New 'net neutrality' rules don't go far enough

Jan 03, 2011 By Troy Wolverton

Federal regulators last week put the force of law behind net neutrality. But the new rules don't do enough to protect consumers and small companies on the Net. And thanks to the regulators' timidity, they may not last very long.

Net neutrality is an arcane term that basically means consumers should be able to access any site or service they want on the Internet. It also means publishers of information or developers of applications or services can distribute their data to any Internet user without having to pay a toll to the users' network provider.

That's basically how the Internet functions now. Generally, consumers don't have to worry about their Internet providers blocking them from accessing particular websites or slowing down their access to certain sites. But rules guaranteeing net neutrality are needed because of the lack of competition among Internet service providers and the growing power they wield.

Today most consumers have - at best - two choices for broadband Internet access: the cable company and the phone company. And those providers have incentives to control what their customers can access on the Internet because they charge for proprietary services such as television programming and phone calling that consumers can get more cheaply over the open Internet.

On the surface, the Federal Communications Commission's new rules - at least as they've been described by the commission - would put in place the major elements needed to guarantee net neutrality. They would require Internet providers to make public how they are managing their networks and would bar them from blocking any service, site or application.

They would also prohibit landline providers such as Comcast from "unreasonably" discriminating against particular traffic or applications. And the commission indicated it would frown on arrangements where some sites or services pay Internet providers to have their data treated preferentially above those of other sites and service.

But the FCC has yet to make public the actual rules it passed. That's one big red flag because the wording of the rules will largely determine their effect.

One potentially big loophole is how the commission will define what is "unreasonable" in terms of service providers managing their networks. Depending on how the rules are written, they could allow Comcast and other providers to throttle down Internet speeds to provide more bandwidth for their other services, such as television programming or phone calls.

The commission should encourage service providers to make their data pipes bigger rather than give them latitude to fill the current pipes with their own proprietary services.

Worse, the rules would allow providers of wireless Internet access such as Verizon Wireless and Sprint to discriminate against particular Internet sites, services and applications in favor of their own services or those of paying partners.

With the explosive growth of smartphones, tablets and laptops with 3G data cards, the way consumers connect to the Internet is quickly being transformed. In the near future, the Internet that most consumers will know will be the one they connect to wirelessly. And what that experience will look like shouldn't be left up to the wireless service providers.

We've already been there. Before the iPhone came along, the types of data services consumers could access on their phones were largely determined by the cell phone companies. Companies with cool apps or Web services had to pay the wireless companies to have them listed on their devices.

No thanks. I don't want to go back to those days, and you don't either.

But the biggest problem with the new rules is that they rest on a weak foundation. Under the Bush administration, the FCC essentially deregulated broadband Internet service providers. The move came back to bite the FCC when it tried to crack down - in the interest of net neutrality - on Comcast for throttling customers' access to BitTorrent, a file-sharing network. Last year, a court ruled that the FCC had no power to regulate what Comcast was doing, precisely because the FCC had deregulated broadband.

Consumer advocates have urged the FCC to reverse course and re-regulate broadband . But in the face of intense industry lobbying, the FCC has demurred.

Instead, it based its new rules on a recent ruling it made determining that broadband services aren't being adequately deployed to all Americans. That ruling gave it the legal authority to promote competition in broadband access that would lead to wider availability and adoption. The commission argues would help foster that competition by encouraging the development of new Net services and applications that will attract new users and greater demand for bandwidth. That demand, in turn, will encourage new investment to build out the broadband networks.

You better believe, though, that assertion will be tested in court. And if the Comcast ruling is any indication, the courts will frown on such mushy reasoning. So the new rules, as weak as they are, could soon be struck down in a court ruling.

It's too bad the FCC couldn't find the courage to take a stronger stand. The cost may well be the demise of the as we've known and loved it.

Explore further: FX says overnight ratings becoming meaningless

3.5 /5 (6 votes)
add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

FCC seeks input on rules for online services

Sep 01, 2010

(AP) -- Federal regulators are seeking public input on what rules should apply to wireless Internet access and specialized services that aren't part of the Internet but are delivered over wired broadband connections.

FCC and the Internet

Apr 27, 2010

The U.S. Court of Appeals in the District of Columbia recently ruled that the Federal Communications Commission has no authority to tell Internet service providers how to manage their networks.

Net neutrality rules face mounting GOP opposition

Oct 05, 2009

(AP) -- Republican opposition is mounting as federal regulators prepare to vote this month on so-called "network neutrality" rules, which would prohibit broadband providers from favoring or discriminating against certain ...

FCC plans to move forward with broadband plan soon

Apr 08, 2010

(AP) -- The Federal Communications Commission said Thursday that it intends to move forward quickly with key recommendations in its national broadband plan - even though a federal appeals court this week undermined the agency's ...

Giving FCC authority to set policy on net neutrality

Apr 12, 2010

A federal appeals court reined in the Federal Communications Commission last week, ruling that it overstepped its authority when it penalized Comcast for surreptitiously disabling a popular technology that let people share ...

Recommended for you

London mayor expected to say city will rock 5G by 2020

51 minutes ago

London mayor Boris Johnson this week will pledge to bring 5G to London in the next six years, reported The Telegraph on Monday. The pledge is part of a more extensive plan for London's infrastructure between ...

T-Mobile deal helps Rhapsody hit 2M paying subs

3 hours ago

(AP)—Rhapsody International Inc. said Tuesday its partnership with T-Mobile US Inc. has helped boost its number of paying subscribers to more than 2 million, up from 1.7 million in April.

Airbnb woos business travelers

3 hours ago

Airbnb on Monday set out to woo business travelers to its service that lets people turn unused rooms in homes into de facto hotel space.

Google searches hold key to future market crashes

14 hours ago

A team of researchers from Warwick Business School and Boston University have developed a method to automatically identify topics that people search for on Google before subsequent stock market falls.

Lenovo's smart glasses prototype has battery at neck

16 hours ago

China's PC giant Lenovo last week offered a peek at its Google Glass-competing smart glass prototype, further details of which are to be announced in October. Lenovo's glasses prototype is not an extreme ...

User comments : 176

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

jonnyboy
Jan 03, 2011
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (11) Jan 03, 2011
"We've already been there. Before the iPhone came along, the types of data services consumers could access on their phones were largely determined by the cell phone companies. Companies with cool apps or Web services had to pay the wireless companies to have them listed on their devices.

No thanks. I don't want to go back to those days, and you don't either."
How did 'net neutrality' 'fix' this problem?
Sounds like the market players solve the problem without 'help' from the FCC.
freethinking
1.6 / 5 (13) Jan 03, 2011
Phone, Cable, Clearwire, and Dialup. All before government control.

Remember people, Net neutrality is a code word that progressives are using to take over and regulating the Internet.
Mesafina
2.8 / 5 (11) Jan 03, 2011
Anyone who thinks that regulation is unnecessary is an idiot. We started out in the world with no regulation, no government, nothing. From there emerged tyranny, warlords, genocide, etc. Only more recently, in the last few hundred years, have people become so numerous and fed up that they were able to come together, kill the offenders, and impose governments that are democratic, and which can regulate the few who wish to impose upon and subject the many. Sure governments become riddled with cronyism but so do all human institutions.

Would you want to have no police force? Do you trust everyone in your city to not rob you out of the kindness of their heart? If you believe in a police force, you believe in regulation. If you oppose the concept of policing, you are delusional.
Mesafina
3.7 / 5 (9) Jan 03, 2011
If comcast and verizon start dictating to you the content you can have access to, or charging you extra for services they don't own or sponsor, what competitor will you turn to?

The internet has become the central nervous system of the human race, and we will only become more dependent on it. It is essential it is democratically controlled, not owned by the highest bidder. Some people on this site are apparently big fans of feudalism.
Mesafina
3.3 / 5 (7) Jan 03, 2011
Granted that net neutrality as it is being designed now is not what it needs to be. You can thank your ISP's for that, as they want to be free to f--- you in the butt and steal all of your work and money, just like all profit driven human institutions. Businesses do not have your interests in mind further then convincing you to part with your money. Trusting them is just as stupid, if not more so, then trusting the government.

At least with the government you have a vote. With many industries you have no vote. You can't choose to not buy gasoline if you want to have a job you can commute to in America. Therefor, you are by default a slave to the oil industry, who can collude to charge anything they want for gas.

Wealth builds power to screw your competitors over, wealth accumulation when taken to it's extreme is actually ANTI capitalist. A totally free market, devoid of any regulation, always results in feudalism or tyranny. ALWAYS. All of history is my example.
Mesafina
3 / 5 (6) Jan 03, 2011
The humans race started out with no governments. Total freedom. You do the math. You don't want freedom, you want security. Libertarians are as bad as communists, pretentious intellectual butt holes who want to impose their vision of utopia on everyone else by force. It has taken alot of work to get where we are now and we don't need you idiots breaking everything in your teenage fits of rage.

The government we have now, for all it's faults, is one of the better ones we have ever had as a species. Government power should be carefully regulated itself, but there is now a growing culture in America that believes government is always bad, period. Those people have gotten caught up in the political version of a religious fantasy. They have forgotten why people created governments to start with. They have forgotten how a few people will happily enslave and murder many if it suits their purposes. And democratic governments provide a forceful mechanism to prevent that.
dtxx
2.6 / 5 (5) Jan 03, 2011
I couldn't agree more that people in the US (and elsewhere, but I'm in the US) try to use law to enforce their religious fantasies. Even more than net neutrality we need laws that muzzle cultists. By cultist I mean any christian, muslim, jew, or otherwise who has an agenda based on what they perceive the will of a supernatural being to be.
TheQuietMan
4.3 / 5 (4) Jan 03, 2011
I couldn't agree more that people in the US (and elsewhere, but I'm in the US) try to use law to enforce their religious fantasies. Even more than net neutrality we need laws that muzzle cultists. By cultist I mean any christian, muslim, jew, or otherwise who has an agenda based on what they perceive the will of a supernatural being to be.


So much for the 1st amendment. This is the logic of people who like being controlled.
TheQuietMan
4.3 / 5 (11) Jan 03, 2011
Phone, Cable, Clearwire, and Dialup. All before government control.

Remember people, Net neutrality is a code word that progressives are using to take over and regulating the Internet.


And you would rather be controlled by big business instead, because they are such kind and caring people. Get over yourself, and stop trying to link issues that don't relate. Net Neutrality is about allowing open access to all sites, it is opposite of being controlled. Your statements are so far off base I have to wonder what agenda you're pushing.
Eric_B
5 / 5 (7) Jan 04, 2011
I remember a time when a person could actually start an ISP of their own... those were the days before the suit and tie crowd all got email, when they thought a mouse was something under their desk instead of on it.

I remember...
Coldstatic
1.8 / 5 (6) Jan 04, 2011
Eric I also remember those glorius days. But I also remember that these companies own their own broadband, what they do with it is there choice. If you are really that upset with your provider switch... don't like cable switch to phone, don't have cable and don't like phone, dish ( which i know is terrible). All im saying is these people make it seem like people don't have a choice with their provider
Mesafina
4 / 5 (8) Jan 04, 2011
@coldstatic there is a barrier of entry problem for new isp's in the current market, due to the fact that unless you have enough money to pay to lay new lines, you can't do it. So those who have the money, get to hedge access in order to manipulate entrepreneurship in the internet marketplace? Sounds exactly like feudalism to me, where a handful of landowners colluded to enslave people by controlling what was ultimately a limited commodity that everyone needed access too: land.
Caliban
4.1 / 5 (9) Jan 04, 2011
@coldstatic there is a barrier of entry problem for new isp's in the current market, due to the fact that unless you have enough money to pay to lay new lines, you can't do it. So those who have the money, get to hedge access in order to manipulate entrepreneurship in the internet marketplace? Sounds exactly like feudalism to me, where a handful of landowners colluded to enslave people by controlling what was ultimately a limited commodity that everyone needed access too: land.


