So how can I practically avoid listening and avoid paying?
Shop in stores that don't have background music. None of the ones I shop in do that. And when you stop shopping in a store that has music, tell the management why you are doing that. They'll rightfully dismiss you as a kook, but you'll have told them why.
I give them a place to stay and make sure they are fed. In exchange they clean up around the house and help me prepare meals.... It cost me some money (and some sleepless nights),
Probably a lot less than paying a living wage to your domestic help, or even minimum wage. And you didn't pay medicare or employment taxes for them, probably. So yes, you got a great deal.
But I give you kudos for walking the walk and not just talking the talk. Most people tell others how they ought to be taxed more to give free stuff to other people, but you actually spent your own money first. Good on 'ya.
I once offered a friend a bite of my sandwich because it was really good, but he said he didn't like turkey.
Unless your "friend" had been begging you for money to buy a turkey sandwich and said he doesn't like turkey when you offered him one, your analogy fails.
The problem with claims that giving people free housing will solve the homeless issue is that "free stuff from the government" is NEVER a zero sum game. You cannot count the number of people who need such help today and assume that number will not skyrocket when you actually start handing out the free stuff. It's amazing the number of otherwise self-sufficient people who will line up for free stuff once it becomes available.
Hawaii had a health insurance program for uninsured people under 18. They counted the number of uninsured and budgeted for the costs to insure that many. Funny thing, once the state started providing health insurance for their children, many parents who had been buying it stopped -- and the number of children who needed state insurance bankrupt the program.
Yes, I am very familiar with franchise agreements, because I have been on the local cable regulatory commission in two of the localities I've lived in. I've read those franchises, and the franchises of many other municipalities. I've asked multiple time for anyone to point me to an exclusive franchise and nobody has yet been able to show me one. There is a reason for that.
I guess you are not aware that by federal law franchise agreements are NOT ALLOWED to be exclusive. Some of them were, but the law has prohibited them for so long that they've all expired and been renegotiated as non-exclusive.
and why Comcast argued it should be able to purchase Time Warner Cable because they don't compete in the same markets.
Comcast and Time Warner have agreed not to compete, but that's not how you create a monopoly on ISPs. The fact is, neither Comcast nor Time Warner are ISP monopolies in ANY sense of the word -- dejure, defacto, or anything else. They may be defacto cable television monopolies in some regions.
Trolling for the cable companies gets you no where.
You have so many other reasons to object to what cable companies do, you don't need to lie about their legal status to make an argument. It isn't trolling to point out the facts, it's just trying to stop misinformation from being tossed about.
You are correct that Cable TV is not a common carrier... mostly. The FCC does require cable TV providers to carry broadcast TV stations within their respective areas (with some restrictions)
When I say "common carrier" in this context, I mean "should be treated under the law as a common carrier". And that "some restrictions" is a pretty big one. They aren't required to carry broadcast stations unless the station demands it. Most stations have found out it is financially better for them to demand payment for carriage instead of using must-carry. I'm sure there are some small independents that still demand must-carry, but the major broadcasters don't.
The key being they don't just broadcast whatever any random person wants for fee. They could, but it'd be a nightmare for scheduling, payment, censorship, etc.
Many cable systems have what's called PEG -- public, education and government -- channels that are available to the public (and education and government) users. It's no problem in scheduling, usually it is free, but yes, the content can be a problem. Unless the cable company structures the public access correctly.
And Comcast in my area has at least two "leased access" channels for other paying customers to use. Until the LDS arranged their own full-time channel, they used to transmit the yearly conference from St. Lake City on such a leased channel.
so a video on demand service from a cable service is extremely similar to any other video on demand service -- like Hulu, Netflix, or Amazon.
Except Comcast's isn't. It is delivered like a regular cable channel, encrypted, and the STB is instructed to tune to that channel. It's isn't a dedicated data stream. In fact, before they started encrypting those feeds, it was quite fun to use a digital tuner to scan for any OnDemand and watch along with your neighbors. It was great. They would skip the ads for you, and rewind to rewatch the interesting bits.
Different delivery system, different part of the available bandwidth.
