Surge complied with the takedown but screwed the pooch and brought down 38,000 sites instead of just the target.... It is the fault of Surge.
Actually, Surge hadn't time to take it down. It was Digitalocean who shut them off, which means all of the hosted content went with them.
Blame Digitalocean for overreaction and being quick on the trigger, not Surge, and not the NRA.
What law allows for the taking down of a site (or in this case multiple sites) over a trademark dispute?
The law of "them who owns the services". Digitalocean turned off service to a downstream customer, probably justified by a typical contract clause that prohibits certain uses.
Digitalocean might be in a bit of a bind over this as they have no legal protection from the DMCA safe harbor provision.
This wasn't a DMCA issue. And you can be sure that their contracts for service contain clauses that would cover "illegal use", which doesn't require conviction in a court of law to become active.
In my opinion, while trademarks in parody is an allowed use, using the trademark and claiming that the content was paid for by the trademark holder is not. While parody is one thing, outright defamation of character is another.
Major telecoms are getting out of the Landline business and into the Cellular business. The reason is not that cell phones are better technology....
The reason is that it is ridiculously profitable for them.... Land-based telephone lines have regulated pricing; Wireless and Fiber do not.
This is the first time I've heard fiber referred to as "cellular business".
They're getting out of the wireline business because it is ridiculously expensive. Maintaining a copper pair to a home is a huge expense. Installing a new one is hard. You have to deal with a huge number of franchising authorities. The costs of labor go nothing but go up. The costs of hardware do nothing but go up.
Cellular, on the other hand, can set up a tower or two outside a small city and cover the entire city without having to get city approval for anything. Adding a customer is an entry in a database or three. Cheap.
If the price controls did not exist for landlines; There would be no 3G or 4G networks.
Wrong. There would be no landline system for most of the US, and where there was many people would have opted out. Those new fangled "telephone thingys" wouldn't have caught on so well. That would leave a much larger starting market for wireless. It's a relatively recent turn of events that people have been abandoning wireline for wireless and increasing wireless demand. Imagine all those people as more likely customers 20 years ago instead of 5.
We would still be paying $0.50 a minute for long distance, $0.10 a minute for local calls, and your home phone would be $60 a month instead of $15.
Of course. Just as it used to be under the even tighter controls that were in place when Bell was Ma. You don't believe that public service commissions popped up just as divestiture came along, do you?
10% of the original lease cost PLUS 15% of the gross revenue
Fifteen percent of gross revenue? You're kidding.
Also, if another company thinks the license is more valuable and they believe they can provide something of higher utility to the public utilizing that piece of spectrum,
You mean like every competitor would think? And every other user of spectrum, too? They all think they've got a better use.
prove they are actively using the allocation for useful commercial purposes of benefit to the public in every County in the united states
Now I know you are trolling. A cell company which has spectrum under this lease in the Portland market has to prove they are doing something beneficial with it to EVERY COUNTY IN THE US?
If the challenger's intended use is Non-Profit, such as a Public service, or as a Public WiFi offered for a personal or community interest, then they are awarded without cost if there is demonstrable value to the public of a certain level,
Wow. Simply wow. Take it away from the companies providing cell phone service so that someone can offer "Public WiFi".
Right, when I lived in nearly unpopulated San Francisco
My bad. I didn't remember that San Francisco is an unprofitable area for wireless telecommunications services. So yes, there's ONE municipality in an unprofitable cellular market that could install wireless broadband.
That said, I'd be thrilled to see a significant portion of this allotment reserved for municipal wireless broadband in "unprofitable" areas.
The unprofitable areas are those areas with low population density. Do you know what you don't find in areas with low population density? That's right, municipalities that have money to invest in wireless broadband.
So UBER gives you more than the regulated taxi service with just a meter,
Uh, what? No, it doesn't give me more than a regulated taxi service. It has an "app" that will "estimate" the cost, which is really meaningless because the estimate is non-binding.
And there is no meter in an Uber car to tell me what the actual cost is. So that's less than a taxi with a meter.
Yep I am pretty good at that thar reading thing.
Again, you missed entire parts of the content and think you're a reading wiz.
BTW using your reasoning, if anyone has a ridiculous fee for a cab ride in a regulated market the regulation was worthless ?
Another example of trying to read something into what I wrote that isn't there. In fact, you have it exactly backwards: the fact that unregulated cabs can and do abuse the passengers means that the regulation is good. That's what I wrote.
You sure you want to live and die on that point ?
You are the only one saying that, so it's up to you to live or die by it, not me. Please stop wasting time by failing to read the words I actually write and trying to replace them with your own.
That's not a meter. That's an app that only estimates the price. Estimate. App. The fact is that Uber users routinely get into cars driven strangers and no meters. Yet you seem surprised that I would get into a car driven by a stranger when it has a meter and taxi markings.
So now you are upset with that time/distance price on the meter ?
You're real good at reading things I didn't write. I didn't say I was upset with the price on the meter. I said that the price I was told to pay at the end of the ride was amazingly ridiculous. It wasn't "the price on the meter". With no regulation, who says that the "price on the meter" means anything?
Come on lets have a little consistency here
How about a little bit of not reading things I didn't actually write? And a little bit of consistency about how stupid it is to get into a car with a stranger and no meter?
Let me get this straight. You got into a car with a stranger, that didn't have a meter
Where did I say that?
