Following in OAN’s footsteps, Newsmax was removed from ALL DirecTV and ATT platforms today.



They immediately whined “censorship” and theorized some fantasy liberal conspiracy between ATT and Biden who personally caused this….somehow….and don’t want to think it could be because their beloved free market demanded it because they have NEVER actually made money, were given a sweetheart corporate welfare deal to give them a chance, and now that the deal is up they actually tried to insist ATT PAY THEM to keep them on air like they do the most popular networks that bring in millions in advertising revenue….and also they might be a liability when the bankrupt network has a billion dollar plus judgement against them if ATT continues to fund them.

X-COM & its sequels are THE strategy PC series I played & replayed the most ever, on both PC & Android on my tablet.

No other copycats I played like Jagged Alliance came close to my love of X-COM.

I always picked my team members that's high on Psych att/def. I prefer mind control the aliens to recon & go on suicide missions than using firepower.

Absolutely agree with you, but if I can't convince someone intelligent like you to eat a plant-based diet, I don't like my chances att convincing Sharleen and Damien from having 5 kids :-)

The other thing is if you look at the consumption in Western civilisation, we use somethng like 80% of the resources, even though our populations are the smallest. Which would suggest it's mostly lifestyle related.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

videosift.com

Dear Sir or Madam:

I am contacting you on behalf of Viacom Inc. (Viacom). Under penalty of perjury, I assert that I am authorized to act on behalf of Viacom, the owner of exclusive rights in the copyrighted work(s) identified in this notice, and that the information in this notice is accurate to the best of my knowledge, information and belief.

A search has detected that your web site, videosift.com, is hosting and/or linking to material that infringes Viacom’s exclusive rights in copyrighted work(s). The information provided below is a non-exhaustive, representative list of the Viacom copyrighted work(s) infringed by videosift.com, as well as the links and/or URLs corresponding to each listed infringement.

I have a good faith belief that the Viacom copyrighted work(s) identified in this notice of infringement has not been authorized for use or distribution via videosift.com by Viacom, its agent or the law. Therefore, I request that you immediately remove or otherwise disable access to the infringing material identified in this notice, and cease and desist from any further infringement of Viacom’s copyrighted work(s).

In complying with this notice, videosift.com should not destroy any evidence which may be relevant in a lawsuit relating to the infringement alleged, including all associated electronic documents and data relating to the presence of the infringing items on videosift.com, which shall be preserved while disabling public access, irrespective of any document retention or corporate policy to the contrary.

Nothing in this notice shall absolve you of any affirmative obligation to prevent or limit the infringement of Viacom’s exclusive rights in the copyrighted work(s) irrespective of whether you receive a notice of infringement for a specific work. Moreover, this notice is not intended as a full statement of the facts, and does not constitute a waiver of Viacom’s right to recover damages incurred by virtue of any unauthorized or infringing activities occurring on your network or site. All such rights, as well as claims for any other relief, are expressly reserved by Viacom.

If you need to contact me, I may be reached at the following address:

Sincerely,

Brad Bo
On behalf of Vobile as an agent for Viacom
2880 Lakeside Drive, Ste 360
Santa Clara, CA 95054
v: (408) 217-5000
agent@viacom.copyright-notice.com


Infringed Viacom property and URL/location of infringing content to be disabled or removed:
ColbertReport

http://videosift.com/video/Colbert-regarding-the-new-ATT


*kill

That really is the catch @Darkhand you absolutely nailed... We're VERY fortunate in Austin to have a small internet company called Grande... If your in Texas give them a look they are expanding and well worth your business... certainly before garbage companies like Verizon or ATT.

@Yogi Thats very discouraging to see how quickly they caved. Wasn't even aware it happened. I mean if Netflix can't even be bothered to fight WTF.

@renatojj

Church has high interested in religious candidates being elected. Most of the debates going on in politics are based on religious philosophy. Few off the top of my head are abortion, creationism, and women's rights. They've been going against the grain of the Constitution trying to get creationism which is a arguably religion based subject taught in schools. Which in turn possibly gets them more followers, which in turn gets them more tithing and more people in their "group" giving them more power. In fact I would argue they are specifically trying to erode the line between church and state with these arguments, injecting religion based reasons into many of the arguments.

Big media networks push for things like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telecommunications_Act_of_1996 where the reason for the bill is not actually what ends up happening. It was supposed to deregulate and open up the market for competition and instead it allowed them to reconsolidate by buying up competitors. And they largely don't fight with censorship on curse words because generally it drives off their audience, and those networks that don't have to censor curse words charge for the privilege of hearing them and seeing some nudity to boot. And they also support SOPA-like bills which are essential a blanket tool to censor the web....they also support monitoring and traffic shaping on the networks they control...which is another potential avenue for censorship.

You'll have to be more specific on what you're getting at......all these groups are eroding divisions we built through regulation and have been doing so steadily since the 80s at every opportunity across industries.

I've already shown that given the chance, they buy up competition to remain a monopoly. Look at ISPs, look at all the oil companies we USED to have. Look at the media conglomerates that own the majority of your radio stations ( I think there's two major radio networks, but they have like a million different stations under the same banners so it LOOKS like choice). How the record labels and movie industries are all tied together and often even tied into the same parent company that owns your ISP. Cell phone industry, ATT trying to buy T Mobile which would have brought it down to 3 major providers and they did it in the name of "better service" but still haven't announced plans to build out their infrastructure since the deal went through...why? Because it wasn't about better service, it was about buying up a competitor that offered plans at prices people preferred.

When people are unhappy with their ISPs they've tried to form local government run coop non-profit ISPs, and they get sued by the huge companies who refuse to service their area. It's happened multiple times. With regulation, they would have to provide internet to those places in a timely manner instead of preventing people from doing their own thing.

