The reason I ask if you've tried Waze, though, is that responding to traffic conditions in realtime is its whole job.
The data Waze uses comes from drivers. There is a certain irony in the situation where a driver who has just been entering the location of a traffic stop is then stopped by the same officer and ticketed for using a mobile electronic device while driving, which is quite possible in states with new, draconian distracted driving laws.
A customer says to FB something along the lines of, "doodz, I wanna like sell shoes to people in like Seattle, hook me up!" And Facebook can reply, "Sorry sir, local laws in the city of Seattle prohibit us from selling advertisements targeted to that city.
And what does FB say when someone says they want to advertise their shoes nationwide? "Sorry, we can't accept your ad because Seattle doesn't allow shoe ads." Ok, can I advertise suspenders? "Nope, Kansas City has laws against suspender ads."
You're looking at this like someone is always going to target their ads at a specific city. They aren't. In fact, if someone knows their ad is banned in that city and they want to get the message through anyway, they'll just not say it is targeted at that city. (I gave an example in another post already.) And FB isn't going to know that the user is in any specific city, so they can't stop users from seeing ads based on their location.
It is harder than you think it is. That's why you think I'm making it harder than it has to be.
No need for absolute certainty about a user's location.
If you don't know where the user is, you don't know what ads you can and cannot show him based on local laws. If you have to refuse to accept ads because some city someplace has banned them, then indeed, national content is being controlled by municipal laws. Do YOU want that? I don't. Many things are illegal somewhere.
Nazi. Oops, not only did I Godwin this discussion, I broke the laws of the German republic. Go figure.
Just way too lax helping you keep your account secure.
Hey, it's better, at least. At one point they were relying on client-side javascript for security.
They need to let you choose your own login account names
As many cell services do, they run an SMS/email gateway. It USED to be that you could select your own username. E.g., foobear@tmomail.net. You could give that to someone so they could send you SMS via email and they wouldn't have your phone number, too. You could change it if they became a problem. They dropped that with little to no notice, so now if you tell someone your cell's email address they also have your phone number. Makes the service a lot less usable.
and some security questions.
Be careful what you ask for. United Airlines decided to add "security questions" to their website, and they appear almost every time you go there to do something urgent. They set the system up with a handful of questions with a PRESET list of answers. "What's your favorite musical instrument?" Things that I can't remember the "right" answer to because none of them are right to begin with. You also cannot just remember "first one on the list" because they scramble the order every time they ask. Sigh.
Wouldn't it be nice if "the Internet" provided instantly available absolutely correct location information about every person who visits your website, at the granularity necessary to know which town they are in? (That's "street address level", in case you were wondering.) Would that be nice? You get content controlled by local municipalities AND location tracking in one package.
I just love going to websites that want to access "your location data", which none of the browsers I use actually has to begin with. And then those websites guess where I am, with often comical results. (One recent example: a website I was accessing through an ISP in MA sent me to their HAWAII web pages. How droll.) You may be using an ISP that isn't even on the same side of the country that you are, so the user could be in the heart of Seattle but look like they're in New Jersey as far as Facebook can tell. I've seen satellite internet services show that users standing in downtown Seattle are someplace in Mexico, because that's where the downlink is.
Even more likely, you're in Seattle but the cell tower your phone is connected to is just outside the city limits. Are you "in" or "out" of Seattle, and should FB show you the ad or not? How far away from Seattle should Seattle law extend?
You can "geographically target" all you want, but if your data isn't good, then you're going to prison. The only safe option for web operators is to limit their content based on all municipal laws. Do YOU want that to be how the internet works?
Even if needle exchange programmes do nothing at all to help people get off drugs (and I can't think of a better way of offering help for those who need it than through such a service),
I try not to respond to AC because they usually say patently silly things, like this. You can't think of a better way of helping people to get off drugs than to give them needles so they can continue to shoot up with less worry about fatal illnesses?
the point is that it reduces both emergency medical care resulting from sharing needles (which taxpayers pay for) AND reducing the littering of used needles (a massive public health hazard and a costly mess to clean up).