Some say it should be excluded because it is on the cable company's network and they don't have to pay a fee to pull it over an internet connection.
1. For Comcast, it isn't data. OnDemand is a TV channel. No, they shouldn't "meter" it because they don't meter any other data for any other TV channel.
2. For on-net originated data on the internet service, they save money because it doesn't have to cross a border from some other network provider. They pass that savings on to the customer by not metering it. Would you rather they keep the money as profit?
That's a big downside to "net neutrality". Everyone has to pay for everything the same way because it is "unfair" otherwise. Even if the provider is able to save money on some services, they can't pass that on to the sub because of "net neutrality". Binge On is a perfect example of that.
Isn't it shooting yourself in the foot to demand that you be charged the costs of the most expensive way of handling data all the time just so nobody is treated "unfairly"?
Cable companies might even heavily raise fees and impose data caps to strangle VOD competition.
That they shouldn't do. But there are a huge number of "mights" that we can come up with to improve our hate of cable companies. They might deliberately route gaming packets via satellite unless you give them your first-borne child. They might randomly drop bits in your packets unless you sacrifice a goat at every full moon.
The Constitution is just bad toilet paper if it is a hindrance to its purpose, which is in service to the citizenry.
The purpose of the Constitution is not to give everyone their little heart's desire. It's to put a limit on the federal government. It is not the purpose of the federal government to give everyone their little heart's desire, either. "My internet service isn't good enough" isn't a problem that the US government and the Constitution were created to solve.
Especially applicable in this case, where the means are not necessarily repugnant,
Yes, the means are repugnant. When a court steps in to start legislating it is repugnant. When it steps in to set internet service rates is would be especially so.
There's no law against initiatives, or other prohibition, and Article V is conceptually applicable.
Article V speaks to amendments to the constitution, not the creation of a federal election system with ballot initiatives. Many people believe the state level initiative process is significantly broken and wasteful, and trying to scale it up to a new federal system would be a disaster. Were there to be authority to do such a thing in the first place.
Ah, but the prices are related,
No, they aren't. What you pay for service has nothing to do with net neutrality. Nothing at all.
besides, the Supreme Court can just farm the task out.
No, they cannot. They cannot do it themselves, they cannot hire someone to do it for them. They have no authority to mandate prices for internet service.
So do I, but it was despite everything Comcast and AT&T could do.
So you are using one of the many other ISPs, then. Otherwise, "everything" means "not provide any service" and you'd have no internet service. Funny how the presence of other ISPs means there isn't really any need for SCOTUS to regulate ISP prices. And no reason to create an authority for it.
We need to demand that any judge who gives the cable companies more than the time of day should be impeached.
"I'm sorry, cable company, but we cannot consider your legal rights in any matter at all, because fustakrakich has ruled that if we do more than 'give you the time of day' we shall be impeached. You have no legal rights and no defense against any lawsuits anyone files against you for any reason."
There is no end to your hatred of the cable companies and no end to the means you will go to to destroy them, is there?
Like the Rocky Horror Picture Show, democracy requires audience participation to be effective.
You know those people who make up cable companies are part of the democracy that gets to participate, don't you?
Or perhaps it's just a figure of speech meaning "make enough noise to get the federal legislature to do something about it" ?
No. There is no federal initiative process, and NO BALLOT TO PUT IT ON. Here in the USA we do not have a true national election. The highest level election (and thus "ballot") is the state level. All the gum flapping you read in your papers about the "winner" of the "popular vote" for President (the only national elected office now that Pres and VP are combined) is just gum flapping. There are state elections which result state winners, and a process to select the final winner from that. "Adding up all the votes for X and Y" isn't how the winner is selected and is a quite meaningless number.
For the ACs who are jumping up and down saying you can't tell what kind of traffic is what... there are still well known ports for many services. A whole list of them. And even DD-WRT has the ability to set QoS for port ranges etc.
If you want to hide what kind of traffic you're sending so no QoS can be applied in transit, fine. Accept the congestion that undifferentiated traffic can be subject to.
As for the yammering about how these awful monopolies... stop. There is no monopoly for ISP service. None.
