I hate Verizon with passion, but if you, Commie assholes, get within reach of nationalizing any more infrastructure, I will be defending their cables from your grabby Statist hands with everything I've got.
I didn't flee one Communism-destroyed country to witness another destroyed by the same demagogues and fools. Venezuela, Cuba, North Korea — you have your "worker's paradises" to move to. Stop destroying what's left of America.
You don't need anything more complicated than the Registry of Deeds to keep track of who owns which parts of the spectrum. Indeed, we already had the Federal Radio Commission, which FCC replaced
Replaced to regulate speech. Nearly a century of First Amendment violations, but you are so desensitized to that, you hardly even notice.
"they" actively sue everyone who tries to start a new ISP
Right. And you want to give them more laws and regulations, with which to sue any such challenger into oblivion? Wake up, you can't fix a problem created by government with more government.
What I mean by this is that if you want to change the FCC
I don't want it "changed". I want it abolished. It is useless at best — when run by Conservatives — and dangerous at worst, when Illiberals use it to violate the First Amendment in their favor.
If they get to keep their government-protected monopoly
"They" never asked for government's protection of the monopoly. Your beloved FDR forced it upon "them". We've been paying for that evil Statist's misgovernment for decades.
Fortunately, the communication monopolies are shattering somewhat. Unfortunately, that process is slow and remains reversible — thanks to government.
the government gets to attach strings
Does it? Well, then it also gets to detach them. Suck it up, cupcake. Live by the government, die by the government, so to speak.
But, hey, thank you for admitting, that in your opinion the FCC is there to help protect the big business monopolies — you don't seem to mind it at all.
like enforcing basic fairness
Bullshit. There is no fairness in "Net Neutrality" — it is not about that in the least.
It just had a $10K per year deductible, after which I was covered 100% at any hospital and any doctor.
So the cost for me was $1680 per year if I stayed healthy and no more than $11680 even if I fell seriously ill. Thus, even at the worst case scenario it was still cheaper than the best case scenario for the plans available today — which cost upwards $1000/month and yet still have large deductibles and limit your choices of providers to the insurers' "networks".
Was not a unicorn — was available through the National Association of Self-Employed to anyone doing business as a contractor. $140 is what I started at at the end of nineties. It was slowly growing each year and then jumped to well over $200 because RomneyCare in Massachusetts inexplicably declared deductibles in excess of $5K illegal (I think, that threshold was forced down to like $2K aftwards) — instantly raising the premiums... Thank you, Statists.
Sterilization for everyone on it and I'm on board.
Much too drastic and unnecessary. How about simple — and temporary — disenfranchising: whoever has received public charity in excess of $500 within the six months prior to a poll, shall not participate in it. (The figure and the amount subject to change.)
How about that? Those temporarily down on their luck will not care (probably, not even notice) — come next elections, they can vote again. On the other hand, those, who can't support themselves long-term, will not be allowed to govern the rest of us.
The only thing convincing me, this was posted by a human rather than by a bot using canned pro-censorship arguments, are the grammar and syntax errors...
Congratulations on passing the Turing Test. Now, would somebody, please, think of the children?!!
Name an argument for why Net Neutrality for ISPs is good and desirable, that would not also apply to the CDNs. You can't. Therefor, the distinction you just made is without difference.
you'e an idiot
Yeah, this seems like the only kind of argument you and yours are capable of.
"I woke up this morning in a bad mood and decided to kick them off the Internet," Prince wrote in August. "It was a decision I could make because I'm the CEO of a major Internet infrastructure company."
Is not this something, the fabled Net Neutrality was supposed to prevent from ever happening?
No, of course not. Nazi's speech is specifically exempt from any and all protections, is not it?
WTF? It was well over 10 years ago, when I ordered a gift for friends back in Ukraine — a pair of video cassettes with "Addams Family" and "Addams Family Values". Could not order it from the US store, because European VCRs were using a format different from American — but the same as in Australia.
Still remember the shipping cost of $3 Australian — for "Royal Mail". Not sure exactly when it was, but the video tapes were still very much a thing.
Maybe, they've suspended the site for some reason and are recreating it again, but it certainly existed before.
I'm not "plugging in" a syringe when I receive a tetanus booster shot in my arm.
And yet, the injection is highly beneficial to you and "blocking" it is generally considered dangerous and even evil in some quarters.
