text stringlengths 14 502 |
|---|
[1694.08 --> 1695.32] Their maple buffalo bacon. |
[1695.88 --> 1696.64] It's traditional. |
[1697.50 --> 1697.82] Mojo. |
[1697.98 --> 1699.34] Mojo flavors are fantastic. |
[1701.14 --> 1704.14] Aside from jerky, they make barbecue sauce, hot sauce, and a spice rub. |
[1704.44 --> 1707.48] Their Carolina Reaper hot sauce uses one of the hottest peppers in the world. |
[1708.18 --> 1708.56] The bell. |
[1708.96 --> 1709.22] Ha ha. |
[1709.30 --> 1710.58] I think I've made that joke before, but whatever. |
[1710.66 --> 1711.48] It's the Carolina Reaper. |
[1711.72 --> 1712.04] Duh. |
[1712.10 --> 1712.70] It's right in the name. |
[1712.70 --> 1718.70] And you can use offer code LTT to save 10% over at savagejerky.com. |
[1718.70 --> 1721.90] That one's really good. |
[1723.12 --> 1723.58] Dang. |
[1723.82 --> 1724.44] Sriracha bacon? |
[1724.78 --> 1725.06] Mm-hmm. |
[1725.12 --> 1725.54] Can I try it? |
[1727.96 --> 1728.40] Yes. |
[1728.82 --> 1729.10] Ha ha. |
[1729.48 --> 1731.48] I technically only claimed the maple buffalo bacon. |
[1731.74 --> 1732.24] Ha ha ha. |
[1733.18 --> 1733.94] Only one piece. |
[1733.94 --> 1735.14] I might claim this in the future, though. |
[1735.56 --> 1736.10] Really nice. |
[1737.24 --> 1737.74] All right. |
[1738.46 --> 1741.52] So the original article here is from arstechnica.com. |
[1741.52 --> 1758.36] But it would appear as though California is the latest in a number of states that are exploring net neutrality bills to protect net neutrality in spite of what's going on with the federal government. |
[1758.36 --> 1769.20] So basically, they're attempting to restore net neutrality provisions that are similar to the ones that were used by the FCC before their recent repeal. |
[1769.86 --> 1779.36] However, in addition to prohibiting fast lanes, throttling, blocking, and paid prioritization, they want to go a step further to prohibit zero rating. |
[1779.36 --> 1785.16] Which is when the use of a certain site, such as Netflix, doesn't count against a user's data cap. |
[1785.70 --> 1791.90] Now, I have mixed feelings about zero rating. |
[1791.90 --> 1793.86] It sounds cool. |
[1795.02 --> 1795.92] Like, at first. |
[1797.12 --> 1804.46] The issue with it, the big issue with it is, say, one of these ISPs owns a service, which is really common. |
[1805.72 --> 1811.36] They could zero rate their own service so that you subscribe to them instead of someone else. |
[1811.44 --> 1812.12] So John's coming. |
[1812.92 --> 1815.90] But in the meantime, I want to present my... |
[1816.48 --> 1817.48] He's deleted all his notes. |
[1817.48 --> 1830.12] I want to present my sort of dumb consumer who's very selfish sort of point of view and go, well, I can see things about this that I would really like. |
[1831.02 --> 1833.70] Because zero rating can be applied in that way. |
[1834.16 --> 1841.36] Where someone like a Comcast might say that, okay, you know, watching shows from... |
[1841.36 --> 1841.90] Comcast. |
[1842.00 --> 1842.98] Who owns Comcast again? |
[1843.18 --> 1844.26] Or who does Comcast own? |
[1844.58 --> 1845.06] NBC. |
[1845.30 --> 1845.66] NBC. |
[1845.66 --> 1845.82] NBC. |
[1845.90 --> 1846.08] Okay. |
[1846.08 --> 1849.70] So, you know, NBC streams don't count against your data usage. |
[1850.34 --> 1857.00] But there are cases of zero rating where they aren't implementing it on their own services. |
[1857.22 --> 1859.82] Like, for example, T-Mobile allows... |
[1859.82 --> 1861.34] I think it's YouTube streaming. |
