dslreports logo
 story category
White House Unveils Six Proposals For Tech Policy Reform Aimed At Competition, Algorithms, And Safety; + more news

Most recommended from 73 comments



tc1uscg
join:2005-03-09
Gulfport, MS

15 recommendations

tc1uscg

Member

Copyright infrigment

Seems to me the REAL reason AT&T and VZ are being sued is because of deep pockets. Why settle for some 16-year-old in mommy's basement for a few grand if anything at all when they can go after AT&T for millions? Some people "pirate" just for the fun of it, or for spite. It's like sticking it to the man. Right or wrong intentions, going after the providers is no different than suing the county, state or federal govt for accidents on the roads they build. Yeah, you can sue, but good luck getting anything out of it, unless it's a clear-cut case of purposeful neglect.
Thistool
join:2013-12-05
Auburn, WA

8 recommendations

Thistool

Member

Comcast speed up

How the fudge do you consider this symmetrical.

"Telecompetitor that the initial new offer includes a 2 Gbps down/200 Mbps up service tier with a non-promotional price point of $120/month"

The article explains they hope to achieve symmetrical with doccis 4.0. they also are hoping to start the doccis 4.0 transition in 2023 they make no reference to offering symetrical speeds. Does reference fiber competition can offer symetrical.

This isnt even bad click bait article. It's literally just a fluff piece for a tracking cookie. Such a waste of words.

r81984
Fair and Balanced
Premium Member
join:2001-11-14
Katy, TX

5 recommendations

r81984

Premium Member

AT&T will require iPhone 14 for its best 5G service despite prior pledge

I guess ATT is asking for a class action lawsuit and FCC interventions.
People who pay for the exact same plan, same price, with a 2022 phone that has the capability of those frequencies are going to have a very good case against apple for giving them less service only because they dont have an iphone 14.

Sadly the settlement will probably just be a coupon for an ATT sticker or something, but it should stop providers from doing these kinds of things in the future.

tc1uscg
join:2005-03-09
Gulfport, MS

4 recommendations

tc1uscg

Member

Streaming TV is having an existential crisis - People cancelling

Ok.. two different articles burning the candle on both ends. On one hand, people are starting to get bored with streaming TV since it's the same old poo over and over, mergers, here today, gone tomorrow content, just a different thumbnail/icon on the screen (sound familiar?) Another article reports double-digit growth. So, who's blowing smoke here?

Streaming is fine. Heck, Monday, I sit back and watch 2 episodes of Gomer Pyle, the movie Boon, and Interceptor. The two later on some free app on the Roku. Then later that night, watched Life Below Zero and Deadliest Catch (both were DVRs off cable). I'm not pissed at big cable so I don't go stomping off paying some streaming service for shit that was on TV last year, but I'm not going to toss all my Roku's in the trash because I can still watch horror flicks, survival videocasts, even old episodes of TWIT. So, I think it all depends on who you ask. For every "poll" that shows people are dumping cable like crazy, is another poll that shows that's not true. Then there are people like me who find a balance on both sides of the track.

r81984
Fair and Balanced
Premium Member
join:2001-11-14
Katy, TX

4 recommendations

r81984

Premium Member

The White House unveils six proposals for tech policy reform aimed at compet

The six principles, entitled "Enhancing Competition and Tech Platform Accountability"

All are good except #4. #4 makes no sense as internet providers or hosts should not be police for what happens on their networks, they should not be liable. That is no different than stating an owner of a private road that is used by the public should be liable for any illegal things that happen on that road. No different than stating that a person that leases retail space should be liable if the businesses they lease to do get caught doing something illegal.

All the points should be implemented except #4. #4 would end all open content hosts sites like youtube to even ISPs.

1. Promote competition in the technology sector.
2. Provide robust federal protections for Americans’ privacy.
3. Protect our kids by putting in place even stronger privacy and online protections for them, including prioritizing safety by design standards and practices for online platforms, products, and services.
4. Remove special legal protections for large tech platforms.
5. Increase transparency about platform’s algorithms and content moderation decisions.
6. Stop discriminatory algorithmic decision-making.

»www.whitehouse.gov/brief ··· ability/

#1 is a good thing for sure.
said by #1 :
Promote competition in the technology sector. The American information technology sector has long been an engine of innovation and growth, and the U.S. has led the world in the development of the Internet economy. Today, however, a small number of dominant Internet platforms use their power to exclude market entrants, to engage in rent-seeking, and to gather intimate personal information that they can use for their own advantage. We need clear rules of the road to ensure small and mid-size businesses and entrepreneurs can compete on a level playing field, which will promote innovation for American consumers and ensure continued U.S. leadership in global technology. We are encouraged to see bipartisan interest in Congress in passing legislation to address the power of tech platforms through antitrust legislation.

#4 is not a good principle.
said by #4 :
Remove special legal protections for large tech platforms. Tech platforms currently have special legal protections under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act that broadly shield them from liability even when they host or disseminate illegal, violent conduct or materials. The President has long called for fundamental reforms to Section 230.

said by Section 230 :
Section 230 says that "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider" (47 U.S.C. § 230).