I got in a car with "TAXI" all over the outside, with a meter, but yes, he was a stranger. Do you know the taxi drivers you meet when you leave the airport in a strange city and need a ride to a hotel? I sure don't. Him being a stranger is a REALLY GOOD reason for there to be regulation.
But I'll point out what you just said applies in spades to Uber drivers. Car, stranger, no meter...
"Didn't get told" ?? Well I am impressed at your assertiveness in asking how much something costs before you buy it.
Most cab drivers, unless you're using a fixed route with a REGULATED fixed fare, can't tell you how much your ride is going to cost until you get there. They might be able to guess, but that's all. If they guess wrong, guess who wins?
And if there is no regulation, who cares what he says before you get in, he's keeping your luggage in the trunk until you pay what he says when you get there.
That you seem surprised that this is how things operate in taxi-land makes me know you've never taken a cab ride anywhere, or you did so under a highly regulated system using fixed-rate routes.
AirBNB does not publish your name. Nor the exact address.
I'm sorry, but WHAT? How do you find the rental when you want to live there? Just wander about the neighborhood shouting "olly olly oxen free, I'm here for AirBnB!"
just what is it, that the city needs to know in addition to what AirBNB tells everyone?
I think I already said that. They want to make sure that the renter is not a corporation trying to avoid the corporate rules. And I think the fact that the fee is a paltry $50 shows they aren't in it for the money (despite fascinating conspiracy theories to the contrary) or to really stop it from happening.
Freedom of Speech generally assumes freedom not to speak.
AirBnB has no First Amendment issue here, because they aren't being forced to speak. And once again, commercial speech has a long history of restrictions, including forced speech. Do you never wonder why there is that bit at the end of a car commercial where they list actual interest rates and other details, or the listing of side effects on drug ads?
There may also be 5th Amendment issues here.
Now I know you're kidding. If you are admitting to a crime when you register your apartment for rental, then the simple solution is to not register your apartment for rental. You are not compelled to incriminate yourself.
The distinction you â" and SF, according to you â" are trying to make is without difference.
Sorry. But there is a difference between someone who is renting out private living space they normally occupy and a commercial operation renting rooms. The private individual has a vested interest in maintaining their own living accommodations; a commercial operation has an interest in limiting maintenance to the minimum necessary to meet regulatory requirements.
Whether it is a small-time owner of a single apartment, or a larger entity, the rules ought to be the same.
Then you agree that the AirBnB renters should register. Good.
And they ought to be liberal and privacy-respecting.
So you want no regulation on publicly available rentals at all. Hotels, motels, etc. That's consistent at least.
People have been complaining about how big city taxi services are regulated for longer than you have likely been alive.
Some people complain about HOW they are regulated, but I've never heard anyone (except those who want to run rogue cab services on the cheap) complain that they ARE regulated in the first place. Yeah, a million dollars for a medallion is a valid complaint. That they need some kind of registration and overview is not.
If you've never had a cab ride where you don't get told anything about the cost until you're at the destination and then find out it's amazingly ridiculous, thank the regulators. It's happened to me, in places where cabs are less well regulated.
If you've never had "cabbies" shouting at you about how much better their services are and you should use them instead of the cab you are about to get into, then thank the regulators. It used to happen at the Portland OR airport until the regulators put their foot down. I've not heard a single complaint about the loss of that annoyance.
Companies like Uber and Air BnB are lightning rods.
Companies like Uber etc are only "lightning rods" because they are trying to act like the regulated services while trying to avoid any regulation, to the point of denying that they are like the regulated services. The "simmering discontent" is not what you think it is.
Filling out the form. Informing the government of your being one of AirBNB renters -- with details about yourself and the apartment(s) being rented.
Because you let somebody know all this "willingly", the information is available to the police under the Third Party Doctrine -- no warrant needed.
You mean like when you tell AirBnB all the same information and they post it publicly to advertise your rental? You mean like that "willingly"? You mean like the pictures of the inside of the rental with a picture of the owner, like you can see on the AirBnB website? That kind of "willingly"? I bet the SF registration doesn't require pictures of either.
"Psst, AirBnB, I want to be a renter under your system, but keep it a secret, ok? Don't let anyone know. I like my privacy."
Because it was the government, the information is now public records
I wonder if the wayback machine archives AirBnB pages?
AirBnB has no First Amendment claim here. Nobody is stopping them from speaking, and even were the government limiting their "free speech" in some way, there is a long tradition and precedent of commercial speech being restricted. And SF has a vested interest in making sure that the AirBnB renters are not commercial operations instead of private individuals.
No one seems to have detected any apology from Trump.
I'm sure he's sorry they confessed. What other apology does he need to make? They confessed, and Trump had nothing to do with that or with convicting them or setting the sentence. Should he feel sorry that he thought the murder/rape of a jogger in a public park merited the death penalty?
If you scratch an ardent Trump supporter, you find a hater.
You don't even need to scratch the surface of the Trump haters to find a hater.
You don't have to "remote in" to turn off automatic updates when you first get the system. That's how you stop automatic updates, and the automatic reboot when they are done.
And, of course, every W7 system I've had that has gotten the GWX nagware has never done anything with WX until I "reserved my copy". When I don't, WX doesn't get installed.
But yes, not everything shows up on a "remote". It took me half an hour one time to find out that the Office menu that comes up when you want to print or save does not appear on a VNC connection, and I only found that out because I saw it showing up on the laptop display out of the corner of my eye while I was trying to find "save" on the VNC version.