@Mesafina,
We are in complete agreement.

We have all heard it referred to before: "The Tragedy of the Commons".

Many here will and (just now) have said that Comcast, Verizon, et al, built the backbone, so therefore it is their right to do as they wish with regard to it.

That, however, is bulls**t, they may have built it, but they did so with OUR MONEY, which they were paid to provide us with an open internet.

freethinking
2.3 / 5 (12) Jan 04, 2011
The idea that business does not care about people is correct. They care only about money is true. However, if you don't want their service, they will go out of business.

The idea that government cares for people is incorrect. Government only cares about power. Government that is not limited, will take absolute power. Government will never go out of business.

Business is limited, even big business. Kodak once dominated film so much that the government wanted to regulate them. Problem is, technology developed, film is obsolete. What would have happened if Govnernment would have regulated film? Kodak would still be making film and we would not have digital camerals. We can also talk about IBM, but lets not get into fact for progressives.

Progressives do not care about people, they care about power and control. Just read their posts, they believe only people that agree with them should be allowed on the internet. Hitler anyone?
freethinking
2.2 / 5 (13) Jan 04, 2011
Can anyone show me a country where more government control and less religious freedom has actually turned out to be a great country? How about China under Mao? Germany under Hitler? Russia under Stalin? N Korea under Kim?

A real question to Progressives, when have the ideals of great Progressives such as Mao, Hitler, Stalin, etc. ever led to a better world and better lives for people?

When have Progressive ideals fully implemented not led to death, poverty, and war?

Progressives why should I believe that if we implement your ideals today, that the same things that happened in the past, wont happen again?

Progressives, can you name one of your hero's that wasn't evil?
TabulaMentis
1 / 5 (6) Jan 04, 2011
@TheQuietMan:

I couldn't agree more that people in the US (and elsewhere, but I'm in the US) try to use law to enforce their religious fantasies. Even more than net neutrality we need laws that muzzle cultists. By cultist I mean any christian, muslim, jew, or otherwise who has an agenda based on what they perceive the will of a supernatural being to be.


So much for the 1st amendment. This is the logic of people who like being controlled.


Though I do not agree completely with DTXX's anti-religious ranting, I do think he or she should be afforded the protection of the 4th and 5th Amendment, though most self-absorbed free-spirit individuals may not agree.
Mesafina
3.5 / 5 (11) Jan 04, 2011
freethinking your problem is that your definition of progressive is some ill-defined political bs. Stalin and hitler are not progressives, no matter what they called themselves or what you choose to call them. Just because you say so does not make it so.

Hitler was a fascist, and fascism != communism != progressivism != socialism. Just like fascism != conservatism (even though some progressives may claim so). Each of these are their own unique political/economic philosophies. Some share some similarities in some cases, but that's it.

You are a fool to go lumping entire huge groups of people into these simplistic groups. Probably helps your simplistic brain to understand the complex world you live in.
ryggesogn2
2.2 / 5 (13) Jan 04, 2011
From there emerged tyranny, warlords, genocide, etc.

And that was just the last century thanks to communist/socialist/fascist government regulations.
Net Neutrality is about allowing open access to all sites, it is opposite of being controlled.

'Allowing'? Substitute FORCING and you would be correct. That is what govt is: CONTROL.
Many here will and (just now) have said that Comcast, Verizon, et al, built the backbone, so therefore it is their right to do as they wish with regard to it.

What do you think they want to do with it? They WANT to make MORE money. The ONLY way to do that is to satisfy their customers so they won't seek out alternatives.
Mesafina
4.1 / 5 (9) Jan 04, 2011
What alternatives ryggesogn? As a computer engineer who specializes in writing applications for businesses to use on the internet, I am intimately involved in the business of the internet, and work closely with many web entrepreneurs. I can tell you for a fact that if you are a business trying to do business on the internet, there are no viable competitors to choose from. In my area, your choices are the cable company and the phone company because they own all the lines. Competitors have to rent lines from them, and they get throttled so they can't really compete. All this without government intervention, the landlords have spoken, they don't want any competition.
Mesafina
4.1 / 5 (9) Jan 04, 2011
You have shown to anyone in the business that don't know what you are talking about. Your opinions are clearly derived from your black and white view of the world. Without some kind of regulation your precious free market would collapse into monopolistic tyranny. You have this religious belief like most libertarians that the market is some kind of magical thing god gave us that will always work perfectly for the betterment of all humans, and you assume all humans are rational actors capable of making informed decisions on the subject of personal finance. Evidence suggests otherwise. You yourself in your blatant ignorance suggest otherwise.

Wake up and smell the coffee, you've been duped into the religion of economics.
BobSound
4.6 / 5 (9) Jan 04, 2011
Equating "Net Neutrality" with government control is flat out wrong. Once upon a time there was this huge company called Standard Oil that controlled all the oil wells, refineries, and gas stations. If you went to Oklahoma and sunk an oil well, Standard Oil would either buy you out, blow it up, or put you out of business. Then the government realized that having one mega-company controlling the oil industry was a bad thing (called it a monopoly) so they broke it up. That wasn't government control. Years later there was a company called AT&T that controlled all the phone lines. But people started to hook up other stuff like phone answering machines to the phone lines so AT&T hired lobbyists to get laws passed that made it a crime punishable by a $300,000 fine and 20 years in prison. If that sounds ridiculous, look it up. And they did prosecute. But then the government decided having one mega-company contol all the phone lines was a bad thing so they broke up AT&T.
Mesafina
3.8 / 5 (10) Jan 04, 2011
You may retort by calling me a socialist (I am not, I believe the market is one of the greatest forces of innovation ever, and that government should not be too large or too powerful). That would be typical of you, assuming that everyone who disagrees with you is exactly the same, one monolithic entity hell bent on destroying America.

So go ahead and call me a socialist and reveal once again the staggering level of your ignorance.
BobSound
4.2 / 5 (10) Jan 04, 2011
Breaking up AT&T was not government control either. All Net Neutrality does is prevent 2 or 3 companies from dictating what people can access over the internet. It is NOT, nor is it intended to be, government control. Without it, you will eventually have to pay hefty fees to access sites that compete with the sites run by the ISP's like On-Demand movies and such. And you won't be able to go elsewhere because all the 2 or 3 ISP's will be doing the same thing. Without Net Neutrality laws, there will be NO free choice of what you access over the internet. This is not government control!
Javinator
4.2 / 5 (10) Jan 04, 2011
Remember people, Net neutrality is a code word that progressives are using to take over and regulating the Internet.


How? It's stopping ISPs from regulating what their customers are allowed to access on the internet. That's the opposite of taking over the internet. Completely different regulations would have to be put in place for the government to restrict what we can access on the internet. Your point makes no sense.

Can anyone show me a country where more government control and less religious freedom has actually turned out to be a great country? How about China under Mao? Germany under Hitler? Russia under Stalin? N Korea under Kim?


You're comparing net neutrality to the policies set forth by the tyrannical rulers above?

Calm down Fox news... the points aren't even related.
Mesafina
4.2 / 5 (10) Jan 04, 2011
Exactly Bob. Even if you do choose to define it as government control, I think we can all agree that SOME amount of government control is necessary. Policing is government control, but police officers work for the people, are employed by you and me to protect us from those who wish to use violence to steal or harm others. I have heard libertarians argue that police forces should not exist, which is a laughable opinion to anyone who has any understanding of why police forces exist at all. They seem to have this hippy idea that everyone will just hold hands and sing and crime will just vanish or something.
Javinator
5 / 5 (7) Jan 04, 2011
What do you think they want to do with it? They WANT to make MORE money. The ONLY way to do that is to satisfy their customers so they won't seek out alternatives.


That's not the only way. Becoming a large monopoly and forcefully eliminating competition as it tries to grow is the other, cheaper way.

Get out of your dreamland where companies will do the right thing when given a choice.
Mesafina
5 / 5 (7) Jan 04, 2011
Government exercises control in order to allow the voting populace to have a mechanism to defend themselves against tyrants, be they in business or government. Not all tyrants are politicians. We the people dictate what kinds of behavior is acceptable in our society, as the founding fathers intended it to be. Sometimes people make bad choices in those regards (allowing slavery, etc) but the mechanisms to correct those exist within the law. Without the law we have nothing but the law of the jungle.
Javinator
3.9 / 5 (7) Jan 04, 2011
The idea that government cares for people is incorrect. Government only cares about power. Government that is not limited, will take absolute power. Government will never go out of business.


The government will never go out of business, but the party that is in control of the government can change every 4 years depending on the opinions of the voters (ie. the people).

If the government blatantly does things that are against the wishes of the population then the next election will shift government control over to the other party.

Does the government actually CARE about people? Maybe, maybe not. But even if the government craves power it still needs to satisfy the majority of its citizens to remain in power else the other party will take power. The competition in this case is never elimitated.
KomMaelstrom
5 / 5 (3) Jan 04, 2011
Troy is a moron.


Did you read the article or just the title?
ryggesogn2
2.1 / 5 (11) Jan 04, 2011
will shift government control over to the other party.

Which will proceed along the same path as the previous party, acquiring more power.
Becoming a large monopoly and forcefully eliminating competition as it tries to grow is the other, cheaper way.

How can anyone but the govt use force to eliminate competition? If the govt stays out of the way, clever entrepreneurs CAN compete.
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (11) Jan 04, 2011
your choices are the cable company and the phone company because they own all the lines

Why do they have all the lines? Because they are controlled by local govts who received taxes and franchise fees from the users, us. They are already heavily regulated by local govts.
The problem is the govt, not the solution.
Javinator
4.6 / 5 (9) Jan 04, 2011
How can anyone but the govt use force to eliminate competition? If the govt stays out of the way, clever entrepreneurs CAN compete.


Government regulations are the only reason that current companies cannot use force to eliminate competition.

Which will proceed along the same path as the previous party, acquiring more power.


No. Different parties with different ideologies with different policies pushed by different voters. Of course there are similarities because the system itself remains relatively unchanged.

If you see no difference between which laws, policies, regulations, taxes, etc. are put forth by the different parties when they're in power then you're uninformed.
TabulaMentis
1 / 5 (5) Jan 04, 2011
Illegal spying activity over the Internet has never been addressed as far as I know. The illegal spying activity I am talking about will contiunue to get worst and eventually effect everyone on this planet with deadly consequences.
freethinking
1.4 / 5 (9) Jan 04, 2011
What issues are curently a problem on the internet?

For the Progressives. Stalin and Hitler were progressives. Their contemporaries and they themselves admitted to it, and as far I as I can see and hear contempeary progressive believe in the same things.

So please educate me and tell me what your beliefs are and how your Progressive beliefs differ from those famous Progressives I mentioned?
Justsayin
1 / 5 (5) Jan 04, 2011
"They would require Internet providers to make public how they are managing their networks"...and what would the bureaucrats in Washington do with this information?...hummmmm
What service, site or application has been blocked to warrant this intrusiveness, a few bit torrent users?...The regulations would prevent companies from "unreasonably" discriminating....Guess who gets to define (after an offense) what reasonably means in this context...bureaucrats love to write purposefully
vague rules. This commission argues that it knows how to foster competition better than the free market and that by regulating the market it will "encourage" "net services and applications", I call that upside down thinking.
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (7) Jan 04, 2011
Government regulations are the only reason that current companies cannot use force to eliminate competition.

No, those are called laws protecting private property rights.
Maybe the difference is too subtle for you to understand?
BobSound
4.4 / 5 (7) Jan 04, 2011
Mesafina, I absolutely agree with you that some government control is always necessary to prevent monopolies from taking over. What I'm trying to convey is that Net Neutrality is not the government trying to control what the public can see, in fact, it's designed to prevent large companies from keeping the public from accessing websites that compete with them. I already know of instances where a football game sent free over the internet was blocked by a local cable ISP and a message was sent that they only way to view this game was with the "sports cable package". So abuses are already happening.
Modernmystic
1.6 / 5 (7) Jan 04, 2011
You may retort by calling me a socialist (I am not, I believe the market is one of the greatest forces of innovation ever, and that government should not be too large or too powerful). That would be typical of you, assuming that everyone who disagrees with you is exactly the same, one monolithic entity hell bent on destroying America.

