False advertising is under FTC jurisdiction - and that should not have anything to do with the company's main line of business. The FCC doesn't regulate advertising.
The FCC only regulates the communication - it doesn't regulate all aspects of their business. The FTC is saying that they may not be allowed to enforce anything on a company that is partially under the FCC at all:
The panel’s ruling creates an enforcement gap that would leave no federal agency able to protect millions of consumers across the country from unfair or deceptive practices or obtain redress on their behalf. Many companies provide both common-carrier and non-common-carrier services—not just telephone companies like AT&T, but also cable companies like Comcast, technology companies like Google, and energy companies like ExxonMobil (which operate common carrier oil pipelines). Companies that are not common carriers today may gain that status by offering new services or through corporate acquisitions. For example, AOL and Yahoo, which are not common carriers, are (or soon will be) owned by Verizon. The panel’s ruling calls into question the FTC’s ability to protect consumers from unlawful practices by such companies in any of their lines of business.
I didn't buy THAT ticket, so my point still stands. I'm not going to participate in that kind of a hostile market - where every consumer is treated like a criminal.
You only like it because it keeps phone screens out of your field of view - but that's not why they're doing it.
congress was very clear that the FCC regulates common carriers, not the FTC.
And "common carrier" is a hat that a company wears. If they're not wearing that hat, they're not under the FTC. To say otherwise would put the SEC in charge of a day trader's murder trial.
But the recent court ruling said that AT&T is immune from FTC oversight entirely, even when it's not acting as a common carrier.
Well that's a dumb precedent to set. AT&T might as well start defrauding consumers in any way they can think of. The worst that happens is a few class action lawsuits...maybe.
So you wouldn't object if every store or place of business you went into made you empty all your pockets?
They don't have any such rights. They can refuse entry to someone for any reason - and consider it trespassing if you continue. However, that does not equate to having "rights." If the ticket sale doesn't disclose any of these requirements, then the money used to pay for the ticket was received under false pretenses and should be rightfully refunded.
I get it - people who have their phones out are annoying. I'm not one of them. What's in my pocket is my business and no one else's. Especially if they ever do this without disclosing it at the point of ticket purchase.
He's only not "carrying on a business" if your local TV station isn't doing so. He accepted compensation in exchange for advertising, and will not receive a W-2 for it. What else do you call that?
The reason they're dangerous is because they don't dim enough at night and cause road blindness. At least the ones around me. They should have ambient light sensors and dim appropriately.
Fact: Humans actually KNOW and UNDERSTAND things, and as such are able to actually REASON rather than simulating these things enough to fool an uneducated reporter or two or a scifi/robots fanboy. This makes humans superior in solving complex problems, and is why even computer "solutions" are actually just instances of humans figuring out a solution and than asking a computer to do the heavy trial-and-error simulations and/or data processing.
Computers can correlate much larger datasets than humans, and they don't forget. Even if they can't "think," they are less likely to pick the most "common" diagnosis just because it's what they're used to diagnosing. It's a valuable tool - in conjunction with a doctor.
Slashdot Mirror
False advertising is under FTC jurisdiction - and that should not have anything to do with the company's main line of business. The FCC doesn't regulate advertising.
And since it would be a massive allocation of resources to screen everyone present for whether they intend to pull out their phone,
That's a bit of a false dichotomy. They could just kick out anyone who is recording with their phone. No screening needed.
Owning the means to production is just good business sense - even the full vertical stack. Exploiting that is the only time there's a problem.
The FCC only regulates the communication - it doesn't regulate all aspects of their business. The FTC is saying that they may not be allowed to enforce anything on a company that is partially under the FCC at all:
The panel’s ruling creates an enforcement gap that would leave no federal agency able to protect millions of consumers across the country from unfair or deceptive practices or obtain redress on their behalf. Many companies provide both common-carrier and non-common-carrier services—not just telephone companies like AT&T, but also cable companies like Comcast, technology companies like Google, and energy companies like ExxonMobil (which operate common carrier oil pipelines). Companies that are not common carriers today may gain that status by offering new services or through corporate acquisitions. For example, AOL and Yahoo, which are not common carriers, are (or soon will be) owned by Verizon. The panel’s ruling calls into question the FTC’s ability to protect consumers from unlawful practices by such companies in any of their lines of business.
All they did was put out a formal policy to follow federal law. They are not directly arresting or prosecuting.
I didn't buy THAT ticket, so my point still stands. I'm not going to participate in that kind of a hostile market - where every consumer is treated like a criminal.
You only like it because it keeps phone screens out of your field of view - but that's not why they're doing it.
You might want to start with making it an official language in the US before demanding everyone learn it. As of now, the US has no official language.
Never underestimate the market for a stationwagon full of tapes.
not like there are solid alternatives.
And if there are, all they have to do is collude with the other carriers to fix pricing. After all, the FTC isn't coming after them.
congress was very clear that the FCC regulates common carriers, not the FTC.
And "common carrier" is a hat that a company wears. If they're not wearing that hat, they're not under the FTC. To say otherwise would put the SEC in charge of a day trader's murder trial.
But the recent court ruling said that AT&T is immune from FTC oversight entirely, even when it's not acting as a common carrier.
Well that's a dumb precedent to set. AT&T might as well start defrauding consumers in any way they can think of. The worst that happens is a few class action lawsuits...maybe.
You fixed nothing. Treating every guest like criminals is not the answer and will not be tolerated.
So you wouldn't object if every store or place of business you went into made you empty all your pockets?
They don't have any such rights. They can refuse entry to someone for any reason - and consider it trespassing if you continue. However, that does not equate to having "rights." If the ticket sale doesn't disclose any of these requirements, then the money used to pay for the ticket was received under false pretenses and should be rightfully refunded.
It's none of their business whether there is a phone in my pocket.
I get it - people who have their phones out are annoying. I'm not one of them. What's in my pocket is my business and no one else's. Especially if they ever do this without disclosing it at the point of ticket purchase.
The privacy of my pocket.
I would rather not go to a performance with my phone locked up - even if I never took the phone out once. It's way too much an invasion of privacy.
He's only not "carrying on a business" if your local TV station isn't doing so. He accepted compensation in exchange for advertising, and will not receive a W-2 for it. What else do you call that?
In other words, it's a feature not a bug.
don't see how they can get away with it and still label their product as a "FOOD BAR".
Depends - did they put "FOOD BAR" in quotes like you did? If not, they should.
Those use malitol. A sugar alcohol that has far worse symptoms than sucralose in larger doses.
The reason they're dangerous is because they don't dim enough at night and cause road blindness. At least the ones around me. They should have ambient light sensors and dim appropriately.
Fact: Humans actually KNOW and UNDERSTAND things, and as such are able to actually REASON rather than simulating these things enough to fool an uneducated reporter or two or a scifi/robots fanboy. This makes humans superior in solving complex problems, and is why even computer "solutions" are actually just instances of humans figuring out a solution and than asking a computer to do the heavy trial-and-error simulations and/or data processing.
Computers can correlate much larger datasets than humans, and they don't forget. Even if they can't "think," they are less likely to pick the most "common" diagnosis just because it's what they're used to diagnosing. It's a valuable tool - in conjunction with a doctor.
Human Diagnosis: Paranoid Personality Disorder
AI Diagnosis: No, they really are out to get you. One of them is inside the house right now.
Told me to drink less and that was it.
This is one of the best treatments for a diagnosis of gout. That and drinking enough water.