It can only reasonably be achieved by Congress, because details.
If the FCC does it directly, it takes a lot longer, is more expensive to make happen, and then sits in purgatory while a bunch of lawsuits wind through the Courts. And then the telcos use all that time to search for ways around the rule. As long as it never really takes effect, people don't get used to the change, so it is under threat of reversal.
Whereas if Congress does it, by telling the FCC exactly what to implement, it goes into effect right away, and it most likely stays in effect while companies try to challenge it in court.
This is because making rules is Congress' job, under the Constitution. The FCC can make regulations, where they've been authorized to by Congress, but there is a bunch of extra restrictions on that, because the Courts have to make sure that they didn't go past what Congress said. So for the FCC to make the rules, they have to basically say that Congress already made rules that let them do it; when Congress does it, the Constitution already says they can do it; there isn't another party that they have to continually show they obeyed while doing it.
Major changes to regulations should always go through Congress, if they can. Especially changes that are likely to be fought over in the Courts.
It isn't enough to say they have to control all the numbers, that leaves a barn-door-sized hole where they promise to their telco that they really control the numbers.
Better is to restrict it numbers on the same account at the same telco. That way the telco has the info they need, and there are no excuses.
If they want to pool numbers beyond that, this is 2019, they can just set up an office PBX and bridge the pools themselves. For companies with a legit use case this is not a big deal to do.
I don't think it is the network use that is driving the profit, but that they sell the ability to fake the caller ID numbers. They're entirely complicit, not just bystanders who refuse to do anything because of some passive benefit.
There are definitely perverse incentives.
What has often been proposed in the past is to force them to limit the caller ID choice to only other numbers on the same account. That would solve the whole thing, and they'd still be able to offer the legit part of the service. They refuse, because legit users are a small user base compared to scammers and liars.
Just because you made an excuse, or cited a "reason," doesn't mean what you did was also true, or honest.
You deserve to sit in prison with all the other people making this happen; one minute in prison for every minute of people's time you wasted, and a $1 fine for every $1 you cost people in airtime. I don't mean total, I mean every person who made this happen should each be held to account for the entire cost. As a deterrent.
Indeed, they've learned exactly that lesson; they can control what gets sold in the local stores, and only rare people will go through the hassle to go around it.
This isn't about stopping anything, it is about controlling what the norm is.
Except, they don't. You're presuming that Chicken Little is correct about the basic premises of the situation. He isn't.
The radio IC already has its own firmware, separate from the application controller. That is true even if you buy them on the same chip, as with many of the offerings from Nordic Semi. This is about the firmware that controls the radio itself; the part that already is a binary blob you install that allows the radio to work. It isn't about the ARM processor that runs the application firmware that you, as a consumer, think of as "the firmware."
As with the freakouts in the US, it doesn't mean you can't alter the device as a whole, it just means that the OS isn't supposed to mess with certain parts of the radio; eg, the radio has its own control chip that implements the restrictions, and the application processor still tells it what to do.
Compliant devices still work fine with third party OSes.
I've never even heard of "designer" lenses, usually it is just the frames and the lenses are sold based on materials used. The prices are excessive, as in the story, but they're still two products.
My wife wears Tiffany frames, I'm sure they would have tried to sell us branded lenses if they had them.
They tricked you into thinking the schedule they provide to you is something you "should" do, so they mostly won. If your eyes get worse and you need more services, they'll have you back on their schedule in no time.
My wife was been wearing thick glasses her whole life; she waits until she needs a new prescription to go to the eye doctor. Corrected vision isn't really a medical problem in most cases, it is more like buying shoes; you don't need a foot checkup, you just need a measurement.
That happened to a former boss of mine. Before the surgery, he wore thick glasses, but could see OK with them. After the surgery he has lots of problems with his eyes; they hurt all the time, and feel scratchy, and he can barely see. He has to keep them covered for long periods of time to reduce the discomfort.
