How the FCC has the power to regulate the internet and California does not
1. The commerce clause of the constitution
The Commerce Clause describes an enumerated power listed in the United States Constitution (Article I, Section 8, Clause 3). The clause states that the United States Congress shall have power "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes." Courts and commentators have tended to discuss each of these three areas of commerce as a separate power granted to Congress.[1] It is common to see the individual components of the Commerce Clause referred to under specific terms: the Foreign Commerce Clause, the Interstate Commerce Clause,[2] and the Indian Commerce Clause.
2. The Federal Communications act
The first section of the Act reads: "For the purpose of regulating interstate and foreign commerce in communication by wire and radio so as to make available, so far as possible, to all the people of the United States a rapid, efficient, nationwide, and worldwide wire and radio communication service with adequate facilities at reasonable charges, for the purpose of the national defense, and for the purpose of securing a more effective execution of this policy by centralizing authority theretofore granted by law to several agencies and by granting additional authority with respect to interstate and foreign commerce in wire and radio communication, there is hereby created a commission to be known as the 'Federal Communications Commission', which shall be constituted as hereinafter provided, and which shall execute and enforce the provisions of this Act."[1]
Somehow I doubt you actually care for the facts as much as you want to scream "Hypocrites"
I am always glad that my fellow humans never cease to astound me.
You engage in magical thinking while worshiping science. Do you use an atomic as your religious symbol ?
Anyway the essence of science is validation against reality, so tell me how do these networks link back to reality or expand the knowledge of the disease ?
You'll just have convergence to what was already known about the characteristics of any abnormality, with near zero possibility of providing new insight.
Seems that the way to characterize this, is that the networks are being used to generate plausible fakes.
Even a rapid drop in robot prices would not lead to the replacement of workers by robots in the short term in Africa where countries lag far behind in terms of fast internet and other information and communications technologies. They also lack well-trained IT experts. Other problems include an unreliable power supply, high energy costs and high financing costs for new technologies. For these reasons, it would be difficult and expensive to integrate robots and other digital technologies into African production lines.
The article describes the place as a location nobody sane would want to locate manufacturing. Low cost is important but only as it relates to high productivity. Capitalism depends on the ability of capital to increase production and profit.
Ah the Cole and Ohanian paper again, but with an extra heaping of customized unhinged exaggeration ("and that's likely an under estimate as it comes from UCLA"). Since the legislation was signed in June 1933, three months after FDR entered office (March 4 in those days), and the Great Depression did in fact end no later than June 1940 when the US per capita GDP had recovered to its pre-depression level (the NBER, who is the semi-official self-designated shot-caller for recessions places it much earlier, but there are good reasons to disregard their definition). I guess since the paper is from UCLA economists he believes FDR actually signed the legislation before he took office perhaps.
Gee how might that happen ?
Hoover did not stand idly by after the depression began. To fight the rapidly worsening depression, Hoover extended the size and scope of the federal government in six major areas: (1) federal spending, (2) agriculture, (3) wage policy, (4) immigration, (5) international trade, and (6) tax policy.
Economists today, however, hold a different view of the effects of Smoot-Hawley. While economic historians generally believe the tariff was misguided and may have aggravated the economic crisis, the consensus appears to relegate it to a minor status relative to other forces.
Yeah, SCOTUS felt the same way about most everything in the New Deal.
"In the preceding decades, the Court had struck down a laundry list of Progressive legislation – minimum-wage laws, child labor laws, agricultural relief laws, and virtually every element of the New Deal legislation that had come before it."
It seems awfully familiar to me as progressive legislation is often forced to drag our nation (kicking and screaming) into a better future that the easily-fooled insist is wrong and evil.
The new deal impeded the recovery by 7 years and that's likely an under estimate as it comes from UCLA
Without WWII god knows when it would of ended, we might well have become a Venezuella a country ruled by a clique continuously promising freebies to a population while they abused the system for personal profit.
So when you say progressive policies dragged us, you mean like an anchor.
The boiler room operations are likely operating their own PBXs spoofing the ID before it gets to the VOIP server.
Like I said though it's been a good two decades since I had a hand in this. Has anything been done to prevent that ? If so what and what impact has that had on large companies that operate their own backbones ?
The VOIP eventually has to be tied to an actual phone line, and that's where the number comes from, even if it's an internal exchange number of the phone company. Caller ID should be changed so that it can directly say if this is VOIP, or from the phone company itself, and so forth. I got a advertising sales call today from my own phone company that I mistakenly though was from my dentist because of number similarity.
