That's a fantastic example of "super-ironic post," nice work!
Mocking aside, it's because instead of attacking other people for saying something I don't like, I actually pay attention to what goes on in our government - for example, how much seemingly beneficial or innocuous legislation ends up mutated in some "closed door session, " and what ends up being passed into law does nothing but take one more right away from the average citizen and put it into the hands of either the government itself, or one of its corporate partners.
You should try it sometime, the whole 'paying attention' thing; I know you won't get that dopamine high being a dick to "the enemy," ie someone with a different philosophy, gives you, but you will be a better person for it.
I'm not attacking anyone for saying something I don't like.
Really? So implying that I don't use my brain, and saying "people like you are what's wrong with this country," isn't supposed to be an attack? That's bullshit, and you know it.
I am chastising someone for spouting off without any (apparent) real knowledge of the issue being discussed.
So, then, you're doing all this in a mirror? Because reading the thread, you're the only one I see who spouted off without any real knowledge of the topic.
However, blanket statements like the GP's:
The minute I read the summary my first thought was "if a government bigwig is promoting it, of can't be good for us regular Joe's"
do not add anything valuable or relevant to the discussion.
But asshole personal attacks (or "chastising," as you call it) do? What part of your post adds value? Considering your own useless contribution, who the fuck do you think you are to tell me what is or isn't valuable to the conversation?
You claim I haven't been paying attention,
You made the exact same claim about me in your post, fuckhead! So what, it's OK for you to be a useless cock and insult people knowing fuck-all about that person, but if they return the favor suddenly you're a victim? More bullshit.
but based upon this post (and the many, many others I've written on this same topic in other threads -- I suggest you check it out for yourself)
Hey, dude, if you're going to blow yourself, please do so in private. None of us want to see that shit.
Seriously - if you're going to baselessly insult someone, expect a response. If you can't handle what you dish out, and choose to be a bitch about it when someone calls you on your bullshit, maybe you shouldn't be in these discussions to begin with.
So you don't want to discuss the issues around Title II reclassification? A shame. Have a great day!
People really ought to consider that not all races are the same. we have no problem recognizing that certain races play certain sports better, but magically evolution stopped below the neck?
What are these "races" of which you speak? I am only aware of a single sentient race on this planet -- Homo Sapiens Sapiens. Please elucidate.
What does Neil deGrasse Tyson have to say about racial diversity in astrophysics?
That's right, nothing, so who fucking cares??
As a young child, I lived in the same housing complex where NdGT grew up, and two of my brothers went to the same high school as he did (one of them contemporaneously). NdGT grew up middle/upper-middle class, which is a much greater indicator of education/tech success than race, IMHO. I can tell you from personal experience that neither of those places were hotbeds of crime or "thug culture." In fact, they were, for the most part, quite nice. What is more, that high school has produced at least eight Nobel Prize winners and at least seven Pulitzer Prize winners.
That's not to say that he didn't have cultural barriers to overcome, but I think (and several other people have intimated here) that socio-economic status plays a big role in this issue. At the same time, it should be pretty obvious to anyone who hasn't had their head shoved up their ass their whole lives, that bigotry (I won't call it racism, since there is only one sentient race on this planet) is an issue as well.
3. The New York Police Department city made more stops of young black men in 2011 than there are young black men in the city, as part of its aggressive stop-and-frisk program that a federal judge deemed racial profiling earlier this month. In the years since, the NYPD has decreased the number of stops, but the disproportionate impact on blacks and Hispanics remains dramatic. A chart from the New York Public Advocate illustrates the disparity:
National studies have found that blacks and Hispanics are approximately three times more likely to be searched during a traffic stop than white motorists. African Americans are twice as likely to be arrested and almost four times as likely to experience the use of force during encounters with the police.
Consider this as me supplying you with a period, friend.
Using a Heinlein quote to be insulting is no more mature than insulting me directly. It's certainly not a sign of cleverness. It's actually pretty sad.
