Comment Re:Game of Thrones (Score 1) 106
Well sure. But they have our best interest at heart and should be free to run their ISP business without any government interference... ;)
So you're in favor of repealing laws against libel and slander? Those laws abridge speech. What about laws prohibiting yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater? Your rights are being TRAMPLED!!!!! [/sarcasm]
We live in a world full of shades of gray. Your black-or-white all-or-nothing approach just doesn't work and, in fact, goes against 200+ years of case law that says you're wrong. Sorry.
You really don't know much about how cable companies are granted monopoly control over individual markets, do you? Cable companies can't just show up in town and lay down a network whenever they feel like it. Most markets have very strict rules about who is allowed to put their cables up in utility easements.
And don't even bother with the "illegal" content nonsense. The FCC does not decide what is legal and illegal.
Sorry I'm not familiar with the ins and outs of US law/politics, but aren't these republican politicians actually breaking the law by representing the interests of national corps instead of what is in the best interest of their own consituency's voters? (and if not why not?)
Read all about the "Citizens United" decision here.
Corporations are people under US law and "people" can spend as much as they want on election campaigns.
Net Neutrality is a routing rule that has been with the Internet since the beginning. You don't "overturn" it with an act of congress.
No. But the courts overturned it which is why the FCC went back and came up with a different approach to prevent predatory practices.
How the Internet is designed is a job for engineers and no one else.
That's a nice sentiment but it's terribly naive. When content producers buy out the service providers, they make their engineers do all kinds of stuff to the design of the network to jack up profits and otherwise abuse their monopoly power. This is why the FCC ruled that the service providers must act like common carriers.
The open internet is one of the most democratizing things we have in a modern society, why is this even up for debate? What benefit would society have in enabling "Fast lanes" or "premium" connections or other nonsense? What do we get protecting commercial interests?
Calling them "fast lanes" is a misnomer. But it's shorter than calling them "paying-twice-to-get-out-of-the-technically-unnecessary-but-profit-inducing-slow-lanes".
A group of Republican lawmakers has introduced a bill that would invalidate the U.S. Federal Communications Commission’s recently passed net neutrality rules. The legislation, introduced by Representative Doug Collins, a Georgia Republican, is called a resolution of disapproval, a move that allows Congress to review new federal regulations from government agencies, using an expedited legislative process.
This move should come as little surprise to anyone. While the main battle in getting net neutrality has been won, the war is far from over.
They already do that having investigators following you around. Drones won't change that.
And reducing fraud is a bad thing.... why?
1. Because if said drone falls and hits someone, who has to pay? The insurance company (who will simply pass it onto customers by raising rates) or the home owner whose house was being inspected (AIG: "The accident wouldn't have happened if John Smith didn't file a claim in the first place")?
The same can be said for an agent driving a company car or doing anything else while working on the clock. I'm not sure how a drone would be handled differently than anything else the agents of the company do.
2. Do customers have a right to view/context said drone footage? People don't exactly record everything they do in a post-disaster situation so if the insurance company claims, "we saw you with a chainsaw, how do we know you didn't do the damage yourself?" and you can't remember the what's and why's, you're screwed.
That's a legit concern. Finding new ways of denying coverage is probably a high priority to some people in the industry.
On the other hand, having more picture and video footage will legitimately help them reduce fraud.
Where will the equilibrium point end up? Hard to say. But this is a legitimate point.
3. How much information can they get with those drones? For obvious damage, yeah, drones are great. But for more subtle damage, like water damage, you NEED a human inspector there. (If the roof has enough water damage, it may not be legally habitable.)
I don't think they're planning on just flying a drone over to your house for a routine damage inspection in place of a human being. I think it's more along the line of an agent keeping a drone in the back of the car so they can fly it around and inspect your roof without having to climb up a ladder. Or perhaps fly around an area where storm/flooding damage has made the specific area unsafe (i.e. collapsed house, washed out bridge with a flooded stream, etc.).
But yeah, perhaps they will just zip a drone around and offer you a minimal payment rather than doing real inspection work. I could see some companies trying to pull that.
They don't need a drone to do that.
At first blush, this exemption seems reasonable. I can see how insurance companies can make use of drones in their business to speed up work and to improve safety.
I haven't thought of ways this can be abused and what not. Any reasons why this would be a bad idea?
No problem is so large it can't be fit in somewhere.