Okay then, link to the specific documentation! Show me where it's posted on the Internet! 'Cause I've looked for it, and found nothing.
Contact T-Mobile. They'll send you the info. It doesn't have to be "on the interwebs" for it to be available to you. You already know how to get it.
And you've already used that option.
More to the point, though, do you really expect everyone on the Internet who serves video or audio to contact T-Mobile and ask? That's fucking stupid!
Yes, it is stupid to try to claim I said anything like that. I expect content providers who want to help their customers to save money to do so. I expect content providers who don't want to to do nothing.
it's abundantly clear that they intend this to be for "some of the most popular streaming services"
They intend it to be for anyone who asks, and they expect that Mon and Pop Streaming Inc won't bother asking. They expect the small timers to not bother and the customers of the small timers to not bother, because the small timers aren't sending that much data. If they were, they'd be "popular".
He is of the opinion that T-Mobile's way of doing it is the *ONLY* way to do it,
You lie.
So for you I'd like to clarify: I wasn't intending to say the masses should be able to tell T-Mobile who to add.
And yet, T-Mobile has a way for the "masses" to tell them who should be added. That awful evil T-Mobile will actually allow the USERS to tell them the providers they would like added.
I suggested that T-Mobile just provide an unlimited 1 megabit channel.
And I've told you why that would screw a lot of people who want to watch videos on their mobiles AND do other things, like read email or PDFs or download books or a lot of other things. You'd limit them to a 1Mbps "channel" when they're doing non-video things, and that's just ridiculous. Yet you fail to see the problem with that option.
that you just let the customers come up with their own 'slow list' of domains that they get zero-rated on.
And you've been told repeatedly why that is not a valid option.
T-Mobile provides their innovative service and does so without violating Net Neutrality.
T-Mobile already provides an innovative service without violating net neutrality. You'd rather just lie and make things up guessing and pretending that they're going to deny you access to Binge On because you want to play sour grapes and spew nonsense.
If T-Mobile is successful with this plan there is nothing to stop AT&T, Verizon, Sprint, etc from creating a similar service. AT&T and Verizon actually offer their own services
That's right. Were AT&T or Verizon to offer the same program as T-Mobile there would be nothing to stop them, because THEY TOO would not be violating net neutrality. It doesn't matter if they have their own services (I don't know what streaming video services AT&T or Verizon wireless provide, don't care, don't need to.) What matters is if they unfairly exclude content providers from their version of Binge On. If they provide a level playing field, there is equal opportunity for content providers to participate. But you cannot prove they would not have a level playing field, all you can do is fictionalize and demonize and make it up about a non-existing AT&T/Verizon program, just like you are making things up about Binge On and T-Mobile. OMG, a provider having to register with T-Mobile before T-Mobile will modify the streaming content for them is so, I mean, it's just, umm, a GOOD THING.
You have absolutely no interest in pondering what it means for a company to prefer specific web-services over others.
You still haven't comprehended that Binge On has nothing to do with web services, it's a video and audio streaming issue.
There is a very big restriction there. They have to apply.
Which isn't much of a restriction.
why have an application process involved at all?
BECAUSE THEY CANNOT SIMPLY ASSUME THAT A VIDEO SERVER WANTS TO PARTICIPATE IN BINGE ON, THEY HAVE TO HAVE A REQUEST TO BE PART OF THE PROGRAM. JFC, do you read nothing anyone says to you? Read the damn technical brief for goodness sake. Look at option 2 in particular. T-Mobile will OPTIMIZE YOUR VIDEO STREAM FOR YOU -- if you are a participating provider. How do they know if you are a participating provider WITHOUT YOU TELLING THEM YOU WANT TO BE? That's the "application" you keep whining about.
So NO, they cannot simply assume you as a content provider WANT to participate, so YOU HAVE TO TELL THEM. Is that really that hard to understand?
And NO, trying to force people who want to stream video while avoiding data limits to buy a "1Mbps unlimited" service is asinine, arrogant, and technically stupid. People do more than just stream videos with their phones, and forcing them into a pitiful slow data rate for ALL activities so they don't have to pay extra for video streaming is, as I said, arrogant, asinine, and technically moronic.
You have no argument against T-Mobile, and that's why you keep bringing up Comcast or Verizon or AT&T as proof why T-Mobile shouldn't be able to do what it is doing. You keep complaining how T-Mobile is prioritizing web sites when web traffic is not the issue. You keep claiming that T-Mobile is excluding content providers without a shred of evidence to back that up. The truth is, T-Mobile is NOT violating net neutrality with Binge On no matter what other vendors are doing, and hammering on them for their evil wrongdoings here is just trolling.
Which you have never done, so you have no idea what happens after that. According to T-Mobile, there is no "choosing", it's "meet the technical standards." Whether you do that or not is YOUR choice, not theirs.
Really? Heh. I told you several times.
No, you haven't. You claimed I was making up some "fictional backstory" for you, and I have idea what the hell you are talking about. Nor do you, it seems.
... Okie dokie. Well, give me a little credit, at least I didn't make up something about you and act as if it's true.
More troll talk.
So they don't pick and choose, but they decide to use an approach where they must pick and choose...
So who is making things up and pretending they are true? There's no "pick and choose". YOU choose to meet the technical requirements or you choose not to. They don't choose anything.
Do you have me mixed up with someone else or did you just hallucinate a fictional backstory for me?