Thanks for the tip. Next time I'll insult you directly. But, darn it, I've always loved that quote and your obnoxious comments made it so easy to use it on you. As for maturity, pot, meet kettle.
That's a fantastic example of "super-ironic post," nice work!
Mocking aside, it's because instead of attacking other people for saying something I don't like, I actually pay attention to what goes on in our government - for example, how much seemingly beneficial or innocuous legislation ends up mutated in some "closed door session, " and what ends up being passed into law does nothing but take one more right away from the average citizen and put it into the hands of either the government itself, or one of its corporate partners.
You should try it sometime, the whole 'paying attention' thing; I know you won't get that dopamine high being a dick to "the enemy," ie someone with a different philosophy, gives you, but you will be a better person for it.
I'm not attacking anyone for saying something I don't like. I am chastising someone for spouting off without any (apparent) real knowledge of the issue being discussed.
The question is whether or not ISPs should be classified as "Common Carriers" under Title II of the Communications Act of 1934 as amended by several additional acts, including the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and several other acts of congress.
In the context of reclassification, no new laws are being proposed, nor are any new regulations. Whether or not re-classification of ISPs under TItle II is good or bad is an issue over which reasonable people can disagree. However, blanket statements like the GP's:
The minute I read the summary my first thought was "if a government bigwig is promoting it, of can't be good for us regular Joe's"
do not add anything valuable or relevant to the discussion.
Had the GP said something like "I think reclassification is a bad thing because..." I would happily engage with him (her?) in a discussion of the relevant issues and why I think reclassification is a good thing. We could then both broaden our understanding of the other's opinion, as well as, quite likely, our own.
You claim I haven't been paying attention, but based upon this post (and the many, many others I've written on this same topic in other threads -- I suggest you check it out for yourself) I think you'll find that, in fact, I have.
For the record, I'm no fan of the FCC and its beholden-to-the-corporations commissioners. Unfortunately, those corporate shills are all we have to work with at the moment -- and I don't see that getting any better regardless of who is sworn in on January 20, 2017.
As such, I applaud Obama's call for reclassification of ISPs under Title II because I think it's an excellent idea that will allow the FCC to require free (as in unrestricted, not $0) carriage of all packets across their networks regardless of source. This can restrict ISPs that are also content providers from throttling their competitors and require that those ISPs must (at least in part, there are serious TOS and technology issues as well) provide unrestricted Internet access to their customers.
I'm all for competition, but that can't be accomplished or regulated by the FCC. It's a complicated issue, as cable/internet franchises are generally granted by municipal governments (thousands of them) who control the rights-of-way for last-mile infrastructure.
I have some ideas about how to address that (again, see my numerous posts about that), but that's a separate discussion from Title II reclassification.
In any case, I don't see GP as my enemy. Heck, I don't even know what he or she thinks about the issue at hand, as they didn't even bother to contribute -- they just made vague complaints about "bigwigs." The truth is, I don't consider any
Will others be successful? Maybe. Personally, I don't think that colonizing Mars is a good first step, but I'm not closed-minded or narcissistic enough to think that my own trained-in prejudices are the laws of nature -- unlike some people. As such, I wish those folks all the best in their endeavors.
Now go away and allow those who actually have some vision and intestinal fortitude continue along their own path.
It seems a trend to turn to petty and childish insults rather than try to provide cogent arguments or participate in a conversation. It's pretty sad.
The Mars One "project" is such amazingly obvious bullshit I honestly feel bad for anyone that thinks they are serious. Chris Hadfield is 100% correct in his analysis of the project. It's not only going nowhere but was intended from the beginning to go nowhere, it's a scam to part overly hopeful of gullible people from their money. Supporting the Mars One group is just supporting exploitation rather than furthering space exploration.
I don't object to calling Mars One a steaming pile. If it's not a scam, it's an excellent facsimile thereof. Nor did I make any comment that even comes close to saying that Mars One has any kind of real chance to do what they're claiming. I even read TFA and I agree with Hadfield as well.
