I know. Your point about companies worrying about Net Neutrality rules since 2005 is valid.
However, it's also important that people understand that the FCC isn't allowed to write laws. They have a very narrow mandate, and they're trying to overstep it.
No, the President is not the Chief Executive of the Executive Branch. He's the Chief Executive of the country, and he's the head of the Executive Branch, but he's not the chief executive of the executive branch. In the same sense, he's not the Commander in Chief of everyone, he's only the Commander in Chief of the military.
This may look like a distinction without a difference. But it really isn't. Executive Branch employees are supposed to act in the best interest of the people of the United States, not necessarily the President. The Pendleton Act, the Hatch Act, and their successors, codify the relationship between individual executive branch employees (the Civil Service) and the President's political operation.
For example, if the President determined that it would help his reelection campaign if the IRS demanded exacting paperwork from his political opponents, the head of the IRS is supposed to say no. (Nixon's IRS chief turned down an order to audit Nixon's opponents.)
President Obama only wants Title II because it will reduce costs for people who gave a lot of money to his campaign and increase costs for people who didn't. It might be in the best interests of President Obama, but it's not in the best interests of anyone else. The FCC chief is supposed to turn him down.
I'm not sure what you're talking about. I want fair regulation, because that will prevent monopolies.
The problem, which to you is as inscrutable a problem as proper use of the shift key, is that the status quo is corrupt regulation and monopolies. Title II regulations won't prevent monopolies but there are better (fairer/less corrupt) regulations that we could enact in place of the current regulations that would result in less corruption and monopolies.
What are you talking about? I'm not arguing for no regulation. I'm just arguing that the ills that Title II purports to solve are all a result of government granting this monopoly. Removing this monopoly, while leaving other regulations in place, would ACTUALLY solve the problem that Title II is supposed to solve, but won't.
That can partially be explained by the fact that the Seahawks run out of bunch formations (3 WRs on the same side of the field) more often than most teams in goal to go situations. The better formation to use there is a heavy set. (Tackles reporting eligible, essentially)
It's first down. You have a time out and you have the best RB in the league. You need to move the ball twelve inches. You have to trust your players in that instance.
please note: i do not love government, government does plenty wrong. it's just that, on the specific concept of natural monopolies, uncorrupt regulation is the least worst option
We don't HAVE uncorrupt regulation. We HAVE corrupt monopolies issued by corrupt municipal governments. Preventing this (by banning exclusive franchises) would be a step toward de-corrupting the regulation, but you oppose this and I don't understand why.
if you were an intelligent person, you would be arguing for laws against corruption in your government.
I DO want laws against corruption in government. Specifically, the kinds of laws I favor are the kinds of laws that tie the government's hands, so that they aren't WORTH bribing. If you look at fields where the government does NOT grant monopolies to incumbent providers, you will see that there's a variety of service options. Nobody ever complained that there aren't enough options for grocery stores. The reason that customer service in Internet Service Providers is terrible is that every municipality gives an exclusive franchise to a single provider per service type (i.e. one cable provider, one fiber optic provider, etc.), so that there's no competition. They grant the exclusive franchise in exchange for "concessions," which are basically bribes. If municipal GOVERNMENTS were banned from this practice, the ISPs wouldn't bother with bribing them.
Akre wanted to run a story solely based on the claims of anti-Monsanto activists. The Fox affiliate she worked for refused to run the story without her attempting to interview someone from Monsanto. She refused, on the theory that Monsanto would just lie to her. After a few rounds of this, the affiliate fired her for insubordination (that is, refusing to interview someone from Monsanto.)
Akre and her anti-Fox allies have been pretending for a decade that since Akre knows that Monsanto would have just lied to Akre, forcing Akre to include a quote from Monsanto is tantamount to Fox News fighting for the first amendment protecting them lying on the air.
Republicans want a hearing to censure Obama for undo [sic] influence on creating Title II and doing this job as the president.
The FCC is supposed to be an independent executive branch agency. In theory, it doesn't exist to do the President's bidding. (When a Republican is in office, the press calls this an indicator of "The Imperial Presidency.") But when an "independent agency" comes up with rules that the President asks for in the press that help his cronies, the other party will raise this concern. This happens all the time.
