Comment Re:Just no "old bold" pilots (Score 1) 106
Rule 2 is redundant and unnecessary if you properly state the "three most useless things" rule, which isn't rule 3.
This is not to say you cannot fly commercially, only that you cannot do part 121 PIC time after age 65, medical or not.
This is not "yanking" a medical when you reach a certain age. It just is not. You made a ridiculous claim when you claimed it happened.
No we can't. Because that is an ad hominem.
You've just proven my point. We can dismiss experts in math and physics because they aren't climate scientists when they disagree with how climate scientists are doing math and physics, but it would be ad hominem to dismiss Greta's opinion.
As far as I know, you are not a climate scientist either.
Is there an official certification one needs to have to be one, pray tell?
No, I'd rather the ISP not try to monetize me via a "subscription fee" to a terrible product, who's only good feature is the ISP doesn't charge for data for it....
How is an ISP that zero rates a site charging you a "subscription fee" to use it?
If the only good feature of a site is that it is zero rated, then don't use that site. Who is forcing you to use it? Why should you force the ISP to charge for the data to it just because you don't like the site?
So they want to create an artificial barrier to the better products,
ISPs have no reason to create an artificial barrier to "the better product". In fact, since they are charging you against your data cap for that product, they make more money if you use it. They love the "better product" because it may incentivize you to up your data cap. You're not using the inferior product, so what's the difference?
in the hopes that they'd extract some additional money from everyone.
This is getting silly. For a zero rated site you pay nothing extra. They can't extract additional money for a service that they don't charge you anything for.
The ones who think the shitty service is "good enough" because no cap, and the people who want the quality service have to pay via higher crap.
You don't want the poor quality service anyway, so you're going to use the better one and require a higher cap -- whether or not the low quality service exists or is zero rated. It's the people who find the service you don't like to be good enough for them that SAVE money, and that's a GOOD THING.
TL:DR: I don't think ISPs should get away with bribery and fraud.
I don't either. You have yet to even begin to show that zero rating is either bribery or fraud.
The ISP is not analogous to a store.
In the case of the analogy between ISP/zero rating and store/free parking, it certainly is.
If I don't like a store, I can shop at hundreds of other stores.
You do realize that "analogy" doesn't mean "exactly the same thing", don't you? In the analogy, the ISP is giving you something for free just like the store is giving you something for free. You want everyone to have to pay for both. Why would you want to go to a different store, or a different ISP, just because they were giving something to others for free that you weren't interested in having anyway? I see that as incredibly selfish. If they won't give you what YOU want for free, then they shouldn't be able to give anyone what they want for free. You don't want to park in the nearby parking garage, so the store should not be comping parking in that garage to anyone else. There's the analogy.
ISPs are analogous to the government, in that they both hold a monopoly in power over a particular area.
ISPs have no government monopoly and never had. This is a myth. And it is irrelevant for this discussion, because this is a discussion about zero rating and how you don't want it to happen. You think it is evil if an evil company gives something to someone else for free even when you don't want it at all anyway. That's nuts. You think it hurts your ability to access what you do want to, and it actually has nothing to do with it.
If the ISP is allowed to provide preferential service to some companies over others,
We're talking about ZERO RATING, which is giving preferential service to customers who use certain services. It does not give the service preferential treatment. The service is providing the same thing either way. And, in fact, for T-Mobile's zero rating Binge On, the services had to provide the data in the format T-Mobile asked for.
it's the same as a city council accepting bribes in exchange for preferential road construction.
And you're still confusing zero rating with fast lanes.
Aside from the cost of doing it, there is another barrier to entry for wireless internet: locations to put the cells.
"Wireless" is not synonymous with "cellular". You don't need "cells" to have wireless internet.
Regulatory approval is also a barrier. If the prospective carrier wants to use licensed radio spectrum it has to be bought in a spectrum auction
No, all you need to do is get the license. Again, you're confusing cellular and PCS services with wireless internet.
None of those regulations make it "literally illegal to compete"; they just make it more difficult.
And just more difficult for MUNICIPAL broadband services to be created. Private companies are not limited by these laws. It is not "literally illegal to compete", it is literally NOT illegal to compete.
It's the same result.
no, it is not.
If you go to the site that counts against your data cap, you get throttled.
Only if you exceed your data cap, which is not a fast-lane issue, it is exceeding your data cap issue.
No, because in your example it's the store that's providing free parking.
And in the zero rating example it is the ISP that is providing the zero rating.
none? So there's no barrier to entry for a wireless internet startup?
None. There are simply too many ISPs to be able to claim there is a monopoly of any kind. I see, however, that you are confusing "monopoly" with "barrier to entry". Yes, of course, EVERY company has to invest money in starting up, which is a barrier to entry. You would not claim that A&P or Food Lion has a monopoly status in your local town just because Kroger would have to spend money to open a store, AND there are a dozen other groceries already operating, would you?
Instead, you summarized a group of various laws that deal with municipal broadband. Nothing that prohibits private competition. And it appears you are mixing the real meaning of "landline" and "cable" or "fiber".
You think it's ok for some sites to bribe ISPs into getting better service?
Huh? I thought you were talking about zero rating, not fast lanes. Pick one, please.
This is like a store bribing the city council into doing preferential road construction for your business and not your competitors.
No, this is like a store providing free parking in the local parking garage for their customers while customers of other businesses have to pay. The parking spaces are the same, there aren't any more of them for one company vs. another, it's just one company is giving you something for free. You want everyone to have to pay to park because you don't want to do business with the company that comps it, which is pretty selfish.
What we have now is the natural monopoly from being the incumbent,
We have a natural monopoly for cable-delivered internet services. There is also a natural monopoly for wireline (DSL). There are no monopolies for wireless Internet, and there has NEVER been a monopoly for ISP services in general. Summing all of that up, there is no natural monopoly for any ISP, since internet service is not limited to one medium.
Would be nice if the shitty site actually had to compete on merit instead of getting an artificial boost from the ISP.
So instead of getting something "for free" that you don't want to use, you'd rather force everyone to pay for everything? That's the result of removing the zero rating for sites -- you'd have to use your data to go there, too. You'd save nothing by removing zero rating, and it would cost other people.
Why are you concerned about the quality of sites you aren't going to use?
Let's say it again - attacking the messenger just shows that you have nothing to say about the message, i.e. it weakens *your* position, not hers.
I remember not that long ago when professional, PhD scientists who disagreed with the "consensus" or the reasoning behind it were attacked because, even though they are outstanding scientists in their own field, they weren't CLIMATE scientists. They had no right to comment on the science involved in CLIMATE science because they were experts in some other kind of scientist. Did you point out that attacking the messenger showed that the climate alarmists had nothing to say?
Greta isn't even a scientist, she's a high school student. Can we point out that she's not a climate scientist and thus her opinion is worthless?
BLISS is ignorance.