Chrome provides frameworks by which developers can "plug in" third-party code
Even when does not provide official means for an addition, the addition can still be useful — indeed, life-saving. And the other way around — adding poison will kill you even if you use the "official" orifice designed for it (your mouth).
Thus, the distinction you outlined is without difference and we are back to spin. And the intent of the creators of the additions, however their creations are added.
The FCC is about coordination to increase the ability of Americans to use the 1st Amendment... by playing nice with other nations who can just as easily jam our communications.
So, in your opinion, FCC is in regular contact with representatives of other nations? Could you name, when such a contact last took place — or identify a person or two involved?
1. To enforce radio treaties between the US and other nations. That way everybody can hear radio clearly. 2. To separate the radio spectrum into chunks so information could be transferred most efficiently.
Nothing the "Office of Spectrum Management" can't do. The crap like "Fairness Doctrine" and "Net Neutrality" are things so dangerous, an agency that originated and/or enforced them ought to go away... As a precaution.
Obama not only didn't roll it back, he presided over the Agency asserting a role much wider than imagined 10 years earlier. The agency smugly reminded us all, that it is in charge of all transportation — not merely by air. He didn't have to do it — no lawmakers were pressuring him into it. The agency is part of the Executive branch and reports to the President. Had it been merely an oversight on his part, they would've remained as were in 2007. No, he caused them to expand — either by giving them explicit instructions or simply by appointing an Authoritarian-minded head.
some cop could harass you for "acting suspiciously" or whatever, but this isn't common.
Such harassment could happen, and it does happen. But it is illegal — and outrageous. Amtrak et al demanding papers is perfectly legal and commonly accepted as necessary "to keep us safe". That's the feature of the past, that I lament passing... Unlike payphones and tape-recorders.
Slashdot Mirror
I hate Verizon with passion, but if you, Commie assholes, get within reach of nationalizing any more infrastructure, I will be defending their cables from your grabby Statist hands with everything I've got.
I didn't flee one Communism-destroyed country to witness another destroyed by the same demagogues and fools. Venezuela, Cuba, North Korea — you have your "worker's paradises" to move to. Stop destroying what's left of America.
Curiously, this kind of argument also works both ways.
Whatever, man. You can't make a point with one-two sentences, but it is a struggle for you, because your kind prefers to talk in bumper-stickers...
I was referring to this.
It is your government's fault, that no one other than the government was able to offer high speed Internet in your town.
Fuck you with a splintered broomstick, how is that?
You don't need anything more complicated than the Registry of Deeds to keep track of who owns which parts of the spectrum. Indeed, we already had the Federal Radio Commission, which FCC replaced
Replaced to regulate speech. Nearly a century of First Amendment violations, but you are so desensitized to that, you hardly even notice.
Right. And you want to give them more laws and regulations, with which to sue any such challenger into oblivion? Wake up, you can't fix a problem created by government with more government.
I don't want it "changed". I want it abolished. It is useless at best — when run by Conservatives — and dangerous at worst, when Illiberals use it to violate the First Amendment in their favor.
"They" never asked for government's protection of the monopoly. Your beloved FDR forced it upon "them". We've been paying for that evil Statist's misgovernment for decades.
Fortunately, the communication monopolies are shattering somewhat. Unfortunately, that process is slow and remains reversible — thanks to government.
Does it? Well, then it also gets to detach them. Suck it up, cupcake. Live by the government, die by the government, so to speak.
But, hey, thank you for admitting, that in your opinion the FCC is there to help protect the big business monopolies — you don't seem to mind it at all.
Bullshit. There is no fairness in "Net Neutrality" — it is not about that in the least.
So, they didn't know this back in 2015 either, when the "Net Neutrality" was enacted?
Or, maybe, the government should not be telling, how owners of the wires deal with their customers at all? What a novel thought...
But, but, telling other people what they can, can not, and must do is how certain people exercise their own liberty!
The history is rich with examples.
Of course, you could. Which is why the mature religions insist on the Deity's ways not only being unknown, but also unknowable.
The state, which most actively opposed — and continues to oppose — Trump, is getting the punishment even while the nation as a whole is prospering.
It just had a $10K per year deductible, after which I was covered 100% at any hospital and any doctor.