Sorry that's a no. If you have exchange level switches you can place whatever number you want on outgoing call. It's been awhile about 20 years since I was cutting edge on this so I went to the trouble of double checking
When I lived in South America (years ago), there were extra costs to call a cell phone from a land line. Not sure it would be a good idea, but the only reason telemarketing works is because the economics are there to support it. Want to stop it, change one of the inputs in the equation.
Interesting thought. Maybe there could be a minimal credit/cost that the target of a call would receive, that would be refunded if the call was accepted.
Disallowing caller ID spoofing would be a great start. Simply do not allow displaying any phone number not assigned to you. They DO know who is actually calling, since they wouldn't complete the call if they couldn't bill for it.
Not so easy, especially since the network is now heterogenous. What is the phone number of someone calling from a VOIP exchange ?
This is the way most of the world does it. Spam calls are mostly an American phenomenon.
That might work, but I doubt that it would be popular. If you remember that's the way we used to do things here. Not only was it calling party pays but also LMS service.
W was a pretty bad president. But he looks great compared to Cheeto Prez.
But let's review. W. He ignored 9-11 warnings, invaded the wrong country after accepting made-up evidence, ignored the country that should have been invaded, and let the financial system collapse by ignoring all the warning signs of the mortgage-backed securities bubble. And don't say nobody knew about the mortgage crisis... I did, and I made a killing in the recovery.
Yeah it's kind of funny how that always works. People who are bat shit insane like you are always willing to say anything about the current guy but pretend they were reasonable about the last guy. What's more it seems you don't have anything bad to say about the current guy, well at least not under your actual log in.
Son just because your state lets you use the whacky tabacky doesn't mean it's good for you.
That's good advice. You should consider taking it.
About what I expected, childish response from a child who can't even accept he screwed up a response.
Seeing as you like my advice, here's some more, Try to actually get the facts right and in this case why don't you see if you can make a mathematical argument how having unlimited immigration is actually going to be good for the country.
Yet you somehow felt it necessary to point a finger at immigrants first. I strongly suspect a hidden bias on your part.
Oh absolutely. I fully expect people that were born here and grew up here, to have a better understanding of freedom and liberty and why they are important, than people that come here because the left has a campaign platform of
Vote for me, I'll give you other people's stuff
On the other hand I strongly suspect you never actually had to make a case for your positions, or just why we should want more unskilled labor flooding the country, when supposedly automation is poised to destroy that job market ?
I see immigrants that come here and work to make the place just as bad as the one they left.
Hell I see people leave blue states because the taxes are killing them, and their livelihoods are under attack and then keep voting for the same people and policies that drove them out.
You do see lots of things. Your comments, however, would me more informative, if most of things you saw actually existed.
Would you more informative ?
Son just because your state lets you use the whacky tabacky doesn't mean it's good for you.
When he got elected, I said that this would be the truest test of checks and balances to date, but I never imagined he would be checked and balanced by his own staff. This is really turning out to be far more entertaining than I ever would have imagined.
That's funny I consider that the best argument for small government ever. You think those people care about you ??
There are people who honestly think stuff like that. I see this a lot in immigrants who assume the US government is just as authoritarian as in the old country But it's even more surprising to me that citizens born and living here for decades still seem to think the same way. The fact that more people show up to vote in presidential years than other years shows that they seem to think that the presidential election is more important than congressional elections.
I see immigrants that come here and work to make the place just as bad as the one they left.
Hell I see people leave blue states because the taxes are killing them, and their livelihoods are under attack and then keep voting for the same people and policies that drove them out.
Slashdot Mirror
Was wondering why anyone would want Alexa controlling a Maser and wow imagine the product liability.
Alexa crank up the beam power to 5kw.
How the FCC has the power to regulate the internet and California does not
1. The commerce clause of the constitution
The Commerce Clause describes an enumerated power listed in the United States Constitution (Article I, Section 8, Clause 3). The clause states that the United States Congress shall have power "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes." Courts and commentators have tended to discuss each of these three areas of commerce as a separate power granted to Congress.[1] It is common to see the individual components of the Commerce Clause referred to under specific terms: the Foreign Commerce Clause, the Interstate Commerce Clause,[2] and the Indian Commerce Clause.
