Ok, gross royalties is nothing to it is perpetual?

Make copyright like patents- for a limited time that is in all realistic measures, limited.

I think it has something to do with the online records requirements of the ACA. If you live in Chicago and have an accident while vacationing in Florida, the doctors in Florida are supposed to be able to access your medical records from Chicago without much effort in order to treat you more effectively and timely. Encrypting it would somewhat end that and somehow this is all supposed to be controlled by the IRS who will share information with about 200 or more other government agencies between the state, local, and federal levels.

Yes, and it was Kevin Martin who classified Cable service as an information service to relieve them from having to open up their networks to all competitors as the telephone companies had been reluctantly doing.

I need a cite for this.
BTW, you do realize the cable service is not the same as internet service right? So if you do understand this, I'm not sure we are in disagreement. If not, there is our problem.

I think you've got it backwards. This is infrastructure, critical infrastructure, and it needs to be regulated.

Not really. There could be a number of things that could change this for the better without regulating it. I would even suggest it isn't critical infrastructure too. Without it, all that would happen is a little inconvenience and a few companies would have to limit who they sell to or find another way to reach people.

in fact, it was regulated until an unelected official unilaterally enacted the changes this FCC Chair is trying to reverse. Truth be told, this was a horrific decision and screwed all of us. Now the question of why this isn't a case where we just "come into anything you own and make it for the better without your permission" is because all of these companies use publicly owned properties (rights of ways) to deliver these services.

No it was not_ever_ regulated. The FCC position on the internet was never a title II position and they even segregated it from information services. Provide a cite for this. The best you can find is where the Portland case said it was and the FCC attempted to take comments for rule making but failed to accomplish anything before a higher court overturned the ruling.

Except that the law is already in place and the FCC has been challenged before as to whether it did have the power to make these decision. That power was upheld by the Supreme Court on more than one occasion.

lol.. When there is 40 some years of the FCC itself saying it does not have regulatory powers, even after the last law passed by congress is on the books, you will find problems with any court upholding this power. You see, there are FCC documents that they specifically say congress never intended them to regulate the internet. One of these is the 1998 report to congress on the access thing. A good portion of evidence cited in the filing is pulled from FCC case laws, FCC reports, and FCC declarations made to congress. The FCC has basically ignored 47 years of precedence in order to enact some political agenda. Read the filing. It lists all it's supporting evidence near the beginning. It is huge.

A lot of the carriers have been doing the same. They did it with that money they collect from your phone bills designated to connect poor and rural areas. Instead of running land lines, they can build out towers for their cellular networks and claim compliance thereby getting their share of the cash.

Face it. They are telecommunications service providers. The jig is up they've been called on it. Congress delegated the authority to the FCC to make the call and even if it didn't and we call back on what congress decided, Congress decided 20 years ago that they were telecommunications service providers which is why they were up until the year 2002.

Who is telling you these lies?

Seriously, who is lieing to you about this 2002 crap? You are not the first person to bring it up, you are not the first person who has failed to investigate it, you are also not the first person to be completely wrong about this. The FCC has never taken the position that the internet was anything other than an enhanced service or information service. Before the 1996 telecommunications act, it was commonly referred to as enhanced services and distinguished from telecommunications since 1968 with the original computers paper published by the FCC. The entire terminology "information services" comes from the computers II paper and congress' attempt to codify it into law. Several FCC papers including reports to congress (during Clinton's administration) distinguish the internet as separate from telecommunications services.

Please look into it yourself. Whoever told you that everything all the sudden changed in 2002, told you a lie. What had happened was a court case ruled the internet provisions of a cable company were title II and it was overturned in 2002. The FCC did not change any position at all, they just had the opportunity to ignore a court ruling in the Portland case.

The same as they were after computer I and computers II and the interim reports to congress in 1996, 97, and 98.

The FCC has never taken the position that the internet was ever anything other than an information service. This is prominent and clear starting as early as 1968. The only thing that happened to differ was the Portland cable case temporarily said cable internet was title II but it was overturned on appeals in 2002. The FCC did not let anyone do anything other than what they maintained for the 34 years previous.