So go ahead and call me a socialist and reveal once again the staggering level of your ignorance.


You ARE a socialist, but why not wear it like a badge of honor instead of an epithet?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (8) Jan 04, 2011
I absolutely agree with you that some government control is always necessary to prevent monopolies from taking over.

Where is the data to justify the need?
TabulaMentis
3 / 5 (8) Jan 04, 2011
I absolutely agree with you that some government control is always necessary to prevent monopolies from taking over.

Where is the data to justify the need?


The article states the abuses and some of the people above have added other abuses!
What do you need, the statements chizeled in stone and brocken over your head for you to understand?
TheQuietMan
5 / 5 (1) Jan 05, 2011
@TheQuietMan:

I couldn't agree more that people in the US (and elsewhere, but I'm in the US) try to use law to enforce their religious fantasies. Even more than net neutrality we need laws that muzzle cultists. By cultist I mean any christian, muslim, jew, or otherwise who has an agenda based on what they perceive the will of a supernatural being to be.


So much for the 1st amendment. This is the logic of people who like being controlled.


Though I do not agree completely with DTXX's anti-religious ranting, I do think he or she should be afforded the protection of the 4th and 5th Amendment, though most self-absorbed free-spirit individuals may not agree.


Just as it is my right to call it as I see it. I am not restricting his rights, but asserting my own. Perhaps you equate me with the government?
TheQuietMan
5 / 5 (7) Jan 05, 2011
From there emerged tyranny, warlords, genocide, etc.

And that was just the last century thanks to communist/socialist/fascist government regulations.
Net Neutrality is about allowing open access to all sites, it is opposite of being controlled.

'Allowing'? Substitute FORCING and you would be correct. That is what govt is: CONTROL.
Many here will and (just now) have said that Comcast, Verizon, et al, built the backbone, so therefore it is their right to do as they wish with regard to it.

What do you think they want to do with it? They WANT to make MORE money. The ONLY way to do that is to satisfy their customers so they won't seek out alternatives.


This is an agenda that has no relation to net neutrality. Does the concept of throttling escape you? It is done so they can push sites they make money off of. Being neutral is the ability to go where I want, without restriction. I make the choices, not the company. What is hard about the concept?
TheQuietMan
3.9 / 5 (7) Jan 05, 2011
Can anyone show me a country where more government control and less religious freedom has actually turned out to be a great country? How about China under Mao? Germany under Hitler? Russia under Stalin? N Korea under Kim?

A real question to Progressives, when have the ideals of great Progressives such as Mao, Hitler, Stalin, etc. ever led to a better world and better lives for people?

When have Progressive ideals fully implemented not led to death, poverty, and war?

Progressives why should I believe that if we implement your ideals today, that the same things that happened in the past, wont happen again?

Progressives, can you name one of your hero's that wasn't evil?


OK, so you want a soapbox. It doesn't relate to the subject, and now one is interested, but there you go. There is no such thing as progressives, but delusions of persecution are another matter.
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (9) Jan 05, 2011
Being neutral is the ability to go where I want, without restriction. I make the choices, not the company. What is hard about the concept?

What if the site you want to visit is small and can only accommodate a limited number of people? Will you you force them, via net neutrality, to add more servers so you can have unrestricted access?
Skeptic_Heretic
4.2 / 5 (10) Jan 05, 2011
What if the site you want to visit is small and can only accommodate a limited number of people? Will you you force them, via net neutrality, to add more servers so you can have unrestricted access?
That has nothing to do with the regulations. If you have a small site, then you have a small site. Why would the regulations be forcing an endpoint to add capacity when the regulations only deal with the ISPs? This is another shining example of your lack of knowledge on the issue. You still haven't even read the regulations and you probably wouldn't know what you were reading if you did due to your relative ignorance on how the internet actually works.
I couldn't agree more that people in the US (and elsewhere, but I'm in the US) try to use law to enforce their religious fantasies. Even more than net neutrality we need laws that muzzle cultists.
Scientology stopped getting applicants once everyone knew what they were about. The internet enabled that information to come out.
Javinator
5 / 5 (6) Jan 05, 2011
What if the site you want to visit is small and can only accommodate a limited number of people? Will you you force them, via net neutrality, to add more servers so you can have unrestricted access?


So you open a store and you have so many customers that they can't all fit into your store. What do you do? Build a bigger store. You've obviously got the customer base to do it so costs really shouldn't be that big an issue.

It works the same with websites and bandwidth.

Net neutrality ensures that all of these smaller websites have a chance at getting overrun with traffic (which really is not a bad thing... it means you're getting customers. Upping bandwidth is a lot easier than building a bigger store.)

Without net neutrality, ISPs pick and choose which sites are allowed to be viewed. Sites would likely have to pay the ISP for the privilege of being viewed (equate it to businesses that pay for "protection" from the mob).
Coldstatic
1.5 / 5 (2) Jan 05, 2011
It is silly to assume that these companies are blocking websites from being viewed, and after researching the "throttling" issue the only sketchy thing i came up with was that they are throttling the upload speed to known P2P servers, so if you are into downloading large/mass files you should be pleased because that is keeping bandwidth available for your downloading. Also think about it, if you were surfing the web and came across a site that was blocked or even if you heard word that there was a site you could not access because your provider didn't want you to, you would be upset and so would a lot of other people. They don't want to do that. I can understand throttleing the upload speed. Getting content to their customers is more important from a buisness stand point.
Modernmystic
2.3 / 5 (6) Jan 05, 2011
Deciding which services you're going to "packet restrict"=bad.

Keeping your customers from viewing the competition's content=bad

Those are the two main reasons we need a MINIMAL...let me say that again, M I N I M A L regulation of the internet.

The danger, (and if history is borne out the eventual reality) is that the government will use the FCC to HEAVILY regulate the internet.

FCC heavily regulating the internet=very very VERY bad.

My two cents.
Skeptic_Heretic
4.3 / 5 (8) Jan 05, 2011
My two cents.
Completely agreed. The FCC should never be able to tell us what to view, but they should be able to tell companies to not be able to tell us what to view. Which is exactly what net neutrality is.`
freethinking
1 / 5 (7) Jan 05, 2011
If you buy a service the company you buy it from has the right (since they paid for infrastructure) to place any restrictions on it they want.

The Public then has to choose to either use the service, bypass it, or avoid it.

Government's only role is to ensure that what they advertise is what they provide. If they block something, they should tell people. It is then up to the consumer to make the decision.

Regulation of the Internet will only be used as a hammer. Like the fairness doctrine. Nice terms, awful/dangerous results. Unless you are for the distruction of free speech.

My guess is if Bush was in power and he would propose this, 99% of the progressives on this board would be up in arms over the situation. But since its Obama, you feel you can trust him. (Unfortuantely, many republicans fall into the same leftist trap, and would support this if Bush proposed it.)

Leftist Lemminings, there is a cliff over there, run!!!
TabulaMentis
2 / 5 (4) Jan 05, 2011
There was an article published yesterday that talks about network neutrality in the UK and a new problem they are having over there. Thought some people would find it interesting. The article is titled: BT Kills UK Net Neutrality With Two-Tier Service.

The link will not load onto this blog, but the title can be copied and pasted into a Web browser.
ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (5) Jan 05, 2011
"The challenge also tries to boost useful research into ways to measure, preserve and track the openness of the Internet.

The FCC said apps could provide real-time data to an individual experiencing a slow Internet connection speed, test networks for Internet service providers and aggregate network data for academics and policymakers."
http:/news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20110105/wr_nm/us_fcc_internet_competition

Skeptic_Heretic
3.7 / 5 (6) Jan 06, 2011
Leftist Lemminings, there is a cliff over there, run!!!
How's that Pledge to America working out for you? Oh, they violated it immediately once they took office? Too bad. You trusted them and they screwed you again. So sad.
Javinator
5 / 5 (7) Jan 06, 2011
My guess is if Bush was in power and he would propose this, 99% of the progressives on this board would be up in arms over the situation. But since its Obama, you feel you can trust him.


My guess is that's a pretty bad guess. Notice the reasons the "progressives" are arguing FOR net neutrality. These reasons are valid regardless of who is in power when this proposal goes through.

Most of your refutation involves Hitler references and deflections stating that the FCC is taking over the world and liberals are progressives are commies. Stating net neutrality is a "code word" for the FCC taking over the internet. There are few actual points you've made against the logic of this type of regulation.

Blindly towing the party line is one of the biggest problems in politics/society today.
freethinking
1.7 / 5 (6) Jan 06, 2011
I wholehartedly agree with the statement

Blindly towing the party line is one of the biggest problems in politics/society today.

That said any politician that lies, cheats, steals, engages in trickery or thuggary, should not be elected to office, or should be voted out of office. I don't care the party they are a part of.

I believe everything (with national security exceptions) should be done in the open and without trickery. Progressives (not liberals) believe the ends justifies to means. So trickery, voting when no one is watching, 1000 page bills, is a sign of progressives.

I much rather have a honest decent liberal in power than a dishonest Republican or a progressive. Then you know who to watch and fight over policies and you don't have to worry about being back stabbed, tricked, or have 1000 page bills.

Myself, I'm a classic liberal, modern conservative.

BobSound
5 / 5 (7) Jan 06, 2011
I'm pretty certain that without Net Neutrality, when you sign on to your Netflix account, you will get a message from your cable ISP that in order to watch movies you will need the "Internet Movie Package" for an additional $$$$/month. Or you can sign up for "their" movie package for $$$/month. Since the ISP's control the pipes, you would have no recourse other than to cancel. Then, who do you go with?
Skeptic_Heretic
4 / 5 (4) Jan 06, 2011
Blindly towing the party line is one of the biggest problems in politics/society today.
Then stop doing it.
Myself, I'm a classic liberal
No, you certainly are not. Not by any stretch of the imagination. I'm sure you're using the term to try to ouline your stance on government and economics, but I don't think you understand that you're tossing your lot in with Malthus and other Utilitarians.

What you actually are is a displaced remnant from an earlier age. You see that the world today is not at all like the world you grew up in and you're upset about it. Too bad for you. Hypotheticals I'm attaching: Guessing you are over 50 and white.
Modernmystic
2.6 / 5 (5) Jan 06, 2011
I'm pretty certain that without Net Neutrality, when you sign on to your Netflix account, you will get a message from your cable ISP that in order to watch movies you will need the "Internet Movie Package" for an additional $$$$/month. Or you can sign up for "their" movie package for $$$/month. Since the ISP's control the pipes, you would have no recourse other than to cancel. Then, who do you go with?


Indeed, and since they're using infrastructure paid for with tax dollars I'm absolutely ECSTATIC that they will be told in no uncertain terms that they can't do this to customers to make a $700 million profit instead of $600 million.
Ethelred
3.9 / 5 (7) Jan 06, 2011
Guessing you are over 50 and white.
I am over 50 and white. And I still can't figure out what idiocy is involved in using 'progressive' as if it was a dirty word. Or lying about what it means.

I suspect that Closed Thinker is young. Young people have greater tendency towards black and white thinking.

Teddy Roosevelt was a progessive AND one of our best Presidents.

Ethelred
Skeptic_Heretic
3.5 / 5 (6) Jan 06, 2011
I am over 50 and white.
Not saying all men over 50 and white are TEA party libertarians, but most TEA party libertarians are over 50 and white, and for the most part, collecting either a state pension or some form of government entitlement.
ryggesogn2
2 / 5 (8) Jan 06, 2011
Teddy Roosevelt was a progessive AND one of our best Presidents.

