So they tried using power lines to deliver internet here. It failed. I don't know if anyone is physically using powerline transmission for internet anymore. My city was the first large-scale in the world of BPL. It no longer operates. The other issue is the technology violated the FCC's own laws...even as they were promoting it. It caught resistance from ham radio operators and even some utility companies who suffered interference from the system. Blasting RF down unshielded lines in the range of 2mhz - 80mhz was not the best idea in the world. Even with balanced transmission line and balanced signals; they'd become unbalanced the minute the feed changed.
Digging deeper, you need to take the modulation scheme in to account. ATSC uses 8VSB; which does not tolerate multi-path. If the signal bounces off something and hits you a ms or two after the main signal; the receiver just doesn't decode anything.
The biggest problem people have in rural areas is signal-drop off; but the biggest problem people have closer to cities is multi-path.
No one that lives in a city has good 1080p HDTV signals. No body. Nobody has 1080p.
ATSC standard is limited to 1080i.
But moving past that inaccuracy; just becuase you live in a city doesn't mean you'll get great reception. We have these things called buildings...and they can actually cause the RF signals to reflect. When this happens, you get multi-path; basically reflections of the signal. In the analog days...these weren't a huge problem; they were either weak enough to not be seen or just caused slight "ghosting" of your image. However, the 8VSB modulation we use for HDTV signals has a zero-tolerance policy for multi-path. If any bit of signal reaches the receiver at a different time; then the entire receiver just gets confused and won't decode.
I more often than not had more issues getting signals inside dense cities from the signal bouncing around than I did further out in "open territory". I know it makes no sense to be living within 5 miles of a transmitter and not be able to get it; but thanks to the flawed technology that is ATSC....we have such a thing. I live five miles from an HDTV transmitter; I get 100% signal strength; but I get 20% signal reliability due to the bouncing around it does on the way to my antenna.
It's not necessarily the bandwidth and infrastructure bills as it is retransmission consent for OTA broadcasters.
You actually pay for local channels with a normal cable subscription....and if the provider and channel do not come to an agreement; they can cut that channel off...meaning if you're in a rural area or an area with horrible HDTV reception (becuase 8VSB is a joke)...then you flat out lose that channel. There's no FCC law that says the cable company has to provide local channels and more laws saying they have to pay for those channels and which ones they can import. So even if they strike a deal with a neighboring city to bring in it's network affiliate; copyright laws prevent it.
The only problem is you have basically only explained how "public" broadcasters here operate..which would largely be a PBS or a community station.
However those are such a small number of channels in a given area that they probably barely make up a measurable percentage. Most TV people watch is 100% commercially owned; funded by advertisements.
I know over there BBC is considered a "public" broadcaster; but "public broadcasting" in the US has an entirely different definition. It, for the most part; is largely strictly educational programming. Granted, my local PBS has a digital sub-channel that shows a bunch of UK sitcoms; public broadcasters here are not the "general entertainment" channels working for the public like the BBC. The big networks here are big commercial organizations that work solely for themselves and shareholders. I suppose I could liken it to say Channel 4 or iTV over there...which are commercial broadcasters. But when I had the pleasure of watching UKTV for a few months; the main difference between Channel 4/iTV/commercial broadcasters and your public BBC was the fact BBC had no commercial advertisements. The quality of programming is the same.
Not that our PBS programming isn't done to a high standard; but it is not "general entertainment" where you'll find sitcoms. If anything I'd be willing to say our PBS is closer to BBC2, but a lot more boring and pretty much 100% educational.
You should also take in to account the differences in reliability. Freeview uses OFDM modulation with several multiplexes each coming from a central location...with effort taken to provide coverage to everyone. Granted, the UK is a lot smaller than the US; we do not have many centralized broadcast facilities. Each broadcaster essentially owns it's own tower, it's own spectrum; and as a result...the coverage of each channel can vary wildly. Very little effort is taken to cover a large area...only what their license requirements dictate. Your freeview system is actually about as large as what the average cable TV basic subscription used to be. It's been a while since I looked at the OTA channel list; but I was insanely jealous at all the selection of channels you get. We're at the mercy of whatever the owners of the station want to throw on the subchannels. We have a few good ones; but we also have a lot of garbage.