Look no further than Canada to see what a lack of net neutrality looks like
1) Expensive (minimum $85 to get ANY internet service)
Has nothing to do with net neutrality.
2) Unbundled packages save you nothing
Also not net neutrality.
3) To get things like HBO, you have to spend over $100 in package bundles
You are batting 0.000 for net neutrality issues so far.
4) Each carrier has their own garbage-tier VOD service
Comcast OnDemand isn't an internet service, it's a cable TV service. Not net neutrality.
5) And if you switch carriers, you have to pay for data on top of the subscription cost to use those netflix-clones.
Uhh, what? You have to pay for data to get data? I'm at a loss what you're talking about here.
The requirement, should be: The Cable, Telephone, and Fiber networks shall only be a "dumb pipe", any content can go over it.
How is paying Rogers for Shomi different than paying Netflix for Netflix, and what does it have to do with "any content can go over it?"
The congestion controls should be set at the switching points, not the ISP.
Uhhh, so an ISP cannot ever allow any congestion within their own switching network? What if the "switching points" with the congestion are inside the ISP network?
If a neighborhood is "saturated" then that neighborhood is checked for who is using a disproportionate amount of bandwidth, sent a "speeding ticket" that tells them they will be downgraded to 8Mbits until they explain how they are using that bandwidth.
So I get downgraded to 8Mbps and have to explain how I am using my bandwidth because my neighbor is hogging all the bandwidth and got caught? Wow.
Here's the excluded middle you've ignored: they are allowed to shape traffic as necessary to manage bandwidth and the people who send the illegal content are the ones responsible for it. There can be congestion that slows border traffic which is content agnostic, and having to inspect each packet to make a legality determination will only make it slower.
I hope you realize that they don't have to inspect the content to be able to prioritize services which need higher QoS and lower latency. A Skype call that talks about subversive overthrow of the US Government will look no different than a Skype call talking about Aunt Martha's cookie recipe, yet the latter is clearly a violation of several federal laws of patent and DMCA.
It would serve them right if the court just turned around and declared that cable and internet service providers are all in the category of "common carriers" and should be regulated and controlled as such. Bazinga.
Cable television certainly isn't a common carrier. Not even close. It is a video distribution system. One way.
You miss an important distinction. The Alabama law in question banned ONLY political calls.
How does that change what I said about political calls being subject to the DNC? And you might note that the DNC exemptions are based on content. If you ban "all but X", then you've made a just as unconstitutional limit on speech as allowing "X", under this ruling.
I'd like to see this extended nationally honestly.
You miss an important distinction. Wait, that's what I just said -- "It should be illegal for them to ignore the federal do-not-call list". But I missed an important distinction.
The backlash would force congress to ban all robocalls.
What color is the sky on your planet? It is blue here on Earth.
By banning politicial robocalls in particular they guaranteed that the law would be found to violate the 1st Amendment.
You are aware that there are significant bans on political speech that have not been found to be unconstitutional, I hope. And specific rules for political speech that do not apply to other types. Also not unconstitutional.
The federal Do Not Call list should be strictly enforced.
Politicians and charities and polling are three exemptions that the politicians wrote into the DNC list. It can be as strictly enforced as you like and you'll still get calls from politicians, charities, and pollsters (even push-pollers.)
The actual issue here is just that the ban singled out specific types of robocall instead of blocking them all.
The state law closed the loophole the politicians left in the federal do-not-call system. Yay for the state. Serving the interests of the citizens and not the politicians.
A federal judge has ruled that robocalls made on behalf of political candidates are protected by the First Amendment and cannot be outlawed.
It should be illegal for them to ignore the federal do-not-call list, and for them to call cell phones period. The First Amendment doesn't say I have to provide anyone a platform at my expense or my inconvenience.
The state has failed to prove that the statute at issue advances a compelling state interest
Wouldn't it be novel if a law only had to show that it advances a compelling CITIZEN interest?
Translation: I'm ignoring the idiocy of Trump's statement, and inventing a rationale that allows me to not feel like a contemptible moron for supporting the man.