I do object to folks trying to shove their prejudices down other people's throats. You said:
Why? What do you think is within the reach of human beings in space that is not available on Earth? A reply containing the words "wonder", "exploration" or "adventure" are not acceptable.
Who are you to tell GP what is and isn't acceptable motivation for their goals? A busybody. You are most certainly entitled to your beliefs and opinions, but you aren't entitled to tell others which of their beliefs and values are "acceptable." I'm reminded of a Heinlein quote that, IMHO, applies nicely here:
“The correct way to punctuate a sentence that states: "Of course it is none of my business, but -- " is to place a period after the word "but." Don't use excessive force in supplying such a moron with a period. Cutting his throat is only a momentary pleasure and is bound to get you talked about.”
Consider this as me supplying you with a period, friend.
" But you don't get to decide for everybody else what's important to them. What motivates others is neither definable by you, nor is it any of your business."
Yet you think you're a spokesperson for the SPEEEEECIIIEEEEEEES!!! (with echo effect!)
Whackacracka-doodle-doo!!!
Interesting that after I express my opinion that it's inappropriate to tell other people what to think or feel, you claim I'm speaking for everyone. I'm going to assume you're not a native English speaker and just misunderstood. The alternative is that you're just another troll. Don't you have some midget porn to watch or something instead?
Why? What do you think is within the reach of human beings in space that is not available on Earth? A reply containing the words "wonder", "exploration" or "adventure" are not acceptable.
Thank you for your opinion. If that's how you feel, great. I'm happy for you. But you don't get to decide for everybody else what's important to them. What motivates others is neither definable by you, nor is it any of your business.
Will others be successful? Maybe. Personally, I don't think that colonizing Mars is a good first step, but I'm not closed-minded or narcissistic enough to think that my own trained-in prejudices are the laws of nature -- unlike some people. As such, I wish those folks all the best in their endeavors.
Now go away and allow those who actually have some vision and intestinal fortitude continue along their own path.
You do not have to have the last mile that someone put in open to everyone in order to have competition.
Google seems to do ok with their experiment
As I said, I have some ideas and I assume you do as well. Since it's unlikely that either of us is going to implement them, it seems a little silly to debate the matter.
And so, shall we agree to disagree friend? I hope so. I also hope you are feeling well and have a wonderful day!
very polite of you...i'd be pissed (i'm getting better though)
busting out the dictionary in a philosphical discussion like this is not a solution
it's reductive and it shows a fear of complexity
"socialism" is such a charged word, anyone who is being honest in the discussion must admit this
the dictionary isn't going to solve the health care crisis
I get your point. However, what would be gained through argument? I'm not going to change that person's mind and he(she?) was honest enough to include each of the senses of the dictionary definition that encompass their point of view and that of the example I gave.
We're not going to solve all the problems of the world in a thread on/., IMHO. As such, there's no real reason to get all worked up about it.
They should have to obtain right of way of course.
What should not happen is that the local government should not sign away the peoples right to have competitors. This is happening in almost every municipality. It results in high prices and bad service.
I agree with each of those points. I do think that the best way to create such competition is to create a last-mile infrastructure (how that's done is an open question. I have some ideas and I'm sure you do as well) that is independent of any particular service provider. Such service providers, given equal access to such an infrastructure can compete on price, features and service levels. Wouldn't you agree?
I'd point out that you have yet to answer my question:
Where is this "market" you speak of? Please identify a single location in the US where last mile infrastructure is left open to anyone who wishes to to build such infrastructure without obtaining rights-of-way from local governments.
The details can and should be left up to the market. The local government are the reason there is no competition in your community.
Where is this "market" you speak of? Please identify a single location in the US where last mile infrastructure is left open to anyone who wishes to to build such infrastructure without obtaining rights-of-way from local governments.
Shocked I tell you! The police want the ability to identify anyone, anywhere, should they turn their attention to them? I can't believe it! Are you sure this article didn't come from The Onion?
Okay, fine: "...every president since Bush 1," then!
The point is, authoritarian unconstitutionality is a trait shared by presidents from both parties.