I have no idea what you're complaining about here. We're talking about a video streaming service provided by certain content providers to their customers. Why would ANYONE, you included, want to screw over their customers by refusing to some technical limits to the streaming rate of their content so those customers have to pay full rate for the content -- that they can't use any faster than the limit T-Mobile wants the provider to limit itself to. Whether that's YOU or some other content provider, the question is the same.
But all you can do is avoid the question, so I guess that answers it. You don't want to participate so damn if anyone should be able to.
Gee., if only computers were advanced enough to provide a simple solution to that problem.
Are you really so dense that you cannot see that forcing people who want to watch videos without overstepping their data limits into a 1Mbps plan (just so you can feel good about screwing them, I guess) means that anything not video related will take forever to download? No, there is no "computer" solution to that problem. If you are on a 1Mbps plan then that's what you get.
Oh, wait, there IS a computer solution: provide a video stream to T-Mobile that meets the technical standards (for the computer) and be a part of Binge On and your customers get the data without it counting against their limits, and they can still download non-video content at full speed. There's the solution -- but you can't allow it because you don't want to even try to participate.
"This is inconvenient so I will make a fart noise and pretend that's a rebuttal."
You're still talking out your ass. It's your "fart noise" that is pretending to be a rebuttal.
If it's only a matter of meeting technical requirements, then there's no need for an application process.
Asked and answered. Yes, there is. Move on to some other excuse.
I don't want my ISP choosing which websites it likes best.
T-Mobile isn't doing that. YOU are choosing not to participate in a system that will save them money. YOU choose, not T-Mobile. But you can't stand that some people have chosen to do so, so it must be eliminated for all, even though it doesn't hurt you in any way. And it has nothing to do with websites, it has to do with video and audio streaming services. That you cannot differentiate between the two means you have no technical background to discuss this.
Because they don't want to. Because they can't. I don't know. You don't know.
Or, better yet, just offer a one megabit pipe and just publish the specs so those sites can provide good service to their customers?
I've already covered this, but this screws people who actually use their mobile device for more than just watching videos. A 400 second wait to download a 50Mb PDF is unacceptable; a 400 second video that takes 390 seconds to stream is just fine.
Why not just meet the technical standards and talk to T-Mobile so YOUR CUSTOMERS can benefit from this program? What do you have against your own customers? You want them to pay full rate for your streaming video instead of getting a break, so you must really dislike them.
They're offering specific services for free to differentiate themselves from other cellular carriers.
Oh My God, how DARE they offer specific services for free to differentiate themselves from other cellular carriers. I guess you're too wrapped up in your net neutrality hysteria to recognize that one cellular company offering different services than another has NOTHING to do with net neutrality.
If they really were being altruistic they'd just offer a 1mb unlimited plan and just ask the service providers to fit within that pipe,
You're trying to screw the people who want more than 1Mbps for some things but also want to watch video on their phones without it counting against their data plan. I know when I'm downloading a 50Mb PDF of some manual, I don't want to wait more than five minutes to get it, but I would be perfectly happy if the 5 minute video I'm watching takes 4:59 to transport across the net.
none of this "Fill out these forms and we'll get back to you in 6-8 weeks" nonsense.
Since you've never done it, and you've never been told "we'll get back to you in 6-8 weeks", you're talking out your ass. And so what if the registration process isn't instantaneous? You're setting up a long-term relationship and it's benefiting YOUR CUSTOMERS to do it. Why are you so outraged that you can do something simple to save YOUR CUSTOMERS money?
You've got to be kidding, or a troll. So they can know which sources are participating and which aren't, of course. They can't just throttle all video and audio streams that pass through their systems, because maybe their customer isn't streaming them, maybe they're downloading them and want to pay for that service and use their data that way.
The fact remains. Meet the criteria, you're good. Don't care to meet them, go on about your life as if nothing was different and let other people benefit from something you can't or won't do. Being sour-grapes because you can't benefit from something is ridiculous.
First of all, that "technical criteria" is way too vague to be useful in actually implementing a Binge-On-compliant service.
From the requirements pdf I've already provided a link to:
T-Mobile will work with content providers to ensure that our
networks work together to properly detect video. We will continue to work with content
providers as new traffic identification means
are needed in the event of future technology
enhancement or changes.
Oh My God, a PDF overview of a complicated technical system doesn't provide you immediately with enough information to be able to implement it. How could they DARE be so obtuse?
Second, it still requires that the content provider in question "partner" (i.e., create a business agreement) with T-Mobile.
Wow, what a burden: "provide video in a format we can detect is video and you're good". That's some onerous "business agreement".
What they need is a specific set of technical requirements such that anyone running a web server can configure it in a certain way and the content will automatically qualify for the program, with no business agreement required.
First, Binge On is not directed towards generic "web servers", it's specific to video and audio media. "Web servers" aren't the best servers for that kind of material, although they can.
Second, have you asked them if they have such a technical document? And I'm sure they thank you for your demands on how they need to run their business.
Do you have ANY reference that says that participating in Binge On is such a hardship to anyone? Not just "I doubt that" or "probably", but "I tried and couldn't"?
Slashdot Mirror
Surge complied with the takedown but screwed the pooch and brought down 38,000 sites instead of just the target. ... It is the fault of Surge.
Actually, Surge hadn't time to take it down. It was Digitalocean who shut them off, which means all of the hosted content went with them. Blame Digitalocean for overreaction and being quick on the trigger, not Surge, and not the NRA.