My wife wears glasses, and she wouldn't even consider the surgery; why take a chance with your eyes?! She can see fine with her glasses on.
Did we spend $700 for frames + lenses? Yes. Would it have cost $300 with more competition? Probably. They sure look nice, though.
Right but multiple people nearby are giving detailed descriptions of the way the plane was making a really loud shuddering sound, trailing smoke and luggage, and then the nose tipped down and it crashed.
Apparently because of the sounds, every nearby villager and cow was aware of the situation and watched the crash.
I'd take it wish a pinch of salt, but I wouldn't credit internet assumptions that the cause must be the same as something else that happened 1 time.
Not even going to do the math, but you're comparing a time unit (per year) to a non-time unit. (total vehicles that exist)
What you need to do is normalize it by converting the number of vehicles to hours driven. Then your units are both based on time, and you can make a reasonable comparison.
The way it is now, you're including grandma's 1 trip to the store per week as if she was driving full time like a taxi, or a commercial airplane.
His name is "hacking bear." Are you sure that Russians posting on American websites are not also friends of China? It doesn't seem unreasonable on its face.
When witnesses report that luggage was trailing the plane before it crashed, along with smoke, you'd be well advised not to presume any sort of connection to past crashes.
Slashdot Mirror
It can only reasonably be achieved by Congress, because details.
If the FCC does it directly, it takes a lot longer, is more expensive to make happen, and then sits in purgatory while a bunch of lawsuits wind through the Courts. And then the telcos use all that time to search for ways around the rule. As long as it never really takes effect, people don't get used to the change, so it is under threat of reversal.
Whereas if Congress does it, by telling the FCC exactly what to implement, it goes into effect right away, and it most likely stays in effect while companies try to challenge it in court.
This is because making rules is Congress' job, under the Constitution. The FCC can make regulations, where they've been authorized to by Congress, but there is a bunch of extra restrictions on that, because the Courts have to make sure that they didn't go past what Congress said. So for the FCC to make the rules, they have to basically say that Congress already made rules that let them do it; when Congress does it, the Constitution already says they can do it; there isn't another party that they have to continually show they obeyed while doing it.
Major changes to regulations should always go through Congress, if they can. Especially changes that are likely to be fought over in the Courts.
It isn't enough to say they have to control all the numbers, that leaves a barn-door-sized hole where they promise to their telco that they really control the numbers.
Better is to restrict it numbers on the same account at the same telco. That way the telco has the info they need, and there are no excuses.
If they want to pool numbers beyond that, this is 2019, they can just set up an office PBX and bridge the pools themselves. For companies with a legit use case this is not a big deal to do.
I don't think it is the network use that is driving the profit, but that they sell the ability to fake the caller ID numbers. They're entirely complicit, not just bystanders who refuse to do anything because of some passive benefit.
There are definitely perverse incentives.
What has often been proposed in the past is to force them to limit the caller ID choice to only other numbers on the same account. That would solve the whole thing, and they'd still be able to offer the legit part of the service. They refuse, because legit users are a small user base compared to scammers and liars.
Just because you made an excuse, or cited a "reason," doesn't mean what you did was also true, or honest.
You deserve to sit in prison with all the other people making this happen; one minute in prison for every minute of people's time you wasted, and a $1 fine for every $1 you cost people in airtime. I don't mean total, I mean every person who made this happen should each be held to account for the entire cost. As a deterrent.
Indeed, they've learned exactly that lesson; they can control what gets sold in the local stores, and only rare people will go through the hassle to go around it.
This isn't about stopping anything, it is about controlling what the norm is.
Except, they don't. You're presuming that Chicken Little is correct about the basic premises of the situation. He isn't.
The radio IC already has its own firmware, separate from the application controller. That is true even if you buy them on the same chip, as with many of the offerings from Nordic Semi. This is about the firmware that controls the radio itself; the part that already is a binary blob you install that allows the radio to work. It isn't about the ARM processor that runs the application firmware that you, as a consumer, think of as "the firmware."