To socialist, TR was a great president.
It is interesting that a socialist like Ethel thinks TR was a great president. He was very eager to create an American Empire.
"President George W. Bush’s Svengali, Karl Rove, is an admirer of Theodore Roosevelt"
"he was a mercantilist, a believer in a government-business partnership, which bestows privileges on favored businesses at the expense of workers and consumers. " {that's what Ethel seems to support}
"The economic regulations he favored were all backed, and even written and promoted, by the corporate elite, who never supported laissez faire. "
{I have been saying this too}
"he gave the interests of J.P. Morgan, who would later back his third-party presidential campaign, a pass, " {BHO just hired a JPM boss for his chief of staff}
http:/www.fff.org/comment/com0607a.asp
ryggesogn2
1.5 / 5 (8) Jan 06, 2011
Teddy Roosevelt was a progessive AND one of our best Presidents.

Ethelred

"As assistant secretary of the Navy, he thrilled to the Spanish-American War and as President helped oversee the brutal suppression of resistance to the American occupation of the Philippines. "
"Most basically, Roosevelt was a nationalist and a collectivist, much more in the tradition of European fascists than the American liberal individualists. "
{Which is why Ethel likes TR}
http:/www.fff.org/comment/com0607a.asp
frajo
5 / 5 (4) Jan 06, 2011
Bertrand Russell was 90 when he participated in an anti-war demonstration and was fined because of this.
freethinking
1 / 5 (5) Jan 06, 2011
Ha :) I am a white male, no where close to 50!
FYI, my parents are over 50 and very neo liberal, and I am the only one of their kids who is conservative. Also come to think of it, the only kid who doesn't need money from them to live or live at home or blame the world for every problem they have.

BTW I have never been at a tea party rally or paid any money to any tea partier. However if they live up to what they say, I support them.

I do think Sarah Palin would make a better president than Obama. I think Sarah is tougher and smarter than Obama and Putin combined.
freethinking
1 / 5 (5) Jan 06, 2011
Ethelred, take a look at what progressive ideals have done in Germany, Russia, Cuba, China, Italy, Venezuela, N Korea.

You will say that those leaders are not true progressives. Yet they call themselves progressives, their supporters called them progressives, the media calls them progressives.

Javinator
5 / 5 (5) Jan 06, 2011
I do think Sarah Palin would make a better president than Obama. I think Sarah is tougher and smarter than Obama and Putin combined.


Based on?
frajo
not rated yet Jan 07, 2011
editor misfunctioning.
frajo
4.8 / 5 (5) Jan 07, 2011
take a look at what progressive ideals have done in Germany, Russia, Cuba, China, Italy, Venezuela, N Korea

What "progressive ideals" have done what in Germany and Italy?

Sometimes, I have the impression that anti-progressives are those people who don't know the semantics of the Latin "progredi", the root of the English word. There is no alternative to "marching on forwards". Marching backwards, turning the times back to when we've been children is the dream of immature minds only.
Ethelred
4.2 / 5 (5) Jan 07, 2011
To socialist, TR was a great president
To anyone rational he was a great President, he saved the American wilderness. Which makes him nearly as important as his remote relative FDR. Both have the saved the country in one way or another. Puts them right behind Lincoln and Washington
He was very eager to create an American Empire
He considered war a great adventure. It is his worst flaw. He just wanted to compete on the same field as the Europeans
Most basically, Roosevelt was a nationalist
He lived in an age of nationalism. The only real alternative was to be an isolationist. Which is stupid and would have led to US interests being damaged by the MadDogs of Europe
much more in the tradition of European fascists
Again Marjon manages to say something truly asinine. He lives in a fantasy land where business are gods and governments are evil. Except when he is ranting about government conspiring with business. The same business that he worships in other posts

Ethelred
Ethelred
4.2 / 5 (5) Jan 07, 2011
Ha :) I am a white male, no where close to 50!
Fits my prediction. Its that black and thinking.
neo liberal, and I am the only one of their kids who is conservative
There is a possibility that you are rebelling against your parents. Perhaps not.
However if they live up to what they say, I support them.
They need to read the Constitution and keep rereading the part about interstate trade till they can do without ignoring it.
I think Sarah is tougher and smarter than Obama and Putin combined.
No. She isn't smart and she quit her job when it got tough. When things get bad instead of trying to see what she could do better she blames everyone else for the problems. Which would make her a very bad president.

Worse than Bush and he IS smarter than her. Sounds stupider in public than in private. Possibly due to nerves and he goes on his gut which he needs to have checked. Maybe an antacid would have helped the country.

Ethelred
Ethelred
4.2 / 5 (5) Jan 07, 2011
Ethelred, take a look at what progressive ideals have done in Germany, Russia, Cuba, China, Italy, Venezuela, N Korea.
What the hell are you thinking? Germany IS progressive and successful. The rest are NOT progressive.

Italy hasn't been competent since the Romans.

Venezuela has issues with US because we have thrown our weight around in the Americas. Plus Chavez is an ass.

Russia is a paranoid state and has been for centuries. NEVER has it been progressive. Even under the Peter that allegedly Great.

Cuba pissed us off and hasn't had a chance since. Fidel is a Communist and lying about it won't make him a progressive.

China and N. Korea. I hate net speak but ROTFLMAO seems appropriate. You have a serious issue with reality to call them that. Will you next call Communist Albania progressive? How about Turkey under Suleiman the Brother Slayer?
the media calls them progressives.
Marjon is NOT the media.

Ethelred
frajo
not rated yet Jan 07, 2011
Germany IS progressive and successful
Progressive from the perspective of some countries. Apart from that the majority is pathologically obedient to their authorities and overly xenophobe; there are daily (sometimes deadly) attacks against strangers. Their justice system is essentially reactionary. They have only one left political party which is neither socialist nor communist. (Greece has more than two dozen communist parties; the KKE is always present in parliament.) They are economically successful because they use their power to dominate smaller countries in Europe. Their constitution (which includes banning any preparation for aggressive war) is a paper tiger only.

Italy hasn't been competent since the Romans.
The Romans were competent in warfare, engineering, and administration only. Otherwise, all culture was pirated from Greeks and Etruscans. Italy, otoh, was and is a major contributor to European culture.
Ethelred
1 / 5 (1) Jan 07, 2011
The Romans were competent in warfare, engineering, and administration only.
I didn't say they were progressive. Just competent. It was a hard world they lived in. They were one of the reasons it was hard for others but easier within the empire.
Otherwise, all culture was pirated from Greeks and Etruscans.
The Greeks were in Italy even before they conquered Greece. The Etruscans were illiterate so anything that has come down from them came through Rome. Like the gladiators. Those came from Etruscan funeral games. I don't think the later Romans were aware that they were based on human sacrifice.
Italy, otoh, was and is a major contributor to European culture.
Yes and they still couldn't manage to run the place except at the city level. And much of that came via Rome. Good engineering and administration, much of it by Greeks, is the REASON Rome was wealthy. Of course those roads that created a successful economy also spread disease despite Roman hygiene.

Ethelred
Skeptic_Heretic
3.7 / 5 (3) Jan 07, 2011
Frajo, I'm going to have to greatly disagree with your outlook on the Romans as lacking innovation or being of limited depth. Their engineering alone shows their ability to apply knowledge traded or stolen from other cultures. It wasn't until Al Jazari that we found engineers on the level of the Romans in terms of fluid dynamics and Al Jazari basically invented the continuous flow pump, or the first "engine" the world had ever seen.

I think you do not give them enough credit for their contributions to civilization.
frajo
5 / 5 (1) Jan 07, 2011
The Etruscans were illiterate so anything that has come down from them came through Rome.
Wikipedia:
With the exception of the Liber Linteus, the only written records of Etruscan origin that remain are inscriptions, mainly funerary. The language is written in a script related to the early Euboean Greek alphabet
Like the gladiators. Those came from Etruscan funeral games.
Yes.
I don't think the later Romans were aware that they were based on human sacrifice.
Romans were fond of killing humans. The Colosseum has been built to please the masses with death "games". Panem et circenses is a Roman slogan. The Romans were of exceeding brutality, inhumanity, and barbarism. 7000 crucified and burnt to death slaves along the Via Appia after the defeat of Spartacus is the Roman signature for the rest of history.
2 million killed Celts during Caesar's bellum gallicum; another 2 million Celts and Germanic enslaved by the Roman war machinery.
frajo
5 / 5 (1) Jan 07, 2011
I'm going to have to greatly disagree with your outlook on the Romans as lacking innovation or being of limited depth.
No disagreement here. I didn't use the term "innovation".
I was speaking of culture instead. Things like philosophy, theater, music, academies - make a list of scientific branches and count the Greek words against the Latin ones.
They copied the complete Greek mythology. The made a Romanized copy of Homer's Odyssea (Vergil's Aeneids).
And most of all, they industrialized terror; they made killing an entertainment business.
Finally, they paved the way for the Christianizing of Western Europe. After that, more than 1000 years of darkness over Europe. Chinese, Persians, and Americans observed SN 1054, but noone in Europe.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (7) Jan 07, 2011
Rome fell for the same reason the west is falling, socialism, bread and circuses.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (7) Jan 07, 2011
Ethel, keep making excuses for the fascist, TR.
As pointed out, he did the same thing the current govt is doing, stifling competition and supporting big business using govt regulations.
Did I mention BHO is buddy-buddy with JP Morgan, just as TR was?
Ethelred
3.7 / 5 (3) Jan 07, 2011
With the exception of the Liber Linteus, the only written records of Etruscan origin that remain are inscriptions, mainly funerary. The language is written in a script related to the early Euboean Greek alphabet
Thank you. Never came across that before. When I was reading about the funeral games I thought the article said they had no written language.
Romans were fond of killing humans.
Yes. But not human sacrifice. That was their main problem with the Druids. Generally Romans were tolerant of other religions. Yes I know about the problems early Christians had, GENERALLY. The problem with Christians was mainly political. The Emperor was supposed to be divine by that time and it was treason to say otherwise.
The Romans were of exceeding brutality, inhumanity, and barbarism.
Of course. But then so were a lot of cultures back then. The Carthaginians were a NASTY piece of work. Sacrificed their own children.

More
Ethelred
3 / 5 (2) Jan 07, 2011
7000 crucified and burnt to death slaves along the Via Appia after the defeat of Spartacus
Yes and it got the desired result. No more slave rebellions. Then again Spartacus killed a lot of Romans while they were pillaging their way across Italy. So they would have been executed for that after capture.
2 million killed Celts during Caesar's
I saw a lower figure. One Million and the figure is from Caesar as far as I can tell. Political propaganda though it may very well be true.
2 million Celts and Germanic enslaved by the Roman war machinery.
Yes. Normal behavior for the time. Not an excuse just a fact. The Greeks in particular engaged in a lot of slavery.

I have no illusions that the Romans were good guys by modern standards. Just competent. As opposed to the later plotting and counter-plotting, poisoning, conspiring, conniving, and centuries of failed efforts to get Italy together.

Ethelred
Ethelred
4 / 5 (4) Jan 07, 2011
Ethel, keep making excuses for the fascist, TR.
Telling lies about him won't make him a Fascist.
As pointed out, he did the same thing the current govt is doing,
Which also isn't Fascist.
stifling competition a
Unlike all the companies that stifle competition. Just like Adam Smith said they would.
Did I mention BHO is buddy-buddy with JP Morgan, just as TR was?
Nonsense. JP Morgan IS a company. J. P. Morgan was a human being. And TR was NOT his buddy. They didn't like each other.

You just keep telling lies Marjon. It seems to be your best talent. And you aren't very good at it.

Ethelred
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (6) Jan 07, 2011
"Morgan was hailed as the savior of the banking system, the stock exchange, and even New York City at the time. [Morgan had engineered a bailout package for NYC also in October. The city was in the throes of a depression with the market slide and bank failures which forced the city's back to the financial wall. Morgan agreed to underwrite a successful $30 million bond issue].