What law allows for the taking down of a site (or in this case multiple sites) over a trademark dispute?
The law of "them who owns the services". Digitalocean turned off service to a downstream customer, probably justified by a typical contract clause that prohibits certain uses.
Digitalocean might be in a bit of a bind over this as they have no legal protection from the DMCA safe harbor provision.
This wasn't a DMCA issue. And you can be sure that their contracts for service contain clauses that would cover "illegal use", which doesn't require conviction in a court of law to become active.
In my opinion, while trademarks in parody is an allowed use, using the trademark and claiming that the content was paid for by the trademark holder is not. While parody is one thing, outright defamation of character is another.
Major telecoms are getting out of the Landline business and into the Cellular business. The reason is not that cell phones are better technology. ...
The reason is that it is ridiculously profitable for them.... Land-based telephone lines have regulated pricing; Wireless and Fiber do not.
This is the first time I've heard fiber referred to as "cellular business".
They're getting out of the wireline business because it is ridiculously expensive. Maintaining a copper pair to a home is a huge expense. Installing a new one is hard. You have to deal with a huge number of franchising authorities. The costs of labor go nothing but go up. The costs of hardware do nothing but go up.
Cellular, on the other hand, can set up a tower or two outside a small city and cover the entire city without having to get city approval for anything. Adding a customer is an entry in a database or three. Cheap.
If the price controls did not exist for landlines; There would be no 3G or 4G networks.
Wrong. There would be no landline system for most of the US, and where there was many people would have opted out. Those new fangled "telephone thingys" wouldn't have caught on so well. That would leave a much larger starting market for wireless. It's a relatively recent turn of events that people have been abandoning wireline for wireless and increasing wireless demand. Imagine all those people as more likely customers 20 years ago instead of 5.
We would still be paying $0.50 a minute for long distance, $0.10 a minute for local calls, and your home phone would be $60 a month instead of $15.
Of course. Just as it used to be under the even tighter controls that were in place when Bell was Ma. You don't believe that public service commissions popped up just as divestiture came along, do you?
10% of the original lease cost PLUS 15% of the gross revenue
Fifteen percent of gross revenue? You're kidding.
Also, if another company thinks the license is more valuable and they believe they can provide something of higher utility to the public utilizing that piece of spectrum,
You mean like every competitor would think? And every other user of spectrum, too? They all think they've got a better use.
prove they are actively using the allocation for useful commercial purposes of benefit to the public in every County in the united states
Now I know you are trolling. A cell company which has spectrum under this lease in the Portland market has to prove they are doing something beneficial with it to EVERY COUNTY IN THE US?
If the challenger's intended use is Non-Profit, such as a Public service, or as a Public WiFi offered for a personal or community interest, then they are awarded without cost if there is demonstrable value to the public of a certain level,
Wow. Simply wow. Take it away from the companies providing cell phone service so that someone can offer "Public WiFi".
Right, when I lived in nearly unpopulated San Francisco
My bad. I didn't remember that San Francisco is an unprofitable area for wireless telecommunications services. So yes, there's ONE municipality in an unprofitable cellular market that could install wireless broadband.
Sheesh. Read what you reply to, ok?
That said, I'd be thrilled to see a significant portion of this allotment reserved for municipal wireless broadband in "unprofitable" areas.
The unprofitable areas are those areas with low population density. Do you know what you don't find in areas with low population density? That's right, municipalities that have money to invest in wireless broadband.
So UBER gives you more than the regulated taxi service with just a meter,
Uh, what? No, it doesn't give me more than a regulated taxi service. It has an "app" that will "estimate" the cost, which is really meaningless because the estimate is non-binding.
And there is no meter in an Uber car to tell me what the actual cost is. So that's less than a taxi with a meter.
Yep I am pretty good at that thar reading thing.
Again, you missed entire parts of the content and think you're a reading wiz.
BTW using your reasoning, if anyone has a ridiculous fee for a cab ride in a regulated market the regulation was worthless ?
Another example of trying to read something into what I wrote that isn't there. In fact, you have it exactly backwards: the fact that unregulated cabs can and do abuse the passengers means that the regulation is good. That's what I wrote.
You sure you want to live and die on that point ?
You are the only one saying that, so it's up to you to live or die by it, not me. Please stop wasting time by failing to read the words I actually write and trying to replace them with your own.
Amazing https://www.uber.com/fare-esti...
That's not a meter. That's an app that only estimates the price. Estimate. App. The fact is that Uber users routinely get into cars driven strangers and no meters. Yet you seem surprised that I would get into a car driven by a stranger when it has a meter and taxi markings.
So now you are upset with that time/distance price on the meter ?
You're real good at reading things I didn't write. I didn't say I was upset with the price on the meter. I said that the price I was told to pay at the end of the ride was amazingly ridiculous. It wasn't "the price on the meter". With no regulation, who says that the "price on the meter" means anything?
Come on lets have a little consistency here
How about a little bit of not reading things I didn't actually write? And a little bit of consistency about how stupid it is to get into a car with a stranger and no meter?
If Airbnb can be fined because of the actions of its users,
It isn't. It would be fined for listing an accommodation that had not registered. Their listing.
Airbnb is being compelled to notify local governments of user information
Nope. AirBnB is being "compelled" to not list unregistered accommodations. AirBnB does't have to tell the government anything.
And any attempted government regulation of a website's contents are likely to bring up First Amendment claims.