The whole difference boils down to the fact the US was first with broadcasting...not trying to play the "we're better" game...becuase in the long run we really screwed up. Even in the 20s, the UK saw how our radio stations were pretty much acting to the benefit of it's sponsor. In fact...most early stations were set up and run by companies strictly for advertising purposes. It wasn't uncommon for the shop in town that sold radios to also have a radio station...because what good is selling a radio if you can't listen to it. They saw where radio wasn't serving the public...and you get the system you guys have now. While many in America scoff at the idea of a TV license; they largely don't understand it. Hell, I get a lot of people that think the BBC is a government broadcaster and that all broadcasting is BBC. I know it's not true...eight months of access to a Slingbox hooked up to SkyUK taught me a lot about the TV landscape over there.
You guys got it right. The US just stuck to it's capitalistic roots and made it all about serving the people who paid for broadcasting (advertisers)...and the listeners were an afterthought. Give them something to keep them tuned in so we can shamelessly shove our advertising at them.
Your explanation is wayyyyyyy too generic when you talk about capture. Capture for private use has long been upheld as legal. DVR's technically capture digital signals. VCR's for years captured and recorded off-the-air transmissions. The difference is these have been considered "private use"; and courts upheld the legal right for retransmission or capture for private use. This means it's legal for me to record OTA HDTV; it's also legal for me to install hardware at my house to capture the OTA signal....or in my actual case...anything coming out of my cable STB; and then stream that to myself in another location. During the Aereo hearings, several broadcasters tried to roll Slingbox technology in to the mix.
But the federal judge overseeing that case said there is a big difference between things like Slingbox and things like Aereo. With Slingbox, it relies on you having either an OTA STB or a cable STB. In the case of OTA...this is your tuner, your antenna, and you are streaming it to yourself. With the case of Slingbox, you pay for the TV subscription and are streaming it to yourself. Because the signal originates from your home and moves to you over the internet; it was ruled this type of use was "private retransmission" and violated no laws.
What Aereo was doing was capturing OTA signals...then reselling it. They argued they were only renting space for the antenna, as well as the hardware; but the court didn't look at that way.
Television channels have been collecting retransmission fees for what we get over the air when we get them from cable. Most people haven't realized that. But it's been that way for close to 20 years now.
Also, no one is restricted from being able to put up an antenna to get OTA TV. The FCC has laws protecting these devices and only in specific extreme cases (like you live in an apartment) can they be violated.
Cable companies have been paying retransmission fees for OTA channels since the mid 90s. The difference is they used to roll it in to your service package and hide this from you. They are no longer allowed to do that; and if you look at your bill, you should see a "local channel fee".
Aereo was not paying fees; they were arguing they were effectively acting as just a remote antenna and tuner.
This Xfinity service and Aereo are the same thing in some aspects; except XFinity has paid for the ability to sell the service. Aereo was shut down because it was ruled they were violating these rules.
FCC has rules that protect OTA reception antennas as well as satellite dishes under 1m. They are part of the telecommunications act and are therefore federal law. An HOA is powerless to over-ride those laws and I have, in cases involving satellite dishes; have been able to get aggressive HOA's to back-off after they get threats from the FCC of lawsuits for violating federal code.
Do you live in an area with a low population density?
Are you outside of private restrictions/HOA?
If you are, then I've got good news. FCC law says you can put up a 200ft tower regardless of what local state/government laws say. If the population density is high enough; the restriction can be 75ft. However, outside of an HOA; federal law says an amateur operator can put up at least a 75ft tower. But you must have an amateur radio license and the tower must be used for amateur radio purposes. Now, there's nothing that says an amateur operator can't put a couple of VHF/UHF omni-directional antennas on the tower and stick a direction yagi for VHF/UHF TV on top.