And none of this is helping the drug addict in the long run. It's saving the taxpayer money. It may APPEAR to "help the addict" but it is really enabling a behavior that is dangerous and often fatal in itself. Virtue signaling, I think it is called.
The typical insult as demonstrated by the GP is that conservatives don't want to help people if they don't want to give them clean needles. As I pointed out, this assumes that giving people clean needles so they can kill themselves with illegal drugs with less fear of getting a fatal disease in the process is "helping them".
These programmes save far more of our tax money than they cost, but some people will oppose them because they also help people whom they don't like.
Yep, and now you've repeated the same nonsense insult, using the same incorrect assumption. If you like someone you will help them get off drugs, not make it easier and less troublesome for them to keep doing them.
It won't take too long until it also logs more miles than any other car.
I expect that the lunar landers have quite a few records. How many times around the earth have landers gone, and how far did they have to travel to get to the Moon in the first place?
This was for a MUNICIPAL election.
One would assume that the groups buying ads would understand local laws.
I understand my local laws. I also don't live in Seattle. Suppose I buy an ad in USA Today that makes a non-glaringly obvious reference to a Seattle election. I followed the laws of the municipalities I live in. What crime have I committed? USA Today doesn't know the ad refers to Seattle, are they liable?
Many things are illegal someplace. Do you want national content controlled by municipal laws?
For the big Giants of the internet the last thing they want is established precedent where a metro municipal code drives the practice of national or global content.
Do YOU want national or global content controlled by a metro municipal code? Remember, lots of things are illegal someplace.
But of course, helping people in need is UnAmerican..
That assumes that giving people the tools to kill themselves using illegal substances without picking up a fatal disease in the process is actually helping them, compared to providing services to help them break the habit. While you might argue that we aren't providing enough of the latter, that doesn't mean we should just take the easy way out and pretend that we are helping.
There is nothing preventing any third party from erecting their own DNS servers.
The hierarchical structure of the DNS is what stops them. You can set up all the DNS servers you want, but unless the root servers acknowledge them as authoritative for your TLD, and then the server for your TLD recognizes your server as authoritative for your next level down, you accomplish nothing.
For example, "dig +trace sci-hub.tv mx" response with string of lookups, paraphrased:
1. Hello a.root-servers.net, tell me about "tv". "Ask ac1.nstld.com." Thanks.
2. Hello ac1.nstld.com, tell me about "sci-hub.tv". "Ask alec.ns.cloudflare.com." Thanks.
3. Hello alec.ns.cloudflare.com, tell me the mx for "sci-hub.tv". Umm, please? Hello? Hello? <crickets>
Yes, you can run your own DNS server and try to get people to set you as their DNS service, but that's not trivial. You can maybe capture a bit of the traffic by convincing one of the large public servers (8.8.8.8, e.g.) to point to your server as authoritative for sci-hub.tv specifically, but how easy is that?
No, because I was watching the fucking game and it cut away suddenly when play was stopped and resumed before play started again.
It happened when the network decided to take a quick ad break. I think it was when PE turned over and NE was taking over. It looked like someone was caught asleep at the switch and didn't start the 30 second spot.
My immediate thought was "someone paid a million dollars for that ad spot and got nothing, they're going to be pissed." Yes, a commercial opportunity was lost.
There's no shortage of useful things to send up on a rocket, but we're gonna waste a launch on a dumb stunt by a rich guy.
The important thing to remember about test launches is that they are test launches, and as the summary points out, are more likely to end up in explosions. "Useful things" have inherent value, and they cost someone money to put together. An explosion would therefore cost someone something of real value.
Elon Musk's car, however, has only sentimental value, and mostly (if not completely) to him. Blow it up for a publicity stunt? Roger that. Blow up a satellite that cost someone a million dollars and 12 months of work to put together? Well, let's not.
What I like about the terminology is "mass simulator". You put a "mass simulator" into a test rocket because it has mass. Exactly what mass is it simulating? If it is only simulating mass, then is it real?