That's not really a big revelation for anyone who hasn't been living with the Xhosa for the past three or four generations. I'm glad you've come to realize it.
To me, socialism means that the workers are government employees and the hospitals are build on government property. If it means something different to you then I think we have no disagreement other than that word. We would hardly be the first people who disagree about what is socialism.
Here's what my dictionary says:
"a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole."
That supports your use of the word because healthcare is "regulated" by the government. I would not accept that use as proper, however, because it is too broad; everything is regulated by the government. To me, the means of production must be actually owned by the government.
And so, shall we agree to disagree friend? I hope so. I also hope you are feeling well and have a wonderful day!
While there is very little federal regulation there to limit innovation the issue there is the contracts signed by the local municipalities giving defacto monopolies in the area. If those were gone you would see much better competition.
Exactly. I'm sorry, where did I say that wasn't the case? The only caveat I see there is the wastefulness of multiple last-mile networks. This can be addressed via non-profit corporations managing last-mile implementations. The details can, and should, be left up to local governments IMHO.
Actually, it's quite simple. You create a non-profit corporation to implement and manage the "last mile." That organization would be funded by bond issues (just like every other public works project) and supported by user fees. Those user fees would be paid by ISPs who compete on price and features.
And the existing last-mile networks: what do you do with them? Maybe you expect your non-profit to buy them from Comcast, AT&T, and Quest. How exactly do you plan to figure pricing when you nationalize those networks? Or to compensate the companies when you dig up their wires and throw them away. I guarantee you will do it wrong. Taxpayers will overpay by 5-fold and the companies will be lucky to realize half of their fair value.
You proposal would be fine if internet were a blank slate, but any change you impose now will amount to nationalization of private enterprise, and there is no way people will stand for that.
Firstly, "nationalization" is a paranoid fantasy of yours. All of this stuff is done at the municipal and state levels, mostly the municipal level. Secondly, the existing last-mile networks can compete with the non-profits. Unless, of course, local governments decide otherwise. Decentralized decision making, management and implementation will provide a plethora of models to compare. The best ones will, in the end, win out -- unless co-opted by those who are raping us. Have a great day!
Would this apply to Paid peering agreements? Or Just settlement free connections?
What is the "core" of the internet (as he described)?
Not that I'm against the idea, but I want to know what exactly it means? It seems incredibly hard to find specific definitions of how and where rules would be applied.
Slashdot Mirror
"TV Adaptations are the last refuge of the semi-literate." --Salvor Hardin
That's a fantastic example of "super-ironic post," nice work!
Mocking aside, it's because instead of attacking other people for saying something I don't like, I actually pay attention to what goes on in our government - for example, how much seemingly beneficial or innocuous legislation ends up mutated in some "closed door session, " and what ends up being passed into law does nothing but take one more right away from the average citizen and put it into the hands of either the government itself, or one of its corporate partners.
You should try it sometime, the whole 'paying attention' thing; I know you won't get that dopamine high being a dick to "the enemy," ie someone with a different philosophy, gives you, but you will be a better person for it.
I'm not attacking anyone for saying something I don't like.
Really? So implying that I don't use my brain, and saying "people like you are what's wrong with this country," isn't supposed to be an attack? That's bullshit, and you know it.
I am chastising someone for spouting off without any (apparent) real knowledge of the issue being discussed.
So, then, you're doing all this in a mirror? Because reading the thread, you're the only one I see who spouted off without any real knowledge of the topic.
However, blanket statements like the GP's:
do not add anything valuable or relevant to the discussion.
But asshole personal attacks (or "chastising," as you call it) do? What part of your post adds value? Considering your own useless contribution, who the fuck do you think you are to tell me what is or isn't valuable to the conversation?
You claim I haven't been paying attention,
You made the exact same claim about me in your post, fuckhead! So what, it's OK for you to be a useless cock and insult people knowing fuck-all about that person, but if they return the favor suddenly you're a victim? More bullshit.
but based upon this post (and the many, many others I've written on this same topic in other threads -- I suggest you check it out for yourself)
Hey, dude, if you're going to blow yourself, please do so in private. None of us want to see that shit.