If he has a valid amateur license; then he's protected by PRB-1 in most cases...which prevents local ordinances from restricting placement of towers for amateur radio use. But the total height depends on the population density. If it's pretty dense...like most urban; than the FCC rules allow up to 75ft. Any local or state law that says otherwise is invalidated by this. If you're in a non-dense area; then you are allowed to go up to 200ft provided you're not within 20,000ft of an airport runway. Within 20,000ft of a runway the total height is determined by distance.
While it's true that a lot of municipalities and local ordinances attempt to restrict placement of antennas; in some cases they ultimately are actually invalid laws.
They tried a voluntary Neutrality agreement. Big Telcoms got with Wheeler and supposedly came to agreements.
Then they sued him for trying to actually enforce them!
The Telcoms HAD their chance to write the NN...and they still didn't want what they came up with. So trying to pass off the telecoms came up with it from the start would be fine...if it wasn't for the big god-damn hole of how much they sued to not get them enacted.
Corporations that operate in multiple states really isn't a "local problem". We used to have great solutions 20 years ago for this type of stuff; one guy was giving shit service, so we'd switch to someone who wasn't giving shit service. The underlying monopoly that let us do this...the phone company...was already bound by neutrality laws. If they weren't, they could have done stuff like block me from dialing any ISP they didn't get extra money from...or they didn't own. That was competition...everyone was fighting for your dollars for dialup.
That doesn't exist anymore. I have basically one option for broadband service. One. The idea of anyone being able to compete for my business is out the window. Wireless technology will not fully replace wireline service where I live....and only the big telcom...who took Title II money for building part of it's network...is the only one that can give me suitable services. So why the fuck should I be expected to be at the mercy of my sole option?
But that's exactly what you old guys pushing smaller government and deregulation have basically forced upon me. When NN dies....my only reliable source of communication will be with a company who has ZERO interest in what I want...and just wants to make sure they push only the content they agree with...or getting money.
And don't even get me started about local government. Franchise agreements are a god-damn joke and half the problem with trying to build new infrastructre lies in bullshit back-room agreements that says "no-no...we have a guy that does all that, gtfo".
So if government wants to regulate things to be fair for the consumer; that's rubbish. But if they want to stifle competition and further boost a large corporation that your old-ass probably owns stock in...that's just great. "That's America" they tell me.
What the fuck is free about a market that's dominated with monopolies? How the fuck can media be free when three corporations basically own everything we're told. How the fuck can we be free if service providers are allowed to pick and choose.
Seriously you old asshole...fucking tell me. Explain to me how being under control of corporations who only seek to extract as much profit from us without even providing anything in the first place is better than common sense regulation that says "fucking give people what they pay for and deal with your competition in other ways than buying them out".
This is just more GOP propaganda trying to make the previous administration look bad. They're on a personal vendetta to rewrite history to make him out to be the absolute worst thing.
Meanwhile this administration and everyone in it fully supports monitoring all of your communications...probably to an even more sick degree than previous administrations.
This government isn't governing. Plain and simple. They should fucking do something other than release news every other day about something the other administration did.
I guess the fact we still didn't have good miniturization and was pre solid-state didnt matter. We could have all had 20 lb backpacks for making phone calls. Oh, dont forget the 80lbs of batteries for your filament (A+) supply.
Could have and "could have" are entirely different. We could have had satellites in the 40s by that reasoning.
No. Because the argument will be "you don't have to be pay-as-you-go."
Kind of like how they're saying "if you don't like the idea of internet fast lanes and a lack of neutrality; just remember you choose to use the internet." That's kind of like saying "you choose to drink water so you have to buy it from us"...no, I have to drink water; you own all the water around me and charge me for it.
Yes...and then due to the fact the FCC now hates Americans (and America); they would probably use that as an excuse to ramp up surveillance so they can prosecute beyond the extent of the law those who are "harassing" the telemarketers.
You have to remember...once something is deemed legal; it's game over. Any retaliation you take will be either invalid (like filing a compliant) or criminal (doing just about anything else). IT will be of the opinion of the government that the company has done nothing wrong; and that you're the one in the wrong for wanting to refuse to listen to them.