This is what we're having the argument over, here - whether or not the government will act to encourage competition and curb monopoly abuses, or whether it will let the status quo of monopolistic preferences and abuse continue.
No, the question here is whether we will let the status quo of government granted monopoly abuse continue, or whether we should move to a new model with MORE government granted monopoly abuse.
Nobody is talking about legitimately deregulating telecommunication franchising at the municipal level. That would result in less monopolization, but God forbid we put that on the table.
The so-called Obamaphone program started under George W. Bush, although it was modeled on the Lifeline Assistance program which began during the Reagan era.
The program is run by cell phone companies, who get a subsidy from the Federal government for each subsidized subscriber. The name Obamaphone originated with the companies. Some of them decided to call their version of the program "Obamaphone" to imply that their service (and not their competitors') were endorsed by President Obama, who is very popular in the demographic that they are advertising to.
For President Obama, this has the added benefit of implying that if a Republican gets elected, "Obamaphone" goes away. The Republicans would almost definitely not end the free cell phone program. However, they should put a stop to the companies CALLING it "Obamaphone." The government (and its private sector allies) should not be allowed to brand public assistance benefits as a gift from a particular politician or a particular party.
The earliest ruling I could find was the FCC Open Internet Order 2010, signed into law in December 2010.
The Open Internet Order was not signed into law. The FCC, which is part of the executive branch, created it. Laws, by definition, must come from the legislative branch (the House and the Senate.) Part of the reason that it was struck down is because the courts found that the FCC stepped outside the boundaries of what Congress told the FCC it was allowed to do. It's important to remember that the FCC has a fairly narrow mandate (that the legislative branch is allowed to modify) when Congress tries to reign the FCC in from cronyist, political decisions like the Title II vote that they intend on taking in March in lieu of true net neutrality rules.
What you are saying, though technically, true, is sufficiently misleading as to be false.
"The NFL" does not make any money. They pay the referees, they pay for the draft, they pay the commissioner, and they do a few other things. They get the money to do this by charging dues to the 32 member teams. If "the NFL" has any money left over, they divide it up and give it back to the teams.
All the profit that "the NFL" makes is really made by the teams. The teams are independent businesses organized under the laws of the United States and the state and municipality that they operate out of. The teams, who are the ones with the money, pay taxes.
What are you talking about? The telecast is copyrighted because it is a recording, whether the individual watching it DVRs it or not.
The NFL's disclaimer doesn't prevent you from talking about a game you attended because the actual performance of the players, coaches, etc. are not copyrightable, because they are not being done so they can be put in a fixed recorded form by the team*.
I will be practicing the modern tradition of ruining any chance of enjoying the game by attending a SuperBowl party. Ostensibly a gathering to watch a championship sporting event, the SuperBowl party actually results in a gathering of families where the game is on a television that happens to be in the same location.
Why, though? If you enjoy watching football on television, there's 20 weekends out of the year featuring non-Superbowl and non-preseason NFL football. (Plus Monday Night and Thursday Night football.) You should use those 20 weeks to develop a cadre of like minded football fans who ACTUALLY CARE ABOUT THE GAME. There's enough time to weed out people who don't actually watch football. Plus, if the people you invite don't like watching football, they probably won't devote their Sunday to watching three football games, so it will be a self selecting sample.
You should watch the Super Bowl with the same people you watched the regular season with.
This leads to the ability to generate profits only available to socialist organizations. For instance, excessively high payment from TV networks require excessively high fees to cable providers which are paid by all cable subscribers, even if they never watch the channel.
Every NFL game is broadcast on free, over the air TV in the media market of its home and visiting teams. There's two packages, each with 15 games over the course of the season, which have "national" games broadcast on cable. ESPN has Monday Night Football, and NFL Network has Thursday Night Football. Almost all TNF games will be simulcast on CBS (which is broadcast OTA) nationally next year. The other games are all on CBS, NBC, or Fox, which are not sports channels. While sports channels demanding higher carriage fees is a concern, it's not because of NFL games.
That quote is very much out of context, AND it doesn't support your point.
First off, Alaska is the largest state (by surface area) in the union. Nothing is simultaneously visible from ground level at Wasilla and ground level at whichever Aleutian island is closest to Russia. So visible from an Aleutian island != visible from Sarah Palin's house.