The problem is a lot of car drivers think because they drive the bigger thing that some of the laws don't apply to them.
I've see a lot more bike riders who believe that because they "drive" the smaller thing that the laws don't apply to them. For example, "it's too inconvenient to have to stop for pedestrians in a marked crosswalk because we lose our momentum and they can move out of the way more easily than we can." And don't even think about stop signs.
Other than wires or radio frequency, over what last mile were you considering?
You seem to admit that you know that wires passing every home in the city is not the only way of getting internet, and but then ignore that those other methods don't need phone or cable tv wires.
The medium does not define the service.
Yes it does.
The "medium" means what the physical delivery method is. "The service" means "internet service." The medium does not define the service.
I know it's complicated. It's hard to separate "Cable TV" from "Internet", in large part because the cable TV companies want you to conflate the two and always get both from them. The telco wants you conflate their phone service and internet, too. But truly, ISP (the service) is not defined by the medium (does it show up by cable TV wire or anything else) but by the fact that it is internet service.
You need to learn to separate the two concepts. Saying "ISP" does not imply "Cable TV", nor does it imply "DSL", nor does it imply any other specific medium.
A plan with such a cap is unsuitable for high-volume downloads,
It is still internet service, and it is quite suitable for many people. The fact that it may not be sufficient for your needs doesn't mean it isn't internet service.
Which U.S. ISPs might these be, in areas with more than two ISPs?
Look them up for yourself. I did when we were discussing the Colorado city that thought they needed to compete against the "more than 8" ISPs that were already operating in their town. If you recall, I say "more than 8" because I counted 8 that provided residential service, 8 that were business oriented, and the list was not the same. Level 3, for example, was not listed for residential.
How many of them are MVNOs, that is, cellular ISPs leasing Verizon, Sprint, AT&T, or T-Mobile frequencies
I wasn't talking about cellular telephone service.
Please explain how Level 3, for example, can provide ISP services without having to run their wires past every house.
In comments to stories about net neutrality, the otherwise unmarked term "ISP" most often refers to residential last mile ISPs.
In other words, you cannot explain it, and instead want to deflect the question. You are still trying to define "ISP" by the medium and not the service. "Well, when we say ISP we don't mean anything but DSL from the telco or cable internet from the cable company." Yeah, ok, but that's myopic.
To my knowledge, Level 3 does not claim to operate as a residential last mile ISP but instead as an ISP's ISP.
Level 3 is a business service oriented ISP. It is an ISP.
The service that Level 3 provides is not a relevant substitute for the service that a residential last mile ISP provides.
Of course it is a relevant substitute. It's even better service than what you can get from the telco using DSL or cable company. You can't claim that it isn't good enough for your exacting standards.
not within the normal filtered audio output range of the radio
I have people telling me all the time that something is wrong with my repeater because they're hearing a hum on the output. It's the PL tone (screw Motorola, I'm using their trademark anyway.)
20khz is well within the hearing range for dogs and cats... will this play havoc with people's pets?
Yes. Your dog will not respond to your voice commands during an Alexa commercial. Cats don't respond anyway, so no special sounds are needed to stop them.
The only people who conflate the two issues are either ignorant or intentionally misleading people.
Or more likely they're listening to the net neutrality zealots who make statements about NN that would exclude the ability to use QoS in any way. Yes, true NN does not exclude QoS shaping. It also does not exclude Netflix "throttling" due to congestion at the border gateway. But people who make statements like "all packets must be treated the same" are saying that QoS is not allowed.
I seem to remember reading that some franchise conditions require competitive providers to offer service to all addresses in a city from day one rather than rolling out service gradually from one end of the city to the other.
They can't do that, because they didn't require that from any of the incumbents. No franchise contains such a requirement. It may require a timetable for system buildout so that service will eventually be provided to everyone in the franchise area. Why is this a bad thing? You want to run an ISP in our city with access to all of the rights of way, then you need to run an ISP in the city. Not just cherry pick high density high income areas.