2. The Federal Communications act
The first section of the Act reads: "For the purpose of regulating interstate and foreign commerce in communication by wire and radio so as to make available, so far as possible, to all the people of the United States a rapid, efficient, nationwide, and worldwide wire and radio communication service with adequate facilities at reasonable charges, for the purpose of the national defense, and for the purpose of securing a more effective execution of this policy by centralizing authority theretofore granted by law to several agencies and by granting additional authority with respect to interstate and foreign commerce in wire and radio communication, there is hereby created a commission to be known as the 'Federal Communications Commission', which shall be constituted as hereinafter provided, and which shall execute and enforce the provisions of this Act."[1]
Somehow I doubt you actually care for the facts as much as you want to scream "Hypocrites"
I am always glad that my fellow humans never cease to astound me.
You engage in magical thinking while worshiping science. Do you use an atomic as your religious symbol ?
Anyway the essence of science is validation against reality, so tell me how do these networks link back to reality or expand the knowledge of the disease ?
Oh wow. I actually did not expect you to call your own response childish. It's good to know that even you think you are a joke.
sad
You'll just have convergence to what was already known about the characteristics of any abnormality, with near zero possibility of providing new insight.
Seems that the way to characterize this, is that the networks are being used to generate plausible fakes.
Even a rapid drop in robot prices would not lead to the replacement of workers by robots in the short term in Africa where countries lag far behind in terms of fast internet and other information and communications technologies. They also lack well-trained IT experts. Other problems include an unreliable power supply, high energy costs and high financing costs for new technologies. For these reasons, it would be difficult and expensive to integrate robots and other digital technologies into African production lines.
The article describes the place as a location nobody sane would want to locate manufacturing. Low cost is important but only as it relates to high productivity. Capitalism depends on the ability of capital to increase production and profit.
Ah the Cole and Ohanian paper again, but with an extra heaping of customized unhinged exaggeration ("and that's likely an under estimate as it comes from UCLA"). Since the legislation was signed in June 1933, three months after FDR entered office (March 4 in those days), and the Great Depression did in fact end no later than June 1940 when the US per capita GDP had recovered to its pre-depression level (the NBER, who is the semi-official self-designated shot-caller for recessions places it much earlier, but there are good reasons to disregard their definition). I guess since the paper is from UCLA economists he believes FDR actually signed the legislation before he took office perhaps.
Gee how might that happen ?
Hoover did not stand idly by after the depression began. To fight the rapidly worsening depression, Hoover extended the size and scope of the federal government in six major areas: (1) federal spending, (2) agriculture, (3) wage policy, (4) immigration, (5) international trade, and (6) tax policy.
https://www.econlib.org/librar...
What do you know they had virtually the same policies.
You'd hit a lot harder if you actually knew your history, points for trying to slip that by though
You should learn to read
Economists today, however, hold a different view of the effects of Smoot-Hawley. While economic historians generally believe the tariff was misguided and may have aggravated the economic crisis, the consensus appears to relegate it to a minor status relative to other forces.
That is probably unconstitutional.
Yeah, SCOTUS felt the same way about most everything in the New Deal.
"In the preceding decades, the Court had struck down a laundry list of Progressive legislation – minimum-wage laws, child labor laws, agricultural relief laws, and virtually every element of the New Deal legislation that had come before it."
It seems awfully familiar to me as progressive legislation is often forced to drag our nation (kicking and screaming) into a better future that the easily-fooled insist is wrong and evil.
The new deal impeded the recovery by 7 years and that's likely an under estimate as it comes from UCLA
http://newsroom.ucla.edu/relea...
Without WWII god knows when it would of ended, we might well have become a Venezuella a country ruled by a clique continuously promising freebies to a population while they abused the system for personal profit.
So when you say progressive policies dragged us, you mean like an anchor.
The boiler room operations are likely operating their own PBXs spoofing the ID before it gets to the VOIP server.
Like I said though it's been a good two decades since I had a hand in this. Has anything been done to prevent that ? If so what and what impact has that had on large companies that operate their own backbones ?
I can't even think of the last time I saw a calling plan that charged per call on either residential or business service.
The last time I did that I was leasing a channelized T1 that had a class C network block on it. Was able to pay for itself by hosting people on it.
The VOIP eventually has to be tied to an actual phone line, and that's where the number comes from, even if it's an internal exchange number of the phone company. Caller ID should be changed so that it can directly say if this is VOIP, or from the phone company itself, and so forth. I got a advertising sales call today from my own phone company that I mistakenly though was from my dentist because of number similarity.