Did GoDaddy pay dearly for supporting SOPA? I heard they lost 30k subscribers at some point, but did they really? You'll have to show me on that. GoDaddy did lots of terrible things before it, yet they were still a huge provider and still are. They cybersquat on domain names people search for and allow you to buy them at "auction" from them when you try to look up if it's taken or not..they snatch it up to sell to you. They also give away people's domain names with no repercussions and a myriad of other things. Sounds like it needs a regulatory body with some teeth on it to make them act right or shut them down.

Unions are actually a really good way to fight monopolies and under the table deals, but they've been systematically villified. And unions aren't monopolies if they aren't mandatory, and most places are not fully unionized anymore. Often times they will have sections with union employees to do government work and non-union to do non-government work. Non-union guys make half the rate of union guys usually, and have less protections in place to keep themselves from getting shafted. But I don't really see how a union is a monopoly when there are lots of unions and lots of individuals in a union who make decisions for themselves and not as a collective like a company would. IE a company has a "head" that directs it and unions are a collective of individuals. Companies are people after all, unions are not (they are made up of people).

There are laws governing behavior usually based roughly on societal standards. Like pot being illegal is kind of against most of the societies beliefs, yet it remains illegal is an example of where it doesn't quite track. But overall we have laws that say you can't write a check that you know won't cash. Drunk driving, trespassing, vandalism, theft.....yelling fire in a crowded building.......setting off the fire alarm for fun.....etc. Giving people the finger isn't against the law....well probably not in most places so that might fall under social pressure. But we see that social pressure fails miserably at stopping bad behavior, so we have laws to enforce behavior...like not stealing and not murdering. This is society and people holding other people to standards, without the law to judge and convict them by the only thing you have left is personal interpretation and meeting out punishment by each individual or vigilante justice.

If you don't regulate business there is nothing stopping them, because nothing about our market is free. You can't have a free market without perfect information. You can't know every possible thing going on, so you will never have perfect information even if it was possible. So you will have swindlers and knock offs, pyramid schemes, etc. And without laws and regulations on these things, you will never be able to punish the company for what they did in a court of law.

Even if they were 100% above the board honest, they'd still be sourcing their materials from overseas and getting inferior materials to what you are paying for. It happens to the military all the time right now. They buy a bunch of nuts and bolts and some of them are chinese knockoffs that fail well after the installation is done and the machine is in operation. They can't catch them because china is basically lawless when it comes to producing goods for knock off purposes. It could just as easily be a US source doing it if we de-regulated everything and made no way for people to sue them into oblivion...because the damage would be done as soon as you buy a knock off and it fries the rest of your stuff.

The definition of "free market" right now means they want to be able to buy stuff cheap as shit from overseas and charge you US built prices for it. And when it comes to financial industry "free market" means they want to have speculation upon speculation to where the financial industry has 10-100x more money leveraged than what actually exists. It's a house of cards if they can just inflate it without any kind of acceptable risks being enforced.

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by Lawdeedaw.

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by Lawdeedaw.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'att tmobile meger monopoly mobile prices savetheinternet' to 'att, tmobile, merger, monopoly, mobile, prices, savetheinternet' - edited by dotdude

Wait - I heard the line about combining the dependability of Sony Online with reliability of ATT - but I don't see the parody tag.

>> ^MaxWilder:

I don't know what is going on here. Is this a move by the line owners against the independent ISPs that are leasing the bandwidth? Is this their way of getting around the regulation that forces the owners to let others share their lines?
And both sides are arguing that it's in the best interests of the end user, when they are actually concerned much more about their bottom line? That's what it seems like with my limited information.


That is EXACTLY what it is all about. Here in Canada, ISP's have been allowed to charge customers on a metered billing basis. I even preferred using the local metered billing ISP because they also consistently provided you the full speed they advertised, not the "up to speed x", but a dedicated, you can always hit speed x no matter how many users are on at the same time. You just had to be aware that if you ran that line at full speed all month you'd go over your cap. It was a tradeoff, but I much preferred a line that was going to really be high speed all the time, instead of discovering that between 4 and 11pm you can't even get half the speed advertised because the ISP had so badly oversold their capacity.

The new regulation passed here in Canada is, as you observed, extending that policy to include the lines that major providers like BELL/ATT are required to provide at cost access to for other smaller ISP's. This requirement is based on the government having spent a lot of it's money in partnership with BELL/ATT to put the cross country fibre lines in place. Before this legislation passed, smaller ISPs would be renting a line from BELL/ATT for say 100x more than a normal customer, but with no usage caps. That in turn let the smaller ISP resell to customers who would, on average, never run the line full and make a profit. With the new change, BELL/ATT are immediately using this as an opportunity to crush out the pesky competition. They are now applying a cap on the lines they are obligated to lend out to the smaller isps.

To try and summarize it, BELL/ATT are required to lease/rent/share their network access with smaller ISP's at a price fixed by the government. This new ruling doesn't let BELL/ATT change that price, but it does let them apply a usage cap on those fixed price lines. So instead of paying $10 a month to use a line for 720hrs a month, BELL/ATT can just say it still only costs $10 a month, but you can only use it for 100hrs a month now without paying a premium. BELL/ATT can and will use this to destroy the competing ISP's that depend on access to the infrastructure that the government helped BELL/ATT to build.

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by vaporlock.

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by radx.

>> ^Yogi:

If it's a cellphone...who's she talking to? Do carries work across time? Also she took great pains to change her dress but she forgot that maybe she shouldn't be talking on the magical device that houses demons in it?
I'm sorry but I cannot accept this...Good Day!


Well I hope she turned off the trans-time-roaming option. Fucking ATT RAPES you on the roaming charges across time... fucking iPhone 12...

Apple staff posting comments like crazy on the article