And though all new franchisees in 2018 must agree to a particular set of conditions, these conditions may have differed in 1918
There were no such franchises in 1918, and nobody gives a fuck what was being done in 1918 because any possible franchise that did exist then has long, long, long expired. Long ago.
Companies that need franchises (and not all ISPs do; many do not)
In the era of U.S. phone and cable line owners refusing to lease out their lines to competitive ISPs, how can an ISP work without a franchise?
By not using the phone or cable lines? That seems obvious to me. The medium does not define the service.
A wired ISP needs some access to rights of way,
Interesting use of adjective, admitting that not all ISPs are "wired". If you want to run a wired ISP, get a franchise. If you don't want to get a franchise, do it without access to the rights of way. Funny how many ISPs seem to be all around, given the limited ability to get franchises or work without them.
Please explain how Level 3, for example, can provide ISP services without having to run their wires past every house. It's not a requirement to do that to be an ISP.
2) When it comes to infrastructure planning in suburbs and rural areas, bikes are generally left out of the picture, so it's uncommon to see things like dedicated bike lanes or even a place to lock up your bike at your destination.
When such infrastructure planning does happen, bikers often paint themselves in a negative light by demanding outrageous concessions. For example, our county was working on a bike path to connect us to the next city over. I agree that one is probably necessary, but I could not support the bikers demands that their bike path be taken out of the middle of actively farmed acreage, cutting farms in half and putting bike riders very close to active farm machinery. The vocal minority of selfish bikers cost them all a lot of support from the middle.
We also had a demonstration of how much bikers care about others on campus here, where bike riders were quite adamant that they must have locked bike containers to keep their bikes in, and those containers could not be installed close to existing bike parking because. Because they needed to be installed in the middle of a very short supply of car parking spaces. There were half a dozen already concreted areas (unused by anyone) near existing bike racks (and lots of completely unused bike racks, too), but the containers could not go there. The issue resolved itself the usual way parking does here -- the campus parking service organization removed the bike containers as they were removing the parking to let a new building be built. Now nobody parks there.
Rural areas don't put in that infrastructure in some cases because putting a paved bike lane on some rural roads would mean that the only part of the road that is paved is the bike lane. It costs a lot to do that, with a low density of users.
That may be the case in the US where car reigns supreme, but here in Finland
Is Finland's FCC also putting the onus for net neutrality regulation on Finland's congress or FTC? Wow, an amazing coincidence.
I think it's probably clear he was talking about the US.
The US has a wondeful history with bike riders staging stunts that make everyone hate them. (Not everyone, but "most people", and by "people" I mean "people in the US metropolitan areas".) There are examples of such nonsense where bike riders deliberately block bridges and keep emergency vehicles like ambulances from being able to get where they need to be. Portland Oregon, for one city where this happened at least once.
It is such a productive demonstration technique to create traffic jams and impede rescue vehicles for everyone when you are upset that the city government hasn't provided enough bike lanes for you. You piss off everyone (same caveat) who cannot help you, and then they don't want to even if they could.
Keep in mind, many of the bike riders are starting from a negative view of their practices because many of them will simply ride through a crosswalk filled with pedestrians, ignoring the stop signs or other traffic control, because "bikes don't need to stop". I've gotten almost hit too many times to ever think bike riders are sane or rational or safe.
Not when cities impose unreasonable conditions on access to rights of way.
Yeah! Unreasonable! It's outright fascist to require that a new franchisee agree to the same franchise conditions that all of the existing franchisees did!
I better put in the <sarcasm> tag before you think I'm agreeing with you.
Did we forget, this is federal law? Companies that need franchises (and not all ISPs do; many do not) cannot be blocked by an exclusive franchise agreement.
Slashdot Mirror
The reason I ask if you've tried Waze, though, is that responding to traffic conditions in realtime is its whole job.
The data Waze uses comes from drivers. There is a certain irony in the situation where a driver who has just been entering the location of a traffic stop is then stopped by the same officer and ticketed for using a mobile electronic device while driving, which is quite possible in states with new, draconian distracted driving laws.
But when I read they had promised they had put a security code in place but they had not done so, they lost it.