Sorry that's a no. If you have exchange level switches you can place whatever number you want on outgoing call. It's been awhile about 20 years since I was cutting edge on this so I went to the trouble of double checking
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
There's just virtually no validation.
The number on the account that gets the bill. The one they have to authenticate in order to call out.
As long as the telcos bill for services it's not at all hard, because you can bet no call goes anywhere if they don't know who to bill for it.
Well that only works is if they are back matching the call metadata to an actual call.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Orangeboxing was around since before ESS5 came online.
When I lived in South America (years ago), there were extra costs to call a cell phone from a land line. Not sure it would be a good idea, but the only reason telemarketing works is because the economics are there to support it. Want to stop it, change one of the inputs in the equation.
Interesting thought. Maybe there could be a minimal credit/cost that the target of a call would receive, that would be refunded if the call was accepted.
Disallowing caller ID spoofing would be a great start. Simply do not allow displaying any phone number not assigned to you. They DO know who is actually calling, since they wouldn't complete the call if they couldn't bill for it.
Not so easy, especially since the network is now heterogenous. What is the phone number of someone calling from a VOIP exchange ?
Calling party pays [wikipedia.org].
This is the way most of the world does it. Spam calls are mostly an American phenomenon.
That might work, but I doubt that it would be popular. If you remember that's the way we used to do things here. Not only was it calling party pays but also LMS service.
How ?
W was a pretty bad president. But he looks great compared to Cheeto Prez.
But let's review. W. He ignored 9-11 warnings, invaded the wrong country after accepting made-up evidence, ignored the country that should have been invaded, and let the financial system collapse by ignoring all the warning signs of the mortgage-backed securities bubble. And don't say nobody knew about the mortgage crisis... I did, and I made a killing in the recovery.
Yeah it's kind of funny how that always works. People who are bat shit insane like you are always willing to say anything about the current guy but pretend they were reasonable about the last guy. What's more it seems you don't have anything bad to say about the current guy, well at least not under your actual log in.
Anyway here's the intelligence you say he ignored
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Why don't you give the readers your Monday morning quarterback of this. Gotta say I am really curious.
I did, and I made a killing in the recovery.
I kind of doubt this, but even blind squirrels occasionally find acorns.
They never seem to have the slightest compunction at pulling the rug out from under anyone that builds with their tools.
quick list
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Son just because your state lets you use the whacky tabacky doesn't mean it's good for you.
That's good advice. You should consider taking it.
About what I expected, childish response from a child who can't even accept he screwed up a response.
Seeing as you like my advice, here's some more, Try to actually get the facts right and in this case why don't you see if you can make a mathematical argument how having unlimited immigration is actually going to be good for the country.
Yet you somehow felt it necessary to point a finger at immigrants first. I strongly suspect a hidden bias on your part.
Oh absolutely. I fully expect people that were born here and grew up here, to have a better understanding of freedom and liberty and why they are important, than people that come here because the left has a campaign platform of
Vote for me, I'll give you other people's stuff
On the other hand I strongly suspect you never actually had to make a case for your positions, or just why we should want more unskilled labor flooding the country, when supposedly automation is poised to destroy that job market ?
I see immigrants that come here and work to make the place just as bad as the one they left.
Hell I see people leave blue states because the taxes are killing them, and their livelihoods are under attack and then keep voting for the same people and policies that drove them out.
You do see lots of things. Your comments, however, would me more informative, if most of things you saw actually existed.
Would you more informative ?
Son just because your state lets you use the whacky tabacky doesn't mean it's good for you.
When he got elected, I said that this would be the truest test of checks and balances to date, but I never imagined he would be checked and balanced by his own staff. This is really turning out to be far more entertaining than I ever would have imagined.
That's funny I consider that the best argument for small government ever. You think those people care about you ??
There are people who honestly think stuff like that. I see this a lot in immigrants who assume the US government is just as authoritarian as in the old country But it's even more surprising to me that citizens born and living here for decades still seem to think the same way. The fact that more people show up to vote in presidential years than other years shows that they seem to think that the presidential election is more important than congressional elections.
I see immigrants that come here and work to make the place just as bad as the one they left.
Hell I see people leave blue states because the taxes are killing them, and their livelihoods are under attack and then keep voting for the same people and policies that drove them out.
Trump's campaign rhetoric really scared the crap out of many people. And not in a "OMG, Republicans nonsense!"
I seem to recall hearing 6 years of BUSH HITLER WORST PRESIDENT EVER
He got a reprieve for 2 years because even the Democrats weren't stupid enough to attack him right after 9/11