The government is not our new overlords; it's the corporations. Afterall, you can have smaller government and still screw/control people through corporate interests.
It's called capitalism...or at least they call it that.
considering they're probably going to allow this for politicans...and the current head of the FCC has done a wonderful job of giving the public the middle finger; letting them know he does *NOT* work for them and does not care about their opinions...even going as far as to MOCK the American Public. All you can expect from the FCC is a reply mocking you for not wanting a company to do business...no matter how much of a harassment it is.
With all the underhanded unethical stuff Uber has been doing; I wish they'd ban them in the US as well. They've already been caught defrauding customers and figuring out ways to prevent detection by officials in areas they're not supposed to be operating in. Their drivers have nasty habits of being racist or discriminatory. Italian taxi drivers may have their own issues; but Uber is just as bad.
something like this happened. Wheeler got the ISP's together and came up with various rules for net neutrality...wanting them to be involved in the process so they would be happier with it.
They walked right out the door and proceeded to sue the FCC over the idea after they'd come to an agreement.
The ISP's won't agree to it. They don't want a neutral internet. They had all the chance in the world to voluntarily run a neutral internet. This is not 20 years ago...we cannot simply change ISP's by giving a CC number to another company and putting in a new phone number. The ISP's know this; they know there's no real competition.
He's going to find out they want to fuck consumers over for all they've got...and he's just going to let them do this. This man is a former Verizon laywer who seems to feel his loyalty is with big telecom; he does not care about consumers at all.
Neutrality is dead. The free exchange of information is dead. The companies that offer OTT services will be allowed to fail as 4 or 5 big corporations decide they shouldn't be in business because it's unfair to them to have to deliver a competitor's service.
Get prepared to pay a whole lot more for a whole lot less; cuz 'Murica!
Slashdot Mirror
So they tried using power lines to deliver internet here. It failed. I don't know if anyone is physically using powerline transmission for internet anymore. My city was the first large-scale in the world of BPL. It no longer operates. The other issue is the technology violated the FCC's own laws...even as they were promoting it. It caught resistance from ham radio operators and even some utility companies who suffered interference from the system. Blasting RF down unshielded lines in the range of 2mhz - 80mhz was not the best idea in the world. Even with balanced transmission line and balanced signals; they'd become unbalanced the minute the feed changed.
Digging deeper, you need to take the modulation scheme in to account. ATSC uses 8VSB; which does not tolerate multi-path. If the signal bounces off something and hits you a ms or two after the main signal; the receiver just doesn't decode anything.
The biggest problem people have in rural areas is signal-drop off; but the biggest problem people have closer to cities is multi-path.
No one that lives in a city has good 1080p HDTV signals. No body. Nobody has 1080p.
ATSC standard is limited to 1080i.
But moving past that inaccuracy; just becuase you live in a city doesn't mean you'll get great reception. We have these things called buildings...and they can actually cause the RF signals to reflect. When this happens, you get multi-path; basically reflections of the signal. In the analog days...these weren't a huge problem; they were either weak enough to not be seen or just caused slight "ghosting" of your image. However, the 8VSB modulation we use for HDTV signals has a zero-tolerance policy for multi-path. If any bit of signal reaches the receiver at a different time; then the entire receiver just gets confused and won't decode.
I more often than not had more issues getting signals inside dense cities from the signal bouncing around than I did further out in "open territory". I know it makes no sense to be living within 5 miles of a transmitter and not be able to get it; but thanks to the flawed technology that is ATSC....we have such a thing. I live five miles from an HDTV transmitter; I get 100% signal strength; but I get 20% signal reliability due to the bouncing around it does on the way to my antenna.
It's not necessarily the bandwidth and infrastructure bills as it is retransmission consent for OTA broadcasters.
You actually pay for local channels with a normal cable subscription....and if the provider and channel do not come to an agreement; they can cut that channel off...meaning if you're in a rural area or an area with horrible HDTV reception (becuase 8VSB is a joke)...then you flat out lose that channel. There's no FCC law that says the cable company has to provide local channels and more laws saying they have to pay for those channels and which ones they can import. So even if they strike a deal with a neighboring city to bring in it's network affiliate; copyright laws prevent it.
