they're so committed to them doing nothing they even pass state laws that block cities and townships from passing their own laws.
Like when Seattle upped hteir minimum wage, there was talk in Oklahoma City of raising our minimum wage.
Well obviously we can't have that, so the state legislature very quickly banned any local governments from setting their own minimum wages any higher than hte state level, which happens to be the same as the Federal minimum.
They also passed a law recently banning local governments from banning or restricting oil/gas operations in their jurisdictions.
So you apparently believe that liberals exist only to engage in self-destructive behavior? Why do they do so? Do you believe just because they are evil? Keep throwing around blanket terms of ignorance too, like statist and SJW. It really helps you look intelligent, acting as if having a functional government and caring about equality under the law are bad things to be opposed.
Here's the dose of reality you need:
The internet already operates by and large under the ideals of Net Neutrality. And it's not just some leftist plot, but a fundamental preservation of free market ideals.
Other than congressional republicants (and a few dems) who are bought and owned by the industry, it's a concept that enjoys broad bipartisan support. Even the creators of the internet support it.
Net Neutrality isn't a new thing being pushed on the internet. It's how it already operates, minus a few attempts by the likes of Comcast to get away with various shenanigans.
Net neutrality is the preservation of the status quo.
Redefining is important as it does few things, one of which is blocking them from advertising a s--- sandwich as broadband while the rest of the world (which has competition created through proper regulations) marches ahead. this creates a economic incentive for them to actually increase speeds even without pressure from competition. --
As for the fast lanes, it seems that you are under the impression that you get to choose to use them or not.
You don't. The fast lanes aren't for you.
You can still choose different speed teirs of service, whether you want 100 mbps, 50, or 20, or whatever from your ISP. the FCC isn't interfering in that consumer choice (other than with the definition of what gets to be advertised as "broadband").
the fast lanes are for the websites and content providers looking to do business with you via the internet. Example: Comcast owns Hulu. But you don't like Hulu, you like Netflix. But Comcast charges Netflix extra to be delivered to you, or slows it down, or any of a few dozen other market distortions to impair the transaction between you and Netflix. Distortions it doesn't create on its own competing service. That isn't free market economics, that's unfair anticompetitive practices.
And that's one of the things Net Neutrality addresses.
I do think it would be even better to block the sort of vertical integration Comcast (and others) is seeking, by being the Content Creator (owning NBC Universal), the Content Service (Hulu), and the Content Deliverer (ISP). In this setup Comcast can discriminate or impair the market function of any Content not theirs (ESPN, 20th Century Fox, etc), any Service not theirs (Youtube, Netflix, etc).
Ideally such integration would be blocked in the first place as then the economic incentive to engage in anticompetitive practices never occurs. But if such integration is allowed, then a regulating their business behavior via Net Neutrality is the next best thing.
(competition alone is an uncertain fix, as we theoretically have competition in ISPs, but reality has shown they simply tacitly agree to not compete; similarly they could tacitly agree to just not delivery each others Content, so you end up having to buy service from each ISP to get everything and your internet service simply becomes a fancy slightly interactive cable channel. the solution to such anticompetitive practices is again something akin to Net Neutrality or similar regulation to force competition)
natural monopolies exist whether government interferes or not. that what makes them "natural".
the road to your house as well as every utility (power, water, electrical, gas, and every other line to your house) you have. government frequently DOES involve itself in natural monopolies, in order to protect the consumer from predatory practices, or to protect the public commons, precisely because there isn't any choice in provider.
but then, see, your problem is you don't even know what a natural monopoly is, what the definition is. this is shown by your including of copyrights and patents. You're one of those loons who thinks monopolies only exist because of government interference.
For the umpteenth time, you prove you don't know what you're talking about, with the same BS claims that ignore than Net Neutrality is how the internet ALREADY FUNCTIONS. FCC isn't changing anything. It is preserving the status quo. Shill.
that's why you keep replying to my comments every few days this topic comes up right? Oh wait I get it. your shill account is run by multiple people. That would explain so much.
the acidification likely occurred fairly quickly. ocean uptake of CO2 is a fairly well known mechanism based on available CO2. the actual PT extinction event however unfolded over a period of a few thousand years. the sheer amount of biomass on the planet takes a while to grind itself down in a long gradual cascade failure.
its a different mechanism and rate of failure from the cretaceous extinction, which would occurred much more rapidly due to the blockage of sunlight following an enormous extraterrestrial impact.
Incidentally, the only things I don't accept are the doomsday rhetoric about the consequences of climate change and the proposed "solutions" that will ultimately accomplish nothing. Well, that's not entirely true, they'll massively increase energy bills in the first world while simultaneously halting development in the third world. But hey, who gives a shit, we've got ours, fuck all of those poor brown people.
