No, they have expressed concern over how the FCC plans to evaluate "harm," specifically with how seven rules for harm will be defined so that adequate legal challenges to them -- one way or the other -- might be brought. They're afraid they might be ambiguous.

However, overall they, like what the FCC is proposing.

They summarize:

[I]t appears that many of the proposed rules will make sense for the Internet. Based on what we know so far, however, the general conduct proposal may not.

To say that such concerns constitute "serious issues with the vast extent of the FCC's net neutrality rules" is hyperbolic.

Furthermore, if you read the ex parte letter linked, the EFF actually suggests additional regulation by considering what unbundling rules "might be appropriate for the 21st century, in a separate proceeding." If the EFF is so concerned about the "vast extent" of these new rules, why would they also be asking for additional rules?

Once again, this is about logical net neutrality, not physical net neutrality, which is a whole other ball of wax. This is about making sure that Comcast doesn't charge you extra for access to NetFlix or Twitch.tv, and then turn around and charge NetFlix and Twitch.tv more to access you. Because prior to Title II classification, that was entirely possible.

Local loop unbundling is not a simple thing and does have significant technical barriers and significant cost. Politics is a slow, gradual, arduous process. It will take time to get where we need to be. Don't proclaim the journey a failure because the first step was taken with the left foot instead of the right.

Presumably the statement is less tautological than that. I would assume it means that a new foal is capable of the same speed that any older immature gazelles are capable of, with the possibly that it means they can move as fast as a fully grown gazelle.

This is like blaming the cheerleader that the team lost the big game because she reported the star quarterback raped her.

It was the NSA's choice to engage in ethically questionable actions. These events are the fallout from that decision. That the NSA's actions in spying on citizens without legal authority, warrant, or adequate oversight should affect international business by undermining worldwide trust in the nation is, frankly, exactly what the NSA should have expected.

It's also used in a huge number of automated processes to encrypt data during the DB extract process so we can move that data out of the DB network and send it to partners.

I can buy encrypting email communications, but for this you should just use SFTP. Why would you ever use email for important data transmission? It's not a matter of encryption, it's everything else. It relies on DNS. It doesn't confirm the remote server's identity. Delivery is best effort and does not succeed or fail immediately. And sure, I'm sure you can make SMTP do all these things, but why when you can just use SFTP, a protocol already built around doing all these things? It's not like you can't also encrypt the data on top of all that if that's your concern. Are you using PLCs that only know how to encrypt SMTP traffic with authentication and server identity verifcation, and don't have SSH support? Is there some archaic law that carves out an exception for email in your country? Your use case seems so narrow that religious scholars would debate how many angels can dance on it.

The fact that corporations have been able to abuse the system so egregiously is, itself, a condemnation of the program. A proper program would have checks to prevent abuse like we see.

There are dozens of document management and document version control systems, and many enterprise content management systems have document management as a component. The most well known is probably Microsoft SharePoint, but there are open source alternatives like LogicalDOC, OpenKM, Plone, Nuxeo, Alfresco, etc. as well as other commercial offerings like IBM Enterprise Content Management and others.

However, the technology won't replace poor training or users determined to do their own thing.

Because it's fraudulent and damages Yelp's business by making the accuracy of reviews much lower. Revleap acts in a knowingly deceitful manner for financial gain at the cost of Yelp's reputation (which is deservedly pretty bad already).

Can banks just decide to not do business with you

Yes. That's how credit cards get cancelled and mortgages get foreclosed on. Don't you think the bank would just rather you paid them? Because that interest is how they make money.

and keep your money?

No, because that is theft. As parent said: "with their property." The money in a bank isn't owned by the bank. It's owned by it's customers. If the bank decides not to do business with you, they must return your property.

There are also laws against discrimination because a business can't just do anything it wants with its property, like put up a sign that says "No Blacks or Jews".

Yes, because discrimination on the basis of race or religion is specifically banned. But it's that category that is banned, not discrimination as a whole. Nearly every business has a "right to refuse service" clause or sign. You ever know anybody to get thrown out of a place for being an asshole? Right to refuse service. You just can't refuse service because of age, disability, gender, race, national origin, or religion (among a few other things), but you absolutely can refuse service for nearly everything else. "We don't serve people who are rude." "We don't serve people who bounce checks." "We don't serve people who complain for petty reasons." "We don't serve people without shirt and shoes." "We don't allow food in here." "We don't allow children into R-rated movies."

You know the Soup Nazi? That is not illegal.

Businesses usually have little interest in refusing services in general because it's -- quite literally -- turning money away, but that doesn't mean they don't get to decide who they do business with.

The article says the patch has already been updated and is safe to install.

It might be an extremely rare issue. Following the links in the article, the last update they pulled in August of 2014 was pulled because it was causing blue screen errors for 0.01% of users, but they pulled it anyways.

I thought being functionally useless was a feature of Twitter.

That's the core issue for telecom competition. For physical net neutrality. This is for logical net neutrality. To keep Comcast from charging you extra for access to NetFlix, and to then turn around and charge NetFlix extra for access to you. It's a first step. Politics is a slow process.

Yeah, that's exactly what I was thinking. Local loop unbundling is what enables competition between telecom companies.

I mean, ok, this is a step in the right direction, but without the requirement that local carriers must lease lines I'm not so sure this does a whole lot. I imagine if this goes through then some carrier will bring them to court over Title I of Telecommunications Act of 1996, wouldn't they? It's clear to me the competition the chairmen is talking about is new online sites like NetFlix or Twitch. They'll be free to start new services and not need to pay ISPs to carry their traffic, which is the big problem without net neutrality. It's competition of companies using the network, not competition of companies selling access to the network.

I suppose that will the next thing we'll have to do if this sticks.

"Terrorism" is the new word for "sedition". It turns out "treason" is really difficult to prosecute, but if you change the crime of "acts of war" into a generic and malleable term like "terrorism", you can throw all kinds of nonsense in there that the government considers subversive. Now you don't actually have to do anything wrong to be guilty. You just have to make people afraid that you are!