Secondly, you'll notice that Gibson is asking specifically about why the proximity between Russia and Alaska is significant. That's because Palin brought up the proximity factor before this quote started. After you cut her off, she goes on to explain that the Governor of Alaska gets a security briefing about what Russia is up to every day from the Federal Government. The reason for that is that a missile attack from Russia will probably travel through Alaskan airspace, and some of the people who man anti-missile defenses in Alaska are the Alaska National Guard. The reason the paths of the missiles would travel through Alaska is because of how close Alaska and Russia are.
Fey's sketch had a Hillary Clinton impersonator (Amy Poehler, maybe?) "congratulating" Fey's Palin on the VP nomination. "Clinton" was saying how great it would be for feminists to have a female vice president, while hinting that Clinton should have been picked for VP. "Clinton" claimed her credentials included a vast knowledge of international affairs (I have no idea what this refers to, as in 2008 she wasn't Secretary of State yet), and "Palin" responded "I can see Russia from my house."
Fey took a small part of a much larger explanation, and changed it to make Palin look like an idiot. Fey then gave interviews where she talked about all the research she did into her Palin impression and referenced that interview. Way too many people think "I can see Russia from my house" is an actual Palin quote. The reason people think this is because, sometimes Democrats lie about what their political opponents say.
The last Zune devices were released to the market in 2009. The last version of the Zune software was released in 2012. (Notably, the music store is still operational, although it is rebranded in most places outside of the Zune software.
There was never third party software support for Zune devices, so it's not like that was "pulled."
The Zunes were always a technically superior option to the iPods of their day. The thing that killed the Zune was the fact that people wanted a music player integrated into their phone, and the Zune wasn't a phone. The Zune HD, which didn't really have apps, was released to compete with the iPod Classic, which also didn't have apps and was also killed by the rise of Android and the iPhone.
That said, your larger point is right. Both sides abuse the amendments process to trick dopey journalists (like Slashdot) into saying SENATOR X OPPOSES Y, when the Senator was voting on the underlying bill.
Conservative groups were NEEDLESSLY HELD UP FOR YEARS and then got the status after the scandal broke. There was no "investigation" into the groups. The IRS screwed with them because the IRS doesn't like conservatives, and you're giving the IRS a pass because you don't like them either.
Slashdot Mirror
However, it's also important that people understand that the FCC isn't allowed to write laws. They have a very narrow mandate, and they're trying to overstep it.
This may look like a distinction without a difference. But it really isn't. Executive Branch employees are supposed to act in the best interest of the people of the United States, not necessarily the President. The Pendleton Act, the Hatch Act, and their successors, codify the relationship between individual executive branch employees (the Civil Service) and the President's political operation.
For example, if the President determined that it would help his reelection campaign if the IRS demanded exacting paperwork from his political opponents, the head of the IRS is supposed to say no. (Nixon's IRS chief turned down an order to audit Nixon's opponents.)
President Obama only wants Title II because it will reduce costs for people who gave a lot of money to his campaign and increase costs for people who didn't. It might be in the best interests of President Obama, but it's not in the best interests of anyone else. The FCC chief is supposed to turn him down.
The problem, which to you is as inscrutable a problem as proper use of the shift key, is that the status quo is corrupt regulation and monopolies. Title II regulations won't prevent monopolies but there are better (fairer/less corrupt) regulations that we could enact in place of the current regulations that would result in less corruption and monopolies.
What are you talking about? I'm not arguing for no regulation. I'm just arguing that the ills that Title II purports to solve are all a result of government granting this monopoly. Removing this monopoly, while leaving other regulations in place, would ACTUALLY solve the problem that Title II is supposed to solve, but won't.
Lynch is not that great near the line.
That can partially be explained by the fact that the Seahawks run out of bunch formations (3 WRs on the same side of the field) more often than most teams in goal to go situations. The better formation to use there is a heavy set. (Tackles reporting eligible, essentially)
It's first down. You have a time out and you have the best RB in the league. You need to move the ball twelve inches. You have to trust your players in that instance.
please note: i do not love government, government does plenty wrong. it's just that, on the specific concept of natural monopolies, uncorrupt regulation is the least worst option
We don't HAVE uncorrupt regulation. We HAVE corrupt monopolies issued by corrupt municipal governments. Preventing this (by banning exclusive franchises) would be a step toward de-corrupting the regulation, but you oppose this and I don't understand why.
if you were an intelligent person, you would be arguing for laws against corruption in your government.
