TFA is terrible at explaining this, but the reason Netflix can't enter Cannes is because their movies haven't been in French cinemas, and the reason their movies haven't been in French cinemas is because it's illegal to to show movies inside and outside cinemas at the same time: http://merlin.obs.coe.int/iris...
OP said "censoring", which isn't limited to the government.
The First Amendment says "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech"
That is, freedom of speech is something that pre-exists the government, and the First Amendment prohibits the government from infringing it.
The New York Times doesn't claim to be a neutral platform that publishes submissions in general. YouTube does, and allowing something to be uploaded, publishing it, then taking it down later, is censorship.
You really don't get what's going on here, do you?
It wasn't the man wasn't taking the government to court, the prosecution was the GOVERNMENT. If they really wanted to save money, they could just have NOT TRIED THE CASE.
No it's not, the term for that is called censorship.
Even the FCC said in their 2015 Order that the Netflix-Verizon dispute wasn't related to Net Neutrality (it was simply a congested link, only related to where the traffic was traveling through, and not related to source or destination).
Yeah, it's a horrible double standard; but this is an incorrect reason.
Net Neutrality is about how packets are handled at routers, the idea that packets should be dropped because of congestion and not based on their source or destination (because TCP determines max bandwidth by looking for dropped packets). It's a core principle of the Internet, and how TCP is designed, and historically not enforced by the government.
This law is about blocking packets based on their content.
Now, in practice, TLS makes it effectively impossible to do the latter, so maybe ISPs do block or modify packets based only on the source server they're coming from.
Here I was more worried I was forgetting things like material and liquid assets. (Jeff Bezos, most likely, doesn't actually have 12 digits in his bank account.)
Why do you act as if it's a stupid idea? The biggest correlation with wealth, more than anything else, is how old you are; and that's a fact that doesn't change by which generation you're in, family upbringing, or anything else.
30. But this Order does not apply the open Internet rules to interconnection. Three factors are critical in informing this approach to interconnection. First, the nature of Internet traffic, driven by massive consumption of video, has challenged traditional arrangements—placing more emphasis on the use of CDNs or even direct connections between content providers (like Netflix or Google) and last-mile broadband providers. Second, it is clear that consumers have been subject to degradation resulting from commercial disagreements, perhaps most notably in a series of disputes between Netflix and large last mile broadband providers. But, third, the causes of past disruption and—just as importantly—the potential for future degradation through interconnection disputes—are reflected in very different narratives in the record.
Some 90 pages into the 2015 Order it explained how the 2014 Netflix-Level 3-Verizon dispute was not a violation.
Your argument doesn't apply to any other industry, though. And Title I and Title II don't get applied based on how monopolistic the industry is, it's applied based on the type of distribution method it uses, and computer networks like the Internet clearly fall under Title I.
According to the FCC, Title II decreased investment, so if you're really looking to increase competition for competition's sake, you would support Pai's initiative.
Corporations aren't allowed to pay money to representatives. If you've got evidence to the contrary you should submit it to the FEC.
The FEC does aggregate individual contributions by the individual's employer, but note by this metric Bernie Sanders was one of the biggest recipients of Verizon employee contributions.
ISPs will make more money if they prioritize their own media subsidiaries over external traffic.
This is covered by existing law.
Oh except for the fact that there is no competitor in many jurisdictions and for those that do have "competition," its almost always just two options (cable or telephone company) and both are doing the same damned things for the same damned reason -- it makes them more money.
70% of Americans have two or more choices for wired ISPs that provide over 10Mbps Internet service, more if you include wireless options, which is increasingly popular among many people who use only a mobile phone. Only 10% of Americans have only one choice of ISP at any speed. (Source)
Pai noted that 2015 was the first non-recession year that Internet investment decreased over the previous year. It doesn't seem unreasonable that TItle II, with it's much greater regulatory requirements (including things like compulsory censorship!) will actually hurt competition more than the alternative.
The courts repeatedly struck down the FCC's authority to establish rules. Finally the FCC just gave in and said "screw it, we're now calling the Internet the same as telephone and cable TV so we do have these powers."
Of course, Title II contains a lot of statuatory rules that are in direct opposition to Net Neutrality, which is why they didn't go this route day 1.
Also, Information Services and Telecommunication Services are defined in US Statute, not by the FCC, and the Internet is plainly the former.
Slashdot Mirror
TFA is terrible at explaining this, but the reason Netflix can't enter Cannes is because their movies haven't been in French cinemas, and the reason their movies haven't been in French cinemas is because it's illegal to to show movies inside and outside cinemas at the same time: http://merlin.obs.coe.int/iris...
The cars would likely pass a driving test. Why impose a double standard, especially for technology that's likely much safer than a human driver?
This exact type of fatal crash happens all the time, hence signs like "BRAKE FOR MOOSE".
That's not the question we're arguing.
Having a judgement rendered against you (a fine or otherwise) and then appealing it is not "suing the government".
He had a valid, paid fare, that he was able to prove on-site. If this were any private company, they'd be able to kick him off, at most.
Right-of-way doesn't make it legal, it's still jaywalking.
You're just proving the point: YouTube doesn't choose what is posted, they choose what they take down.