Seriously - if you're going to baselessly insult someone, expect a response. If you can't handle what you dish out, and choose to be a bitch about it when someone calls you on your bullshit, maybe you shouldn't be in these discussions to begin with.
So you don't want to discuss the issues around Title II reclassification? A shame. Have a great day!
People really ought to consider that not all races are the same. we have no problem recognizing that certain races play certain sports better, but magically evolution stopped below the neck?
What are these "races" of which you speak? I am only aware of a single sentient race on this planet -- Homo Sapiens Sapiens. Please elucidate.
What does Neil deGrasse Tyson have to say about racial diversity in astrophysics? That's right, nothing, so who fucking cares??
As a young child, I lived in the same housing complex where NdGT grew up, and two of my brothers went to the same high school as he did (one of them contemporaneously). NdGT grew up middle/upper-middle class, which is a much greater indicator of education/tech success than race, IMHO. I can tell you from personal experience that neither of those places were hotbeds of crime or "thug culture." In fact, they were, for the most part, quite nice. What is more, that high school has produced at least eight Nobel Prize winners and at least seven Pulitzer Prize winners.
That's not to say that he didn't have cultural barriers to overcome, but I think (and several other people have intimated here) that socio-economic status plays a big role in this issue. At the same time, it should be pretty obvious to anyone who hasn't had their head shoved up their ass their whole lives, that bigotry (I won't call it racism, since there is only one sentient race on this planet) is an issue as well.
Maybe not so much. From the link:
[emphasis added]
to television more easily, including the the ones written by the Killer B's, IMHO.
This is definitely news for nerds. I hope they don't butcher the story too much.
There. FTFY
By continue their "own" path you mean take our tax money and spend it on shit we don't care about?
I know. All those fuckers wasting American tax dollars.when we could be spending them on important things.
Using a Heinlein quote to be insulting is no more mature than insulting me directly. It's certainly not a sign of cleverness. It's actually pretty sad.
Thanks for the tip. Next time I'll insult you directly. But, darn it, I've always loved that quote and your obnoxious comments made it so easy to use it on you. As for maturity, pot, meet kettle.
Oh, and have a great day!
That's a fantastic example of "super-ironic post," nice work!
Mocking aside, it's because instead of attacking other people for saying something I don't like, I actually pay attention to what goes on in our government - for example, how much seemingly beneficial or innocuous legislation ends up mutated in some "closed door session, " and what ends up being passed into law does nothing but take one more right away from the average citizen and put it into the hands of either the government itself, or one of its corporate partners.
You should try it sometime, the whole 'paying attention' thing; I know you won't get that dopamine high being a dick to "the enemy," ie someone with a different philosophy, gives you, but you will be a better person for it.
I'm not attacking anyone for saying something I don't like. I am chastising someone for spouting off without any (apparent) real knowledge of the issue being discussed.
The question is whether or not ISPs should be classified as "Common Carriers" under Title II of the Communications Act of 1934 as amended by several additional acts, including the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and several other acts of congress.
In the context of reclassification, no new laws are being proposed, nor are any new regulations. Whether or not re-classification of ISPs under TItle II is good or bad is an issue over which reasonable people can disagree. However, blanket statements like the GP's:
do not add anything valuable or relevant to the discussion.
Had the GP said something like "I think reclassification is a bad thing because..." I would happily engage with him (her?) in a discussion of the relevant issues and why I think reclassification is a good thing. We could then both broaden our understanding of the other's opinion, as well as, quite likely, our own.
You claim I haven't been paying attention, but based upon this post (and the many, many others I've written on this same topic in other threads -- I suggest you check it out for yourself) I think you'll find that, in fact, I have.
For the record, I'm no fan of the FCC and its beholden-to-the-corporations commissioners. Unfortunately, those corporate shills are all we have to work with at the moment -- and I don't see that getting any better regardless of who is sworn in on January 20, 2017.