Commercial speech has a long history of government regulation.
Let me get this straight. You got into a car with a stranger, that didn't have a meter
Where did I say that?
I got in a car with "TAXI" all over the outside, with a meter, but yes, he was a stranger. Do you know the taxi drivers you meet when you leave the airport in a strange city and need a ride to a hotel? I sure don't. Him being a stranger is a REALLY GOOD reason for there to be regulation.
But I'll point out what you just said applies in spades to Uber drivers. Car, stranger, no meter ...
"Didn't get told" ?? Well I am impressed at your assertiveness in asking how much something costs before you buy it.
Most cab drivers, unless you're using a fixed route with a REGULATED fixed fare, can't tell you how much your ride is going to cost until you get there. They might be able to guess, but that's all. If they guess wrong, guess who wins?
And if there is no regulation, who cares what he says before you get in, he's keeping your luggage in the trunk until you pay what he says when you get there.
That you seem surprised that this is how things operate in taxi-land makes me know you've never taken a cab ride anywhere, or you did so under a highly regulated system using fixed-rate routes.
AirBNB does not publish your name. Nor the exact address.
I'm sorry, but WHAT? How do you find the rental when you want to live there? Just wander about the neighborhood shouting "olly olly oxen free, I'm here for AirBnB!"
just what is it, that the city needs to know in addition to what AirBNB tells everyone?
I think I already said that. They want to make sure that the renter is not a corporation trying to avoid the corporate rules. And I think the fact that the fee is a paltry $50 shows they aren't in it for the money (despite fascinating conspiracy theories to the contrary) or to really stop it from happening.
Freedom of Speech generally assumes freedom not to speak.
AirBnB has no First Amendment issue here, because they aren't being forced to speak. And once again, commercial speech has a long history of restrictions, including forced speech. Do you never wonder why there is that bit at the end of a car commercial where they list actual interest rates and other details, or the listing of side effects on drug ads?
There may also be 5th Amendment issues here.
Now I know you're kidding. If you are admitting to a crime when you register your apartment for rental, then the simple solution is to not register your apartment for rental. You are not compelled to incriminate yourself.
The distinction you â" and SF, according to you â" are trying to make is without difference.
Sorry. But there is a difference between someone who is renting out private living space they normally occupy and a commercial operation renting rooms. The private individual has a vested interest in maintaining their own living accommodations; a commercial operation has an interest in limiting maintenance to the minimum necessary to meet regulatory requirements.
Whether it is a small-time owner of a single apartment, or a larger entity, the rules ought to be the same.
Then you agree that the AirBnB renters should register. Good.
And they ought to be liberal and privacy-respecting.
So you want no regulation on publicly available rentals at all. Hotels, motels, etc. That's consistent at least.
People have been complaining about how big city taxi services are regulated for longer than you have likely been alive.
Some people complain about HOW they are regulated, but I've never heard anyone (except those who want to run rogue cab services on the cheap) complain that they ARE regulated in the first place. Yeah, a million dollars for a medallion is a valid complaint. That they need some kind of registration and overview is not.
If you've never had a cab ride where you don't get told anything about the cost until you're at the destination and then find out it's amazingly ridiculous, thank the regulators. It's happened to me, in places where cabs are less well regulated.
If you've never had "cabbies" shouting at you about how much better their services are and you should use them instead of the cab you are about to get into, then thank the regulators. It used to happen at the Portland OR airport until the regulators put their foot down. I've not heard a single complaint about the loss of that annoyance.
Companies like Uber and Air BnB are lightning rods.
Companies like Uber etc are only "lightning rods" because they are trying to act like the regulated services while trying to avoid any regulation, to the point of denying that they are like the regulated services. The "simmering discontent" is not what you think it is.
Filling out the form. Informing the government of your being one of AirBNB renters -- with details about yourself and the apartment(s) being rented. Because you let somebody know all this "willingly", the information is available to the police under the Third Party Doctrine -- no warrant needed.
You mean like when you tell AirBnB all the same information and they post it publicly to advertise your rental? You mean like that "willingly"? You mean like the pictures of the inside of the rental with a picture of the owner, like you can see on the AirBnB website? That kind of "willingly"? I bet the SF registration doesn't require pictures of either.
"Psst, AirBnB, I want to be a renter under your system, but keep it a secret, ok? Don't let anyone know. I like my privacy."
Because it was the government, the information is now public records
I wonder if the wayback machine archives AirBnB pages?
AirBnB has no First Amendment claim here. Nobody is stopping them from speaking, and even were the government limiting their "free speech" in some way, there is a long tradition and precedent of commercial speech being restricted. And SF has a vested interest in making sure that the AirBnB renters are not commercial operations instead of private individuals.
No one seems to have detected any apology from Trump.
I'm sure he's sorry they confessed. What other apology does he need to make? They confessed, and Trump had nothing to do with that or with convicting them or setting the sentence. Should he feel sorry that he thought the murder/rape of a jogger in a public park merited the death penalty?
If you scratch an ardent Trump supporter, you find a hater.
You don't even need to scratch the surface of the Trump haters to find a hater.
And, of course, every W7 system I've had that has gotten the GWX nagware has never done anything with WX until I "reserved my copy". When I don't, WX doesn't get installed.
But yes, not everything shows up on a "remote". It took me half an hour one time to find out that the Office menu that comes up when you want to print or save does not appear on a VNC connection, and I only found that out because I saw it showing up on the laptop display out of the corner of my eye while I was trying to find "save" on the VNC version.