I DO want laws against corruption in government. Specifically, the kinds of laws I favor are the kinds of laws that tie the government's hands, so that they aren't WORTH bribing. If you look at fields where the government does NOT grant monopolies to incumbent providers, you will see that there's a variety of service options. Nobody ever complained that there aren't enough options for grocery stores. The reason that customer service in Internet Service Providers is terrible is that every municipality gives an exclusive franchise to a single provider per service type (i.e. one cable provider, one fiber optic provider, etc.), so that there's no competition. They grant the exclusive franchise in exchange for "concessions," which are basically bribes. If municipal GOVERNMENTS were banned from this practice, the ISPs wouldn't bother with bribing them.
Akre wanted to run a story solely based on the claims of anti-Monsanto activists. The Fox affiliate she worked for refused to run the story without her attempting to interview someone from Monsanto. She refused, on the theory that Monsanto would just lie to her. After a few rounds of this, the affiliate fired her for insubordination (that is, refusing to interview someone from Monsanto.)
Akre and her anti-Fox allies have been pretending for a decade that since Akre knows that Monsanto would have just lied to Akre, forcing Akre to include a quote from Monsanto is tantamount to Fox News fighting for the first amendment protecting them lying on the air.
Republicans want a hearing to censure Obama for undo [sic] influence on creating Title II and doing this job as the president.
The FCC is supposed to be an independent executive branch agency. In theory, it doesn't exist to do the President's bidding. (When a Republican is in office, the press calls this an indicator of "The Imperial Presidency.") But when an "independent agency" comes up with rules that the President asks for in the press that help his cronies, the other party will raise this concern. This happens all the time.
This is what we're having the argument over, here - whether or not the government will act to encourage competition and curb monopoly abuses, or whether it will let the status quo of monopolistic preferences and abuse continue.
No, the question here is whether we will let the status quo of government granted monopoly abuse continue, or whether we should move to a new model with MORE government granted monopoly abuse.
Nobody is talking about legitimately deregulating telecommunication franchising at the municipal level. That would result in less monopolization, but God forbid we put that on the table.
The program is run by cell phone companies, who get a subsidy from the Federal government for each subsidized subscriber. The name Obamaphone originated with the companies. Some of them decided to call their version of the program "Obamaphone" to imply that their service (and not their competitors') were endorsed by President Obama, who is very popular in the demographic that they are advertising to.
For President Obama, this has the added benefit of implying that if a Republican gets elected, "Obamaphone" goes away. The Republicans would almost definitely not end the free cell phone program. However, they should put a stop to the companies CALLING it "Obamaphone." The government (and its private sector allies) should not be allowed to brand public assistance benefits as a gift from a particular politician or a particular party.
The earliest ruling I could find was the FCC Open Internet Order 2010, signed into law in December 2010.
The Open Internet Order was not signed into law. The FCC, which is part of the executive branch, created it. Laws, by definition, must come from the legislative branch (the House and the Senate.) Part of the reason that it was struck down is because the courts found that the FCC stepped outside the boundaries of what Congress told the FCC it was allowed to do. It's important to remember that the FCC has a fairly narrow mandate (that the legislative branch is allowed to modify) when Congress tries to reign the FCC in from cronyist, political decisions like the Title II vote that they intend on taking in March in lieu of true net neutrality rules.
3) Refusing to release any service pack for Windows 8 because they want people to forget it (despite the fact that there's nothing wrong with it)
You're dumb. Windows 8.1 is a service pack for Windows 8.
Maybe from a touchscreen device?
"The NFL" does not make any money. They pay the referees, they pay for the draft, they pay the commissioner, and they do a few other things. They get the money to do this by charging dues to the 32 member teams. If "the NFL" has any money left over, they divide it up and give it back to the teams.
All the profit that "the NFL" makes is really made by the teams. The teams are independent businesses organized under the laws of the United States and the state and municipality that they operate out of. The teams, who are the ones with the money, pay taxes.
The NFL's disclaimer doesn't prevent you from talking about a game you attended because the actual performance of the players, coaches, etc. are not copyrightable, because they are not being done so they can be put in a fixed recorded form by the team*.
*Unless you're playing against the Patriots.