So the cost for me was $1680 per year if I stayed healthy and no more than $11680 even if I fell seriously ill. Thus, even at the worst case scenario it was still cheaper than the best case scenario for the plans available today — which cost upwards $1000/month and yet still have large deductibles and limit your choices of providers to the insurers' "networks".
Was not a unicorn — was available through the National Association of Self-Employed to anyone doing business as a contractor. $140 is what I started at at the end of nineties. It was slowly growing each year and then jumped to well over $200 because RomneyCare in Massachusetts inexplicably declared deductibles in excess of $5K illegal (I think, that threshold was forced down to like $2K aftwards) — instantly raising the premiums... Thank you, Statists.
Much too drastic and unnecessary. How about simple — and temporary — disenfranchising: whoever has received public charity in excess of $500 within the six months prior to a poll, shall not participate in it. (The figure and the amount subject to change.)
How about that? Those temporarily down on their luck will not care (probably, not even notice) — come next elections, they can vote again. On the other hand, those, who can't support themselves long-term, will not be allowed to govern the rest of us.
Wherein fellow citizens are forced to provide a monthly stipend. There. Fixed that for ya...
The only thing convincing me, this was posted by a human rather than by a bot using canned pro-censorship arguments, are the grammar and syntax errors...
Congratulations on passing the Turing Test. Now, would somebody, please, think of the children?!!
Name an argument for why Net Neutrality for ISPs is good and desirable, that would not also apply to the CDNs. You can't. Therefor, the distinction you just made is without difference.
Yeah, this seems like the only kind of argument you and yours are capable of.
Is not this something, the fabled Net Neutrality was supposed to prevent from ever happening?
No, of course not. Nazi's speech is specifically exempt from any and all protections, is not it?
WTF? It was well over 10 years ago, when I ordered a gift for friends back in Ukraine — a pair of video cassettes with "Addams Family" and "Addams Family Values". Could not order it from the US store, because European VCRs were using a format different from American — but the same as in Australia.
Still remember the shipping cost of $3 Australian — for "Royal Mail". Not sure exactly when it was, but the video tapes were still very much a thing.
Maybe, they've suspended the site for some reason and are recreating it again, but it certainly existed before.
And yet, the injection is highly beneficial to you and "blocking" it is generally considered dangerous and even evil in some quarters.
Even when does not provide official means for an addition, the addition can still be useful — indeed, life-saving. And the other way around — adding poison will kill you even if you use the "official" orifice designed for it (your mouth).
Thus, the distinction you outlined is without difference and we are back to spin. And the intent of the creators of the additions, however their creations are added.
What's the difference between "plugging in" and "injecting"? Spin!
Availability of plugins is good, threat of injections is terrifying. The technically-important differences? I don't see any...
So, in your opinion, FCC is in regular contact with representatives of other nations? Could you name, when such a contact last took place — or identify a person or two involved?
Nothing the "Office of Spectrum Management" can't do. The crap like "Fairness Doctrine" and "Net Neutrality" are things so dangerous, an agency that originated and/or enforced them ought to go away... As a precaution.
You are confusing FCC with the Office of Spectrum Management. FCC is just a giant First Amendment violation.
Make the stuff (slowly) water-soluble. So that it can be washed off — in the shower or washing machine.
To make it even less harmful — and sought after — make it edible...
Maybe, this is the time to abolish FCC altogether — and have one fewer federal agency?
No? Too much to ask for us, crazy Libertarians... The Statists do not mind these agencies — so long as they are in their hands...
Bush signed the law creating TSA, I'll grant you that. But it was meant to merely transfer airport security from private firms to government employees (a Fascist streak so common to all people in government).
Obama not only didn't roll it back, he presided over the Agency asserting a role much wider than imagined 10 years earlier. The agency smugly reminded us all, that it is in charge of all transportation — not merely by air. He didn't have to do it — no lawmakers were pressuring him into it. The agency is part of the Executive branch and reports to the President. Had it been merely an oversight on his part, they would've remained as were in 2007. No, he caused them to expand — either by giving them explicit instructions or simply by appointing an Authoritarian-minded head.
Such harassment could happen, and it does happen. But it is illegal — and outrageous. Amtrak et al demanding papers is perfectly legal and commonly accepted as necessary "to keep us safe". That's the feature of the past, that I lament passing... Unlike payphones and tape-recorders.