Okay then, link to the specific documentation! Show me where it's posted on the Internet! 'Cause I've looked for it, and found nothing.
Contact T-Mobile. They'll send you the info. It doesn't have to be "on the interwebs" for it to be available to you. You already know how to get it.
And you've already used that option.
More to the point, though, do you really expect everyone on the Internet who serves video or audio to contact T-Mobile and ask? That's fucking stupid!
Yes, it is stupid to try to claim I said anything like that. I expect content providers who want to help their customers to save money to do so. I expect content providers who don't want to to do nothing.
it's abundantly clear that they intend this to be for "some of the most popular streaming services"
They intend it to be for anyone who asks, and they expect that Mon and Pop Streaming Inc won't bother asking. They expect the small timers to not bother and the customers of the small timers to not bother, because the small timers aren't sending that much data. If they were, they'd be "popular".
leaving everything else as second-class.
By their own choice.
He is of the opinion that T-Mobile's way of doing it is the *ONLY* way to do it,
You lie.
So for you I'd like to clarify: I wasn't intending to say the masses should be able to tell T-Mobile who to add.
And yet, T-Mobile has a way for the "masses" to tell them who should be added. That awful evil T-Mobile will actually allow the USERS to tell them the providers they would like added.
I suggested that T-Mobile just provide an unlimited 1 megabit channel.
And I've told you why that would screw a lot of people who want to watch videos on their mobiles AND do other things, like read email or PDFs or download books or a lot of other things. You'd limit them to a 1Mbps "channel" when they're doing non-video things, and that's just ridiculous. Yet you fail to see the problem with that option.
that you just let the customers come up with their own 'slow list' of domains that they get zero-rated on.
And you've been told repeatedly why that is not a valid option.
T-Mobile provides their innovative service and does so without violating Net Neutrality.
T-Mobile already provides an innovative service without violating net neutrality. You'd rather just lie and make things up guessing and pretending that they're going to deny you access to Binge On because you want to play sour grapes and spew nonsense.
If T-Mobile is successful with this plan there is nothing to stop AT&T, Verizon, Sprint, etc from creating a similar service. AT&T and Verizon actually offer their own services
That's right. Were AT&T or Verizon to offer the same program as T-Mobile there would be nothing to stop them, because THEY TOO would not be violating net neutrality. It doesn't matter if they have their own services (I don't know what streaming video services AT&T or Verizon wireless provide, don't care, don't need to.) What matters is if they unfairly exclude content providers from their version of Binge On. If they provide a level playing field, there is equal opportunity for content providers to participate. But you cannot prove they would not have a level playing field, all you can do is fictionalize and demonize and make it up about a non-existing AT&T/Verizon program, just like you are making things up about Binge On and T-Mobile. OMG, a provider having to register with T-Mobile before T-Mobile will modify the streaming content for them is so, I mean, it's just, umm, a GOOD THING.
You have absolutely no interest in pondering what it means for a company to prefer specific web-services over others.
You still haven't comprehended that Binge On has nothing to do with web services, it's a video and audio streaming issue.
There is a very big restriction there. They have to apply.
Which isn't much of a restriction.
why have an application process involved at all?
BECAUSE THEY CANNOT SIMPLY ASSUME THAT A VIDEO SERVER WANTS TO PARTICIPATE IN BINGE ON, THEY HAVE TO HAVE A REQUEST TO BE PART OF THE PROGRAM. JFC, do you read nothing anyone says to you? Read the damn technical brief for goodness sake. Look at option 2 in particular. T-Mobile will OPTIMIZE YOUR VIDEO STREAM FOR YOU -- if you are a participating provider. How do they know if you are a participating provider WITHOUT YOU TELLING THEM YOU WANT TO BE? That's the "application" you keep whining about.
So NO, they cannot simply assume you as a content provider WANT to participate, so YOU HAVE TO TELL THEM. Is that really that hard to understand?
And NO, trying to force people who want to stream video while avoiding data limits to buy a "1Mbps unlimited" service is asinine, arrogant, and technically stupid. People do more than just stream videos with their phones, and forcing them into a pitiful slow data rate for ALL activities so they don't have to pay extra for video streaming is, as I said, arrogant, asinine, and technically moronic.
You have no argument against T-Mobile, and that's why you keep bringing up Comcast or Verizon or AT&T as proof why T-Mobile shouldn't be able to do what it is doing. You keep complaining how T-Mobile is prioritizing web sites when web traffic is not the issue. You keep claiming that T-Mobile is excluding content providers without a shred of evidence to back that up. The truth is, T-Mobile is NOT violating net neutrality with Binge On no matter what other vendors are doing, and hammering on them for their evil wrongdoings here is just trolling.
... until after your application is sent in.
Which you have never done, so you have no idea what happens after that. According to T-Mobile, there is no "choosing", it's "meet the technical standards." Whether you do that or not is YOUR choice, not theirs.
Really? Heh. I told you several times.
No, you haven't. You claimed I was making up some "fictional backstory" for you, and I have idea what the hell you are talking about. Nor do you, it seems.
... Okie dokie. Well, give me a little credit, at least I didn't make up something about you and act as if it's true.
More troll talk.
So they don't pick and choose, but they decide to use an approach where they must pick and choose...
So who is making things up and pretending they are true? There's no "pick and choose". YOU choose to meet the technical requirements or you choose not to. They don't choose anything.