The only problem is you have basically only explained how "public" broadcasters here operate..which would largely be a PBS or a community station.
However those are such a small number of channels in a given area that they probably barely make up a measurable percentage. Most TV people watch is 100% commercially owned; funded by advertisements.
I know over there BBC is considered a "public" broadcaster; but "public broadcasting" in the US has an entirely different definition. It, for the most part; is largely strictly educational programming. Granted, my local PBS has a digital sub-channel that shows a bunch of UK sitcoms; public broadcasters here are not the "general entertainment" channels working for the public like the BBC. The big networks here are big commercial organizations that work solely for themselves and shareholders. I suppose I could liken it to say Channel 4 or iTV over there...which are commercial broadcasters. But when I had the pleasure of watching UKTV for a few months; the main difference between Channel 4/iTV/commercial broadcasters and your public BBC was the fact BBC had no commercial advertisements. The quality of programming is the same.
Not that our PBS programming isn't done to a high standard; but it is not "general entertainment" where you'll find sitcoms. If anything I'd be willing to say our PBS is closer to BBC2, but a lot more boring and pretty much 100% educational.
You should also take in to account the differences in reliability. Freeview uses OFDM modulation with several multiplexes each coming from a central location...with effort taken to provide coverage to everyone. Granted, the UK is a lot smaller than the US; we do not have many centralized broadcast facilities. Each broadcaster essentially owns it's own tower, it's own spectrum; and as a result...the coverage of each channel can vary wildly. Very little effort is taken to cover a large area...only what their license requirements dictate. Your freeview system is actually about as large as what the average cable TV basic subscription used to be. It's been a while since I looked at the OTA channel list; but I was insanely jealous at all the selection of channels you get. We're at the mercy of whatever the owners of the station want to throw on the subchannels. We have a few good ones; but we also have a lot of garbage.
The whole difference boils down to the fact the US was first with broadcasting...not trying to play the "we're better" game...becuase in the long run we really screwed up. Even in the 20s, the UK saw how our radio stations were pretty much acting to the benefit of it's sponsor. In fact...most early stations were set up and run by companies strictly for advertising purposes. It wasn't uncommon for the shop in town that sold radios to also have a radio station...because what good is selling a radio if you can't listen to it. They saw where radio wasn't serving the public...and you get the system you guys have now. While many in America scoff at the idea of a TV license; they largely don't understand it. Hell, I get a lot of people that think the BBC is a government broadcaster and that all broadcasting is BBC. I know it's not true...eight months of access to a Slingbox hooked up to SkyUK taught me a lot about the TV landscape over there.
You guys got it right. The US just stuck to it's capitalistic roots and made it all about serving the people who paid for broadcasting (advertisers)...and the listeners were an afterthought. Give them something to keep them tuned in so we can shamelessly shove our advertising at them.
Your explanation is wayyyyyyy too generic when you talk about capture. Capture for private use has long been upheld as legal. DVR's technically capture digital signals. VCR's for years captured and recorded off-the-air transmissions. The difference is these have been considered "private use"; and courts upheld the legal right for retransmission or capture for private use. This means it's legal for me to record OTA HDTV; it's also legal for me to install hardware at my house to capture the OTA signal....or in my actual case...anything coming out of my cable STB; and then stream that to myself in another location. During the Aereo hearings, several broadcasters tried to roll Slingbox technology in to the mix.
But the federal judge overseeing that case said there is a big difference between things like Slingbox and things like Aereo. With Slingbox, it relies on you having either an OTA STB or a cable STB. In the case of OTA...this is your tuner, your antenna, and you are streaming it to yourself. With the case of Slingbox, you pay for the TV subscription and are streaming it to yourself. Because the signal originates from your home and moves to you over the internet; it was ruled this type of use was "private retransmission" and violated no laws.
What Aereo was doing was capturing OTA signals...then reselling it. They argued they were only renting space for the antenna, as well as the hardware; but the court didn't look at that way.