Well, you're ignoring the obvious joke in Trump's statement and inventing a rationale that allows you to continue to hate him. I mean, if it's the "damn ruskies" who hacked the DNC to help support Trump as the Democrat theory goes, then why wouldn't they support him by divulging Hillary's illegal emails? It's poking a very big hole in the "Russian" conspiracy, reminding people as well of Hillary's "vast right wing conspiracy" theory.
I think the dead giveaway is the bit about being "rewarded mightily by our press". If you can't see the sarcasm in that statement you are, as gurps puts it, a fool. The US press doesn't give a damn about Hillary and her issues with handling secret documents. After all, the FBI guy said she was innocent, right?
(Reminder: no, he didn't, but that's how the press spun it.)
You sound like the kind of guy who would jump up and down shouting how much a liar Trump is if he answered "banana" when you asked him "who's there" as part of a knock-knock joke. He's not a banana, he must be INSANE! It's TREAASON to say you're a banana! It's racist towards true banana republics!
satellites were considered economically impossible for quite a while.
Satellites were economically impossible for quite a while. When "satellite" consisted of Echostar, it was impossible for there to be enough ground stations to deliver a service like Dishnet.
It got better.
That doesn't mean that the economics or physical constraints on using drones to deliver stuff are going to "get better" to the point that it makes sense to use such a system. There are things where technology can be perfect and it still doesn't make sense to deploy. Like high speed raid outside a high population density area.
And, of course, Part 107 doesn't say that "delivery by drone" is years away. Recent rules from the FAA mean that the requirements for certain commercial uses have been relaxed. It doesn't mean that all other commercial uses are "years away". Part 107 did not eliminate 333 waivers or COA, just make them unnecessary for some uses.
Hyperbole in TFS is getting tiring. As is the consistent failure to link to the actual source instead of some muckraking story about the source. For example, "Recent rules" links not to the actual Part 107 rules, but to a slashdot story where the headline itself is patently false.
Slashdot Mirror
So how can I practically avoid listening and avoid paying?
Shop in stores that don't have background music. None of the ones I shop in do that. And when you stop shopping in a store that has music, tell the management why you are doing that. They'll rightfully dismiss you as a kook, but you'll have told them why.
I give them a place to stay and make sure they are fed. In exchange they clean up around the house and help me prepare meals. ... It cost me some money (and some sleepless nights),
Probably a lot less than paying a living wage to your domestic help, or even minimum wage. And you didn't pay medicare or employment taxes for them, probably. So yes, you got a great deal.
But I give you kudos for walking the walk and not just talking the talk. Most people tell others how they ought to be taxed more to give free stuff to other people, but you actually spent your own money first. Good on 'ya.
I once offered a friend a bite of my sandwich because it was really good, but he said he didn't like turkey.
Unless your "friend" had been begging you for money to buy a turkey sandwich and said he doesn't like turkey when you offered him one, your analogy fails.
The problem with claims that giving people free housing will solve the homeless issue is that "free stuff from the government" is NEVER a zero sum game. You cannot count the number of people who need such help today and assume that number will not skyrocket when you actually start handing out the free stuff. It's amazing the number of otherwise self-sufficient people who will line up for free stuff once it becomes available.
Hawaii had a health insurance program for uninsured people under 18. They counted the number of uninsured and budgeted for the costs to insure that many. Funny thing, once the state started providing health insurance for their children, many parents who had been buying it stopped -- and the number of children who needed state insurance bankrupt the program.
I'm truly sorry that you've never heard of QoS related to TCP and the internet, and that you feel compelled to argue based solely on ad hominem.
I guess you are not aware of Franchise agreements
Yes, I am very familiar with franchise agreements, because I have been on the local cable regulatory commission in two of the localities I've lived in. I've read those franchises, and the franchises of many other municipalities. I've asked multiple time for anyone to point me to an exclusive franchise and nobody has yet been able to show me one. There is a reason for that.
I guess you are not aware that by federal law franchise agreements are NOT ALLOWED to be exclusive. Some of them were, but the law has prohibited them for so long that they've all expired and been renegotiated as non-exclusive.
and why Comcast argued it should be able to purchase Time Warner Cable because they don't compete in the same markets.
