From CNET:
Angry Netflix customers are a force to be reckoned with, and they're the ones owed an explanation about why the company would slow the transmission of video streams to some wireless customers without informing them.
Netflix found itself in the hot seat after admitting, in a Wall Street Journal story Thursday, that for five years it had been tamping down service to Verizon and AT&T customers. What's more, the Los Gatos, California, company said the policy excluded customers of T-Mobile and Sprint.
Critics immediately cried foul on Netflix, seeing hypocrisy on the part of a company that two years ago led a fight to require the Federal Communications Commission to adopt "strong" Net neutrality rules that would ban Internet service providers from slowing traffic under almost any circumstances. Netflix also wanted the FCC to require operators to be more transparent in how they manage their networks.
But the most galling aspect may be that Netflix never notified its customers that it was imposing a slowdown.
"There is nothing wrong with what Netflix is doing," said Berin Szoka, president of TechFreedom, a group that has opposed the FCC's Net neutrality regulations. "Except for not making it public."
(Score: 2) by linkdude64 on Tuesday March 29 2016, @11:42PM
Instead of being arrogant, I'll try to be inquistive...
Would you consider the possibility that (if you are not a communications-related lawyer) that your interpretation (or, more likely, the interpretation that your information source adopted) may be less knowledgable than you seem to believe?
"[...]my new protocol for remote desktop over UDP is "Unlawful". There is no law explicitly granting this type of content as acceptible."
For some reason, I seriously doubt that Microsoft's RDP is somewhere in the books of law - assuming there must be a "law explicitly granting this type of content as acceptable," - and assuming it isn't, that M$ would be freaking the fuck out over this. Imagine Google needing to pass a fucking law in order to throw some new beta project on the internet.
Doesn't that sound a little implausible?
Don't you think that M$/Google/Verizon/everyone's lawyers were looking over the regs and if something like this were present would be thinking, "Fuck, we're going to have to quadruple our lobbying budget over this" and have a slight problem with that?
I'm not saying it's outside the realm of possibility, but I seriously doubt that it is.
No, "Look at the regs idiot" is not a valid retort. You are the one making the claim that corporations will need to pass fucking FEDERAL LAWS to put new projects online so the burden of proof rests on you.