Your analogy is entirely flawed. Your electric company is incapable of seeing what you do with your internet connection. There is no interpretation of the DMCA that could be used to implicate them.
I don't support this move, but there is basis for it. First would be, whether to provide safe harbor to Cloudflare as a provider. I would argue to do so. The second would be the fact that the DMCA does require you to have policies in place to deal with repeat offenders. I work for an ISP and have spent a fair bit studying it when I was the one responsible for processing infringement notices. I am by no means an expert. My understanding is that it emphasizes having a policy in place, but not how you handle them. The key is that they have one, and stick to it. Finally, in regards to them being a smart system instead of a dumb pipe... I don't know enough. If Cloudflare is actively monitoring the content of the traffic, it potentially leaves them open as they now knowingly permitted the traffic.
I said nominally no different in use than cruise control. The key being, "in use". That means, you use it in the same way as cruise control. It's an assist. You still have to pay attention to your surroundings.
It's nominally no different in use than cruise control. That's been around for decades. It's just much more advanced. It still requires you to watch what is happening and respond.
Net neutrality via FCC didn't solve all of the problems. However, it was a stop-gap for a few big problems. All other factors being equal, we are better off with net neutrality than without. The right solution would be to fix the problems before getting rid of it.
Obviously, driving down the lease cost per mile wouldn't actually change anything itself. However, given that they're already paying the lease on the electric cars.. any use of electric over gasoline would be a savings to the taxpayers.
Given that other major players are also affected by the issue, I doubt that "inept" is the answer here. Things are generally designed they way they are for price and performance. It likely hasn't been a realistic concern until now.
I'm not speaking to the quality, or the perceived lack of it, of TP-Link devices. That being said, they're reportedly not the only affected manufacturer. Bigger names are also affected by this issue. Whether it's only the lower end devices or not, I haven't a clue. I just know the problem isn't restricted to TP-Link.
While I'll agree that aluminium is the standardized spelling, that doesn't make it the correct spelling. That makes it the standardized spelling. The word started as alumium, then aluminum, and then settled on aluminium. Following progression, aluminium has the least standing for being correct. It just became the most preferred.
I'm also not a lawyer. I do work for a small rural telecom, so I've read a fair bit.. but my grasp on all of it is still rudimentary. For the ISP, sure it'd be the safest to just cut them off outright. However, the requirement of the DMCA is that the ISP has a policy and enforces it. The wording isn't the most specific.
I cover it in another response, and other likely brought it up. DMCA leaves the ISPs responsible for the customer's copyright infringements if they don't take steps to prevent the activity. They have to do something, or risk legal threat. You may not like the system, but you still have to play by it.
You're obviously either an idiot, shill, or a troll.. I don't even know why I bother with some people. His tweet, twice over, qualified under twitter's policy as hateful. First, yes.. what he said isn't a direct threat. It's an implied/veiled threat. Their policy is vague enough that it both qualifies, and doesn't qualify, based on interpretation and whether they want to say it does. The same could more or less be true of the disparaging comments about North Korea. While calling them a depleted and food starved regime might be technically accurate, in the context of the tweet it wasn't used as a fact. It was used to belittle N.K. as a whole. His statements do qualify under their hateful conduct.
So, pull your head out of your ass and try to learn some common fucking sense.
We all know exactly what tweet I'm talking about. Let's not dance around it. It threatens nuclear war, regardless of whether you want to admit it or not. It's not functionally different than if you were tell someone to shut up, while aiming gun at their head. You didn't say you'd shoot them, but it's the expected result if you don't. Further more, Twitter's hateful conduct policy also covers his reference to the " depleted and food starved regime". While being technically accurate, it's explicitly used in a derogatory fashion to disparage the people of North Korea.
I'm not saying their policy for copyright infringement is right or wrong. But, it is their policy. I know how few choices most people have for internet provider in the US. Saying "go with another provider" isn't really a good solution for a lot of people. However, the copyright infringement policies that ISPs introduce is to protect their asses. DMCA holds the ISP accountable if they don't at least attempt to prevent the activity. It doesn't make the situation right, it just is.
I didn't feel like doing the work to figure it out. But decided, why not. Apparently the Nest learning thermostat only requires 50MB/week. Assuming the labeling is correct, and that my math is accurate, that puts it at about 700bps. However, that assume it's constant communication. I would imagine it's polling and the actual requirements would be a bit higher during communication. If it's polling every 15min, that would be about 600kbps? This is all assumption, but the requirements are still damn small. The issue would come down to what else is on the network and just how slow they're being throttled.
They aren't touching the thermostat. They're throttling the internet speed in response to copyright infringement notices. Their terms of use and related documentation likely covers what can happen in regards to copyright infringement. If you don't like that practice, that is a different argument.. one that I would likely side with you on. However, it's up to the customer to understand the policies and what it entails. The ISP isn't targeting smart thermostats or the like, it's only warning the customer of possible issues if their connection is throttled.
I never said to sue them to fix it under warranty. I pointed out that they already have provisions in the warranty covering them if there is a design defect. If they took the time to add a line there, I would venture there is wording else were to protect them in this type of situation. As to your idea of false advertisement, it wasn't. An unknown flaw in the product was found. There might be some other course for a lawsuit, but not false advertisement.
Disabling the fix was one of the options, yes. However, I think the average user won't have the option to disable the fix. It does sound like Microsoft's style.
Slashdot Mirror
Your analogy is entirely flawed. Your electric company is incapable of seeing what you do with your internet connection. There is no interpretation of the DMCA that could be used to implicate them.