Yesterday (the day after this story was posted), I got an SMS from T-Mobile:
T-Mobile Alert: We have identified an industry-wide phone number port out scam and encourage you to add account security. Learn more: ...
A customer says to FB something along the lines of, "doodz, I wanna like sell shoes to people in like Seattle, hook me up!" And Facebook can reply, "Sorry sir, local laws in the city of Seattle prohibit us from selling advertisements targeted to that city.
And what does FB say when someone says they want to advertise their shoes nationwide? "Sorry, we can't accept your ad because Seattle doesn't allow shoe ads." Ok, can I advertise suspenders? "Nope, Kansas City has laws against suspender ads."
You're looking at this like someone is always going to target their ads at a specific city. They aren't. In fact, if someone knows their ad is banned in that city and they want to get the message through anyway, they'll just not say it is targeted at that city. (I gave an example in another post already.) And FB isn't going to know that the user is in any specific city, so they can't stop users from seeing ads based on their location.
It is harder than you think it is. That's why you think I'm making it harder than it has to be.
No need for absolute certainty about a user's location.
If you don't know where the user is, you don't know what ads you can and cannot show him based on local laws. If you have to refuse to accept ads because some city someplace has banned them, then indeed, national content is being controlled by municipal laws. Do YOU want that? I don't. Many things are illegal somewhere.
Nazi. Oops, not only did I Godwin this discussion, I broke the laws of the German republic. Go figure.
Just way too lax helping you keep your account secure.
Hey, it's better, at least. At one point they were relying on client-side javascript for security.
They need to let you choose your own login account names
As many cell services do, they run an SMS/email gateway. It USED to be that you could select your own username. E.g., foobear@tmomail.net. You could give that to someone so they could send you SMS via email and they wouldn't have your phone number, too. You could change it if they became a problem. They dropped that with little to no notice, so now if you tell someone your cell's email address they also have your phone number. Makes the service a lot less usable.
and some security questions.
Be careful what you ask for. United Airlines decided to add "security questions" to their website, and they appear almost every time you go there to do something urgent. They set the system up with a handful of questions with a PRESET list of answers. "What's your favorite musical instrument?" Things that I can't remember the "right" answer to because none of them are right to begin with. You also cannot just remember "first one on the list" because they scramble the order every time they ask. Sigh.
FB sells geographically targeted advertising.
Wouldn't it be nice if "the Internet" provided instantly available absolutely correct location information about every person who visits your website, at the granularity necessary to know which town they are in? (That's "street address level", in case you were wondering.) Would that be nice? You get content controlled by local municipalities AND location tracking in one package.
I just love going to websites that want to access "your location data", which none of the browsers I use actually has to begin with. And then those websites guess where I am, with often comical results. (One recent example: a website I was accessing through an ISP in MA sent me to their HAWAII web pages. How droll.) You may be using an ISP that isn't even on the same side of the country that you are, so the user could be in the heart of Seattle but look like they're in New Jersey as far as Facebook can tell. I've seen satellite internet services show that users standing in downtown Seattle are someplace in Mexico, because that's where the downlink is.
Even more likely, you're in Seattle but the cell tower your phone is connected to is just outside the city limits. Are you "in" or "out" of Seattle, and should FB show you the ad or not? How far away from Seattle should Seattle law extend?
You can "geographically target" all you want, but if your data isn't good, then you're going to prison. The only safe option for web operators is to limit their content based on all municipal laws. Do YOU want that to be how the internet works?
Even if needle exchange programmes do nothing at all to help people get off drugs (and I can't think of a better way of offering help for those who need it than through such a service),
I try not to respond to AC because they usually say patently silly things, like this. You can't think of a better way of helping people to get off drugs than to give them needles so they can continue to shoot up with less worry about fatal illnesses?
the point is that it reduces both emergency medical care resulting from sharing needles (which taxpayers pay for) AND reducing the littering of used needles (a massive public health hazard and a costly mess to clean up).