As such, I applaud Obama's call for reclassification of ISPs under Title II because I think it's an excellent idea that will allow the FCC to require free (as in unrestricted, not $0) carriage of all packets across their networks regardless of source. This can restrict ISPs that are also content providers from throttling their competitors and require that those ISPs must (at least in part, there are serious TOS and technology issues as well) provide unrestricted Internet access to their customers.
I'm all for competition, but that can't be accomplished or regulated by the FCC. It's a complicated issue, as cable/internet franchises are generally granted by municipal governments (thousands of them) who control the rights-of-way for last-mile infrastructure.
I have some ideas about how to address that (again, see my numerous posts about that ), but that's a separate discussion from Title II reclassification.
In any case, I don't see GP as my enemy. Heck, I don't even know what he or she thinks about the issue at hand, as they didn't even bother to contribute -- they just made vague complaints about "bigwigs." The truth is, I don't consider any
It seems a trend to turn to petty and childish insults rather than try to provide cogent arguments or participate in a conversation. It's pretty sad.
The Mars One "project" is such amazingly obvious bullshit I honestly feel bad for anyone that thinks they are serious. Chris Hadfield is 100% correct in his analysis of the project. It's not only going nowhere but was intended from the beginning to go nowhere, it's a scam to part overly hopeful of gullible people from their money. Supporting the Mars One group is just supporting exploitation rather than furthering space exploration.
I don't object to calling Mars One a steaming pile. If it's not a scam, it's an excellent facsimile thereof. Nor did I make any comment that even comes close to saying that Mars One has any kind of real chance to do what they're claiming. I even read TFA and I agree with Hadfield as well.
I do object to folks trying to shove their prejudices down other people's throats. You said:
Who are you to tell GP what is and isn't acceptable motivation for their goals? A busybody. You are most certainly entitled to your beliefs and opinions, but you aren't entitled to tell others which of their beliefs and values are "acceptable." I'm reminded of a Heinlein quote that, IMHO, applies nicely here:
Consider this as me supplying you with a period, friend.
" But you don't get to decide for everybody else what's important to them. What motivates others is neither definable by you, nor is it any of your business."
Yet you think you're a spokesperson for the SPEEEEECIIIEEEEEEES!!! (with echo effect!)
Whackacracka-doodle-doo!!!
Interesting that after I express my opinion that it's inappropriate to tell other people what to think or feel, you claim I'm speaking for everyone. I'm going to assume you're not a native English speaker and just misunderstood. The alternative is that you're just another troll. Don't you have some midget porn to watch or something instead?
Why? What do you think is within the reach of human beings in space that is not available on Earth? A reply containing the words "wonder", "exploration" or "adventure" are not acceptable.
Thank you for your opinion. If that's how you feel, great. I'm happy for you. But you don't get to decide for everybody else what's important to them. What motivates others is neither definable by you, nor is it any of your business.
Will others be successful? Maybe. Personally, I don't think that colonizing Mars is a good first step, but I'm not closed-minded or narcissistic enough to think that my own trained-in prejudices are the laws of nature -- unlike some people. As such, I wish those folks all the best in their endeavors.
Now go away and allow those who actually have some vision and intestinal fortitude continue along their own path.
You do not have to have the last mile that someone put in open to everyone in order to have competition.
Google seems to do ok with their experiment
As I said, I have some ideas and I assume you do as well. Since it's unlikely that either of us is going to implement them, it seems a little silly to debate the matter.
Have a lovely evening.
And so, shall we agree to disagree friend? I hope so. I also hope you are feeling well and have a wonderful day!
very polite of you...i'd be pissed (i'm getting better though)
busting out the dictionary in a philosphical discussion like this is not a solution
it's reductive and it shows a fear of complexity
"socialism" is such a charged word, anyone who is being honest in the discussion must admit this
the dictionary isn't going to solve the health care crisis
I get your point. However, what would be gained through argument? I'm not going to change that person's mind and he(she?) was honest enough to include each of the senses of the dictionary definition that encompass their point of view and that of the example I gave.
