some people deserve to be on the bottom. A small hierarchal group will avoid strict limits to membership, as more individual bodies represent more power at that scale. But once large enough, the leadership will need to start providing a "benefit" (a deliverable, if you want to use corpo speak) for the 'dues paying' (not necessarily financially, but also those whose labor benefits the group) members.
Facism is a right-wing reaction to the growth of social progressivism and left values in society and government. Within Facism, the deliverable comes in the form of a return to a previous social order, othering those who benefit from the progressive and leftist changes in order to restrict or remove the changes. This gives them political cover for consolidation of power to reinforce their chosen hierarchy.
It is not until Fascism has power that a smart fascist will begin purges.
While expressly violent, mysoginistic, and seeking a return to previous social orders, the proud boys have fractured, with the question of support for white supremicy being a key line of fracture. I think the lack of Leftist protests, the difficulty traveling, and a desire to keep under the radar (I think we are still looking for over a hundred participants of the jan 6 coup) have kept the Proud boys from answering the question of "Are we white supremicists" definitively. Its a part of their culture, and until they remove it, we should treat them like they are, no matter the answer.
The 2020 budget was reduced by $22 million, about 4.4% of the budget. This was done because the city had projected a $103 Million shortfall in expected revenues compared to the original 2020 budget. (9th paragraph down, near the 'cuts to overtime' header)
This was not done in response to BLM. It was in response to budgetary needs.
Your own the budget doesn't matter in the real world perspective highlights why cutting the budget by such a small amount doesn't matter, something the article I linked highlights. If a genuine need outside the plan arises, they can go to the council and get more funding. A significant portion of the cut is simply restoring the cities control over a discretionary spending fund. There is no reason to assume they wouldn't get it.
Though, if we are going to treat necessary budget cuts as defunding, I imagine the crime rate would be much lower if the city stopped defunding schools (school funding having a correlative effect on current crime and future crime)
Very interesting, which might be why the issues with using budgetary numbers were discussed:
Meanwhile -- despite lower labor costs -- the department's budget has increased by nearly $81 million over the past five years. There was a slight dip between 2020 and 2021, but that dip is purely conceptual at this point. The BPD may end fiscal 2021 having spent more in 2021 than in 2020. Its budget may have been slightly lower than 2020 but its actual expenditures have yet to be tabulated.
See Tim didn't use "budget" numbers. Tim used the publicly available actual expense data. The exceptions were 2017, where the report wasn't loading at the time of writing, and 2021 and 2022, for which data is not yet available. Your post suggests Tim used entirely budgetary data, or that he did not consider the issues of budgets versus actual. Neither is true.
Nor is it common for a audited report like this to hide significant portions of another department's expenses in the law enforcement expenses. Money certainly gets moved around during the year, budgets aren't law. Every business differs from the budget. But the count of actual expenses will, within some tolerance for data entry error, be an actual count of expenses.
Your history of aggressively anti-USA comments seems to indicate an anti-USA sentiment, which may be blinding you to the UK, the Torries, Boris Johnson, and Brexit/Covid combined response that amounts to that meme of a dog in a house on fire saying everything is OK.
Re: Re: Re: The list of potentially affected US airports is not
"full disclosure I cant badmouth the FAA because I need them to approve a licence, I don't use the technology in question, and am not an engineer so my opinions aren't very relevant, but here is a paper, not peer reviewed mind you, from an organization funded and run in part by the FAA.
Yes that is the paper the FAA cites. At 231 pages its not light reading. Such a heavily technical paper isn't something you or I is best qualified to really assess. What I can rely on is the FAA has long banned cell phone use during takeoff and landing. They have never considered ground based installations an issue. 5g is notoriously shorter ranged than the cell phone or wireless signals, meaning that the low-impact approach should be the old standby. You know, turn off your phones? the one no one listens to and nothing bad happens?
