http: motherboard vice com read the-faa-says-you-cant-post-drone-videos-on-youtube

[G+_Fr. Robert Ballecer, SJ]

G. Rick Marshall 

 

No.

 

Not at all.

 

100% completely wrong.

 

In no way, shape or form does the FAA need the FCC, Net Neutrality, or ANY legislative power outside of their own to declare content as "commercial." (Not ILLEGAL, as you continually assert.) This is the fundamental fact that you seem to be missing.

 

You might remember that the FAA did the same thing several times two years ago... the only reason why it's getting airplay now is because the fear-mongers think they can link it to the "Internet-Ending Power of Net Neutrality!" 

 

So... no... just no.

[G+_Fr. Robert Ballecer, SJ]

Chris Bickhaus G. Rick Marshall 

 

You seem to think that the FAA was trying to restrict a piece of content. That's not what happened. -- The FAA doesn't have any right to restrict content, Net Neutrality or not. The argument in the complaint, and from the letter of the Safety Inspector was that the flight was a commercial flight because the poster made money from advertising.

 

I know it's a very subtle difference, but it's an important one: The Inspector was NOT saying, "you must take down the video because it's illegal" --- He was saying, "putting the video on YouTube makes the drone flight a commercial flight... and since you don't have a license for commercial flight, you can't fly drones commercially" 

 

Legally... that's a HUGE difference... but one that the FUDders are more than happy to ignore.

[G+_G. Rick Marshall]

Fr. Robert Ballecer, SJ Thank you for pointing out the same thing occurred two years ago, because no net neutrality was involved. Yes, ,there is a difference between commercial and illegal. I'm sure we can trust the FAA to never conflate the two;)

 

According to the article, the FAA is all over the place on this particular video. Net neutrality will just be one more hammer to have the video taken down. 

 

So... Yes, Yes.

[G+_Fr. Robert Ballecer, SJ]

** Sigh **

 

Ok... I tried. 

[G+_G. Rick Marshall]

Fr. Robert Ballecer, SJ Now I'm lost.

 

You say: 'He was saying, "putting the video on YouTube makes the drone flight a commercial flight... and since you don't have a license for commercial flight, you can't fly drones commercially"'

 

So the video was only tangentially involved? It was just evidence he was flying commercially? Or did the context make it commercial?

 

How can making money be a subtle difference if the video (in context with the ads) is the evidence that makes it "Legally... a HUGE difference"?

 

This is not FUD, it's sophistry.

[G+_Fr. Robert Ballecer, SJ]

G. Rick Marshall OMG ... that is what I've been saying since my SECOND POST.

 

The video doesn't matter... Because the FAA has no jurisdiction over content... whatsoever... with or without Net Neutrality.

 

It's about whether the drone flight was a commercial flight. -- If it was done for money (which the Safety Inspector erroneously concluded) then it was a commercial flight and the pilot did not have a license for commercial flight.

 

For Money = Commercial = The FAA has jurisdiction

 

No Money = Non-Commercial = The FAA has no jurisdiction

 

In either case... your ORIGINAL post of "Welcome to net neutrality" is once again, WRONG... COMPLETELY... 100% -- Nothing to do with Net Neutrality, no matter how much you try to spin it.

[G+_G. Rick Marshall]

Fr. Robert Ballecer, SJ I wasn't trying to spin it. You can lead a horse to water but as you've proved, you can't make him drink.

 

Sigh.. I tried too;)

[G+_Fr. Robert Ballecer, SJ]

G. Rick Marshall Enjoy being thirsty. :)