"The first section of the Act reads: "For the purpose of regulating interstate and foreign commerce in communication by wire and radio so as to make available, so far as possible, to all the people of the United States a rapid, efficient, nationwide, and worldwide wire and radio communication service with adequate facilities at reasonable charges, for the purpose of the national defense, and for the purpose of securing a more effective execution of this policy by centralizing authority theretofore granted by law to several agencies and by granting additional authority with respect to interstate and foreign commerce in wire and radio communication, there is hereby created a commission to be known as the 'Federal Communications Commission', which shall be constituted as hereinafter provided, and which shall execute and enforce the provisions of this Act."[1]" -- Communications Act of 1934 via Wikipedia.
The reason I ask, is that broadband is "Communications by wire (Landline) or Radio (Wireless)".
Reasonable charges part is also confusing, How is paying 2...3x what the world is paying for a mere fraction of the service "reasonable"?
And then the last bit, about the law specifically granting that authority to the FCC by said law.
My question is... on what grounds is AT&T (Et Al.) arguing that the FCC overstepped their authority, when it is specifically GRANTED that authority, BY WORD, in it's very charter, from 1932?
this bill is counter-intuitive and counterproductive.
Part 1 is at odds with part 2, as has been stated, but lets take a closer look, shall we?
1)no person or entity is above the law.
In regards to this bill, that means NO entity is above this law, that includes the FBI, Congress, The Pentagon, The White House, the CIA, NSA, etc. because they are entities, and they cannot be above the law.
2) economic growth, prosperity, security, stability, and liberty require adherence to the rule of law;
I am sure that because of (1) that entities like China, Russia, Daesh, Al-Qaeda will take that with good will and NEVER EVER exploit those systems.
Bullshit, I am sure that Russia, China would LOVE to get their hands on NSA/CIA/Pentagon deep cover operatives/operations currently in the field or in planning. I am SURE Al-Qaeda and Daesh would LOVE to get into the FBI/NSA to see which of THEIR deep cover operatives are being monitored. I am *SURE* the Pentagon would LOVE to have AF1's schematics broadcasted to the world.
Not only is this bill counter to free speech, economic security, but it *WILL* put American lives and national security at risk. And before you go, "Oh, but WE, in Congress and the govt is not bound to this law." read again that the law specifically says "NO ENTITY", including the Entity of the US Govt. BY THE LETTER OF THE LAW.
i wouldn't say obsolete, however imo, they HAVE overstepped their boundaries when asking for apples "Assistance" in producing a separate OS for itself and possibly other law enforcement agencies, see: Stingrays.
You know why there are contraband cell phones in prison... here's a hint: It's not for the Hello Kitty/My Little Pony screensavers (at least I don't *THINK* it is)....
Feinstein is a representative of California, Tech industry is a BIG BIG part of California's industry, Feinstein *seems* to be trying to kill off the Tech Industry (via bills, inflammatory speech, etc.)
The obvious million dollar question is *WHY* is she trying to kill off a major sector of her business base, and a significant portion of ALL of her other business bases, aside from money of course. I am talking about finances (CC companies, banks, etc.) Aerospace Industry, etc.
of ALL of the top 30 publicly traded companies in Cali for 2011, I can guarantee that ALL of them uses encryption in some form or another, if not outright producing it.
So the question is... Why doesn't the entire Tech industry, Banking industry, and pretty much all the top companies that uses encryption start running anti-Feinstein ads to get her out of a position of power?
(Note: this is from someone who does not live in Cali and assumes that there are no ads running as such, I could be mistaken though)
because exposing millions of American's personal information TOTALLY stopped terrorist plots, right?
or how about exposing 10's of millions of medical records, or how about our power infrastructure, that will show those dirty terrorists not to attack us, amirite guys?
"Well, that's okay, it's just shutting down content that is mean." The issue with the First Amendment and free expression is that the whole reason we have it is to protect content we don't like. Because someday someone's not going to like something you said either.
SEE also: Snyder vs Phelps - United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit - (08-1026). Though we may not agree with what is being said, they have a constitutional right for it to be said.
it's labeled piracy cause the MPAA didn't think of it first (or refused the idea), and they have to pay a cut of money to someone else, hence the piracy part.
if the internet is a repository of human knowledge, but if that knowledge is locked up, what then, becomes the Internet? A repository of Dick/cat/meme pictures? Is THAT the end sum of Human Knowledge?
ALA KID, LONG DONG, JIMBO KING, CINDY LOU, BRIANNA NATFIALY, LONG JOHN, NUKE DUKEM, PETER WILL HARDEN, CAPTAIN SPRAWLING, CAPTAIN SPAULDING, THEREAL MIKESMITH, THEREAL MIKESMITH1ER.
On the post: Burr And Feinstein Plan One Sided Briefing For Law Enforcement To Bitch About 'Going Dark'
Dear Senator Vizzini... I mean Feinstein
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
On the post: Tennessee Man Builds His Own Gigabit Network Thanks To State's Protectionist Broadband Law
can someone ELI5
The reason I ask, is that broadband is "Communications by wire (Landline) or Radio (Wireless)".