And none of this is helping the drug addict in the long run. It's saving the taxpayer money. It may APPEAR to "help the addict" but it is really enabling a behavior that is dangerous and often fatal in itself. Virtue signaling, I think it is called.
The typical insult as demonstrated by the GP is that conservatives don't want to help people if they don't want to give them clean needles. As I pointed out, this assumes that giving people clean needles so they can kill themselves with illegal drugs with less fear of getting a fatal disease in the process is "helping them".
These programmes save far more of our tax money than they cost, but some people will oppose them because they also help people whom they don't like.
Yep, and now you've repeated the same nonsense insult, using the same incorrect assumption. If you like someone you will help them get off drugs, not make it easier and less troublesome for them to keep doing them.
is to not spend huge amounts of money on research and development building something useful
Are you saying that Elon didn't spend huge amounts of money in R&D on the car he's whooshing into space?
It won't take too long until it also logs more miles than any other car.
I expect that the lunar landers have quite a few records. How many times around the earth have landers gone, and how far did they have to travel to get to the Moon in the first place?
This was for a MUNICIPAL election. One would assume that the groups buying ads would understand local laws.
I understand my local laws. I also don't live in Seattle. Suppose I buy an ad in USA Today that makes a non-glaringly obvious reference to a Seattle election. I followed the laws of the municipalities I live in. What crime have I committed? USA Today doesn't know the ad refers to Seattle, are they liable?
Many things are illegal someplace. Do you want national content controlled by municipal laws?
For the big Giants of the internet the last thing they want is established precedent where a metro municipal code drives the practice of national or global content.
Do YOU want national or global content controlled by a metro municipal code? Remember, lots of things are illegal someplace.
But of course, helping people in need is UnAmerican..
That assumes that giving people the tools to kill themselves using illegal substances without picking up a fatal disease in the process is actually helping them, compared to providing services to help them break the habit. While you might argue that we aren't providing enough of the latter, that doesn't mean we should just take the easy way out and pretend that we are helping.
There is nothing preventing any third party from erecting their own DNS servers.
The hierarchical structure of the DNS is what stops them. You can set up all the DNS servers you want, but unless the root servers acknowledge them as authoritative for your TLD, and then the server for your TLD recognizes your server as authoritative for your next level down, you accomplish nothing.
For example, "dig +trace sci-hub.tv mx" response with string of lookups, paraphrased:
1. Hello a.root-servers.net, tell me about "tv". "Ask ac1.nstld.com." Thanks.
2. Hello ac1.nstld.com, tell me about "sci-hub.tv". "Ask alec.ns.cloudflare.com." Thanks.
3. Hello alec.ns.cloudflare.com, tell me the mx for "sci-hub.tv". Umm, please? Hello? Hello? <crickets>
Yes, you can run your own DNS server and try to get people to set you as their DNS service, but that's not trivial. You can maybe capture a bit of the traffic by convincing one of the large public servers (8.8.8.8, e.g.) to point to your server as authoritative for sci-hub.tv specifically, but how easy is that?
No, because I was watching the fucking game and it cut away suddenly when play was stopped and resumed before play started again.
It happened when the network decided to take a quick ad break. I think it was when PE turned over and NE was taking over. It looked like someone was caught asleep at the switch and didn't start the 30 second spot.
My immediate thought was "someone paid a million dollars for that ad spot and got nothing, they're going to be pissed." Yes, a commercial opportunity was lost.
There's no shortage of useful things to send up on a rocket, but we're gonna waste a launch on a dumb stunt by a rich guy.
The important thing to remember about test launches is that they are test launches, and as the summary points out, are more likely to end up in explosions. "Useful things" have inherent value, and they cost someone money to put together. An explosion would therefore cost someone something of real value.
Elon Musk's car, however, has only sentimental value, and mostly (if not completely) to him. Blow it up for a publicity stunt? Roger that. Blow up a satellite that cost someone a million dollars and 12 months of work to put together? Well, let's not.
What I like about the terminology is "mass simulator". You put a "mass simulator" into a test rocket because it has mass. Exactly what mass is it simulating? If it is only simulating mass, then is it real?
