But this particular kind of use of it absolutely dwarfs everything else. Streaming media is a huge payload.

And, come on now, tell the whole story. For AT&T to be able to deliver Netflix's data all the way to the home routers of their customers, they also have to maintain arrangements with other carriers to handle that data as it comes in from Netflix. Those peering arrangements are not free, just like maintaining that last mile to their end user customers isn't free.

Meanwhile, the guy who buys bandwidth and uses it for a less Netflix/YouTube-centric array of connections absolutely is going to be asked to contribute to his neighbor's entertainment costs if the GP has his way and AT&T raises their rates across the board to deal with the behavior of a subset of users and remote content sources.

How is that not fair? External networks like Netflix are hugely disproportionate users of ISP's infrastructure. Who should be "blamed" for that flood of traffic if not hte ? If those specific sources of traffic, on the other side of a peering relationship, weren't there, this wouldn't be an issue. A handful of traffic sources are burning up the lion's share of the bandwidth, and making money off of their customers while doing so. Why should an AT&T customer who doesn't drink from the Netflix firehose have to subsidize the people that do? Let Netflix and AT&T work out those costs, and let the people who actually consume the traffic pay the tab in the form of slightly higher prices for the entertainment they want from Netflix. Expecting their neighbors pay for it, instead, is pretty jerky.

Really? You don't think there's much of a difference between knowing it was a mechanical failure (or fire, etc) and knowing it was a deliberate criminal act? If the problem was related to payload or the aircraft's infrastructure or maintenance, you don't think it's vital for all of the other people flying on that same equipment to know what went wrong? If this was done by the pilot(s) at the behest of some organization or state, or otherwise in the service of some agenda, you don't think that's meaningful, in the context of trying to prevent it from happening again? Glad you're so relaxed about it. You probably don't do much business overseas, or ship expensive things that are central to your mission, or have relatives that fly on that equipment or in that part of the world, so that's probably why the death of hundreds and the loss of a huge, expensive aircraft is a yawner to you.

I'm still trying to figure out what the Trilateral Commission, the Rothschilds, the Masons, and George Soros hope to gain by tricking people into being so actively bad at understanding the difference between the plural and possessive uses of the apostrophe. There must be some money in it, somewhere.

No, true capitalism involves you deciding, for yourself, what you want to do with the money you've made. That might very well include giving it to your wife or kids, as part of what you intended all along as you worked 100 hour weeks growing a business.

To follow your logic, a successful parent shouldn't be allowed to send their kid to a better engineering school (which because of staff and facilities, costs more), because that's not a "clean" slate for the college student compared to everyone else. But since plenty of parents are lazy wastes of oxygen, the only way to even the slate for you would be to make sure that no kid gets a better childhood or education than what the kid with the worst possible parents get. There! That way everything would be "fair" for you.

Yeah, I can tell you've never had a single conversation in your life with a family farmer. Or someone who's launched a business that's modestly successful. You need to get out more. Oh, wait. That might make you more worldly than someone else's kid, and that wouldn't be fair.

"I'm the same person I was when the loan was originated"

Maybe not...

No, you deliberately answered the wrong aspect of the question in order to avoid addressing the fact that you can't run a society that is plagued by a small but toxic fringe of awful people and groups without telling them everything you're doing to stop them, minute by minute. You know this, but you're pretending you're too dumb to grasp it. Why, I can't imagine. You're a transparency puritan troll, I guess.

Ah, you really are that dim. Is that physically painful?

You can't really be that dim, which means you're just being disingenuous in the extreme.

But I'll play along.

So in exchange for total transparency, you're willing to let gangs, child traffickers, massive scam operations, and much worse simply carry on? People we now lock up for really evil crap, based on the hard work of undercover cops ... you're cool with them doing business as usual, unmolested by law enforcement because you'd like the child-pimping slime to get updates from the Bureau Of Openness on all government activity?

And don't play stupid. Address the issue.

Does everyone else also have that right? How about someone who is engaged in a securities scam or human trafficking? Should they be informed about the under cover officer who is working to see them put away for stealing people's money or prostituting teenage girls? How would you like that information delivered to you and to those criminals? Do you prefer an RSS feed, or perhaps a PDF emailed weekly?

Their answer to that, of course, is that it's no longer "modeling" when you're flying something through the air for commercial use.

I agree that they need to follow proper rule making procedures, and get this done for real. In the meantime, it's a complete mess, and the administration is thumbing its nose at the law (from congress) that set a timetable for having this wrapped up. Deliberate foot-dragging with no consequences for anyone except all of the people looking to earn and spend money in this area. For an administration that pretends that it cares about the economy and jobs, this is just more of the same BS.

Who cares? The case in question wasn't about a glider. It was about someone flying FPV under power, diving under bridges through traffic, looping the hospital helipad, etc. That's not "glider" activity. The guy used the same style craft for his stunts buzzing the Statue Of Liberty and other high profile structures with lots of people right under his area of operation, while flying outside line of site. Props, spinning. Feel free to stick your nose or a finger into that while it's flying. I wouldn't.

You mean, like you couldn't possibly get a permit to launch a multi-stage, liquid fueled rocket from your back yard into LEO? Well, since you can't get that permit, they would be total asshats for fining you if you did it anyway, right?

The pilot's recklessness is EXACTLY why he was fined. The administrative judge's initial ruling (it was just an initial one - this still has a long way to go, including eventually to an actual federal court if the agency wants that to happen) was that the rule making process that was used to back up the agency's policy wasn't properly followed. So the pilot wiggles out of his fine on a technicality, not because he actually deserved to avoid the fine.

Does "every kid" use an out-of-line-of-sight FPV RC plane to fly at street level through traffic, buzz a hospital's active helipad, and make people on public streets duck while the pilot is making video that he uses to show off the stuff he sells? Interesting.

Have you actually seen these FPV "foamies?" We're talking about things that are carrying a camera, a brushless gimbal, flight controller with associated daughter components, one or more heavy/dense lithium batteries, a prop spinning at high RPMs (frequently made from very sharp carbon fiber), and ... the whole thing can weigh several pounds, with some of them easily flying at well over 50mph (some well over 100mph).

Care to get "bonked" by one of those?