[1862.02 --> 1863.56] Doesn't count against your data plan. |
[1864.74 --> 1867.44] Well, I mean, Google doesn't own T-Mobile and vice versa. |
[1867.72 --> 1869.24] This is just a handshake deal. |
[1869.24 --> 1878.54] Which, again, on the surface can look really good for consumers because, hey, you can watch all the YouTube you want if you're a T-Mobile customer. |
[1878.80 --> 1881.54] Theoretically, that hurts, like, Twitch and whatever else. |
[1881.76 --> 1886.66] But, or some, you know, young upstart video streaming platform. |
[1887.34 --> 1887.74] Hey. |
[1888.58 --> 1890.02] That has higher bit rates. |
[1890.02 --> 1893.40] And that doesn't have a chance to talk to T-Mobile about such an arrangement. |
[1893.54 --> 1897.56] So, John's going to tag in for me and talk in a little bit more detail about... |
[1897.56 --> 1897.84] Oh, no. |
[1897.84 --> 1898.70] That was why you're here, right? |
[1898.88 --> 1899.10] Yeah. |
[1899.26 --> 1900.14] I know we got to that part already. |
[1900.14 --> 1900.54] Yeah, no, no. |
[1900.84 --> 1903.36] Feel free to explain it in better detail than what... |
[1903.36 --> 1903.92] Go, go, go. |
[1903.92 --> 1904.02] Okay. |
[1904.04 --> 1905.50] It was like the last bullet point, though. |
[1905.50 --> 1907.42] So, okay. |
[1907.60 --> 1913.46] So, we're looking at the California bill on net neutrality, right? |
[1914.36 --> 1914.68] Okay. |
[1915.06 --> 1917.06] So, which bullet point are we on? |
[1917.14 --> 1918.20] The last bullet point is here. |
[1918.32 --> 1922.02] We've only gone through a few of them, but we've talked about this kind of thing on the show before. |
[1922.14 --> 1924.62] So, I think a lot of people kind of know essentially what's going on. |
[1924.70 --> 1924.90] Okay. |
[1924.90 --> 1928.04] So, you talked about zero rating already, right? |
[1928.06 --> 1928.18] Yeah. |
[1928.34 --> 1928.76] So, okay. |
[1928.76 --> 1928.84] Okay. |
[1929.22 --> 1931.82] So, right now the bill is that... |
[1931.82 --> 1935.70] It got passed by like this little subcommittee or something in their state house. |
[1935.84 --> 1936.06] Okay. |
[1936.22 --> 1939.76] So, it still has to be passed by both chambers, signed into law and all that. |
[1939.94 --> 1946.56] But both chambers and the governor's mansion are currently controlled by Democrats who traditionally have been more friendly towards net neutrality. |
[1946.64 --> 1947.72] So, we'll see what happens with it. |
[1948.50 --> 1955.32] Right now, ISPs are unsurprisingly opposing the bill, and they also might challenge it in court if it does indeed become law. |
[1955.32 --> 1960.10] There are a number of legal arguments they could use to try to get this scrapped. |
[1960.28 --> 1968.32] And this is interesting not only because California is such a huge state, but since the SEC repeal a few months ago, I think they've gone... |
[1968.84 --> 1976.42] So far, they've gone further than any other states have in trying to have like a real sort of like comprehensive net neutrality law, right? |
[1976.70 --> 1983.32] So, what I put down here was they might argue federal preemption or that the bill unduly burdens... |
[1983.96 --> 1984.94] What is federal preemption? |
[1985.34 --> 1989.12] So, that is when a federal law and a state law come into conflict. |
[1989.36 --> 1989.52] Okay. |
[1989.54 --> 1991.42] And there's a number of ways that can happen. |
[1991.56 --> 1996.98] Obviously, there are very clear cases where the federal law says one thing and the state law says exactly the opposite. |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.