Of course Morgan did not go unrewarded. Recall from our story of two weeks ago that Teddy Roosevelt, despite his antitrust proclivities, allowed Morgan to purchase the Tennessee Coal and Iron Company for about $45 million when the true value was closer to $700 million, thus expanding Morgan's steel empire. "
http:/www.buyandhold.com/bh/en/education/history/2000/122499.html
Sounds just like TARP. Reward the bankers.
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (9) Jan 07, 2011
Why anti-religionists are statists:
"Society really does depend on the virtue of its members. Self restraint and moral behavior really are the foundations of liberty. If people don’t behave right, nothing can protect us from the consequences.

The weaker the hold of virtue on a people, the stronger the state needs to be. If people don’t voluntarily comply with, for example, the tax codes, the enforcement mechanisms of the government need to be that much stronger. If more people lose their moral inhibitions against theft, and against using violence against the weak, then society has to provide a stronger, tougher police force — and give them more authority under less restraint."
"The intellectual, struggling with questions and doubts about the meaning of faith, must share the best case for faith with a wider audience — or no one will benefit from a lifetime of study and reflection."
http:/blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2011/01/05/yule-blog-2010-11-dwelling-in-darkness-seeing-a
Ethelred
4.2 / 5 (5) Jan 08, 2011
Why anti-religionists are statists:
OOOHHH what a terrible thing to be. Except that most religious people want a state as well. Only insane RightWingNutRetainerClips idiots think we can go without a state. Or are you just trolling.

So when are you moving to Somalia? It HAS your kind of government no matter how many time you ignore this.

Crap as usual. Since when did I say anything good about J. P. Morgan? NEVER.

allowed Morgan to purchase the Tennessee Coal and Iron Company for about $45 million when the true value was closer to $700 million
And how did Teddy have anything to do with the price. He didn't allow it anyway since he could not have stopped it. Quoting people that can't comprehend reality doesn't make it real.

Even when you quote mine you fail to deal with reality.

Ethelred
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (6) Jan 08, 2011
He didn't allow it anyway since he could not have stopped it.

"In 1902, President Roosevelt shocked financiers on Wall Street with his decision to approve the government's lawsuit against Northern Securities, a large and recently merged western railroad company, for violating the Sherman Anti-Trust Act. J.P. Morgan, the financier who had arranged the merger and who had significant amounts of money invested in Northern Securities, took Roosevelt's decision as a personal insult."
"As the Sherman Act had never been truly enforced until this time, the breakup of Northern Securities opened the floodgate for suits against other major trusts. Famous among these was Roosevelt's "busting" of the Standard Oil trust. "
"n all, Roosevelt brought lawsuits against forty-three other trusts during his Presidency."

TR had and used the power.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (6) Jan 08, 2011
"Morgan suggested that financially sound U.S. Steel Company purchase the Tennessee Coal and Iron Company, validating its stock, and thus stabilize Moore and Schley. This plan would work so long as Roosevelt approved the merger and promised not to declare it a violation of the Sherman Act. Roosevelt consented, U.S. Steel purchased Tennessee Coal and Iron, and as a result the stock market did not collapse. Together, Roosevelt and Morgan successfully avoided a widespread economic depression."
http:/www.sparknotes.com/biography/troosevelt/section10.rhtml

Who really owns a business if the govt much approve the buying or selling? That is called socialism, govt control of private property. The regulatory state also takes ownership away and controls that property. That is fascist.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (6) Jan 08, 2011
Stateless Somalis are doing as well or better than their African neighbors who are subjected to govt. They have a well functioning legal system that protects property. They have a free market currency system.
http:/fee.org/media/stateless-in-somalia-by-benjamin-powell/
Maybe all you statists should find another example to attack anarchy.
But I have many fine examples of the failure of the state. Somalia is one as is Zimbabwe, Cuba, .......
Ethelred
4.2 / 5 (6) Jan 08, 2011
TR had and used the power.
The COURTS had to agree. Which is what I was talking about AND you LIED about Teddy being responsible for the price. Which is normal for you.

Of course he used the Antti-trust act. Which is NOT Fascism no matter often you lie about it.
Who really owns a business if the govt much approve the buying or selling?
The people that get the profits and run the company. ONLY very large companies are subject to anti-trust.

Who really runs the country if the business can conspire against the public like Adam Smith said they would. And they often do that.
The regulatory state also takes ownership away and controls that property. That is fascist.
Thats another lie. Its socialism and that isn't happening in these examples. The US government doesn't TAKE companies. That is against the Constitution. They have PAY if they take them. Which is BUYING.

More
Ethelred
4.4 / 5 (7) Jan 08, 2011
If you stop lying to yourself you will stop lying to others, well you will lie less anyway.
Stateless Somalis are doing as well or better than their African neighbors who are subjected to govt.
Yeah thats why they have to engage in piracy and they kill each other so frequently. Using children to do it by murdering their parents and then enslaving them.

So move since you think it is wonderful.
They have a well functioning legal system that protects property.
Lie.
They have a free market currency system.
Yes they sell people and ship back for ransom.
Maybe all you statists should find another example to attack anarchy.
Maybe you should quit lying. Or move to Somalia.

Ethelred
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (6) Jan 08, 2011
The US government doesn't TAKE companies.

They just make laws to control the company' property and your property.
When the govt orders a property owner he can't build a house because of some 'endangered species', and refuses to compensate the owner, that is fascism.
Or we have govts that take private property and hand it over to a 'private' company to develop with expectation of more tax revenue.
That's govt control of property, socialism/fascism.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (6) Jan 08, 2011
If you stop lying to yourself you will stop lying to others, well you will lie less anyway.
Stateless Somalis are doing as well or better than their African neighbors who are subjected to govt.
Yeah thats why they have to engage in piracy and they kill each other so frequently. Using children to do it by murdering their parents and then enslaving them.

So move since you think it is wonderful.
They have a well functioning legal system that protects property.
Lie.
They have a free market currency system.
Yes they sell people and ship back for ransom.
Maybe all you statists should find another example to attack anarchy.
Maybe you should quit lying. Or move to Somalia.

Ethelred

Maybe you should do some research. I provided sources. Where are yours?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (6) Jan 08, 2011
"since the demise of the central government, the Somali shilling has become far more stable in world currency markets, while exports have quintupled."
"Somalia is a country based on customary law. The traditional Somali system of law and politics, he contends, is capable of maintaining a peaceful society and guiding the Somalis to prosperity. "
"warlords exist because of the efforts to form a central government, not because of its absence:"
http:/mises.org/daily/2066
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (6) Jan 08, 2011
"The relatively stable value of the currency in the 1990s compared to the 1980s is explained by Peter D. Little in Somalia: Economy without a State as resulting from the lack of a corrupt central government printing currency to pay for military expenditures and political cronies. Traders avoid the need to carry large amounts of Somali shillings by converting them to U.S. dollars and then wiring them to money houses in Somalia. Because identification can be easily forged, those seeking to pick up wired money are required to answer questions about their clan and kinship relations." { This is what many websites do now for enhanced security.}
http:/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somali_shilling
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (6) Jan 08, 2011
"President Obama is planning to hand the U.S. Commerce Department authority over a forthcoming cybersecurity effort to create an Internet ID for Americans, "
"anonymity and pseudonymity will remain possible on the Internet. "I don't have to get a credential if I don't want to," "
http:/www.cbsnews.com/8301-501465_162-20027837-501465.html
Ethelred
4.2 / 5 (5) Jan 08, 2011
Maybe you should do some research. I provided sources. Where are yours?
You provided crap from nutcases. You are still giving OPINIONS. Other asses opinions but still opinions.

And in any case if Somalians are using the US dollar they don't agree with you either.

Move to Somalia. Every time you post another OPINION showing its a wonderful place combined with another idiot OPINION that the US is a Fascist tyranny shows you really want to live in Somalia.

So move there.

That would take you of the site real quick even if you use a satellite connection.

Ethelred
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (6) Jan 08, 2011
Maybe you should do some research. I provided sources. Where are yours?
You provided crap from nutcases. You are still giving OPINIONS. Other asses opinions but still opinions.

And in any case if Somalians are using the US dollar they don't agree with you either.

Move to Somalia. Every time you post another OPINION showing its a wonderful place combined with another idiot OPINION that the US is a Fascist tyranny shows you really want to live in Somalia.

So move there.

That would take you of the site real quick even if you use a satellite connection.

Ethelred

So, you can't defend YOUR lies.
Skeptic_Heretic
4.4 / 5 (7) Jan 08, 2011
So, you can't defend YOUR lies.
You said Somalians are doing well and meant it.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (6) Jan 08, 2011
So, you can't defend YOUR lies.
You said Somalians are doing well and meant it.

They are doing as well as, or better, than their neighbors who are subjected to internationally recognized governments.
"Perhaps somewhat surprisingly for a poor, stateless, African country, Somalia has
attracted a number of major corporations. Italian agribusiness companies and U.S.-based
Dole Fruit Inc. have invested in the agricultural sector since the state’s collapse.2 One of
Somalia’s media companies has affiliated with the British Broadcasting Corporation
(BBC). The courier DHL serves Somalia. A British Airways affiliate flies to Somalia.
General Motors also does business there. In 2004 Coca-Cola opened a soft drink plant in
Mogadishu that will employ 120 Somalis and have a productive capacity of 36,000
bottles per hour (Ali 2004). Many companies avoid doing business in a number of
Africa’s nation states, ...."
It's NOT HObbsian as SH would predict.
Skeptic_Heretic
4.2 / 5 (5) Jan 08, 2011
They are doing as well as, or better, than their neighbors
Yeah, Ethiopia and Kenya, two more real winners in successful freedom creation.
It's NOT HObbsian as SH would predict.
No, it's just sad how stupid you are.
ryggesogn2
1.5 / 5 (8) Jan 08, 2011
"Kenya is on the verge of recognising the breakaway region of Somaliland and Puntland to get Somali warlords to silence their guns.

The two are breakaway regions and have enjoyed relative peace for the last 17 years "
http:/www.jsltimes.com/kenya-is-on-the-verge-of-recognising-somaliland
"Somaliland, on the other hand, has been a bastion of peace and stability in the region for over 19 years and just may be the answer to Coke’s needs to supply the region."
http:/www.jsltimes.com/coca-cola-open-plant-somaliland
The fighting seems to be occurring between the mob bosses who want to have the international sanction to steal (being declared a sovereign state).
Skeptic_Heretic
3 / 5 (4) Jan 08, 2011
"Kenya is on the verge of recognising the breakaway region of Somaliland and Puntland to get Somali warlords to silence their guns.

The two are breakaway regions and have enjoyed relative peace for the last 17 years "
Other than the overlapping borders (Las Anod)they have where they shoot it out. 2004, 2007, and 2008 all come to mind. And these aren't mob bosses, they are Somali warlords seceeding from Somalia.
Ethelred
4 / 5 (4) Jan 08, 2011
So, you can't defend YOUR lies.
Didn't lie so I don't have any to defend. YOU still don't have anything except the opinions of nutcases.

So when are you moving?

Ethelred
frajo
5 / 5 (2) Jan 08, 2011
The Carthaginians were a NASTY piece of work. Sacrificed their own children.
After the destruction of Carthago - including killing all humans, all animals, destroying all buildings, destroying all their documents - it were the winners who wrote the history of their defeated enemies. These documents are as trustworthy as The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (6) Jan 08, 2011
So, you can't defend YOUR lies.
Didn't lie so I don't have any to defend. YOU still don't have anything except the opinions of nutcases.

So when are you moving?