This paper does not address real world data from more than 40 countries who have setup 5g in this spectrum and no interference was seen. The paper discusses the possible issues. Issues which never seem to occur in real life. France took your concerns into account, barred 5g near airports and final approach. The FAA says that isn't sufficient. that we need more study, but as with cell phones we can't even study it in real world conditions on a clear day when the side effects would be minimal. Lab data can't alleviate the theoretical concerns the FAA poses.
We can never prove something safe. Most "safe" things are only safe when used as intended. If your standard for 5g deployment is that there can be no issues, we can ban 5g entirely. That's the only option. No amount of lab data compares to real world data. No amount of lab data can ever prove something
'safe'. 200 years from now we might have enough real-world data to say that in 2021 there were no threats from millimeter wave 5g. But by then that assessment is out of date, as new possibly synergistic tech comes along.
We gave the democrats with their corrupt corporate kowtowing and the republicans who are now little more than extremists composed mainly of various domestic terrorists each nuttier than the last.
It is expected that $42 billion in subsidies are going to be doled out in the next year. House republicans are writing these letters because they assume the democratic administration will attempt to push for competitive "overbuilding", community broadband, and require higher baseline speeds for buildouts.
The only reason this letter exists is republicans assume democrats aren't going to listen to the "lobbyist". please try again.
On the post: FCC Politely Tells ISPs To Stop Abusing Covid Broadband Relief Program To Rip Off Poor People
Re: Re:
I shouldn't be surprised that they do billing in the least effiecent way possible. I had assumed they were just talking out of their ass, but wow.
On the post: How The Financialization Of Music Could Lead To Demands For Perpetual Copyright
Re:
100 million years is technically a "limited duration".
On the post: FCC Politely Tells ISPs To Stop Abusing Covid Broadband Relief Program To Rip Off Poor People
I've read position statements from both sides, and it seems the ISPs are trying to claim they have to manually adjust the service rate for every plan.
Rather than, you know, jsut offering a line item discount that can easily be slipped on to any bill. Using mechanisms they absolutely already have to provide statement credits. Because they have those right? They have a way to correct billing errors? Or did they intentionally build a system where every adjustment is bespoke and requires building an entirely new plan in an effort to confuse and shortchange consumers?
I said it with broadband maps, and I'll say it with this billing issue. This shouldn't be an issue. In a healthy market, Comcast would have used the pre-existing postal address database that started popping up decades ago and some manpower to index every home that can be connected or passed. I continue to be baffled that comcast can claim to know exactly how many homes it 'passed' for a broadband deployment, but not how many were actually connected. There is no reason a robust computerized billing system couldn't setup a flag on a customer account for billing subsidies. That flag both triggers the discount, and adds itself to reporting they use to claim the subsidy. The discount isn't a part of the plan, the discount is a part of the customer. Basic OOP! You don't add a discount to the plan, thats stupid. The plan isn't cheaper. The bill is. The discount shouldn't ever require identifying legacy service plans.
On the post: Polish Gov't Finally Admits It Deployed NSO Malware, Pretends Targeting Of Opposition Leaders Isn't Abusive
I think this might be a serious unforced error that is exposing much more than they wanted to. At first I was thinking:
Nice job moving the goalposts Poland. Like this is masterful spin. The issue is not that surveilance was used to affect the election - as this quote claims. The issue is that after the election, while the opposition was doing investigations into election irregularities, the government was shown to have engaged in an ongoing use of malware to perform "oversight" of the investigation. at least that appears to be the obvious motive.
But I keep rereading this and I don't recall there ever being a claim the spyware predated the election investigation. But according to this quote, they had that spyware on the prosecutor's phone during the election, and simply didn't use the information gleaned from the illicit surveillance.
Its been a pattern in government scandals in the modern age, with PM Johnson, Guilliani, Trump, and the Cuomos all going through this cycle.Minor scandal breaks, deny. More info comes out, deny. uncontestable proof comes out, simultaneously deny it happened and claim is was all legal. Finally, confess to the wrongdoing, still denying it was wrong, and accidentally admit the scandal was much bigger. Its a very weird spin to use, one that just asks a bunch of questions that weren't in the public eye and only brings more eyes to the problem.