Whether you're willing to admit it or not, energy is civilization and massively increasing the cost thereof condemns billions of people to remain in poverty. You'd do better to spend those countless trillions on preparing humanity for the change that we couldn't stop even if we axed all carbon emissions tomorrow.
what makes you wrong and a denier is that your givens aren't. your conclusions and assumptions are all jacked up. if it accomplished nothing, then man can't have an affect. but then how do you claim to agree than man is having an affect? its not a foregone conclusion that halting development in the third world is required, or that it will massively increase first world bills.
you are currently the final stage of denialism: "its too hard/expensive/unfair, so lets not even try."
You count nothing because: (pick one) A) you dont know how to count B) you never tried C) you are willfully ignorant and just ignore the multiple examples each year
You literally just said the words "an isp is not a telecommunication service". All further words you may utter are now invalid by virtue of your rank stupidity.
but then we've covered this before: you dont know what youre talking about: -you ignore that net neutrality is how the internet -already- largely operates -you ignore that it ISNT a "hypothetical that hasnt happened"; it HAS happened, repeatedly -you dont know the definitions of words or what the FCCs mandate is -and you keep speaking of the FCC as this big scary apparatus with a dark and sordid history...without ever giving any examples...largely because there are none (i already schooled you on the fairness doctrine once, dont make me do it again)
Reality calling: 9 times out 10 privatization saves nothing, ends up costing more, reduces efficiency, or worsens the end product. Or all of the above.
The only thing privatization is guaranteed to do is provide profits to private entities at tax payer expense.
Slashdot Mirror
I smell a shill.
well said
actually no its not clear as day.
as with most "clear as day" bs you idiots spout, if it actually was she'd be up charged or fined already.
unethical, shady, borderline? absolutely.
illegal? no.
Yep.
Delusional.
you are delusional and/or mentally handicapped.
likely both
they're so committed to them doing nothing they even pass state laws that block cities and townships from passing their own laws.
Like when Seattle upped hteir minimum wage, there was talk in Oklahoma City of raising our minimum wage.
Well obviously we can't have that, so the state legislature very quickly banned any local governments from setting their own minimum wages any higher than hte state level, which happens to be the same as the Federal minimum.
They also passed a law recently banning local governments from banning or restricting oil/gas operations in their jurisdictions.
Yay small government, huh?
Hahhahahaha.
And you mentioned term limits aka "we can't out vote them, so we'll legislate them out, and ignore the will of the people in a democracy"
Anyone want to take bets on obfuscant and diamondmagic being part of the same shill campaign?
Then that's not Internet access. If I pay for Internet access, I expect Internet access.
Congratulations.
You just defined the main goal and purpose of Net Neutrality.
Netflix's traffic isn't being routed any differently than any other company's traffic. Therefore, there can be no Net Neutrality violation.
Only a paid shill could willfully ignore every example that is continually presented him that proves him wrong.
So you apparently believe that liberals exist only to engage in self-destructive behavior? Why do they do so? Do you believe just because they are evil?
Keep throwing around blanket terms of ignorance too, like statist and SJW. It really helps you look intelligent, acting as if having a functional government and caring about equality under the law are bad things to be opposed.
Here's the dose of reality you need:
The internet already operates by and large under the ideals of Net Neutrality.
And it's not just some leftist plot, but a fundamental preservation of free market ideals.
Other than congressional republicants (and a few dems) who are bought and owned by the industry,
it's a concept that enjoys broad bipartisan support. Even the creators of the internet support it.
Net Neutrality isn't a new thing being pushed on the internet. It's how it already operates,
minus a few attempts by the likes of Comcast to get away with various shenanigans.
Net neutrality is the preservation of the status quo.
Hah. As if there is only one school of economic thought with rules written in stone.
Newsflash buddy: Laffer is a sick joke.
And you also prove you know nothing about the Economist magazine.
Redefining is important as it does few things, one of which is blocking them from advertising a s--- sandwich as broadband while the rest of the world (which has competition created through proper regulations) marches ahead. this creates a economic incentive for them to actually increase speeds even without pressure from competition.
--
As for the fast lanes, it seems that you are under the impression that you get to choose to use them or not.
You don't.
The fast lanes aren't for you.
You can still choose different speed teirs of service, whether you want 100 mbps, 50, or 20, or whatever from your ISP.
the FCC isn't interfering in that consumer choice (other than with the definition of what gets to be advertised as "broadband").
the fast lanes are for the websites and content providers looking to do business with you via the internet.
Example:
Comcast owns Hulu.
But you don't like Hulu, you like Netflix.
But Comcast charges Netflix extra to be delivered to you, or slows it down, or any of a few dozen other market distortions to impair the transaction between you and Netflix. Distortions it doesn't create on its own competing service. That isn't free market economics, that's unfair anticompetitive practices.