Ethelred

I bet there are millions of North Koreans who would move if their govt would let them out.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (6) Jan 08, 2011
"Despite the lack of effective national governance, Somalia has maintained a healthy informal economy, largely based on livestock, remittance/money transfer companies, and telecommunications. "
"Telecommunication firms provide wireless services in most major cities and offer the lowest international call rates on the continent. In the absence of a formal banking sector, money transfer/remittance services have sprouted throughout the country, handling up to $1.6 billion in remittances annually. Mogadishu's main market offers a variety of goods from food to the newest electronic gadgets. Hotels continue to operate and are supported with private-security militias."
https:/www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/so.html
Modernmystic
3 / 5 (6) Jan 08, 2011
So, you can't defend YOUR lies.
Didn't lie so I don't have any to defend. YOU still don't have anything except the opinions of nutcases.

So when are you moving?

Ethelred

I bet there are millions of North Koreans who would move if their govt would let them out.


I'll bet there are a lot, but not millions. The North Korean government is EXTREMELY effective at mass brainwashing.

Hmmmm, not exactly an argument for Government qua Government...
ryggesogn2
2.1 / 5 (7) Jan 08, 2011
The North Korean government is EXTREMELY effective at mass brainwashing.

One way is to murder your entire family if you try to escape.
It doesn't help that China returns all those who manage to get across the border.
The victims of DPRK are trapped by two govts.
Modernmystic
2 / 5 (4) Jan 08, 2011
The North Korean government is EXTREMELY effective at mass brainwashing.

One way is to murder your entire family if you try to escape.
It doesn't help that China returns all those who manage to get across the border.
The victims of DPRK are trapped by two govts.


He gets a 1 for that post eh Thras? Just because? I understand, I've done it before too. Just never seen you do it.

Or is there something in that post that was inaccurate that I missed?
ryggesogn2
1.5 / 5 (8) Jan 08, 2011
"Police found the bodies of 15 slain men, 14 of them headless, on a street outside a shopping center in the Pacific coast resort of Acapulco on Saturday.

The victims, all of whom appeared to be in their 20s, were discovered in an area not frequented by tourists.

Handwritten signs left with the bodies were signed by "El Chapo's People"—a reference to the Sinaloa cartel, headed by drug lord Joaquin "El Chapo" Guzman—said Fernando Monreal Leyva, director of investigative police for Guerrero state, where Acapulco is located. "
http:/www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9KKBACO1&show_article=1
How many levels of govt 'protection' do people have in a Mexican city?
Skeptic_Heretic
3.4 / 5 (5) Jan 09, 2011
He gets a 1 for that post eh Thras? Just because? I understand, I've done it before too. Just never seen you do it.

Or is there something in that post that was inaccurate that I missed?
It's Marjon, you can assume a lack of accuracy or a twisting of figures, like the millions number he tossed out above. He's a known liar.

How many levels of govt 'protection' do people have in a Mexican city?
About the same amount that you had in the US in the 1920's, when we were a "free market" country like you want and envision us returning to.
frajo
4.3 / 5 (3) Jan 09, 2011
The North Korean government is EXTREMELY effective at mass brainwashing.
As effective as the German Nazis? As effective as the Western yellow press plus television majors?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Jan 09, 2011
The North Korean government is EXTREMELY effective at mass brainwashing.
As effective as the German Nazis? As effective as the Western yellow press plus television majors?

I don't think so.
About the same amount that you had in the US in the 1920's, when we were a "free market" country like you want and envision us returning to.

What was 'free market' about the 20s? The 18th amendment was in force.
Skeptic_Heretic
3.7 / 5 (6) Jan 09, 2011
What was 'free market' about the 20s? The 18th amendment was in force.
And? Go ahead and tell us when the US economy was Free Market by your definition. No more waffling and weaseling out of you. Be concrete in your statements and stop playing games.
As effective as the Western yellow press plus television majors?
I don't think so.
So you're saying FOX news is a better propaganda machine than North Korea. I agree.
Skeptic_Heretic
3.4 / 5 (5) Jan 09, 2011
Further, tell us specifically how the Net Neutrality regulations as they are written will prevent market competition. Cite the regulation and the rammification concretely and specifically.
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (7) Jan 09, 2011
"4. Consumers are entitled to competition among network providers, application and service providers, and content providers. "
How will the govt guarantee this?

"Take away ISPs’ ability to shape or restrict traffic, and you’ll see many carriers running into AT&T-like capacity problems. Their response will almost certainly be to make consumers pay for what they’re actually using. "
"enforcement of neutrality regulations is going to be difficult."
{Regulations will enable competitors to attack instead of compete}
"the new regulations create an additional layer of government bureaucracy where the free market has already proven its effectiveness. The reason you’re not using AOL to read this right now isn’t because the government mandated AOL’s closed network out of existence: It’s because free and open networks triumphed, and that’s because they were good business."
http:/www.wired.com/epicenter/2009/09/fcc-neutrality-mistake/
How will FCC guarantee it won't stifle competition?
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (7) Jan 09, 2011
So you're saying FOX news is a better propaganda machine than North Korea. I agree.

Typical moral equivalence from a 'liberal'.
The millions murdered by the DPRK wouldn't agree.
Skeptic_Heretic
3.7 / 5 (6) Jan 09, 2011
So you're saying FOX news is a better propaganda machine than North Korea. I agree.

Typical moral equivalence from a 'liberal'.
The millions murdered by the DPRK wouldn't agree.
Ask Gabriella Giffords, the Iraqi people, the Afghan people, etc.
How will the govt guarantee this?
Guarantee what? How will they guarantee that they'll go after ISPs that restrict traffic? That's the point of the regulations.
{Regulations will enable competitors to attack instead of compete}
No actually it enables people who are being illegallly restricted to have the restrictions arbitrated and removed.
How will FCC guarantee it won't stifle competition?
Show us it will. you still haven't done so, nor have you been concrete. Provide the law and the example where the company will be wronged.
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (7) Jan 09, 2011
So you're saying FOX news is a better propaganda machine than North Korea. I agree.

Typical moral equivalence from a 'liberal'.
The millions murdered by the DPRK wouldn't agree.

Ask Gabriella Giffords.

What does that have to do with anything?
Typical 'liberal' moral equivalence.
But if you want to compare violence, 'liberal' govts are quite adept, like DPRK.
I am sure many 'liberals' are quite pleased the House will delay the vote to repeal Obamacare.
BTW, it is SH who instead of engaging in debate, thinks he is posting my real name and address in some attempt at intimidation I suspect.
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (7) Jan 09, 2011
Show us it will. you still haven't done so, nor have you been concrete. Provide the law and the example where the company will be wronged.

Creating laws that grant authority for the govt to interfere in a currently free market will make the market MORE free?
The govt does NOT have a good track record of any regulations that increase competition and reduce costs to consumers.
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (7) Jan 09, 2011
SH claimed to be an officer in the US Army. Jane Fonda never apologised for her support of Norht Vietnam and for refusing to help US POWs.
Now SH and Jane Fonda seem to agree:
"Jane Fonda pins it on Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck and the Tea Party."
"His (The shooter) favourite reading apparently included “Mein Kampf” and “The Communist Manifesto”.
"and another former classmate said he was “left wing, quite liberal”. "
"She (Giffords) is a Blue Dog Democrat, a deficit hawk and voted to lift the ban on guns in DC and voted against Nancy Pelosi for Speaker. "
"Just the other day, a blogger at DailyKos said that Giffords was “dead to me” for failing to back Pelosi."
http:/blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/tobyharnden/100071004/the-unseemly-rush-to-blame-sarah-palin-the-tea-party-and-republicans-for-murder-in-arizona/#dsq-content
Skeptic_Heretic
3.7 / 5 (6) Jan 09, 2011
it is SH who instead of engaging in debate
Still waiting for you to actually answer a question, any question, directly and concretely. As so far over the entire year of our discourse you've been entirely unable to do so.

As for your other commentary, demonstrably ridiculous.
ryggesogn2
1.5 / 5 (8) Jan 09, 2011
One question about the Tucson shooting I would like the press to report would be how well UMC responded to the emergency.
Because of lax immigration law enforcement and govt regulations, the other level one emergency room, had to close or it would have bankrupted the Tucson Medical Center.
Modernmystic
1.8 / 5 (5) Jan 09, 2011
The North Korean government is EXTREMELY effective at mass brainwashing.
As effective as the German Nazis? As effective as the Western yellow press plus television majors?


Far more effective. National Geographic did a very good documentary on it. Give it a look, it's a bit terrifying.
frajo
5 / 5 (2) Jan 09, 2011
The North Korean government is EXTREMELY effective at mass brainwashing.
As effective as the German Nazis? As effective as the Western yellow press plus television majors?


Far more effective. National Geographic did a very good documentary on it.
National Geographic is a business based where? Has paying advertisers from where? Has paying subscribers from where?
ryggesogn2
1.5 / 5 (8) Jan 09, 2011
National Geographic is a business based where? Has paying advertisers from where? Has paying subscribers from where?

How sad!

"If the Chinese police found them without identity cards, they would be deported in handcuffs and chains. Back in North Korea, they would be sentenced to years of hard labor in a prison camp. "
"Their former boss, the Korean-Chinese owner of an Internet sex operation, was hunting them as well. "
"The night before, Christian missionaries had helped them escape and brought them to this safe house."
http:/ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2009/02/north-korea/oneill-text/12
Skeptic_Heretic
3.7 / 5 (6) Jan 09, 2011
The National Geographic Society no longer owns all things Nat Geo. FOX (Murdoch) has a 50% stake and one can see, since the unholy partnership began, how the Discovery and Nat Geo names have fallen into decay and foolishness by having shows akin to "Ghost Hunters" presented as documentaries.
frajo
4 / 5 (5) Jan 09, 2011
The economic success of a periodical in the capitalist world depends on carefully selecting the material they present to the public. Any message that dares to contradict the national instinct will be punished by withdrawing ads, subscriptions and investment capital.
The published opinion must not deviate from the ideology of the owner which is to serve profit before truth.
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (9) Jan 09, 2011
economic success of a periodical in the capitalist world depends on carefully selecting the material they present to the public

Yes, they must choose material their customers are interested in and they must present the material in the most objective manner. If their is a bias, it must be acknowledged and explicit. That's why talk radio has been so economically successful for conservatives and a failure for 'progressives'.
Frajo, don't you like the page 3 girls?
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (9) Jan 09, 2011
The National Geographic Society no longer owns all things Nat Geo. FOX (Murdoch) has a 50% stake and one can see, since the unholy partnership began, how the Discovery and Nat Geo names have fallen into decay and foolishness by having shows akin to "Ghost Hunters" presented as documentaries.

So does SH assert that North Koreans are well treated by their govt?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (7) Jan 09, 2011
The published opinion must not deviate from the ideology of the owner which is to serve profit before truth.

This is certainly true for the 'liberal' press. But they are going broke...?
"Nevertheless, public officials, journalists, and commentators were quick to caution that the public should not "jump to conclusions" about Hasan's motive. "
"the network that had shown such caution in discussing the Ft. Hood shootings openly discussed the possibility that Loughner was inspired to violence by…Sarah Palin."
http:/washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/2011/01/journalists-urged-caution-after-ft-hood-now-race-blame-palin-afte
"We don’t have proof yet that this was political, but the odds are that it was. "
http:/krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/01/08/assassination-attempt-in-arizona/

Modernmystic
1.2 / 5 (5) Jan 09, 2011
The economic success of a periodical in the capitalist world depends on carefully selecting the material they present to the public. Any message that dares to contradict the national instinct will be punished by withdrawing ads, subscriptions and investment capital.
The published opinion must not deviate from the ideology of the owner which is to serve profit before truth.


So we should listen to who Fraj? The Chinese media? Al-jazeera? You? Just bury our heads in the sand and listen to no one? Who makes your list of "approved" news sources?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (6) Jan 09, 2011
"She describes him (Jared Lougher) as "quite liberal" and as a "political radical." "
http:/blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com/valleyfever/2011/01/jared_loughner_alleged_shooter.php
He was also accused of being a pothead. I been told by other potheads that potheads are not violent.
If the 'liberal' press had a monopoly, would this comment ever be published?
Ethelred
3 / 5 (2) Jan 09, 2011
After the destruction of Carthago - including killing all humans, all animals, destroying all buildings, destroying all their documents - it were the winners who wrote the history of their defeated enemies.
True but that isn't all there is.

ttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Carthage#Child_sacrifice

The Romans aren't the only source of the vile calumny and there are all those burned bodies of children. As far as I can see those who say the Carthaginians did not engage in child sacrifice are acting mainly out of revulsion for the practice as the evidence is against them.