Comcast and Time Warner have agreed not to compete, but that's not how you create a monopoly on ISPs. The fact is, neither Comcast nor Time Warner are ISP monopolies in ANY sense of the word -- dejure, defacto, or anything else. They may be defacto cable television monopolies in some regions.
Trolling for the cable companies gets you no where.
You have so many other reasons to object to what cable companies do, you don't need to lie about their legal status to make an argument. It isn't trolling to point out the facts, it's just trying to stop misinformation from being tossed about.
You are correct that Cable TV is not a common carrier... mostly. The FCC does require cable TV providers to carry broadcast TV stations within their respective areas (with some restrictions)
When I say "common carrier" in this context, I mean "should be treated under the law as a common carrier". And that "some restrictions" is a pretty big one. They aren't required to carry broadcast stations unless the station demands it. Most stations have found out it is financially better for them to demand payment for carriage instead of using must-carry. I'm sure there are some small independents that still demand must-carry, but the major broadcasters don't.
The key being they don't just broadcast whatever any random person wants for fee. They could, but it'd be a nightmare for scheduling, payment, censorship, etc.
Many cable systems have what's called PEG -- public, education and government -- channels that are available to the public (and education and government) users. It's no problem in scheduling, usually it is free, but yes, the content can be a problem. Unless the cable company structures the public access correctly.
And Comcast in my area has at least two "leased access" channels for other paying customers to use. Until the LDS arranged their own full-time channel, they used to transmit the yearly conference from St. Lake City on such a leased channel.
so a video on demand service from a cable service is extremely similar to any other video on demand service -- like Hulu, Netflix, or Amazon.
Except Comcast's isn't. It is delivered like a regular cable channel, encrypted, and the STB is instructed to tune to that channel. It's isn't a dedicated data stream. In fact, before they started encrypting those feeds, it was quite fun to use a digital tuner to scan for any OnDemand and watch along with your neighbors. It was great. They would skip the ads for you, and rewind to rewatch the interesting bits.
Different delivery system, different part of the available bandwidth.
Some say it should be excluded because it is on the cable company's network and they don't have to pay a fee to pull it over an internet connection.
1. For Comcast, it isn't data. OnDemand is a TV channel. No, they shouldn't "meter" it because they don't meter any other data for any other TV channel.
2. For on-net originated data on the internet service, they save money because it doesn't have to cross a border from some other network provider. They pass that savings on to the customer by not metering it. Would you rather they keep the money as profit?
That's a big downside to "net neutrality". Everyone has to pay for everything the same way because it is "unfair" otherwise. Even if the provider is able to save money on some services, they can't pass that on to the sub because of "net neutrality". Binge On is a perfect example of that.
Isn't it shooting yourself in the foot to demand that you be charged the costs of the most expensive way of handling data all the time just so nobody is treated "unfairly"?
Cable companies might even heavily raise fees and impose data caps to strangle VOD competition.
That they shouldn't do. But there are a huge number of "mights" that we can come up with to improve our hate of cable companies. They might deliberately route gaming packets via satellite unless you give them your first-borne child. They might randomly drop bits in your packets unless you sacrifice a goat at every full moon.
The Constitution is just bad toilet paper if it is a hindrance to its purpose, which is in service to the citizenry.
The purpose of the Constitution is not to give everyone their little heart's desire. It's to put a limit on the federal government. It is not the purpose of the federal government to give everyone their little heart's desire, either. "My internet service isn't good enough" isn't a problem that the US government and the Constitution were created to solve.
Especially applicable in this case, where the means are not necessarily repugnant,
Yes, the means are repugnant. When a court steps in to start legislating it is repugnant. When it steps in to set internet service rates is would be especially so.
There's no law against initiatives, or other prohibition, and Article V is conceptually applicable.
Article V speaks to amendments to the constitution, not the creation of a federal election system with ballot initiatives. Many people believe the state level initiative process is significantly broken and wasteful, and trying to scale it up to a new federal system would be a disaster. Were there to be authority to do such a thing in the first place.
Ah, but the prices are related,
No, they aren't. What you pay for service has nothing to do with net neutrality. Nothing at all.
besides, the Supreme Court can just farm the task out.