Believe it or not, the history on this goes back a lot further than 2002 or whenever you were born. Before 1996, the term used was enhanced services and the telecommunications act of 96 turned it into information services but it modeled it directly of the definition in the FCC paper computers II.

As memory serves, it was Kevin Martin who created the informational service distinction in as far as the current internet is concerned. I believe he did so thinkng that this would allow free enterprise the opportunity to build out our networks to which I would point out has been only partly successful.

I cannot find any reference to Kevin Martin outside of some basketball player for some team I frankly have never heard of before. I couldn't say if you are right or wrong about the creation of the term itself. I can however tell you that the terminology was placed in the telecommunications law (1996) to model after the computers II paper published by the FCC. Before that, it was largely refereed to as enhanced services. I don't know if that is connected or not.

At the same time, to suggest that the Internet isn't rapidly taking over telecommunication is patently absurd. Next year, the POTS network will likely be scrapped and we have seen times when portions of our telecommunications network has been taken down due to weather incidents leaving people without the ability to call for help when they needed to.

Here is the problem. Telecommunications and information services are legally defined. It is the type of communications not how it is delivered, transported, or imagined. You could have a line of people holding hands who twitched a finger in serious that relayed communications from one end of the state to the other in real time. That could make that communications service a communications service but it wouldn't make the infrastructural (1 million people holding hands) automatically under regulations of the FCC. Part of the law
(pre title II change) was with what type of assurances and reliability communication services would be transported on. In that scenario, one person pausing for a bathroom break breaks the entire ordeal.

More to the point, we have seen what was once considered to be the gold standard in the world for telecommunications become an embarrassment where one of our larger carriers actually ran advertisements asking "Can you hear me know?" Is this the communications network you believe our country should have?

Lol.. You mean for a cell network? Of course I think it should be better. I travel a lot and am dropping calls all the time or having to ask people to repeat themselves because it sound like they stuck their head in a barrel every 5 words. But hey, should I be allowed to just come into anything you own and make it for the better without your permission or any specific act or law created by your elected officials?

Where we disagree (apparently) is that I believe the Internet is an infrastructure built for the common good and not as a cash delivery system for commerce.

No, we do not disagree with this.

And while I have no issues with people using the net for business (I do so myself) the idea that corporations should have the ability to do whatever their profit margins tell them to do with our net is past absurd as far as I'm concerned.

And we are not in disagreement here either. I guess if there is any disagreement, it would be in how to correct the situation. First, I think an actual law should be passed instead of unelected appointed officials reversing over 47 years of precedence (the first FCC reference that I know of about computer communications being an enhanced service and not telecommunications is circa 1968) and pushing their own agenda.

I do not have any problems with the goals involved, just the process in which they were implemented. It's like giving a murdering bank robber a pass because he donated all the money he stole in a bank robbery, where 5 customers suffocated after being locked in the vault all weekend, to charity looking for cures of childhood cancer. Well, no- it is not like that at all. But in the same, doing something wrong for the right reasons does not make that wrong right. At best it only makes it acceptable. Someone shoplifting to feed their family is acceptable to me. someone shoplifting because they are poor is not. Inventing new laws with absolutely no congressional oversight is not either if you ask me.

The Portland case doesn't really say that. It basically says that information services use telecommunication services to develop and deliver the information services. It in essence says cable companies were telecommunication companies when they offer telecommunications services carrying information services over their infrastructure.

http://www.techlawjournal.com/...

The news brief you linked to was about the FCC using this to develop and roll out broadband because it now has authority that can restrict or override local franchising boards.

I don't think it is a matter of being able to switch between the two rather that the lines between the two are getting blurred. For instance, you use a telecommunications service to transmit an information service but when it is IP telephony (like Vonage), you are transmitting a telecommunications service over a telecommunications service as if it was an information service.

Information service is defined by law separate from what you are describing as an information service. It is as apposed to the legal definition of a telecommunications service. When speaking of such in pertaining to the FCC actions, we need to consider the legal definition and not the common one.

No they did not. The internet was never Title II except for the attempt now and a brief lived stent coming from a ruling in the Portland cable case in which was overturned about a year later on appeals.