Ethelred
Ethelred
4.4 / 5 (7) Jan 09, 2011
I bet there are millions of North Koreans who would move if their govt would let them out
Nice irrelevancy. I love the way you equate North Korea with the US. Very perceptive of you. You find reality where it doesn't exist.

HOWEVER the US government isn't stopping YOU from going.

So when is the happy event?
Typical moral equivalence from a 'liberal'.
You are the that did that. He is just pointing how ridiculous it was for you to bring North Korea into this as an evasion.
Creating laws that grant authority for the govt to interfere in a currently free market will make the market MORE free?
Lie. It isn't a free market and YOU said it isn't YOU blamed the government for it not being free and now you claim it is free.
So does SH assert that North Koreans are well treated by their govt?
No and that was despicable of you. You knew the answer so it could only be an attempt at guilt by association and it was YOU that did the associating.

Ethelred
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (7) Jan 10, 2011
It isn't a free market and YOU said it isn't YOU blamed the government for it not being free and now you claim it is free.

Sounds like the same logic used by Obama. Create more unemployment and the economy will quickly recover.
So piling on MORE regulations will create a MORE free internet? How does that work? BTW, who is going to pay for all the lawyers the FCC, Comcast, and every other victims of FCC regulations will be needed to create and administered all this newly created, FCC 'liberty'?
Internet users.
frajo
4.2 / 5 (5) Jan 10, 2011
The economic success of a periodical in the capitalist world depends on carefully selecting the material they present to the public. Any message that dares to contradict the national instinct will be punished by withdrawing ads, subscriptions and investment capital.
The published opinion must not deviate from the ideology of the owner which is to serve profit before truth.

So we should listen to who Fraj? The Chinese media? Al-jazeera?
A diversity of them all, including those of your own parish. To be able to feel the elephant from every side.
Who makes your list of "approved" news sources?
You have to make your own list and you'll have to be permanently skeptical with this list as there is no reliable approvement procedure.
Finally it's your responsibility to construct your reality by first selecting your selection methods of filtering the torrent of input signals and then processing them.
soulman
3 / 5 (6) Jan 10, 2011
Finally it's your responsibility to construct your reality by first selecting your selection methods of filtering the torrent of input signals and then processing them.

Unfortunately, that's got him in the state he's in!
frajo
5 / 5 (1) Jan 10, 2011
that isn't all there is.
...
Religion_in_Carthage
...
The Romans aren't the only source of the vile calumny
It was effective, wasn't it?
and there are all those burned bodies of children. As far as I can see those who say the Carthaginians did not engage in child sacrifice are acting mainly out of revulsion for the practice as the evidence is against them.
I prefer the position of being highly skeptical as the Romans did not live up to their own "audiatur et altera pars", but killed the defendant without giving him any chance to speak up. In dubio pro reo.
TabulaMentis
1 / 5 (2) Jan 10, 2011
For those in favor of the Wild Wild Internet, Pres Obama has a new change that he recommended Friday or Saturday that can be found on the Internet titled: Obama considers Internet ID for Americans in bid to boost web security.

There was another article released the same day titled: Wars will move online, says head of UK's armed forces. The article makes it sound like World War Three will be fought mainly on the Internet.

For those who want total freedom on the Internet, it may not get any wilder than that.......
Ethelred
3 / 5 (2) Jan 10, 2011
It was effective, wasn't it?
Again, the Romans are NOT the only source of the information. Vile calumny is my idea of a joke. All indications are the Carthaginians were guilty as charged.
but killed the defendant without giving him any chance to speak up. In dubio pro reo.
Those bones speak for the Carthaginians and they look guilty. I really don't think the Romans were the sort that gave a damn about propaganda of that kind. They already had sufficient reason to attack Carthage. Hannibal killed a LOT, as in tens of thousands in one battle alone, of Romans and he scared the crap out of them.

Ethelred
Ethelred
4.3 / 5 (6) Jan 10, 2011
Sounds like the same logic used by Obama. Create more unemployment and the economy will quickly recover.
Evasion. Bring up a non-sequitor and pretend that I didn't find you contradicting yourself.

So piling on MORE regulations will create a MORE free internet?
Yes, It is ONE regulation. Don't fuck with the data stream. Pretty simple really. Doesn't take any more than they already have at the FTC and it saves the ISP's money in that THEY don't have to spend it on spying on their clients data.

Ethelred
Mesafina
4.2 / 5 (5) Jan 10, 2011
Love how this thread is dominated by a bunch of ignorants who think that the internet doesn't need rules and policing, just like cities in real life don't need rules and policing. When left to their own devices, people always are nice to each other, and never try to use their power and control to dominate others. :X

Net neutrality protects your freedom to do what you want on the internet, just like laws against theft protect you against theft. Get it. Some laws protect you. NOT ALL LAWS ARE BAD!

SURPRISE!
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (3) Jan 10, 2011

Finally it's your responsibility to construct your reality by first selecting your selection methods of filtering the torrent of input signals and then processing them.


What no bullshit about evil corporate masterminds trying to control the world this time? You can't even give a straight answer to a simple question can you. God you're sooooo full of shit :-)

So it's "my responsibility to construct my reality". Reality doesn't construct itself huh, it's my reality....WOW, did you have a big fatty just before you wrote that crap? Or were you trying to say that everyone in a CAPITALIST society is actually FREE to decide which source of information they watch or listen to. As opposed to oh, say FUCKING China where they "construct your reality for you"?

GOD you're a tool...
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (3) Jan 10, 2011
Yes, It is ONE regulation. Don't fuck with the data stream. Pretty simple really. Doesn't take any more than they already have at the FTC and it saves the ISP's money in that THEY don't have to spend it on spying on their clients data.


I agree with you Eth, we need something that says you can't fuck with the data stream. Here's the problem though. It's the FCC...it's the United States government...it's NOT going to stop there.

Before you know it when the Democrats have control some pissed off whiny little bitch who saw a conservative website they can't handle will be pushing for some kind of bullshit "fairness doctrine" or trying to define what hate speech is for the rest of us and what's "good" for the rest of us to see.

When the Republicans are in charge the EXACT same thing will happen, except they'll shut down porn sites, or sites that use the word fuck one too many times, or some other kind of "moralistic" BS.

Catch 22, wish I was wrong, but history is on my side.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Jan 10, 2011
Yes, It is ONE regulation. Don't fuck with the data stream. Pretty simple really.

What will prevent the FCC from responding to some whining simp like Ethel forcing an ISP provider to increase their bandwidth?
Airlines are fined >$20k per passenger if they are kept on a plane on the tarmac for longer than so many hours. Rather than take a risk, airlines cancel flights.
Some web site Ethel likes becomes more popular but the owners don't want to expand. Ethel whines to the FCC, FCC can then force the ISP to add servers to keep Ethel happy?
Skeptic_Heretic
4 / 5 (4) Jan 10, 2011
Yes, It is ONE regulation. Don't fuck with the data stream. Pretty simple really.

What will prevent the FCC from responding to some whining simp like Ethel forcing an ISP provider to increase their bandwidth?
Hey slick, that isn't the way the regulation or the reality of the internet works. Your total bandwidth is granted by your service contract with your ISP. The regulations prevent the ISP from further filtering what you're going to watch.
Airlines are fined >$20k per passenger if they are kept on a plane on the tarmac for longer than so many hours. Rather than take a risk, airlines cancel flights.
And that has nothing to do with ISP bandwidth.
Some web site Ethel likes becomes more popular but the owners don't want to expand.
Again, not involved in the regulations.

One wonders how you can form a stance on this topic with no idea how the internet works or what it is actually composed of.
frajo
5 / 5 (4) Jan 10, 2011
bullshit
...
evil corporate masterminds
...
control the world
...
God
...
sooooo full of shit
...
a big fatty
...
crap
...
FUCKING
...
GOD
...

Seems I overstrained you - my apologies.

it's my reality....

Exactly.
Ethelred
3.7 / 5 (6) Jan 10, 2011
Catch 22, wish I was wrong, but history is on my side.


It isn't. Cable television has been around for decades and there is still porn on it despite the whinny mysognist Republicans.

The fairness doctrine exists because the airwaves are limited AND common property of the People of the United States. Especially on over the air TV. It does not apply to cable TV.

So stop making up shit to thow on the Democrats. Or the Republicans. Neither has any legal leverage to censor cable so I don't see it managing to censor the whole bleeding internet. They can't even stop online off shore gambling. Can't even tax it if it isn't in the USA.

Ethelred
Ethelred
4 / 5 (4) Jan 10, 2011
ryggesogn2 AKA Marjon the Wonder Ass did thus:

Evade everyting I actually say AND:

'Ethel is a whinny bitch that will do awful fascist commie nazi pinko things.'

'Ethel will do things that the law doesn't have anything to do with.'

So when IS the happy day that you go to that country you have supporting as having the perfect government.

Somalia.

That should have him frothing at the mouth, again.

Just what do you use to clean the froth off your keyboard anyway. It has to be some heavy duty stuff. I have PMs from two people that sure could use it as they have gone away after frothing a fair bit more than you. I figure they shorted out their keyboards.

Inquiring minds want to know. How does Marjon keep his keyboard from shorting out?

Ethelred
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (7) Jan 10, 2011
The fairness doctrine exists because the airwaves are limited

Existed, past tense.
But not that limited as HD radio now exists and their are numerous alternatives.
But the 'progressives' still try to reimpose the 'fairness' doctrine since they cannot find a 'progressive' to compete on talk radio.
Of course the 'progressives' have govt run NPR, but that doesn't count?
Your total bandwidth is granted by your service contract with your ISP. The regulations prevent the ISP from further filtering what you're going to watch.

How is the customer to know what is limiting in internet experience? The content provider or the many links in between? Sounds like a lot of room for FCC mischief and a way to force small content providers out of business by forcing them to upgrade access. But that is the whole purpose of govt regulations, stifle competition. That was the intent of the FDA supported by the big meat packers.
Skeptic_Heretic
3.7 / 5 (6) Jan 10, 2011
How is the customer to know what is limiting in internet experience?
Well unlike you, they could go out and learn how to use the internet for more than porn and physorg trolling. Traceroute, docsys sniffers, etc are all available to the general public for free and allow insight into how your traffic is handled.
The content provider or the many links in between?
Well you don't seem to know what the difference is.
Sounds like a lot of room for FCC mischief and a way to force small content providers out of business by forcing them to upgrade access.
This has nothing to do with upgrading. If you are an ISP and offer service at X speed, you msut ensure that all content you deliver is not artificially biased. ISP's provide the pipe to the data, they are not allowed to control the data, only the pipe.
But that is the who purpose of govt regulations, stifle competition.
Absolutely false. Stop playing the fool.
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (7) Jan 10, 2011
But that is the who purpose of govt regulations, stifle competition.


Absolutely false. Stop playing the fool.

Absolutely TRUE and I have provided the sources.

If SH and those who support such regulations are NOT fools, they are either fascists that want to control business or are in collusion with big businesses to stifle competition.
Modernmystic
1.7 / 5 (6) Jan 10, 2011
It isn't. Cable television has been around for decades and there is still porn on it despite the whinny mysognist Republicans.


On some channels. We going to have to start paying for "channels" on the internet "for the children" too at some point. Yeah it's entirely possible despite your head in the sand (or somewhere else as dark) attitude.

The fairness doctrine exists because the airwaves are limited AND common property of the People of the United States. Especially on over the air TV. It does not apply to cable TV.