No, they cannot. They cannot do it themselves, they cannot hire someone to do it for them. They have no authority to mandate prices for internet service.
So do I, but it was despite everything Comcast and AT&T could do.
So you are using one of the many other ISPs, then. Otherwise, "everything" means "not provide any service" and you'd have no internet service. Funny how the presence of other ISPs means there isn't really any need for SCOTUS to regulate ISP prices. And no reason to create an authority for it.
We need to demand that any judge who gives the cable companies more than the time of day should be impeached.
"I'm sorry, cable company, but we cannot consider your legal rights in any matter at all, because fustakrakich has ruled that if we do more than 'give you the time of day' we shall be impeached. You have no legal rights and no defense against any lawsuits anyone files against you for any reason."
There is no end to your hatred of the cable companies and no end to the means you will go to to destroy them, is there?
Like the Rocky Horror Picture Show, democracy requires audience participation to be effective.
You know those people who make up cable companies are part of the democracy that gets to participate, don't you?
Or perhaps it's just a figure of speech meaning "make enough noise to get the federal legislature to do something about it" ?
No. There is no federal initiative process, and NO BALLOT TO PUT IT ON. Here in the USA we do not have a true national election. The highest level election (and thus "ballot") is the state level. All the gum flapping you read in your papers about the "winner" of the "popular vote" for President (the only national elected office now that Pres and VP are combined) is just gum flapping. There are state elections which result state winners, and a process to select the final winner from that. "Adding up all the votes for X and Y" isn't how the winner is selected and is a quite meaningless number.
If you want to hide what kind of traffic you're sending so no QoS can be applied in transit, fine. Accept the congestion that undifferentiated traffic can be subject to.
As for the yammering about how these awful monopolies ... stop. There is no monopoly for ISP service. None.
I don't care how it is done.
Do you care what the Constitution says, or is it just toilet paper to you?
The ends justify the means.
Right.
Then make it federal.
There is no federal initiative process, and no support in the Constitution to create one. That means any "initiatives" have to be at the state level.
Hell, the president should sign an executive order to make it happen.
We've had too much "rule by fiat" already.
Or you can spend the rest of your lives discussing it and get nothing done while prices reach for the sky.
Prices have nothing to do with net neutrality, and where does it say anywhere that the Supreme Court has the authority to set internet rates?
Either you want proper internet service, or you don't.
I have proper internet service.
Look no further than Canada to see what a lack of net neutrality looks like 1) Expensive (minimum $85 to get ANY internet service)
Has nothing to do with net neutrality.
2) Unbundled packages save you nothing
Also not net neutrality.
3) To get things like HBO, you have to spend over $100 in package bundles
You are batting 0.000 for net neutrality issues so far.
4) Each carrier has their own garbage-tier VOD service
Comcast OnDemand isn't an internet service, it's a cable TV service. Not net neutrality.
5) And if you switch carriers, you have to pay for data on top of the subscription cost to use those netflix-clones.
Uhh, what? You have to pay for data to get data? I'm at a loss what you're talking about here.
The requirement, should be: The Cable, Telephone, and Fiber networks shall only be a "dumb pipe", any content can go over it.
How is paying Rogers for Shomi different than paying Netflix for Netflix, and what does it have to do with "any content can go over it?"
The congestion controls should be set at the switching points, not the ISP.
Uhhh, so an ISP cannot ever allow any congestion within their own switching network? What if the "switching points" with the congestion are inside the ISP network?
If a neighborhood is "saturated" then that neighborhood is checked for who is using a disproportionate amount of bandwidth, sent a "speeding ticket" that tells them they will be downgraded to 8Mbits until they explain how they are using that bandwidth.
So I get downgraded to 8Mbps and have to explain how I am using my bandwidth because my neighbor is hogging all the bandwidth and got caught? Wow.
If Congress won't do it, the courts must.
The courts are not supposed to be in the business of writing law. That means if Congress won't do it, the courts have even less business doing it.
And if they don't, we need to put the initiative on the ballot.
You wish for a patchwork of internet regulation on a state-by-state basis? What a minefield that would be.