Reasonable charges part is also confusing, How is paying 2...3x what the world is paying for a mere fraction of the service "reasonable"?
And then the last bit, about the law specifically granting that authority to the FCC by said law.
My question is... on what grounds is AT&T (Et Al.) arguing that the FCC overstepped their authority, when it is specifically GRANTED that authority, BY WORD, in it's very charter, from 1932?
On the post: Burr And Feinstein Release Their Anti-Encryption Bill... And It's More Ridiculous Than Expected
Part 1 is at odds with part 2, as has been stated, but lets take a closer look, shall we?
In regards to this bill, that means NO entity is above this law, that includes the FBI, Congress, The Pentagon, The White House, the CIA, NSA, etc. because they are entities, and they cannot be above the law.
I am sure that because of (1) that entities like China, Russia, Daesh, Al-Qaeda will take that with good will and NEVER EVER exploit those systems.
Bullshit, I am sure that Russia, China would LOVE to get their hands on NSA/CIA/Pentagon deep cover operatives/operations currently in the field or in planning. I am SURE Al-Qaeda and Daesh would LOVE to get into the FBI/NSA to see which of THEIR deep cover operatives are being monitored. I am *SURE* the Pentagon would LOVE to have AF1's schematics broadcasted to the world.
Not only is this bill counter to free speech, economic security, but it *WILL* put American lives and national security at risk. And before you go, "Oh, but WE, in Congress and the govt is not bound to this law." read again that the law specifically says "NO ENTITY", including the Entity of the US Govt. BY THE LETTER OF THE LAW.
On the post: Law Enforcement Raids Another Tor Exit Node Because It Still Believes An IP Address Is A Person
Re: Improper raids aren't a bug, they're a feature....
On the post: Comcast Thinks Having Basic Broadband Privacy Protections 'Irrational'
On the post: iPhone Forensics Experts Demonstrate Basic Proof Of Concept That The iPhone Hack The FBI Says 'Doesn't Work' Actually Does Work
Re: FBI lies
On the post: FBI Denies It Lied About Ability To Crack iPhone, Also Suggests Cellebrite Rumor Is Wrong
in before....
Comey: I don't recall saying that, Congressman
Congressman produces court papers stating to the fact. "you LIED to a federal judge, you DO know that is perjury, do you not?
Comey: uhhh... I may need a lawyer to answer that question Congressman.
On the post: Punk Band Misfits Issues Trademark C&D To 'Punk Rock Flea Market,' Receives C&D From Flea Market In Return
Let me get this straight...
They are a punk rock band, by nature, is supposed to be non-conformant type of music.
They are demanding a group of non-conformists to ... well... conform to society?
Does anyone else think that is odd?
On the post: The Mythical And Almost Certainly Made Up 'Legend' Of Walter O'Brien Continues To Grow
On the post: France Still Thinks It Regulates Entire Internet, Fines Google For Not Making Right To Be Forgotten Global
Dear France...
sincerely.
The World
On the post: Prison Telco Claims Prisoners Will Riot If Company Can't Keep Overcharging Inmate Families
On the post: Despite Massive Streaming Revenue Gains, RIAA Still Lying & Crying
that sounds like a problem on YOUR end RIAA, not ours. Seems like YOU should be paying the creators more instead of pocketing it. Just saying.
On the post: Before We Even Know The Details, Politicians Rush To Blame Encryption For Brussels Attacks
actually, tangent time...
The obvious million dollar question is *WHY* is she trying to kill off a major sector of her business base, and a significant portion of ALL of her other business bases, aside from money of course. I am talking about finances (CC companies, banks, etc.) Aerospace Industry, etc.
of ALL of the top 30 publicly traded companies in Cali for 2011, I can guarantee that ALL of them uses encryption in some form or another, if not outright producing it.
So the question is... Why doesn't the entire Tech industry, Banking industry, and pretty much all the top companies that uses encryption start running anti-Feinstein ads to get her out of a position of power?
(Note: this is from someone who does not live in Cali and assumes that there are no ads running as such, I could be mistaken though)
On the post: Before We Even Know The Details, Politicians Rush To Blame Encryption For Brussels Attacks
or how about exposing 10's of millions of medical records, or how about our power infrastructure, that will show those dirty terrorists not to attack us, amirite guys?
On the post: Hulk Hogan's $115 Million Win Against Gawker Raises Serious First Amendment Questions
SEE also: Snyder vs Phelps - United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit - (08-1026). Though we may not agree with what is being said, they have a constitutional right for it to be said.
On the post: Sean Parker's New Service Offers Theaters A New Revenue Stream But All They Can See Is Business Model Intereference And Piracy
On the post: As Predicted, Elsevier's Attempt To Silence Sci-Hub Has Increased Public Awareness Massively
something that hasnt come up
On the post: Author Sues Half The Internet For Defamation, Copyright Infringement, Cyberbullying, Use Of Section 230
Re:
Brick Hardcheese unavailable for comment
On the post: Author Sues Half The Internet For Defamation, Copyright Infringement, Cyberbullying, Use Of Section 230
On the post: Apparent Redaction Failure Leads To Government Confirming Target Of Lavabit Investigation
Next >>