T-Mobile doesn't have a hard cap, though. They have a data amount above which they may, at their discretion, slow down your connection.
If their "cap" is intended to be enforced against people who are trying to cheap out and use their phone as a mobile hotspot to support a full time business, then the average user using a larger amount of streaming data may not be what T-Mobile is targeting anyway.
Because internet service is becoming recognized as an fundamental human right by the UN and others
Always amusing when people act like mentioning UN recognition of a thing is supposed to be a convincing argument to anyone, anywhere. (It's an appeal to an authority where the authority in question is not even remotely convincing as a source, even if someone were to miss the obvious fallacy involved).
Do you want
There's a lot of stuff I want, and a lot of stuff I don't want, and the answer to those questions are not correlated with what the law should be.
but new and innovative services that deliver data in as-yet unknown ways being discriminated against.
And, of course, people shouldn't be allowed to discriminate against businesses. That's business-ism!
I'd also like to remind people how this "Music Freedom" thing kind of proves that data caps are bogus.
Not true, without some other piece of data that you haven't yet specified (for example, evidence that streaming is a majority of bandwidth use for the average person).
Re: Re: WWhy Don't GOP Officials In Congress Recognize This?
Clearly, any opposition to Obama must be racism because the Republicans were totes cool with Bill Clinton as prez and would never have obstructed, disagreed with, or impeached him. (And don't blow your load so soon; the election isn't for two more years! You've got plenty of time to spread your very reasonable "DAE republicans are evil and I hope they all die?? lolz!" opinion before you activate The Misogyny Card.)
She was not seven years old for all of the scenarios she wrote about. The pattern of creepiness apparently continued until she was 17.
Hiding behind the veil of "I never said that" or "thou hast said it", not me... is disingenuous lying. If you're not impugning motive, why bring it up at all?
Again: Disclosed Fact vs Undisclosed Fact
"Based on your publicly-made statement, you are a child molester" is a protected opinion, since it's based on publicly disclosed facts. There's nothing "disingenuous" about it, and no one is "hiding behind a veil" that I can see.
So if a small man attacks a larger man, the larger man is morally prohibited from defending himself?
(FYI, that would have made a much better comparison for you to have made in the first place, but I realize it wouldn't have had the same, blatant appeal to emotion as an adult beating up on a child.)
Privacy constitutes a compelling government interest when the privacy interest is substantial and the invasion occurs in an intolerable manner. We agree with the State that substantial privacy interests are invaded in an intolerable manner when a person is photographed without consent in a private place, such as the home, or with respect to an area of the person that is not exposed to the general public, such as up a skirt.
But ยง 21.15(b)(1) contains no language addressing privacy concerns. The provision certainly applies to situations in which privacy has been violated, but that is because the provision applies broadly to any non-consensual act of photography or visual recording
I mean, seriously, it's right there. The court specifically acknowledges that there could be a law to protect privacy in places where privacy is expected, but that this one is over-broad.
Court: "This law not only criminalizes actions unprotected by the first amendment, but also actions protected by the first amendment. Narrow it down a bit." Mouth-Breathing Peanut Gallery: "OMG THEY THINK TAKING UPSKIRT PICTURES OF CHILDREN IS OKAY!"
On the post: Federal Judge Temporarily Blocks Arizona's Revenge Porn Law Over First Amendment Concerns
Implied Dichotomy
On the post: Thanks To Namecheap For Sponsoring Techdirt's Switch To SSL
On the post: T-Mobile Still Doesn't Understand (Or Simply Doesn't Care) That Their 'Music Freedom' Plan Tramples Net Neutrality
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If their "cap" is intended to be enforced against people who are trying to cheap out and use their phone as a mobile hotspot to support a full time business, then the average user using a larger amount of streaming data may not be what T-Mobile is targeting anyway.
On the post: T-Mobile Still Doesn't Understand (Or Simply Doesn't Care) That Their 'Music Freedom' Plan Tramples Net Neutrality
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
There's a lot of stuff I want, and a lot of stuff I don't want, and the answer to those questions are not correlated with what the law should be.
On the post: T-Mobile Still Doesn't Understand (Or Simply Doesn't Care) That Their 'Music Freedom' Plan Tramples Net Neutrality
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Not true, without some other piece of data that you haven't yet specified (for example, evidence that streaming is a majority of bandwidth use for the average person).
On the post: T-Mobile Still Doesn't Understand (Or Simply Doesn't Care) That Their 'Music Freedom' Plan Tramples Net Neutrality
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Republicans And Democrats Alike Overwhelmingly Support Net Neutrality; Why Don't GOP Officials In Congress Recognize This?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Republicans And Democrats Alike Overwhelmingly Support Net Neutrality; Why Don't GOP Officials In Congress Recognize This?
Re: Democrats and Republicans must never agree
On the post: Republicans And Democrats Alike Overwhelmingly Support Net Neutrality; Why Don't GOP Officials In Congress Recognize This?
Re:
On the post: Republicans And Democrats Alike Overwhelmingly Support Net Neutrality; Why Don't GOP Officials In Congress Recognize This?
Re: Re: WWhy Don't GOP Officials In Congress Recognize This?
Are you sure you're not parody?
On the post: Guy Accused Of Operating Silk Road 2.0 Arrested In SF... Just Like The Last One
Re: Cocaine
On the post: Lena Dunham Once Again Threatens Lawsuit Over An Interpretation Of Her Book That She Doesn't Like
Re: Re: Legally
"Based on your publicly-made statement, you are a child molester" is a protected opinion, since it's based on publicly disclosed facts. There's nothing "disingenuous" about it, and no one is "hiding behind a veil" that I can see.
On the post: Seat Belt Violation Greeted With Spike Strip, Smashed Window And Tasering
Re: Re: Re: This guy had it coming
On the post: The Threats Against Emma Watson Were All An Anti-4Chan Campaign
Re: Re: Re: Re: Sometimes, they're all bad.
(FYI, that would have made a much better comparison for you to have made in the first place, but I realize it wouldn't have had the same, blatant appeal to emotion as an adult beating up on a child.)
On the post: The Threats Against Emma Watson Were All An Anti-4Chan Campaign
Re: Re: Sometimes, they're all bad.
On the post: The Threats Against Emma Watson Were All An Anti-4Chan Campaign
Re: Re:
On the post: Healthcare.gov Is A Security Disaster... And Those Working On It Knew It, And Tried To Stop Independent Security Review To Hide It
Re:
On the post: Texas Tosses Out Law Against Peeping Tom Photographs As A First Amendment Violation
Re: What the fuck?
I mean, seriously, it's right there. The court specifically acknowledges that there could be a law to protect privacy in places where privacy is expected, but that this one is over-broad.
Court: "This law not only criminalizes actions unprotected by the first amendment, but also actions protected by the first amendment. Narrow it down a bit."
Mouth-Breathing Peanut Gallery: "OMG THEY THINK TAKING UPSKIRT PICTURES OF CHILDREN IS OKAY!"
On the post: DOJ Investigates Law Enforcement Agencies All Over The Nation But Can't Be Bothered To Police Itself
Classic
On the post: California Continues To Be Anti-Innovation: Tells Ridesharing Services That Carpooling Is Illegal
Re: It is not ridesharing, it is transport for hire
Next >>