We're not going to solve all the problems of the world in a thread on /., IMHO. As such, there's no real reason to get all worked up about it.
They should have to obtain right of way of course.
What should not happen is that the local government should not sign away the peoples right to have competitors. This is happening in almost every municipality. It results in high prices and bad service.
I agree with each of those points. I do think that the best way to create such competition is to create a last-mile infrastructure (how that's done is an open question. I have some ideas and I'm sure you do as well) that is independent of any particular service provider. Such service providers, given equal access to such an infrastructure can compete on price, features and service levels. Wouldn't you agree?
I'd point out that you have yet to answer my question:
The details can and should be left up to the market. The local government are the reason there is no competition in your community.
Where is this "market" you speak of? Please identify a single location in the US where last mile infrastructure is left open to anyone who wishes to to build such infrastructure without obtaining rights-of-way from local governments.
Shocked I tell you! The police want the ability to identify anyone, anywhere, should they turn their attention to them? I can't believe it! Are you sure this article didn't come from The Onion?
Or more than the first sentence of TFS, this reminds me of some of the tech in the novel I'm re-reading just now.
All we need now is clothes to fit these guys.
Okay, fine: "...every president since Bush 1," then!
The point is, authoritarian unconstitutionality is a trait shared by presidents from both parties.
That's not really a big revelation for anyone who hasn't been living with the Xhosa for the past three or four generations. I'm glad you've come to realize it.
To me, socialism means that the workers are government employees and the hospitals are build on government property. If it means something different to you then I think we have no disagreement other than that word. We would hardly be the first people who disagree about what is socialism.
Here's what my dictionary says:
"a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole."
That supports your use of the word because healthcare is "regulated" by the government. I would not accept that use as proper, however, because it is too broad; everything is regulated by the government. To me, the means of production must be actually owned by the government.
And so, shall we agree to disagree friend? I hope so. I also hope you are feeling well and have a wonderful day!
While there is very little federal regulation there to limit innovation the issue there is the contracts signed by the local municipalities giving defacto monopolies in the area. If those were gone you would see much better competition.
Exactly. I'm sorry, where did I say that wasn't the case? The only caveat I see there is the wastefulness of multiple last-mile networks. This can be addressed via non-profit corporations managing last-mile implementations. The details can, and should, be left up to local governments IMHO.
Actually, it's quite simple. You create a non-profit corporation to implement and manage the "last mile." That organization would be funded by bond issues (just like every other public works project) and supported by user fees. Those user fees would be paid by ISPs who compete on price and features.
And the existing last-mile networks: what do you do with them? Maybe you expect your non-profit to buy them from Comcast, AT&T, and Quest. How exactly do you plan to figure pricing when you nationalize those networks? Or to compensate the companies when you dig up their wires and throw them away. I guarantee you will do it wrong. Taxpayers will overpay by 5-fold and the companies will be lucky to realize half of their fair value.
You proposal would be fine if internet were a blank slate, but any change you impose now will amount to nationalization of private enterprise, and there is no way people will stand for that.
Firstly, "nationalization" is a paranoid fantasy of yours. All of this stuff is done at the municipal and state levels, mostly the municipal level. Secondly, the existing last-mile networks can compete with the non-profits. Unless, of course, local governments decide otherwise. Decentralized decision making, management and implementation will provide a plethora of models to compare. The best ones will, in the end, win out -- unless co-opted by those who are raping us. Have a great day!
And you pointed out the obvious, as if everyone else didn't see it. Would you like a medal, or is your smug sense of self-satisfaction sufficient?
No. Recognition from you is all I needed. Thanks! Can I get you a beer or something?
Would this apply to Paid peering agreements? Or Just settlement free connections?
What is the "core" of the internet (as he described)?
Not that I'm against the idea, but I want to know what exactly it means? It seems incredibly hard to find specific definitions of how and where rules would be applied.
Common Carrier status. Here you go.