Do you have me mixed up with someone else or did you just hallucinate a fictional backstory for me?
I have no idea what you're complaining about here. We're talking about a video streaming service provided by certain content providers to their customers. Why would ANYONE, you included, want to screw over their customers by refusing to some technical limits to the streaming rate of their content so those customers have to pay full rate for the content -- that they can't use any faster than the limit T-Mobile wants the provider to limit itself to. Whether that's YOU or some other content provider, the question is the same.
But all you can do is avoid the question, so I guess that answers it. You don't want to participate so damn if anyone should be able to.
Close. I'm wrapped up in net neutrality...
And you're complaining that T-Mobile offers different services than other carriers as proof their violation.
They. Control. Who. Gets. Zero. Rated.
Meet. The. Technical. Standards. And. Register. That. Fact. With. Them. And. You. Can. Play., Too. That's the underlying fact.
Gee., if only computers were advanced enough to provide a simple solution to that problem.
Are you really so dense that you cannot see that forcing people who want to watch videos without overstepping their data limits into a 1Mbps plan (just so you can feel good about screwing them, I guess) means that anything not video related will take forever to download? No, there is no "computer" solution to that problem. If you are on a 1Mbps plan then that's what you get.
Oh, wait, there IS a computer solution: provide a video stream to T-Mobile that meets the technical standards (for the computer) and be a part of Binge On and your customers get the data without it counting against their limits, and they can still download non-video content at full speed. There's the solution -- but you can't allow it because you don't want to even try to participate.
"This is inconvenient so I will make a fart noise and pretend that's a rebuttal."
You're still talking out your ass. It's your "fart noise" that is pretending to be a rebuttal.
If it's only a matter of meeting technical requirements, then there's no need for an application process.
Asked and answered. Yes, there is. Move on to some other excuse.
I don't want my ISP choosing which websites it likes best.
T-Mobile isn't doing that. YOU are choosing not to participate in a system that will save them money. YOU choose, not T-Mobile. But you can't stand that some people have chosen to do so, so it must be eliminated for all, even though it doesn't hurt you in any way. And it has nothing to do with websites, it has to do with video and audio streaming services. That you cannot differentiate between the two means you have no technical background to discuss this.
Settle down.
Troll talk.
Then why not automate the process?
Because they don't want to. Because they can't. I don't know. You don't know.
Or, better yet, just offer a one megabit pipe and just publish the specs so those sites can provide good service to their customers?
I've already covered this, but this screws people who actually use their mobile device for more than just watching videos. A 400 second wait to download a 50Mb PDF is unacceptable; a 400 second video that takes 390 seconds to stream is just fine.
Why not just meet the technical standards and talk to T-Mobile so YOUR CUSTOMERS can benefit from this program? What do you have against your own customers? You want them to pay full rate for your streaming video instead of getting a break, so you must really dislike them.
They're offering specific services for free to differentiate themselves from other cellular carriers.
Oh My God, how DARE they offer specific services for free to differentiate themselves from other cellular carriers. I guess you're too wrapped up in your net neutrality hysteria to recognize that one cellular company offering different services than another has NOTHING to do with net neutrality.
If they really were being altruistic they'd just offer a 1mb unlimited plan and just ask the service providers to fit within that pipe,
You're trying to screw the people who want more than 1Mbps for some things but also want to watch video on their phones without it counting against their data plan. I know when I'm downloading a 50Mb PDF of some manual, I don't want to wait more than five minutes to get it, but I would be perfectly happy if the 5 minute video I'm watching takes 4:59 to transport across the net.
none of this "Fill out these forms and we'll get back to you in 6-8 weeks" nonsense.
Since you've never done it, and you've never been told "we'll get back to you in 6-8 weeks", you're talking out your ass. And so what if the registration process isn't instantaneous? You're setting up a long-term relationship and it's benefiting YOUR CUSTOMERS to do it. Why are you so outraged that you can do something simple to save YOUR CUSTOMERS money?
Then why even have an application process?
You've got to be kidding, or a troll. So they can know which sources are participating and which aren't, of course. They can't just throttle all video and audio streams that pass through their systems, because maybe their customer isn't streaming them, maybe they're downloading them and want to pay for that service and use their data that way.
The fact remains. Meet the criteria, you're good. Don't care to meet them, go on about your life as if nothing was different and let other people benefit from something you can't or won't do. Being sour-grapes because you can't benefit from something is ridiculous.
First of all, that "technical criteria" is way too vague to be useful in actually implementing a Binge-On-compliant service.
From the requirements pdf I've already provided a link to:
Oh My God, a PDF overview of a complicated technical system doesn't provide you immediately with enough information to be able to implement it. How could they DARE be so obtuse?
Second, it still requires that the content provider in question "partner" (i.e., create a business agreement) with T-Mobile.
Wow, what a burden: "provide video in a format we can detect is video and you're good". That's some onerous "business agreement".
What they need is a specific set of technical requirements such that anyone running a web server can configure it in a certain way and the content will automatically qualify for the program, with no business agreement required.
First, Binge On is not directed towards generic "web servers", it's specific to video and audio media. "Web servers" aren't the best servers for that kind of material, although they can.
Second, have you asked them if they have such a technical document? And I'm sure they thank you for your demands on how they need to run their business.
Do you have ANY reference that says that participating in Binge On is such a hardship to anyone? Not just "I doubt that" or "probably", but "I tried and couldn't"?