OP said "censoring", which isn't limited to the government.
The First Amendment says "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech"
That is, freedom of speech is something that pre-exists the government, and the First Amendment prohibits the government from infringing it.
The New York Times doesn't claim to be a neutral platform that publishes submissions in general. YouTube does, and allowing something to be uploaded, publishing it, then taking it down later, is censorship.
Any questions?
And now we know!
If that was even true, they'd have to prosecute everyone who loses their card. Because that's the same thing, legally.
But in any event, that's not what the case was over. He had a legal fare.
You really don't get what's going on here, do you?
It wasn't the man wasn't taking the government to court, the prosecution was the GOVERNMENT. If they really wanted to save money, they could just have NOT TRIED THE CASE.
Correction: GPL software can be published, it's the GPL per se that doesn't allow GPLed software on app stores.
Apple couldn't care less, their developer agreement gives them a license to distribute your app, even if the GPL doesn't.
No it's not, the term for that is called censorship.
Even the FCC said in their 2015 Order that the Netflix-Verizon dispute wasn't related to Net Neutrality (it was simply a congested link, only related to where the traffic was traveling through, and not related to source or destination).
Yeah, it's a horrible double standard; but this is an incorrect reason.
Net Neutrality is about how packets are handled at routers, the idea that packets should be dropped because of congestion and not based on their source or destination (because TCP determines max bandwidth by looking for dropped packets). It's a core principle of the Internet, and how TCP is designed, and historically not enforced by the government.
This law is about blocking packets based on their content.
Now, in practice, TLS makes it effectively impossible to do the latter, so maybe ISPs do block or modify packets based only on the source server they're coming from.
"Arizona Governor Signs Blockchain Bill Into Law" https://www.coindesk.com/arizo...
Do some basic research before spewing nonsense.
Here I was more worried I was forgetting things like material and liquid assets. (Jeff Bezos, most likely, doesn't actually have 12 digits in his bank account.)
Also, *woosh*
If you want to be pedantic about it I'm pretty sure number of digits in your bank account is the biggest correlation with wealth.
Why do you act as if it's a stupid idea? The biggest correlation with wealth, more than anything else, is how old you are; and that's a fact that doesn't change by which generation you're in, family upbringing, or anything else.
The USA PATRIOT act was adopted from a bill written by Joe Biden in 1995, and passed on bipartisan lines.
No. Net Neutrality is about how you route and drop IP packets, and more specifically, not doing it based on source or destination.
Further, the FCC specifically declined to apply their rules to interconnects. From page 10 of the 2015 Open Internet Order:
30. But this Order does not apply the open Internet rules to interconnection. Three factors
are critical in informing this approach to interconnection. First, the nature of Internet traffic, driven by
massive consumption of video, has challenged traditional arrangements—placing more emphasis on the
use of CDNs or even direct connections between content providers (like Netflix or Google) and last-mile
broadband providers. Second, it is clear that consumers have been subject to degradation resulting from
commercial disagreements, perhaps most notably in a series of disputes between Netflix and large last
mile broadband providers. But, third, the causes of past disruption and—just as importantly—the
potential for future degradation through interconnection disputes—are reflected in very different
narratives in the record.
Some 90 pages into the 2015 Order it explained how the 2014 Netflix-Level 3-Verizon dispute was not a violation.
https://www.apple.com/imac-pro...
Memory
32GB of 2666MHz DDR4 ECC memory
Configurable to 64GB or 128GB
PACs aren't allowed to give to campaigns either.
Your argument doesn't apply to any other industry, though. And Title I and Title II don't get applied based on how monopolistic the industry is, it's applied based on the type of distribution method it uses, and computer networks like the Internet clearly fall under Title I.
According to the FCC, Title II decreased investment, so if you're really looking to increase competition for competition's sake, you would support Pai's initiative.
Corporations aren't allowed to pay money to representatives. If you've got evidence to the contrary you should submit it to the FEC.
The FEC does aggregate individual contributions by the individual's employer, but note by this metric Bernie Sanders was one of the biggest recipients of Verizon employee contributions.
ISPs will make more money if they prioritize their own media subsidiaries over external traffic.
This is covered by existing law.
Oh except for the fact that there is no competitor in many jurisdictions and for those that do have "competition," its almost always just two options (cable or telephone company) and both are doing the same damned things for the same damned reason -- it makes them more money.
70% of Americans have two or more choices for wired ISPs that provide over 10Mbps Internet service, more if you include wireless options, which is increasingly popular among many people who use only a mobile phone. Only 10% of Americans have only one choice of ISP at any speed. (Source)
Pai noted that 2015 was the first non-recession year that Internet investment decreased over the previous year. It doesn't seem unreasonable that TItle II, with it's much greater regulatory requirements (including things like compulsory censorship!) will actually hurt competition more than the alternative.
The courts repeatedly struck down the FCC's authority to establish rules. Finally the FCC just gave in and said "screw it, we're now calling the Internet the same as telephone and cable TV so we do have these powers."
Of course, Title II contains a lot of statuatory rules that are in direct opposition to Net Neutrality, which is why they didn't go this route day 1.
Also, Information Services and Telecommunication Services are defined in US Statute, not by the FCC, and the Internet is plainly the former.