Does robust firewall software exist that can fully lock down a phone to only allow voice stuff over the radio and restrict data in/out to certain protocols and apps? Or by using a phone do you have to accept the fact that Google/Apple/Microsoft or your service provider have full access to your device at will?
Use another service if you're not ok with their pricing scheme
I would have no problem with what you are saying if it weren't for the fact that the 'service' they are providing is access to a limited public resources they do not own but instead license it's use from the public. When you are granted a monopoly to resell a public resource, it generally comes with the stipulation that you operate in the public's best interest.
I misread the beginning bit and thought the article was suggesting that the FCC was also asking US telecoms to provide actual cost info. Then reality set in and I remembered that in the US the telecoms "Rule the Air" not the FCC.
One way this hurts broadcasters is that this product would remove the geographical boundaries of terrestrial broadcasts. Broadcasters use these boundaries to control who gets to see/hear certain content licensed only to certain geographical areas. (ie: you can only watch/hear your favorite local sports team via local radio and TV while others outside the market would have to use other non-free methods to get the game)
Radio stations are already forced to black out audio of professional sports games on their web streams. I doubt this device currently supports this feature and could therefore threaten content providers geographic control.
Broadband Internet access is a direct threat to the companies that control the traditional delivery of voice and video. These companies have spent a tremendous amount of resources to tightly control broadband access in the US in order to protect and maximize their profit from these traditional services before they are inevitably forced to change. Rolling out more access to better cheaper Internet is in direct conflict with their core business models. Through their efforts, these companies have gained local monopolies on the public resources used to deliver broadband access and fight tooth and nail against any intrusion into that monopoly all while trying to claim free market protection.
It is the government's job to regulate the use of limited public resources in order to maximize its use by the public. I would like to see them do a better job at this and it seems like Al does too.
Does this law assume that all sites have adequate protections for storing and securing personal info? I would not trust every site I post on to protect my personal info from being abused. Scaring everyone into always providing real names and addresses when asked could be quite the boon for identity thieves.
I converted a small office to google apps. The email server service is brilliant as is it's filtering, start page and UI. But the purported 'spreadsheet' functionality is utterly unusable imo.
Libraries have always offered the public free access to copyrighted material, such as books and music. Does the RIAA support this level of free access to information?
If so, wouldn't the internet be a great medium to improve libraries ability to provide the public unrestricted access to such information?
Slashdot Mirror
Does robust firewall software exist that can fully lock down a phone to only allow voice stuff over the radio and restrict data in/out to certain protocols and apps? Or by using a phone do you have to accept the fact that Google/Apple/Microsoft or your service provider have full access to your device at will?
Use another service if you're not ok with their pricing scheme
I would have no problem with what you are saying if it weren't for the fact that the 'service' they are providing is access to a limited public resources they do not own but instead license it's use from the public. When you are granted a monopoly to resell a public resource, it generally comes with the stipulation that you operate in the public's best interest.
I misread the beginning bit and thought the article was suggesting that the FCC was also asking US telecoms to provide actual cost info. Then reality set in and I remembered that in the US the telecoms "Rule the Air" not the FCC.
Access to the public airwaves and utility lines that provide broadband should be a "right" not a luxury.
One way this hurts broadcasters is that this product would remove the geographical boundaries of terrestrial broadcasts. Broadcasters use these boundaries to control who gets to see/hear certain content licensed only to certain geographical areas. (ie: you can only watch/hear your favorite local sports team via local radio and TV while others outside the market would have to use other non-free methods to get the game)
Radio stations are already forced to black out audio of professional sports games on their web streams. I doubt this device currently supports this feature and could therefore threaten content providers geographic control.
It would seem once all outside communication is cut off the time would be ripe to ramp up the violence and brutally crush this uprising.
Broadband Internet access is a direct threat to the companies that control the traditional delivery of voice and video. These companies have spent a tremendous amount of resources to tightly control broadband access in the US in order to protect and maximize their profit from these traditional services before they are inevitably forced to change. Rolling out more access to better cheaper Internet is in direct conflict with their core business models. Through their efforts, these companies have gained local monopolies on the public resources used to deliver broadband access and fight tooth and nail against any intrusion into that monopoly all while trying to claim free market protection.
It is the government's job to regulate the use of limited public resources in order to maximize its use by the public. I would like to see them do a better job at this and it seems like Al does too.
I'm sure we'll be hearing about this soon.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/03/16/lead_roof_thief/
Nothing new here, Sharky Extreme has been doing this for years and is more featureful.
the Martians forgot to tell him how to make a profitable product.
Does this law assume that all sites have adequate protections for storing and securing personal info? I would not trust every site I post on to protect my personal info from being abused. Scaring everyone into always providing real names and addresses when asked could be quite the boon for identity thieves.
Didn't OCP build a prototype in Detroit?
I converted a small office to google apps. The email server service is brilliant as is it's filtering, start page and UI. But the purported 'spreadsheet' functionality is utterly unusable imo.
I think it's an interesting idea.
Libraries have always offered the public free access to copyrighted material, such as books and music. Does the RIAA support this level of free access to information?
If so, wouldn't the internet be a great medium to improve libraries ability to provide the public unrestricted access to such information?