Television channels have been collecting retransmission fees for what we get over the air when we get them from cable. Most people haven't realized that. But it's been that way for close to 20 years now.
Also, no one is restricted from being able to put up an antenna to get OTA TV. The FCC has laws protecting these devices and only in specific extreme cases (like you live in an apartment) can they be violated.
Ok...so here's the thing.
Cable companies have been paying retransmission fees for OTA channels since the mid 90s. The difference is they used to roll it in to your service package and hide this from you. They are no longer allowed to do that; and if you look at your bill, you should see a "local channel fee".
Aereo was not paying fees; they were arguing they were effectively acting as just a remote antenna and tuner.
This Xfinity service and Aereo are the same thing in some aspects; except XFinity has paid for the ability to sell the service. Aereo was shut down because it was ruled they were violating these rules.
FCC has rules that protect OTA reception antennas as well as satellite dishes under 1m. They are part of the telecommunications act and are therefore federal law. An HOA is powerless to over-ride those laws and I have, in cases involving satellite dishes; have been able to get aggressive HOA's to back-off after they get threats from the FCC of lawsuits for violating federal code.
Are you an amateur radio operator?
Do you live in an area with a low population density?
Are you outside of private restrictions/HOA?
If you are, then I've got good news. FCC law says you can put up a 200ft tower regardless of what local state/government laws say. If the population density is high enough; the restriction can be 75ft. However, outside of an HOA; federal law says an amateur operator can put up at least a 75ft tower. But you must have an amateur radio license and the tower must be used for amateur radio purposes. Now, there's nothing that says an amateur operator can't put a couple of VHF/UHF omni-directional antennas on the tower and stick a direction yagi for VHF/UHF TV on top.
If he has a valid amateur license; then he's protected by PRB-1 in most cases...which prevents local ordinances from restricting placement of towers for amateur radio use. But the total height depends on the population density. If it's pretty dense...like most urban; than the FCC rules allow up to 75ft. Any local or state law that says otherwise is invalidated by this. If you're in a non-dense area; then you are allowed to go up to 200ft provided you're not within 20,000ft of an airport runway. Within 20,000ft of a runway the total height is determined by distance.
While it's true that a lot of municipalities and local ordinances attempt to restrict placement of antennas; in some cases they ultimately are actually invalid laws.
AT&T doesn't subsidize anymore. They finance the hardware.
They tried a voluntary Neutrality agreement. Big Telcoms got with Wheeler and supposedly came to agreements.
Then they sued him for trying to actually enforce them!
The Telcoms HAD their chance to write the NN...and they still didn't want what they came up with. So trying to pass off the telecoms came up with it from the start would be fine...if it wasn't for the big god-damn hole of how much they sued to not get them enacted.
Corporations that operate in multiple states really isn't a "local problem". We used to have great solutions 20 years ago for this type of stuff; one guy was giving shit service, so we'd switch to someone who wasn't giving shit service. The underlying monopoly that let us do this...the phone company...was already bound by neutrality laws. If they weren't, they could have done stuff like block me from dialing any ISP they didn't get extra money from...or they didn't own. That was competition...everyone was fighting for your dollars for dialup.
That doesn't exist anymore. I have basically one option for broadband service. One. The idea of anyone being able to compete for my business is out the window. Wireless technology will not fully replace wireline service where I live....and only the big telcom...who took Title II money for building part of it's network...is the only one that can give me suitable services. So why the fuck should I be expected to be at the mercy of my sole option?
But that's exactly what you old guys pushing smaller government and deregulation have basically forced upon me. When NN dies....my only reliable source of communication will be with a company who has ZERO interest in what I want...and just wants to make sure they push only the content they agree with...or getting money.
And don't even get me started about local government. Franchise agreements are a god-damn joke and half the problem with trying to build new infrastructre lies in bullshit back-room agreements that says "no-no...we have a guy that does all that, gtfo".
So if government wants to regulate things to be fair for the consumer; that's rubbish. But if they want to stifle competition and further boost a large corporation that your old-ass probably owns stock in...that's just great. "That's America" they tell me.