I hope you realize that they don't have to inspect the content to be able to prioritize services which need higher QoS and lower latency. A Skype call that talks about subversive overthrow of the US Government will look no different than a Skype call talking about Aunt Martha's cookie recipe, yet the latter is clearly a violation of several federal laws of patent and DMCA.
It would serve them right if the court just turned around and declared that cable and internet service providers are all in the category of "common carriers" and should be regulated and controlled as such. Bazinga.
Cable television certainly isn't a common carrier. Not even close. It is a video distribution system. One way.
You miss an important distinction. The Alabama law in question banned ONLY political calls.
How does that change what I said about political calls being subject to the DNC? And you might note that the DNC exemptions are based on content. If you ban "all but X", then you've made a just as unconstitutional limit on speech as allowing "X", under this ruling.
I'd like to see this extended nationally honestly.
You miss an important distinction. Wait, that's what I just said -- "It should be illegal for them to ignore the federal do-not-call list". But I missed an important distinction.
The backlash would force congress to ban all robocalls.
What color is the sky on your planet? It is blue here on Earth.
By banning politicial robocalls in particular they guaranteed that the law would be found to violate the 1st Amendment.
You are aware that there are significant bans on political speech that have not been found to be unconstitutional, I hope. And specific rules for political speech that do not apply to other types. Also not unconstitutional.
The federal Do Not Call list should be strictly enforced.
Politicians and charities and polling are three exemptions that the politicians wrote into the DNC list. It can be as strictly enforced as you like and you'll still get calls from politicians, charities, and pollsters (even push-pollers.)
Time to close those loopholes.
The actual issue here is just that the ban singled out specific types of robocall instead of blocking them all.
The state law closed the loophole the politicians left in the federal do-not-call system. Yay for the state. Serving the interests of the citizens and not the politicians.
A federal judge has ruled that robocalls made on behalf of political candidates are protected by the First Amendment and cannot be outlawed.
It should be illegal for them to ignore the federal do-not-call list, and for them to call cell phones period. The First Amendment doesn't say I have to provide anyone a platform at my expense or my inconvenience.
The state has failed to prove that the statute at issue advances a compelling state interest
Wouldn't it be novel if a law only had to show that it advances a compelling CITIZEN interest?
Translation: I'm ignoring the idiocy of Trump's statement, and inventing a rationale that allows me to not feel like a contemptible moron for supporting the man.
Well, you're ignoring the obvious joke in Trump's statement and inventing a rationale that allows you to continue to hate him. I mean, if it's the "damn ruskies" who hacked the DNC to help support Trump as the Democrat theory goes, then why wouldn't they support him by divulging Hillary's illegal emails? It's poking a very big hole in the "Russian" conspiracy, reminding people as well of Hillary's "vast right wing conspiracy" theory.
I think the dead giveaway is the bit about being "rewarded mightily by our press". If you can't see the sarcasm in that statement you are, as gurps puts it, a fool. The US press doesn't give a damn about Hillary and her issues with handling secret documents. After all, the FBI guy said she was innocent, right? (Reminder: no, he didn't, but that's how the press spun it.)
You sound like the kind of guy who would jump up and down shouting how much a liar Trump is if he answered "banana" when you asked him "who's there" as part of a knock-knock joke. He's not a banana, he must be INSANE! It's TREAASON to say you're a banana! It's racist towards true banana republics!
I assume people who live in the forest know how to run a chain saw.
You assume a lot of things. That doesn't make "let them burn" a realistic method of dealing with human lives.
satellites were considered economically impossible for quite a while.
Satellites were economically impossible for quite a while. When "satellite" consisted of Echostar, it was impossible for there to be enough ground stations to deliver a service like Dishnet.
It got better.
That doesn't mean that the economics or physical constraints on using drones to deliver stuff are going to "get better" to the point that it makes sense to use such a system. There are things where technology can be perfect and it still doesn't make sense to deploy. Like high speed raid outside a high population density area.
Hyperbole in TFS is getting tiring. As is the consistent failure to link to the actual source instead of some muckraking story about the source. For example, "Recent rules" links not to the actual Part 107 rules, but to a slashdot story where the headline itself is patently false.