The problem is a lot of car drivers think because they drive the bigger thing that some of the laws don't apply to them.
I've see a lot more bike riders who believe that because they "drive" the smaller thing that the laws don't apply to them. For example, "it's too inconvenient to have to stop for pedestrians in a marked crosswalk because we lose our momentum and they can move out of the way more easily than we can." And don't even think about stop signs.
How cute, a supporter of regulatory capture.
This has nothing to do with regulatory capture, and your "think of the children" argument is actually pretty funny in this context.
Other than wires or radio frequency, over what last mile were you considering?
You seem to admit that you know that wires passing every home in the city is not the only way of getting internet, and but then ignore that those other methods don't need phone or cable tv wires.
The medium does not define the service.
Yes it does.
The "medium" means what the physical delivery method is. "The service" means "internet service." The medium does not define the service.
I know it's complicated. It's hard to separate "Cable TV" from "Internet", in large part because the cable TV companies want you to conflate the two and always get both from them. The telco wants you conflate their phone service and internet, too. But truly, ISP (the service) is not defined by the medium (does it show up by cable TV wire or anything else) but by the fact that it is internet service.
You need to learn to separate the two concepts. Saying "ISP" does not imply "Cable TV", nor does it imply "DSL", nor does it imply any other specific medium.
A plan with such a cap is unsuitable for high-volume downloads,
It is still internet service, and it is quite suitable for many people. The fact that it may not be sufficient for your needs doesn't mean it isn't internet service.
Which U.S. ISPs might these be, in areas with more than two ISPs?
Look them up for yourself. I did when we were discussing the Colorado city that thought they needed to compete against the "more than 8" ISPs that were already operating in their town. If you recall, I say "more than 8" because I counted 8 that provided residential service, 8 that were business oriented, and the list was not the same. Level 3, for example, was not listed for residential.
How many of them are MVNOs, that is, cellular ISPs leasing Verizon, Sprint, AT&T, or T-Mobile frequencies
I wasn't talking about cellular telephone service.
Please explain how Level 3, for example, can provide ISP services without having to run their wires past every house.
In comments to stories about net neutrality, the otherwise unmarked term "ISP" most often refers to residential last mile ISPs.
In other words, you cannot explain it, and instead want to deflect the question. You are still trying to define "ISP" by the medium and not the service. "Well, when we say ISP we don't mean anything but DSL from the telco or cable internet from the cable company." Yeah, ok, but that's myopic.
To my knowledge, Level 3 does not claim to operate as a residential last mile ISP but instead as an ISP's ISP.
Level 3 is a business service oriented ISP. It is an ISP.
The service that Level 3 provides is not a relevant substitute for the service that a residential last mile ISP provides.
Of course it is a relevant substitute. It's even better service than what you can get from the telco using DSL or cable company. You can't claim that it isn't good enough for your exacting standards.
not within the normal filtered audio output range of the radio
I have people telling me all the time that something is wrong with my repeater because they're hearing a hum on the output. It's the PL tone (screw Motorola, I'm using their trademark anyway.)
20khz is well within the hearing range for dogs and cats... will this play havoc with people's pets?
Yes. Your dog will not respond to your voice commands during an Alexa commercial. Cats don't respond anyway, so no special sounds are needed to stop them.
The only people who conflate the two issues are either ignorant or intentionally misleading people.
Or more likely they're listening to the net neutrality zealots who make statements about NN that would exclude the ability to use QoS in any way. Yes, true NN does not exclude QoS shaping. It also does not exclude Netflix "throttling" due to congestion at the border gateway. But people who make statements like "all packets must be treated the same" are saying that QoS is not allowed.
How does making government employees late to work "slow down the economy"?
Because they'll miss their 8:30, 9:00, 9:30, and maybe 10:00 AM coffee breaks and Starbucks stock will crash.
Except that's not always the case.
It's federal law. Find a case and report it.
I seem to remember reading that some franchise conditions require competitive providers to offer service to all addresses in a city from day one rather than rolling out service gradually from one end of the city to the other.