What the fuck is free about a market that's dominated with monopolies? How the fuck can media be free when three corporations basically own everything we're told. How the fuck can we be free if service providers are allowed to pick and choose.
Seriously you old asshole...fucking tell me. Explain to me how being under control of corporations who only seek to extract as much profit from us without even providing anything in the first place is better than common sense regulation that says "fucking give people what they pay for and deal with your competition in other ways than buying them out".
This is just more GOP propaganda trying to make the previous administration look bad. They're on a personal vendetta to rewrite history to make him out to be the absolute worst thing.
Meanwhile this administration and everyone in it fully supports monitoring all of your communications...probably to an even more sick degree than previous administrations.
This government isn't governing. Plain and simple. They should fucking do something other than release news every other day about something the other administration did.
God damn this country.
I guess the fact we still didn't have good miniturization and was pre solid-state didnt matter. We could have all had 20 lb backpacks for making phone calls. Oh, dont forget the 80lbs of batteries for your filament (A+) supply. Could have and "could have" are entirely different. We could have had satellites in the 40s by that reasoning.
Plot twist: New FCC rules will require voicemail service on all phones.
No. Because the argument will be "you don't have to be pay-as-you-go."
Kind of like how they're saying "if you don't like the idea of internet fast lanes and a lack of neutrality; just remember you choose to use the internet." That's kind of like saying "you choose to drink water so you have to buy it from us"...no, I have to drink water; you own all the water around me and charge me for it.
Yes...and then due to the fact the FCC now hates Americans (and America); they would probably use that as an excuse to ramp up surveillance so they can prosecute beyond the extent of the law those who are "harassing" the telemarketers. You have to remember...once something is deemed legal; it's game over. Any retaliation you take will be either invalid (like filing a compliant) or criminal (doing just about anything else). IT will be of the opinion of the government that the company has done nothing wrong; and that you're the one in the wrong for wanting to refuse to listen to them. The government is not our new overlords; it's the corporations. Afterall, you can have smaller government and still screw/control people through corporate interests. It's called capitalism...or at least they call it that.
considering they're probably going to allow this for politicans...and the current head of the FCC has done a wonderful job of giving the public the middle finger; letting them know he does *NOT* work for them and does not care about their opinions...even going as far as to MOCK the American Public. All you can expect from the FCC is a reply mocking you for not wanting a company to do business...no matter how much of a harassment it is.
have policies against having electronics in checked baggage. If the TSA says you have to check them...and the airlines say you can't; now what?
The differences between analog processing and FFT processing involving acoustical masking are entirely different.
Nah man. SACD is the future.
With all the underhanded unethical stuff Uber has been doing; I wish they'd ban them in the US as well. They've already been caught defrauding customers and figuring out ways to prevent detection by officials in areas they're not supposed to be operating in. Their drivers have nasty habits of being racist or discriminatory. Italian taxi drivers may have their own issues; but Uber is just as bad.
Someone has likely mirrored the original code. It will likely wind up used in other tools. This person needs to be in jail.
something like this happened. Wheeler got the ISP's together and came up with various rules for net neutrality...wanting them to be involved in the process so they would be happier with it.
They walked right out the door and proceeded to sue the FCC over the idea after they'd come to an agreement.
The ISP's won't agree to it. They don't want a neutral internet. They had all the chance in the world to voluntarily run a neutral internet. This is not 20 years ago...we cannot simply change ISP's by giving a CC number to another company and putting in a new phone number. The ISP's know this; they know there's no real competition.
He's going to find out they want to fuck consumers over for all they've got...and he's just going to let them do this. This man is a former Verizon laywer who seems to feel his loyalty is with big telecom; he does not care about consumers at all.
Neutrality is dead. The free exchange of information is dead. The companies that offer OTT services will be allowed to fail as 4 or 5 big corporations decide they shouldn't be in business because it's unfair to them to have to deliver a competitor's service.
Get prepared to pay a whole lot more for a whole lot less; cuz 'Murica!