As good a rationalization for government sponsored propaganda as I've heard. Keep spouting the party line. Baaaaah...beeeeeeh...baaaaah.

So stop making up shit to thow on the Democrats.


Awww I hurt your feelings didn't I. Sorry Eth. Hug yourself for ten minutes and it'll be all better.
The truth is that government virtually ALWAYS over does it with regulation once it gets it's claws into something.

We still need net neutrality...
Skeptic_Heretic
3.4 / 5 (5) Jan 10, 2011
But that is the who purpose of govt regulations, stifle competition.


Absolutely false. Stop playing the fool.

Absolutely TRUE and I have provided the sources.
You haven't provided anything. You've provided opinion pieces on a topic that you do not understand and a bunch of non-sequitor comparisions to industries that are about as far away from the internet as can be conceived in practice and structure.
If SH and those who support such regulations are NOT fools, they are either fascists that want to control business or are in collusion with big businesses to stifle competition.
Right, so either we're crazy because we're trying to kill businesses, or we're crazy because we're trying to support businesses.....

How about you figure out what your stance is, why you have it, how it is justified, and come back to us when you're ready for the discussion.
Javinator
5 / 5 (2) Jan 10, 2011
One wonders how you can form a stance on this topic with no idea how the internet works or what it is actually composed of.


It's a series of tubes, duh...
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Jan 10, 2011
comparisions to industries that are about as far away from the internet as can be conceived in practice and structure.

What does if matter if the big business is Armour meat packers, US Steel or Enron or BP or Comcast that use govt regulations to limit competition?

The computer industry has a long reputation of collaboration to set standards without govt force. Look where it has led.
Skeptic_Heretic
4.2 / 5 (5) Jan 10, 2011
The computer industry has a long reputation of collaboration to set standards without govt force. Look where it has led.
It has led to the need for net neutrality, which you are railing against without any knowledge of what you're protesting.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Jan 10, 2011
Here is the real motivation for NN, taxpayer money:
"We would like to see Congress set a national goal of 100 megabits of symmetrical bandwidth, meaning the same speed for both uploaded and downloaded content, to every home and business and school in America in five years – and a gigabit (1000 megabits) in ten years. This is absolutely doable using coaxial cable and fiber to the home"
"It does not cost all that much, relatively, to upgrade a network once the basic wiring is in place – that’s the big original cost."
"Once cable companies and companies like Verizon make their initial fiber investment, the relative cost of upgrading bandwidth to customers is small."
"We in the Internet2 community have a keen interest in this upcoming legislation..." {of course they do}
Here is the list of members: http:/www.internet2.edu/resources/listforweb.pdf

ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Jan 10, 2011
"The cost of running one fiber optic cable to an American household costs approximately $1350"
"We hope to see more fiber optic expansions in the future, and we hope it expands to other countries too!"
http:/www.talksontech.com/verizon-fios-halt/

I note that Comcast was not an Internet2 member. Why should they? They have already run the cable to the house. Granted they have had govt monopoly protection to do so.
I can now see govt funding (taxpayer money) to subsidize Verizon and other fiber companies to run fiber to people's houses and NN will be used as a club to make it so.
For all you statists, you weave a tangle web when you start regulating.
Javinator
5 / 5 (5) Jan 10, 2011
I can now see govt funding (taxpayer money) to subsidize Verizon and other fiber companies to run fiber to people's houses and NN will be used as a club to make it so.


Net neutrality has nothing to do with infrastructure.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Jan 10, 2011
I can now see govt funding (taxpayer money) to subsidize Verizon and other fiber companies to run fiber to people's houses and NN will be used as a club to make it so.


Net neutrality has nothing to do with infrastructure.

If you read the testimony of Internet2, there would be no need for NN if there were sufficient bandwidth to the home.
Javinator
5 / 5 (5) Jan 10, 2011
If you read the testimony of Internet2, there would be no need for NN if there were sufficient bandwidth to the home.


Yes there would be. Bandwidth is irrelevant if content is filtered.
Skeptic_Heretic
4.3 / 5 (6) Jan 10, 2011
Marjon, Net neutrality has nothing to do with physical infrastructure. Net neutrality is regulation against the logical provisioning of bandwidth under a biased configuration for the benefit of the ISP. Again, you do not know what you are talking about and it is painfully obvious.
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (7) Jan 10, 2011
NN will be a set of LAWS created by 3 of 5, democrat, unelected bureaucrats that have already been told by two branches of the federal govt NOT to create those laws.
SH claimed to be a supporter of the rule of law.

BTW, the federal income tax was supposed to be limited to only the most wealthy.

Classic lies: 'check's in the mail', 'We're from the govt and here to help'.

It's painfully obvious SH will use the club of the govt to get what he wants. That is the socialist way.
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (7) Jan 10, 2011
"The Library of Congress is working on projects to make rare materials available over the Internet. Should MIT or Stanford or the Library of Congress now have to pay Verizon and AT&T, Comcast and Cox, and all of the other local network providers to allow Americans access to this material?"
{Who should pay for it?}
"Again, our research and experience shows that if the broadband pipe is large enough, you do not need to discriminate in favor of some of the bits."
"A cost-effective, simple network can provide as high a quality experience for the user as a more complex, costly, partitioned network."
{Cost effective for whom?}
"We in the Internet2 community have a keen interest in this upcoming legislation and we hope that you will protect the integrity of the Internet architecture that has given our nation so much benefit. Net neutrality is an important component of that design. Keeping network design open, inexpensive, and simple is better than costly, complex, and closed."
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (7) Jan 10, 2011
"But the biggest question is whether the country needs to actually provide subsidies or tax breaks to the telephone and cable companies to increase the speeds of their existing broadband service, other than in rural areas. Many people served by Verizon and Comcast are likely to have the option to get super-fast service very soon. "
"the phone companies will be forced to upgrade their networks to compete. "
http:/bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/03/12/the-broadband-gap-why-do-they-have-more-fiber/

Internet2 claims there is no need for NN if everyone has a fiber, or equivalent, connection.
Govt is selectively subsidizing broadband and challenging smaller companies to compete.

Just what I said, regulations stifle competition.
TabulaMentis
1 / 5 (3) Jan 10, 2011
Why did the Bush Administration have to sell the old TV airwaves to the corporate elite? Why not let the public have them to create their own broadband WiMax, LTE, etc. networks without having corporations in the middle taking your money when it could be free? Remember shortwave radio. It was and is free.
Caliban
3.4 / 5 (5) Jan 10, 2011

mangynowrintintin.

Is there no end to it's ignorance?

The extent and composition of it's ideology are very well delineated here on Physorg, given the continuous spewth of disengenuously misinformational trollery emitted from the mangyhole.

"Who is mangynowrintintin?": The "Fountainhead". indeed.

Talk about a "mud volcano"....

Sadly, the vile stench of mangynowrintintin's froth has attracted other trolls to the area, to feed from the same trough, and add their unchanging, inflexible ideological excrement to the ever growing mound upon which mangynowrintintin has labored for so long.

ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (7) Jan 10, 2011
"The Fairness Doctrine has been a controversial subject during the Obama administration. The Federal Communications Commission in 1987 stopped enforcing the policy that required the media to present both sides of an issue. Now, with the popularity of partisan cable news, some want the FCC to use the policy to inject balance into heated media discussions.

Clyburn's daughter Mignon Clyburn is an FCC commissioner. She took a stand on the matter during her confirmation hearings, saying she opposed such a policy in 'any way shape or form.'"
http:/www.postandcourier.com/news/2011/jan/10/clyburn-words-can-be-danger/

Imagine, a congressman's daughter is an FCC commisioner.
Caliban
4 / 5 (4) Jan 10, 2011
Just what I said, regulations stifle competition.


A shining example of mangynowrintintin's utter moronicism -clearly the physorg TOS, ie, REGULATIONS- haven't stifled it's trollery, so that puts the lie to that statement, QED.

Ethelred
4.2 / 5 (5) Jan 11, 2011
"channels" on the internet "for the children" too at some point.
The Internet does not have channels. If you want to pay for a WEBSITE or a part of a site you are free to do so.
Yeah it's entirely possible despite your head in the sand
I am not the one with fantasies here.
As good a rationalization for government sponsored propaganda as I've heard.
You seem to have read something that was not what you responded to. I am sorry the you are experiencing technical difficulties, possibly due to hallucinogens.
Keep spouting the party line.
I leave party line to YOU. You really shouldn't do lines at parties.
Awww I hurt your feelings didn't I.
You don't know me. I do this for FUN. RightWingNuts make it more fun. Thank you.
once it gets it's claws into something.
You do know that the Internet was developed and paid for by the US DOD. It has ALWAYS had the Net.

Sorry about you having that bi-polar problem again.

Ethelred
Ethelred
4.2 / 5 (5) Jan 11, 2011
I am wondering what lies Marjon is telling itself to justify the claim that more bandwidth can magically stop the provider of said bandwidth from throttling people they want to extort more money from.

Oh dear Mr Client wants to download a video from NetFlix. NetFlix isn't paying us protection this month is it. Mr Client will find his buffer empty till NetFlix pays us for the bandwidth Mr. Client has already paid for.

Which is EXACTLY the kind thing some of the ISPs have been planning to do.

Bandwidth is meaningless if providers have to pay to not get buggered by the ISPs. And it can happen ANYWHERE along the path from provider to client. Bobs BackBone Kansas isn't getting a cut then somehow the providers packets go awry. THAT is what net neutrality is about. ANYONE ANYWHERE that has a bit of line can demand a cut. Tolls like that kept Europe a trade free zone for centuries.

How the hell can it be anticompetitive to STOP people from interfering with free trade?

Ethelred
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (2) Jan 11, 2011
SH claimed to be a supporter of the rule of law.

BTW, the federal income tax was supposed to be limited to only the most wealthy.

Classic lies: 'check's in the mail', 'We're from the govt and here to help'.

It's painfully obvious SH will use the club of the govt to get what he wants. That is the socialist way.
The only thing painfully obvious here is that you're a shameless, ignorant troll and should be shunned and ignored. Unfortunately I haven't done so. Allow me to address that.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Jan 11, 2011
"Level 3 won that bid because it intends to break its contractual obligations on peering with Comcast and essentially resell stolen bandwidth to Netflix. Now it makes perfect sense how Level 3 managed to outbid Akamai since no CDN provider operating legally could outbid hot goods."
"So how does Level 3 intend to get away with this? CNET and other news sources reported that Level 3 is trying to put it under the “Net Neutrality” violation banner and invent a story that Comcast is blocking content when it merely wants to enforce existing contractual agreements with Level 3. "
http:/www.digitalsociety.org/2010/11/level-3-outbid-akamai-on-netflix-by-reselling-stolen-bandwidth/

"Level 3 Communications"
http:/www.internet2.edu/resources/listforweb.pdf
Internet2 claims bandwidth will eliminate need for NN, but it is expensive for everyone to get bb into the house and therefore the I2 supports govt subsidy for bb to the home.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (3) Jan 11, 2011
Internet2 claims bandwidth will eliminate need for NN, but it is expensive for everyone to get bb into the house and therefore the I2 supports govt subsidy for bb to the home.
Internet2 is wrong on bandwidth, and correct on recommending subsidy but not as a contention to net neutrality.

From your "source".
On the contrary, allowing Level 3 to violate their peering agreement under the banner of "Net Neutrality" is what would actually break the Internet and turn peering and Internet investment economics on its head.
But it appears your source doesn't know what peering is. The pure definition of peering is settlement free or "sender keeps all," meaning that neither party pays the other for the exchanged traffic; instead, each derives revenue from its own customers. So how exactly would one have a pay for peering contract under net neutrality?
frajo
not rated yet Jan 13, 2011
The computer industry has a long reputation of collaboration to set standards without govt force.
Microsoft has a reputation of breaking the standards set by competitors and forcing other companies to use the pseudo-standard MS deviants.
Even hardware devices (like keyboards) are very difficult to acquire without that ugly windows keys.