I will be practicing the modern tradition of ruining any chance of enjoying the game by attending a SuperBowl party. Ostensibly a gathering to watch a championship sporting event, the SuperBowl party actually results in a gathering of families where the game is on a television that happens to be in the same location.
Why, though? If you enjoy watching football on television, there's 20 weekends out of the year featuring non-Superbowl and non-preseason NFL football. (Plus Monday Night and Thursday Night football.) You should use those 20 weeks to develop a cadre of like minded football fans who ACTUALLY CARE ABOUT THE GAME. There's enough time to weed out people who don't actually watch football. Plus, if the people you invite don't like watching football, they probably won't devote their Sunday to watching three football games, so it will be a self selecting sample.
You should watch the Super Bowl with the same people you watched the regular season with.
This leads to the ability to generate profits only available to socialist organizations. For instance, excessively high payment from TV networks require excessively high fees to cable providers which are paid by all cable subscribers, even if they never watch the channel.
Every NFL game is broadcast on free, over the air TV in the media market of its home and visiting teams. There's two packages, each with 15 games over the course of the season, which have "national" games broadcast on cable. ESPN has Monday Night Football, and NFL Network has Thursday Night Football. Almost all TNF games will be simulcast on CBS (which is broadcast OTA) nationally next year. The other games are all on CBS, NBC, or Fox, which are not sports channels. While sports channels demanding higher carriage fees is a concern, it's not because of NFL games.
First off, Alaska is the largest state (by surface area) in the union. Nothing is simultaneously visible from ground level at Wasilla and ground level at whichever Aleutian island is closest to Russia. So visible from an Aleutian island != visible from Sarah Palin's house.
Secondly, you'll notice that Gibson is asking specifically about why the proximity between Russia and Alaska is significant. That's because Palin brought up the proximity factor before this quote started. After you cut her off, she goes on to explain that the Governor of Alaska gets a security briefing about what Russia is up to every day from the Federal Government. The reason for that is that a missile attack from Russia will probably travel through Alaskan airspace, and some of the people who man anti-missile defenses in Alaska are the Alaska National Guard. The reason the paths of the missiles would travel through Alaska is because of how close Alaska and Russia are.
Fey's sketch had a Hillary Clinton impersonator (Amy Poehler, maybe?) "congratulating" Fey's Palin on the VP nomination. "Clinton" was saying how great it would be for feminists to have a female vice president, while hinting that Clinton should have been picked for VP. "Clinton" claimed her credentials included a vast knowledge of international affairs (I have no idea what this refers to, as in 2008 she wasn't Secretary of State yet), and "Palin" responded "I can see Russia from my house."
Fey took a small part of a much larger explanation, and changed it to make Palin look like an idiot. Fey then gave interviews where she talked about all the research she did into her Palin impression and referenced that interview. Way too many people think "I can see Russia from my house" is an actual Palin quote. The reason people think this is because, sometimes Democrats lie about what their political opponents say.
The last Zune devices were released to the market in 2009. The last version of the Zune software was released in 2012. (Notably, the music store is still operational, although it is rebranded in most places outside of the Zune software.
There was never third party software support for Zune devices, so it's not like that was "pulled."
The Zunes were always a technically superior option to the iPods of their day. The thing that killed the Zune was the fact that people wanted a music player integrated into their phone, and the Zune wasn't a phone. The Zune HD, which didn't really have apps, was released to compete with the iPod Classic, which also didn't have apps and was also killed by the rise of Android and the iPhone.
In this case it's being abused by 'our side,'
Not my side... not in this case, anyway.
That said, your larger point is right. Both sides abuse the amendments process to trick dopey journalists (like Slashdot) into saying SENATOR X OPPOSES Y, when the Senator was voting on the underlying bill.
I thought p-code was the default. I stand corrected.
You know, these guys were on the committee last term. They just weren't the heads of it. They're not walking into it with no experience.
Conservative groups were NEEDLESSLY HELD UP FOR YEARS and then got the status after the scandal broke. There was no "investigation" into the groups. The IRS screwed with them because the IRS doesn't like conservatives, and you're giving the IRS a pass because you don't like them either.
No, by target he meant "deliberately not grant them the certification they were entitled to by law BECAUSE THE IRS DISAGREED WITH THE LAW"