On the post: Chip Shortage Forces Canon To Issue Workarounds For Its Own Obnoxious DRM
Re: Re: Re: Re:
You are not tall enough for this joke.
On the post: UK Government Apparently Hoping It Can Regulate End-To-End Encryption Out Of Existence
Re: really wonder
If you don't understand public/private key encryption, you are in good company with the UK government.
Your point is one Techdirt repeatedly makes. Encryption is math. There is no such thing as encryption that can only be decoded by the recipient. As has been true throughout history, encryption (or the codes/cyphers that proceeded it) is only as valuable as the encryption key. Modern Public/Private Key encryption is almost universally based on Diffie–Hellman key exchange, a method for exchanging "public" encryption keys whose encryption is than decoded by a "private" key held by the recipient.
Security comes because these keys should be very large (>= 1024 bits, about 300 decimal digits), each one should be unique, and there is no practical means of factoring very large numbers quickly, a key step in breaking the encryption. Even if the encryption is broken, it only breaks the encryption between those 2 specific people.
The Proposals at question insert a 3rd encryption key into the mix. That 3rd key will be universal by design - a skeleton key for governments and law enforcement. This presents the very problem you are concerned about - once you can break encryption with that key once, you can break any encryption that accepts the law enforcement key. And once you have the single point of failure, even an impractical brute force approach becomes valuable.
Encryption only 'encodes' data. Ever. That is all encryption ever does. its just a much more complex math behind the code. In the end Encryption's results are just a more complex form of Enigma. I don't know how to say any different. While your phone is locked, the contents are encrypted. This prevents low effort data dumps and obscures the contents of the phone if a dump is achieved. This encryption would be strong but various exploits are known that allow phone cracking tech to work, not to mention cloud backups storing encryption keys. End-to-end encryption deals with data in transit. Absent exploits, Duffie-Hellman Key exchange with a unique RSA-1024 or better key is currently near impossible to crack. ARSA-1024 key has not yet been publicly factored and is not expected to break for at least a few years, barring some major breakthrough.
On the post: Chip Shortage Forces Canon To Issue Workarounds For Its Own Obnoxious DRM
Re:
As far as I gathered from Ars Technica, the cartridges in question are for large format printers with less onerous DRM than home office multifuction printers.
I expect that the business class machine has a much higher price point, justifying the less onerous DRM. I find the articles suggestion that Canon is doing this for all ink cartridges to be the most questionable decision.
On the post: Big Tech 'Antitrust Reform' Agenda Sags, Revealing Mostly Empty Rhetoric
Re: Re: Re:
Right, which is why the focus on big tech is wild. By any metric, Telecom exercises more monopoly control than google. The ability of the consumer to change providers re: google is much higher than for comcast.
I never said that w have to "go after literally everyone else". "Big Tech" is an umbrella term that describes issues with companies in at least 4 separate markets (ads, search, social media feeds, online shopping), each market requiring solutions tailored to the issues and facing that particular market. Proposed solutions to address big tech treat all these markets as the similar enough, treat the entire market as though the biggest players are the only players, and/or completely fail to consider the long term implications of their proposals. Addressing anti-competitive behavior isn't as simple as saying google can only serve the bay area, which is 95% of the existing toolset for antitrust. By contrast, broadband regulatory powers, such as local loop unbundling, already exists and the bureaucratic groundwork can start right now with a comment period.
And thats the core. You've moved the goalposts.
I pointed out that nothing in this article actually opposes Mike's philosophy. That Mike is unhappy with the status quo. Nothing you have said since contrasts that point. Please though, please clarify why Mike would have barred this from publication. What about this article is so antithetical to mike that he would have refused to publish? Be detailed. Use quotes.