The FCC and congress behind them have repeatedly took the position that the internet and computer communications were information services and the variants signifying the same leading up to that terminology being created in the mid 1990s. There is a long and complete record of the FCC treating computer communications separate from telecommunications from about 1968 and on up until the Portland case (which the FCC argued against) and this FCC trying to change everything.

pouring into the atmosphere at a rate of more than 100x what nature produces

... man, go back to elementary school. That hasn't happened, isn't happening, and isn't going to happen. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-07-31]

Yes it is. As the NAS explains on page 6 here:

"In nature, CO2 is exchanged continually between the atmosphere, plants and animals through photosynthesis, respiration, and decomposition, and between the atmosphere and ocean through gas exchange. A very small amount of CO2 (roughly 1% of the emission rate from fossil fuel combustion) is also emitted in volcanic eruptions. This is balanced by an equivalent amount that is removed by chemical weathering of rocks."

So natural CO2 emissions are balanced, and our fossil fuel emissions are roughly 100x faster than volcanic emissions. That's why "actual science" shows that our current CO2 emissions rate is unprecedented over the last 300 million years.

And if you read the rest of that NAS document, you'd discover that "actual science" shows that our unprecedentedly rapid CO2 emissions are a cause for concern.

... Karl et al. conclusion is an outlier. And you don't have to be a scientist to know it... if it weren't, there wouldn't have been news media all over the place reporting "No 'Hiatus' After All". Outliers are outliers. They can be recognized from their conclusions, as I did, but by lay people they can also often be recognized by the media uproar they stir. Simple logic says that if it hadn't been NEWS, it wouldn't have made a stir in the news. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-07-23]

Jane's method of spotting outliers via media uproar is cute, but it would be more rigorous to actually look at Fig 1 (a) and (b). The new global trend's central estimate is within the error bars of the old estimate. ... [Dumb Scientist]

... All it takes is simple logic to clearly show that Karl et al. results are an outlier. I didn't exactly make this up, either. Lots of others have been saying it. In fact, even many of the big news sources haven't dared to touch Karl with a 10-foot pole. It's just that -- ahem -- "credible". ... [Jane Q. Public, 2015-07-28]

Again, spotting outliers via media uproar isn't as rigorous as actually looking at the data. So let's reproduce Fig 1(b) in Karl et al. 2015, which shows trends from 1998 to 2012. Let's calculate those trends for all the land/ocean, global, and satellite datasets listed here:

HadCRUT4 trend: +0.050 ± 0.139 C/decade (2 sigma)

NOAA trend: +0.079 ± 0.131 C/decade (2 sigma)

Karl(2015) trend: +0.086 ± 0.148 C/decade (2 sigma)

GISTEMP trend: +0.100 ± 0.141 C/decade (2 sigma)

Berkeley trend: +0.096 ± 0.137 C/decade (2 sigma)

HadCRUT4 krig v2 trend: +0.111 ± 0.152 C/decade (2 sigma)

Karl(2015) krig trend: +0.111 ± 0.157 C/decade (2 sigma)

RSS trend: -0.055 ± 0.246 C/decade (2 sigma)

UAH trend: +0.054 ± 0.251 C/decade (2 sigma)

All these trend estimates are consistent with my previous statement: there hasn't been a statistically significant change in the warming rate, and there isn't a statistically significant difference between the projected and observed trends.

Do these results support Jane's claim that Karl et al. 2015 is somehow an "outlier"?

If you have free speech, yes you have that right.

Speaking of gluten free - i tried it once. Turned out either i have a mild gluten allergy or consciously picking the food I ate based on nutritional values made a significant difference in my disposition. I was more pleasant to be around, more energetic, had less ailments, was more regular in bathroom breaks, and overall felt better.

Of course that was not a proper study and it just as well could have been a placebo effect moving in. I'm back to my old ways again with a few exceptions and do not see much of any reversal though.

You're "misunderstanding" fundamental concepts and basic facts about the figures in Karl et al. 2015. That's not misdirection, it's relevant. If you can't even get the basics right, what makes you think you'll be able to understand anything else?