They can't do that, because they didn't require that from any of the incumbents. No franchise contains such a requirement. It may require a timetable for system buildout so that service will eventually be provided to everyone in the franchise area. Why is this a bad thing? You want to run an ISP in our city with access to all of the rights of way, then you need to run an ISP in the city. Not just cherry pick high density high income areas.
And though all new franchisees in 2018 must agree to a particular set of conditions, these conditions may have differed in 1918
There were no such franchises in 1918, and nobody gives a fuck what was being done in 1918 because any possible franchise that did exist then has long, long, long expired. Long ago.
Companies that need franchises (and not all ISPs do; many do not)
In the era of U.S. phone and cable line owners refusing to lease out their lines to competitive ISPs, how can an ISP work without a franchise?
By not using the phone or cable lines? That seems obvious to me. The medium does not define the service.
A wired ISP needs some access to rights of way,
Interesting use of adjective, admitting that not all ISPs are "wired". If you want to run a wired ISP, get a franchise. If you don't want to get a franchise, do it without access to the rights of way. Funny how many ISPs seem to be all around, given the limited ability to get franchises or work without them.
Please explain how Level 3, for example, can provide ISP services without having to run their wires past every house. It's not a requirement to do that to be an ISP.
2) When it comes to infrastructure planning in suburbs and rural areas, bikes are generally left out of the picture, so it's uncommon to see things like dedicated bike lanes or even a place to lock up your bike at your destination.
When such infrastructure planning does happen, bikers often paint themselves in a negative light by demanding outrageous concessions. For example, our county was working on a bike path to connect us to the next city over. I agree that one is probably necessary, but I could not support the bikers demands that their bike path be taken out of the middle of actively farmed acreage, cutting farms in half and putting bike riders very close to active farm machinery. The vocal minority of selfish bikers cost them all a lot of support from the middle.
We also had a demonstration of how much bikers care about others on campus here, where bike riders were quite adamant that they must have locked bike containers to keep their bikes in, and those containers could not be installed close to existing bike parking because. Because they needed to be installed in the middle of a very short supply of car parking spaces. There were half a dozen already concreted areas (unused by anyone) near existing bike racks (and lots of completely unused bike racks, too), but the containers could not go there. The issue resolved itself the usual way parking does here -- the campus parking service organization removed the bike containers as they were removing the parking to let a new building be built. Now nobody parks there.
Rural areas don't put in that infrastructure in some cases because putting a paved bike lane on some rural roads would mean that the only part of the road that is paved is the bike lane. It costs a lot to do that, with a low density of users.
That may be the case in the US where car reigns supreme, but here in Finland
Is Finland's FCC also putting the onus for net neutrality regulation on Finland's congress or FTC? Wow, an amazing coincidence.
I think it's probably clear he was talking about the US.
The US has a wondeful history with bike riders staging stunts that make everyone hate them. (Not everyone, but "most people", and by "people" I mean "people in the US metropolitan areas".) There are examples of such nonsense where bike riders deliberately block bridges and keep emergency vehicles like ambulances from being able to get where they need to be. Portland Oregon, for one city where this happened at least once.
It is such a productive demonstration technique to create traffic jams and impede rescue vehicles for everyone when you are upset that the city government hasn't provided enough bike lanes for you. You piss off everyone (same caveat) who cannot help you, and then they don't want to even if they could.
Keep in mind, many of the bike riders are starting from a negative view of their practices because many of them will simply ride through a crosswalk filled with pedestrians, ignoring the stop signs or other traffic control, because "bikes don't need to stop". I've gotten almost hit too many times to ever think bike riders are sane or rational or safe.
Not when cities impose unreasonable conditions on access to rights of way.
Yeah! Unreasonable! It's outright fascist to require that a new franchisee agree to the same franchise conditions that all of the existing franchisees did!
I better put in the <sarcasm> tag before you think I'm agreeing with you.
Did we forget, this is federal law? Companies that need franchises (and not all ISPs do; many do not) cannot be blocked by an exclusive franchise agreement.