On the post: Big Tech 'Antitrust Reform' Agenda Sags, Revealing Mostly Empty Rhetoric
Re:
Amazed you've missed how Mike has been a long critic of the Big Tech anti-trust push because by any standard, other industries are currently much more harmful to consumers, present a clear monopoly/duopoly, and/or mechanisms exist to address the anti-trust issues already exist and have been seen to work in other countries.
I'm amazed You've missed that Mike's opposition to the Big Tech Anti-trust push is in part due to the fact that proposals to address 'big tech' don't serve to reduce the monopoly power of Big Tech, which is the point of anti-trust, but rather reinforce it.
There be nuance in this here discussion, and you are clearly not tall enough to participate, because it all went over your head.
On the post: Sculptor Of Pillar Of Shame Announces It's Now Public Domain So That Anyone Can Make A Copy, As Chinese Authorities Seek To Destroy It
Re: Re: Public art should be public
Which only supports Frank's position. Copyright exists to incentivize creation by allowing monetary exploitation, which the artist has expressly stated isn't the prupose or intent of the work, and he never exploited. The work was intended to be seen and shared by everyone in memory of a government attacking its citizens.
Shouldn't that art be free, without needing the sculptor to authorize such sharing? Why does the sculptor have any say in our ability to see and share a sculpture he gave away as a gift? (other than to, perhaps cynically, demand his gift, the original work, back)
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Disclaimer The following discusses poltical movements using terms as understood by political scientists, not neccisarily the common usage (such as the US definition of 'liberal'). The topic is discussed using more casual language and grammatical errors may result from the interaction of these two points.
This. Any group whose beliefs rely on a societal hierarchy expressly believes that some people deserve to be on the bottom. A small hierarchal group will avoid strict limits to membership, as more individual bodies represent more power at that scale. But once large enough, the leadership will need to start providing a "benefit" (a deliverable, if you want to use corpo speak) for the 'dues paying' (not necessarily financially, but also those whose labor benefits the group) members.
Facism is a right-wing reaction to the growth of social progressivism and left values in society and government. Within Facism, the deliverable comes in the form of a return to a previous social order, othering those who benefit from the progressive and leftist changes in order to restrict or remove the changes. This gives them political cover for consolidation of power to reinforce their chosen hierarchy.
It is not until Fascism has power that a smart fascist will begin purges.
All that said, the Proud Boys aren't smart
While expressly violent, mysoginistic, and seeking a return to previous social orders, the proud boys have fractured, with the question of support for white supremicy being a key line of fracture. I think the lack of Leftist protests, the difficulty traveling, and a desire to keep under the radar (I think we are still looking for over a hundred participants of the jan 6 coup) have kept the Proud boys from answering the question of "Are we white supremicists" definitively. Its a part of their culture, and until they remove it, we should treat them like they are, no matter the answer.
On the post: Baltimore Police Union Blames City's Murder Rate On Defunding Efforts That Never Happened
Re: Check The Legislation
The 2020 budget was reduced by $22 million, about 4.4% of the budget. This was done because the city had projected a $103 Million shortfall in expected revenues compared to the original 2020 budget. (9th paragraph down, near the 'cuts to overtime' header)
This was not done in response to BLM. It was in response to budgetary needs.
Your own the budget doesn't matter in the real world perspective highlights why cutting the budget by such a small amount doesn't matter, something the article I linked highlights. If a genuine need outside the plan arises, they can go to the council and get more funding. A significant portion of the cut is simply restoring the cities control over a discretionary spending fund. There is no reason to assume they wouldn't get it.
Though, if we are going to treat necessary budget cuts as defunding, I imagine the crime rate would be much lower if the city stopped defunding schools (school funding having a correlative effect on current crime and future crime)
On the post: Baltimore Police Union Blames City's Murder Rate On Defunding Efforts That Never Happened
Re: interesting take
Very interesting, which might be why the issues with using budgetary numbers were discussed:
See Tim didn't use "budget" numbers. Tim used the publicly available actual expense data. The exceptions were 2017, where the report wasn't loading at the time of writing, and 2021 and 2022, for which data is not yet available. Your post suggests Tim used entirely budgetary data, or that he did not consider the issues of budgets versus actual. Neither is true.
