Slashdot Mirror

The issue is not NN but competition. We have an issue with monopolies because the government... local and state mostly grants exclusive franchise licenses to run cable to no more than two companies typically.

Nope. Still got it wrong, Karmashock? Why do you knowingly repeat something you admit, even in this post, that you recognize is false? Congress outlawed that over 20 years ago, in the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992 and the Telecommunications Act of 1996.

And in fact, many municipal and state codes specifically indicate that any license granted for use of public rights-of-way and easements must be non-exclusive.

that people presume to be surprised when abusive and monopolistic behavior occurs when you grant companies monopolies is baffling.

That you, an individual, mistate the problem, even when you've been repeatedly informed of the error you are making, is not at all baffling, you found your easy answer, and now you're simply refusing to reassess the problem and actually understand the situation.

You do not have the right to such ignorance.

And you don't have the right to willfull blindness.

Grant right of way access to poles and conduits for third party last mile ISPs and all this NN stuff becomes irrelevant.

Nope. You neglect to mention the most important part. You actually have to have the connections run, you can't just magically declare the problem solved, there actually needs to be provisioning.

Google is having a hard time running cable. That is how bad and how corrupt these franchise agreements are right now. And if google with all its resources is having a hard time then what chance does anyone else stand?

Google has actually gotten numerous franchise agreements, because, contrary to your initial false assertion, the issue was not exclusivity.

Whether or not Google is having a "hard time" because of "how bad" and "how corrupt" these franchise agreements are right now, is not something you've provably established either, but at least it's not blatantly false. So there is that. If you can't do anything else, maybe you should stick to claiming there's corruption instead.

Unfortunately, you'll still likely be ignoring some of the realities of the situation, so you shouldn't stop there, but expand your perceptions and seek more information.

Here some fool will say that such agreements are illegal. De Jura they are... De facto they're the law of the land. Try to run cable and see what I mean. You can't. Only former Bell Companies and TV Cable companies are running last mile cable. This isn't because other people don't want to run cable or can't afford to run cable or because there isn't a market. It is because if you try... you are denied.

Oh, so the braying fool who willfully cites a false reason from the beginning, presents a blustering defense. Why don't you refrain from a poor phrasing, and describe your problem without resorting to something you know is inaccurate? It'll actually improve your own position, rather than make you look like an obstreperous fool who can't manage to present his ideas without deliberat

Not in Georgia I hear.

http://www.gwinnettdailypost.com/index.php?s=&url_ channel_id=32&url_article_id=22700&url_subchannel_ id=&change_well_id=2&weak

He 17, she 15.

What they did: _consensual_ oral sex.
What Georgia Supreme Court confirmed it was: aggravated child molestation.
What he gets: 10 years, plus probably being classed as a sex offender for the rest of his life.

There's an argument, but where's the proof?

In my bruised experience I think Power Rangers was harmful to kids (I was an adult around them and they were kicking everything - me, each other etc). Sure sex + violence is harmful. But that's because violence is harmful.

OK you agree that 40 years is excessive? So how many years do you think she should get for that?

If it was unintentional/involuntary I don't think she SHOULD even get put in jail, or that people should even need consider jailing her.

Why don't you guys start worrying about more important stuff than kids seeing porn?

Like getting the "justice" system fixed ASAP instead:

http://www.gwinnettdailypost.com/index.php?s=&url_ channel_id=32&url_article_id=22700&url_subchannel_ id=&change_well_id=2&weak

The 10 years that guy is getting is not "theoretical" anymore. If anything I think the girl and guy will be scarred for a long time BECAUSE of the injustice of it all.

I think being exposed to such "Justice" impairs the morals of a child more than seeing adult humans mating.

The Georgia Supreme Court has turned down an appeal from Genarlow Wilson who was sentenced to 10 years in prison for having _consensual_ oral sex with a 15-year-old.

He was sentenced for aggravated child molestation.

http://www.gwinnettdailypost.com/index.php?s=&url_ channel_id=32&url_article_id=22700&url_subchannel_ id=&change_well_id=2&weak

So I suppose showing pics to kids = 40 years. Actual _consensual oral sex = 20 years. Murder = ?

Silly hackers looking for UFO info or other silliness end up in jail, but spammers and spyware installers get away. Similarly hackers like Sony get away with installing rootkits - no one was jailed for the crime (even though they broke various Computer Crime laws around the world), USD 1+ million "fine" = win for Sony.

What next? A death penalty for file sharing?

These days parents seem to just are about different stuff, like 'promoting witchcraft' (Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings). And sometimes, they succeed for a time (till a suit or injunction slaps them back into shape).

I'll take a citation on any of that, please

http://www.gwinnettdailypost.com/index.php?s=&url_ channel_id=32&url_article_id=12538&url_subchannel_ id=&change_well_id=2

One step closer...

The chinese power freaks don't give a crap about where they are, so your point 2 is quite valid. Read this, very recent.

http://www.gwinnettdailypost.com/index.php?s=&url_ channel_id=32&url_article_id=11616&url_subchannel_ id=&change_well_id=2