And that's one of the things Net Neutrality addresses.
I do think it would be even better to block the sort of vertical integration Comcast (and others) is seeking, by being the Content Creator (owning NBC Universal), the Content Service (Hulu), and the Content Deliverer (ISP). In this setup Comcast can discriminate or impair the market function of any Content not theirs (ESPN, 20th Century Fox, etc), any Service not theirs (Youtube, Netflix, etc).
Ideally such integration would be blocked in the first place as then the economic incentive to engage in anticompetitive practices never occurs.
But if such integration is allowed, then a regulating their business behavior via Net Neutrality is the next best thing.
(competition alone is an uncertain fix, as we theoretically have competition in ISPs, but reality has shown they simply tacitly agree to not compete; similarly they could tacitly agree to just not delivery each others Content, so you end up having to buy service from each ISP to get everything and your internet service simply becomes a fancy slightly interactive cable channel. the solution to such anticompetitive practices is again something akin to Net Neutrality or similar regulation to force competition)
natural monopolies exist whether government interferes or not.
that what makes them "natural".
the road to your house as well as every utility (power, water, electrical, gas, and every other line to your house) you have.
government frequently DOES involve itself in natural monopolies, in order to protect the consumer from predatory practices, or to protect the public commons, precisely because there isn't any choice in provider.
but then, see, your problem is you don't even know what a natural monopoly is, what the definition is. this is shown by your including of copyrights and patents. You're one of those loons who thinks monopolies only exist because of government interference.
So edumicate thyself: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N...
And again you act as if the hundreds of examples we keep giving you never happened and don't exist.
Shill.
For the umpteenth time, you prove you don't know what you're talking about, with the same BS claims that ignore than Net Neutrality is how the internet ALREADY FUNCTIONS. FCC isn't changing anything. It is preserving the status quo. Shill.
that article is a joke. the authors should be ashamed of their ignorance.
that's why you keep replying to my comments every few days this topic comes up right?
Oh wait I get it. your shill account is run by multiple people.
That would explain so much.
you mispelled "solar"
the acidification likely occurred fairly quickly. ocean uptake of CO2 is a fairly well known mechanism based on available CO2.
the actual PT extinction event however unfolded over a period of a few thousand years.
the sheer amount of biomass on the planet takes a while to grind itself down in a long gradual cascade failure.
its a different mechanism and rate of failure from the cretaceous extinction, which would occurred much more rapidly due to the blockage of sunlight following an enormous extraterrestrial impact.
smack yourself until all the stupid falls out
Incidentally, the only things I don't accept are the doomsday rhetoric about the consequences of climate change and the proposed "solutions" that will ultimately accomplish nothing. Well, that's not entirely true, they'll massively increase energy bills in the first world while simultaneously halting development in the third world. But hey, who gives a shit, we've got ours, fuck all of those poor brown people.
Whether you're willing to admit it or not, energy is civilization and massively increasing the cost thereof condemns billions of people to remain in poverty. You'd do better to spend those countless trillions on preparing humanity for the change that we couldn't stop even if we axed all carbon emissions tomorrow.
what makes you wrong and a denier is that your givens aren't. your conclusions and assumptions are all jacked up.
if it accomplished nothing, then man can't have an affect. but then how do you claim to agree than man is having an affect?
its not a foregone conclusion that halting development in the third world is required, or that it will massively increase first world bills.
you are currently the final stage of denialism: "its too hard/expensive/unfair, so lets not even try."
you dont have a fucking clue what you are talking about.
You count nothing because:
(pick one)
A) you dont know how to count
B) you never tried
C) you are willfully ignorant and just ignore the multiple examples each year
http://www.dailydot.com/politi...
http://leftwardthinking.com/le...
http://www.commondreams.org/ne...
http://www.savetheinternet.com...
You literally just said the words "an isp is not a telecommunication service".
All further words you may utter are now invalid by virtue of your rank stupidity.
but then we've covered this before: you dont know what youre talking about:
-you ignore that net neutrality is how the internet -already- largely operates
-you ignore that it ISNT a "hypothetical that hasnt happened"; it HAS happened, repeatedly
-you dont know the definitions of words or what the FCCs mandate is
-and you keep speaking of the FCC as this big scary apparatus with a dark and sordid history...without ever giving any examples...largely because there are none (i already schooled you on the fairness doctrine once, dont make me do it again)
Reality calling:
9 times out 10 privatization saves nothing, ends up costing more, reduces efficiency, or worsens the end product. Or all of the above.
The only thing privatization is guaranteed to do is provide profits to private entities at tax payer expense.
Socialize costs.
Privatize profits.
AKA screw the taxpayer.