Nor is it common for a audited report like this to hide significant portions of another department's expenses in the law enforcement expenses. Money certainly gets moved around during the year, budgets aren't law. Every business differs from the budget. But the count of actual expenses will, within some tolerance for data entry error, be an actual count of expenses.
This nothing sandwich is great food for thought.
On the post: A Fight Between Facebook And The British Medical Journal Highlights The Difficulty Of Moderating 'Medical Misinformation'
Re: Idiot US Americans
Your history of aggressively anti-USA comments seems to indicate an anti-USA sentiment, which may be blinding you to the UK, the Torries, Boris Johnson, and Brexit/Covid combined response that amounts to that meme of a dog in a house on fire saying everything is OK.
On the post: Wireless Carriers Balk At FAA Demand For 5G Deployment Delays Amid Shaky Safety Concerns
Re: Re: Re: The list of potentially affected US airports is not
"full disclosure I cant badmouth the FAA because I need them to approve a licence, I don't use the technology in question, and am not an engineer so my opinions aren't very relevant, but here is a paper, not peer reviewed mind you, from an organization funded and run in part by the FAA.
Yes that is the paper the FAA cites. At 231 pages its not light reading. Such a heavily technical paper isn't something you or I is best qualified to really assess. What I can rely on is the FAA has long banned cell phone use during takeoff and landing. They have never considered ground based installations an issue. 5g is notoriously shorter ranged than the cell phone or wireless signals, meaning that the low-impact approach should be the old standby. You know, turn off your phones? the one no one listens to and nothing bad happens?
This paper does not address real world data from more than 40 countries who have setup 5g in this spectrum and no interference was seen. The paper discusses the possible issues. Issues which never seem to occur in real life. France took your concerns into account, barred 5g near airports and final approach. The FAA says that isn't sufficient. that we need more study, but as with cell phones we can't even study it in real world conditions on a clear day when the side effects would be minimal. Lab data can't alleviate the theoretical concerns the FAA poses.
We can never prove something safe. Most "safe" things are only safe when used as intended. If your standard for 5g deployment is that there can be no issues, we can ban 5g entirely. That's the only option. No amount of lab data compares to real world data. No amount of lab data can ever prove something
'safe'. 200 years from now we might have enough real-world data to say that in 2021 there were no threats from millimeter wave 5g. But by then that assessment is out of date, as new possibly synergistic tech comes along.
On the post: Wireless Carriers Balk At FAA Demand For 5G Deployment Delays Amid Shaky Safety Concerns
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The list of potentially affected US airp
They also missed that 5G has already been deployed in europe in these bands with a smaller buffer for over a year without issue.
On the post: House Republicans Don't Want Infrastructure Money Going Toward Broadband Competition
We gave the democrats.........what exactly?
On the post: House Republicans Don't Want Infrastructure Money Going Toward Broadband Competition
Re: Re: Re: well duh
But AC2 wasn't trying to propose a fix, he was noting that AC1's exclusive answer was "wake me when we have term limits".
AC2 was only noting that term limits don't fix the lobbying issue. The issues with lobbying need deeper fixes than term limits.
On the post: House Republicans Don't Want Infrastructure Money Going Toward Broadband Competition
Re: well duh
It is expected that $42 billion in subsidies are going to be doled out in the next year. House republicans are writing these letters because they assume the democratic administration will attempt to push for competitive "overbuilding", community broadband, and require higher baseline speeds for buildouts.
The only reason this letter exists is republicans assume democrats aren't going to listen to the "lobbyist". please try again.
On the post: Weeks After Blasting Twitter For 'Strangling Free Expression' GETTR Bans The Term 'Groyper' In Effort To Stop White Nationalist Spam
Re:
It sounds like its a good corollary to the nazi bar problem.
Next >>