In soviet russia sarcasm explains YOU!

How?

How does the current regulation 'protect' anything?

Let's say there's a network, we'll call it BOB. The BOB network currently owns local stations in major markets that add up to 39% of US households, the current limit. By preventing the BOB network from owning a broadcast station in another, smaller market - what evil are people protected from? As a note, BOB currently has a nationwide network of affiliate stations that carry BOB network content, and the BOB network is carried on all local cable companies (thanks to its affiliate stations) and streams its content over the internet, as is available on DirecTV.

What protection do you imagine limiting transmitter ownership provides? How, exactly is democracy being "dismantled"?

I believe, but can not confirm, that there are still limitations on station ownership in individual markets - for example, my imaginary BOB network couldn't buy every station in the San Francisco market, it is limited to just one.

As a reminder, EVERY CELLPHONE uses the same network as ATT, etc. no carrier has their own private nationwide cellular network.

That said, what does their existing infrastructure have to do with in-person store closures?

But just a few years ago...

https://www.wired.com/story/fb...

What are we talking about?

What's the issue?

What's the problem?

So the legal decision is...

But, it was OK in Washington DC on Jan. 6th because...

Oh yeah, the buffalo-headed shaman stole Nancy Pelosi's podium, and thus put democracy in America at risk because he (or she) that wields the Speaker of the House's podium rules the country!

Or something.,.

See THIS is humor.

Apparently not, Russinovich has plenty of intellect but clearly he has no sense of humor.

"Paint renders the game but does not compute it," said Russinovich. "Paint computes nothing. Paint has never computed anything. That's the joke."

You'd think the AI would have helpfully told him his 'joke' lacked anything with the potential to be funny. When someone recreates an Apple II using legos and a raspberry pi or makes it run in a browser; it's pointless nerding that says they have too much time on their hands. This isn't even nerding or pointless, it actually ads a stop for no purpose whatsoever. Straight up retarded.

"It's always a Trump issue."

Never let it be said that the Trumsterfire isn't a walking bag of issues.

That word "obliterated" doesn't mean what you think it does. Either that or you really believe that there are no radio stations. I assure you that radio stations still exist and people still listen to them. Naturally their user share has declined due to first MP3 players then streaming services, but you can still turn on your car radio, listen to music programmed by DJs,, call in to them using your phone, and have a conversation with the DJs on air.

Don't fail to see the forest because you are focusing on the trees. What is important is this:

"The Federal Communications Commission voted 2-1 today to eliminate the National Television Ownership Rule, claiming authority to repeal a limit that was set by Congress over 20 years ago."

It is one more nail in our democracy in the effort to build an authoritarian regime. By doing this with something that people will say isn't all that important anyway they are cementing the foundation for an idea in the minds of the people that they can lawlessly do this kind of thing; that it is not really of any import that they are ignoring the legislative branch in complete violation of the law. It is a direct attack against the foundational principles of our democracy, and a clear example of manufacturing consent. Later when they do it with something of more importance they will say that this is not without precedence and is accepted practice. They will then say that the people who are objecting are objecting because they don't like whomever is in power, and not because of the underlying problem of the act being illegal.

Well thanks for repeating them for us, so we could read them a second time before sharing your opinion that they are meaningless...

Maybe the reason is because you might allow someone else to drive your car, and they want to do their best to make sure that whoever is driving the car agrees to the terms. This isn't an attempt to claim it is justified, but merely an attempt to understand what their reasoning might be.

If someone wants to discredit trump all they have to do is put him in front of a camera and microphone and hit record. The fact that you think you have seen "the same process unfold" for every single president for the last 30 years tells me you have literally no idea what is going on in the US right now. You need to google the term "false equivalence" and read up on the subject with great scrutiny.

Taking out the parenthetical aside ",who owns 41% of the company," you get this:

Critics argue the service could let President Trump profit from early access to market-moving presidential communications.

How does this give President Trump "early access" to presidential communications? Doesn't all Presidential communication originate form him?

I suspect you meant customers will benefit from early access to presidential communication, but the difference will be trivial:

Milliseconds. To a rambling text message. Not actionable stock trades.