I don't support this move, but there is basis for it. First would be, whether to provide safe harbor to Cloudflare as a provider. I would argue to do so. The second would be the fact that the DMCA does require you to have policies in place to deal with repeat offenders. I work for an ISP and have spent a fair bit studying it when I was the one responsible for processing infringement notices. I am by no means an expert. My understanding is that it emphasizes having a policy in place, but not how you handle them. The key is that they have one, and stick to it. Finally, in regards to them being a smart system instead of a dumb pipe... I don't know enough. If Cloudflare is actively monitoring the content of the traffic, it potentially leaves them open as they now knowingly permitted the traffic.
I said nominally no different in use than cruise control. The key being, "in use". That means, you use it in the same way as cruise control. It's an assist. You still have to pay attention to your surroundings.
It's nominally no different in use than cruise control. That's been around for decades. It's just much more advanced. It still requires you to watch what is happening and respond.
Exactly.It becomes a matter of whether the benefits of the medication outweigh the symptoms or risks they introduce.
Net neutrality via FCC didn't solve all of the problems. However, it was a stop-gap for a few big problems. All other factors being equal, we are better off with net neutrality than without. The right solution would be to fix the problems before getting rid of it.
It may not be the only problem, but lack of competition is very much a problem.
Obviously, driving down the lease cost per mile wouldn't actually change anything itself. However, given that they're already paying the lease on the electric cars.. any use of electric over gasoline would be a savings to the taxpayers.
It doesn't cost $15/mile to operate. The lease payment divided by the number of miles driven on average is $15/mile.
Given that other major players are also affected by the issue, I doubt that "inept" is the answer here. Things are generally designed they way they are for price and performance. It likely hasn't been a realistic concern until now.
I'm not speaking to the quality, or the perceived lack of it, of TP-Link devices. That being said, they're reportedly not the only affected manufacturer. Bigger names are also affected by this issue. Whether it's only the lower end devices or not, I haven't a clue. I just know the problem isn't restricted to TP-Link.
From TP-Link's statement on the C1200 update, it looks like it's MDNS multicast discovery packets.
Ok, so you're a fucking idiot.. good to know. Different isn't the same as wrong.
While I'll agree that aluminium is the standardized spelling, that doesn't make it the correct spelling. That makes it the standardized spelling. The word started as alumium, then aluminum, and then settled on aluminium. Following progression, aluminium has the least standing for being correct. It just became the most preferred.
I'm also not a lawyer. I do work for a small rural telecom, so I've read a fair bit.. but my grasp on all of it is still rudimentary. For the ISP, sure it'd be the safest to just cut them off outright. However, the requirement of the DMCA is that the ISP has a policy and enforces it. The wording isn't the most specific.
I cover it in another response, and other likely brought it up. DMCA leaves the ISPs responsible for the customer's copyright infringements if they don't take steps to prevent the activity. They have to do something, or risk legal threat. You may not like the system, but you still have to play by it.
You're obviously either an idiot, shill, or a troll.. I don't even know why I bother with some people. His tweet, twice over, qualified under twitter's policy as hateful. First, yes.. what he said isn't a direct threat. It's an implied/veiled threat. Their policy is vague enough that it both qualifies, and doesn't qualify, based on interpretation and whether they want to say it does. The same could more or less be true of the disparaging comments about North Korea. While calling them a depleted and food starved regime might be technically accurate, in the context of the tweet it wasn't used as a fact. It was used to belittle N.K. as a whole. His statements do qualify under their hateful conduct.
So, pull your head out of your ass and try to learn some common fucking sense.
We all know exactly what tweet I'm talking about. Let's not dance around it. It threatens nuclear war, regardless of whether you want to admit it or not. It's not functionally different than if you were tell someone to shut up, while aiming gun at their head. You didn't say you'd shoot them, but it's the expected result if you don't. Further more, Twitter's hateful conduct policy also covers his reference to the " depleted and food starved regime". While being technically accurate, it's explicitly used in a derogatory fashion to disparage the people of North Korea.
He literally threatened nuclear war via Twitter. And that is only the event that caused this response. So yes, he has done something worth banning.
It's still up to the customer to understand the policies. If they don't want to, then it's on them when something happens. Ignorance is not a defense.
I'm not saying their policy for copyright infringement is right or wrong. But, it is their policy. I know how few choices most people have for internet provider in the US. Saying "go with another provider" isn't really a good solution for a lot of people. However, the copyright infringement policies that ISPs introduce is to protect their asses. DMCA holds the ISP accountable if they don't at least attempt to prevent the activity. It doesn't make the situation right, it just is.
I didn't feel like doing the work to figure it out. But decided, why not. Apparently the Nest learning thermostat only requires 50MB/week. Assuming the labeling is correct, and that my math is accurate, that puts it at about 700bps. However, that assume it's constant communication. I would imagine it's polling and the actual requirements would be a bit higher during communication. If it's polling every 15min, that would be about 600kbps? This is all assumption, but the requirements are still damn small. The issue would come down to what else is on the network and just how slow they're being throttled.
They aren't touching the thermostat. They're throttling the internet speed in response to copyright infringement notices. Their terms of use and related documentation likely covers what can happen in regards to copyright infringement. If you don't like that practice, that is a different argument.. one that I would likely side with you on. However, it's up to the customer to understand the policies and what it entails. The ISP isn't targeting smart thermostats or the like, it's only warning the customer of possible issues if their connection is throttled.
I'm sure people that use the Pi care. I mean, based on you eloquent definition of their speed, they don't have much headroom for a performance drop.
I never said to sue them to fix it under warranty. I pointed out that they already have provisions in the warranty covering them if there is a design defect. If they took the time to add a line there, I would venture there is wording else were to protect them in this type of situation. As to your idea of false advertisement, it wasn't. An unknown flaw in the product was found. There might be some other course for a lawsuit, but not false advertisement.
Disabling the fix was one of the options, yes. However, I think the average user won't have the option to disable the fix. It does sound like Microsoft's style.