Try copying a US $20 bill on any modern copier.
Then you may find the information at this link helpful: https://instagram.com/about/le...
5. The Service contains content owned or licensed by Instagram ("Instagram Content"). Instagram Content is protected by copyright, trademark, patent, trade secret and other laws, and, as between you and Instagram, Instagram owns and retains all rights in the Instagram Content and the Service. You will not remove, alter or conceal any copyright, trademark, service mark or other proprietary rights notices incorporated in or accompanying the Instagram Content and you will not reproduce, modify, adapt, prepare derivative works based on, perform, display, publish, distribute, transmit, broadcast, sell, license or otherwise exploit the Instagram Content."
Oh how I wish I had mod points! +1
Dorff's next monthly bill was for $15,687.64, bringing his total outstanding debt to AT&T, including late fees, to $24,298.93. If he didn't pay by May 8, AT&T warned, his bill would rise to at least $24,786.16. Droff then called David Lazarus, business columnist for the LA Times, who got in touch with AT&T, who wasted little time in deciding it would waive the more than $24,000 in charges.
AT&T spokeshole Georgia Taylor claims Dorff's modem somehow had started dialing a long-distance number when it accessed AOL, and the per-minute charges went into orbit as he stayed connected for hours.
AT&T declined to answer the LA Times questions about why AT&T didn't spot the problem itself and proactively take steps to fix things? AT&T also declined to elaborate on whether AT&T's billing system is capable of spotting unusual charges and, if so, why it doesn't routinely do so.
You can read it here: SB 101
Maybe reading the actual bill would help you untwist your panties: SB 101
It doesn't say what you think it says.
There's a significant difference: CP is alleged to have used a personal account "sometimes." HRC used personal email intentionally and exclusively.
It's a demonstration of arrogance, ignorance, and bad judgement that seriously calls into question her credentials to be the next POTUS.
Agreed. To me this is the most over-looked/under-discussed angle on this story: the extreme lack of judgement displayed in making this decision isn't a good sign for someone coyly begging us to give her more power.
This wasn't an accident; she very clearly and intentionally made a reckless choice in placing her own personal benefit over the welfare of the nation.
In the end, I think her calculation was that she could make this choice with no consequences for herself and, sadly, I think she will be correct.
And smoothing the skirts
AT&T also played a role with their brain dead CEO stomping around huffing and puffing in outrage that people would dare to use the bandwidth he sold them.
Had anyone been interested in solving the problem you describe it could have been done very easily: it's flat out fraud to sell me access to the entire Internet and then go behind my back to the sites I want to visit and demand a ransom for my traffic. If the ISPs were legally liable for that kind of bait-and-switch then the problem would quickly sort itself out.
Instead you've nearly guaranteed that you're going to get traffic prioritized in ways you don't like. The only difference is that now you have absolutely no recourse as the traffic shaping you fear will have been blessed by your well greased and totally captured government regulators. You know, for the children or the terrorists or something.
Only if you accept their terms without negotiating. We have TWC for Internet only and pay a rate similar to what we paid when we were getting the bundled discount. You can get it but you have to ask for it.
The best of both worlds? Evidently you don't remember what it was like to be a customer of Ma Bell. "We're the phone company, we don't have to care," was a good laugh line because it was true. If you think your current locally regulated ISP monopoly is bad, just wait until it's got the federal government FOAD seal of approval.