Everyone can see that this is an obvious tyrannical move correct?
Nope, it is just clickbait that you didn't understand.
As with the freakouts in the US, it doesn't mean you can't alter the device as a whole, it just means that the OS isn't supposed to mess with certain parts of the radio; eg, the radio has its own control chip that implements the restrictions, and the application processor still tells it what to do.
Compliant devices still work fine with third party OSes.
Just a giant nuthingburder.
I've never even heard of "designer" lenses, usually it is just the frames and the lenses are sold based on materials used. The prices are excessive, as in the story, but they're still two products.
My wife wears Tiffany frames, I'm sure they would have tried to sell us branded lenses if they had them.
The lenses are usually cut locally.
"Prescription" glasses are not medicine, that isn't a "prescription" in the sense of being something regulated that you have to get from a doctor.
They tricked you into thinking the schedule they provide to you is something you "should" do, so they mostly won. If your eyes get worse and you need more services, they'll have you back on their schedule in no time.
My wife was been wearing thick glasses her whole life; she waits until she needs a new prescription to go to the eye doctor. Corrected vision isn't really a medical problem in most cases, it is more like buying shoes; you don't need a foot checkup, you just need a measurement.
Commodities should really drop to the marginal cost of the parts, in fact below the cost of production.
If you are paying $99.95 at LensCrafters, it is not because of some vast capitalist conspiracy. It is because you are an idiot.
You'd have to be, since they don't sell them that cheap and it implies you shopped at the swap meet.
That happened to a former boss of mine. Before the surgery, he wore thick glasses, but could see OK with them. After the surgery he has lots of problems with his eyes; they hurt all the time, and feel scratchy, and he can barely see. He has to keep them covered for long periods of time to reduce the discomfort.
My wife wears glasses, and she wouldn't even consider the surgery; why take a chance with your eyes?! She can see fine with her glasses on.
Did we spend $700 for frames + lenses? Yes. Would it have cost $300 with more competition? Probably. They sure look nice, though.
These are people right under an air corridor near an airport. They do know what airplanes sound like.
Right but multiple people nearby are giving detailed descriptions of the way the plane was making a really loud shuddering sound, trailing smoke and luggage, and then the nose tipped down and it crashed.
Apparently because of the sounds, every nearby villager and cow was aware of the situation and watched the crash.
I'd take it wish a pinch of salt, but I wouldn't credit internet assumptions that the cause must be the same as something else that happened 1 time.
Not even going to do the math, but you're comparing a time unit (per year) to a non-time unit. (total vehicles that exist)
What you need to do is normalize it by converting the number of vehicles to hours driven. Then your units are both based on time, and you can make a reasonable comparison.
The way it is now, you're including grandma's 1 trip to the store per week as if she was driving full time like a taxi, or a commercial airplane.
His name is "hacking bear." Are you sure that Russians posting on American websites are not also friends of China? It doesn't seem unreasonable on its face.
When witnesses report that luggage was trailing the plane before it crashed, along with smoke, you'd be well advised not to presume any sort of connection to past crashes.
2 events is never enough information for you to say something math-challenged like "Most likely not a coincident."
That's just world class stupidity right there.
I say "stupidity" and not "ignorance" because I know darn well you've had basic statistics explained to you before.
I'm not sure how the pitch control system would cause the luggage to be falling out the back and it swerved over the cow pastures.
It doesn't seem to explain the smoke it was trailing, either.
This is looking more and more like poor pilot training.
When a bomb explodes in the cargo compartment, training doesn't help much. These are human pilots, not cartoon X-Men.
If it ain't Boeing, I ain't going.
This was a fucking bomb. Eyewitness reports are that it was trailing smoke and raining luggage before crashing.
Have fun riding your magic pixies to your destination.
That's probably why they're rolling out new offerings this year.
IBM bought RedHat to help them compete in this space.
For 34 billion dollars. ($34,000,000,000.00)
It might be prudent to wait to see what services they roll out before you write them off.