Unfortunately the other parties are all just as bad.... THAT's what he means.
I don't know anyone at this point who thinks the conservatives area a good choice. But I also don't know very many people who think any of the other major parties are likely to be even the slightest bit better.
I think it's time people started voting for the small parties. Vote pirate, or green, or communist, or libertarian, or ANYONE but the liberals, ndp, conservative, or bloq. Maybe we can send a message, even if none of these parties get a single seat, they'll still get portions of campaign funding for the next election, and we know there is one thing that all the big parties pay attention too... and that's money flowing in to their own accounts.
Quit voting exclusively for the big parties, nothing will change if you keep voting for them. Even if your preferred party doesn't get a single seat, keep voting for them, our campaign finance laws allocate funding based on popular vote, so every vote increases their chance at the next election. Over time great things can happen.
The party system in Canada is a problem. Here are a couple ways we could elect people more fairly: 1) elect people who represent your riding, eliminate parties all together. In this situation the people you elected would represent their own riding, or wouldn't get re-elected, We'd actually get the representation we supposedly vote for.
2) elect the party to represent us, eliminate ridings all together. In this situation the percentage of people nationwide who support a party would cause that party to have the appropriate number of seats. This would eliminate situations like we have right now where the Greens and the Bloq have roughly equal support, but the Bloq has about 1/3 of the seats in the house of commons while the greens have zero.
The problem is that our whole system is set up so that we get the worst of both worlds. The parties once elected vote on any important issue strictly along party lines, denying us representation for our riding, If a bill is put forward with major disadvantages for your riding, your own MP won't stand up for you because the party chooses how they vote. But at the same time we don't elect parties nationally, so theoretically you can have a situation where one party has a majority government, but they could easily have less than 30% of the popular vote.
I'd say the Liberals are closer to the conservatives than they are to the NDP. Though honestly, none of the major parties are particularly conservative, they are all way to the left of anything in the USA for example.
I still want to know how people who either a) refuse to swear the oath of office, or b) blatently lie while doing so, are allowed to sit in our parliament. They are traitors by definition, and should not be allowed to participate in the house of commons.
The green party has a lot of energy, and a lot of fresh ideas... unfortunately those ideas are way too socialist for my likings, they make the NDP look like an ultra-right wing party! (Perspective for Non-Canadians, from left to right in Canada between the major parties NDP - (Bloq?) - Liberal - Conservative (and if you were to put this whole thing in to perspective internationally, much of europe is on the left end of our spectrum (probably somewhere between Liberal and NDP), and all of the USA is WAY to the right of of the Conservatives)
I think I could really like the Greens as an official opposition, but I'd be pretty frightened of them as a government. You do however bring up a good point, with funding based on percentage of votes, vote for whoever you really like. Even if they don't get any seats this election, you will have helped them in the next election, and who knows where it could lead. So be it Green, Communist, Libertarian, or Pirate party, Vote for who you truly believe represents you, not just who you think will win.
Personally I know in my riding who will win, and likely who will win in my riding for the foreseeable future. But I'm not going to vote for them, and I'm not even going to vote for their largest rival, I'm going to vote for the party that represents me the best. The only way to generate effective change is to stop voting exclusively for the big 2-4.
The real issue is that the politicians are always looking for ways to generate new revenue. How about we have them look at reducing costs and just spending less?
They try, but every time they try to do something to reduce costs people like you insist that people should keep doing the things that cost the government more....
Our city council has admitted that our urban sprawl is the reason our taxes keep going up, and the more we build out instead of up, the more it costs and the more it will take to maintain.
Unfortunately (as proven by the ignorant responses to my original post) the average person (and the average slashdoter) can't wrap their head around the idea, and defend urban sprawl to the bitter end, forcing me to pay for services to their houses. The simple fact is that a new house in a new suburb in my city costs $X to provide initial city hookups for sewer, water, roads, electricity, etc. but that same house will not pay $X in taxes in the lifespan of that infrastructure. As a result every other house in the city is taxed extra to cover the costs. If the population density was higher that same $X would be split among more people making the cost per capita lower and actually DECREASE overall costs.
The most expensive property is that close in, we have million plus dollar condo appartments in the core, and 5 million dollar houses within a couple km of the city centre. the houses on the outskirts are "only" $400,000 or so. but it costs more to supply the services to the outskirts than to the inner city ones. The tax costs don't cover the extra costs associated, hence why the costs to the city are going up the more we build out.
property taxes are calculated as a percentage of property value, not as a figure relating to the cost of providing service to the property. The two things are very different, in fact often reversed, houses further from the city core don't cost as much, and therefore have lower taxes, even though they cost more to provide services too.
No, the problem is that people living in those sprawling houses aren't usually willing to pay the true costs to do so.
I have no problem with people having the sprawling mansion in the country. What I have a problem with is that I have to pay for them to do so. I pay the same amount per month for garbage collection, recycling, water, and sewer that they do, but the cost to deliver those services actually costs less to my house closer in than it does to theirs further out.
This is why my taxes go up every single year, and by more than inflation. It's because the taxes paid by those in the new communities on the outskirts of the city do not cover the costs associated with providing them the services, so they raise everyone's taxes to compensate.
Live wherever you like, live in whatever type of house you like. But don't pass your costs on to me.
I think you have it backwards... where I live the developers are the ones holding back population density. The city keeps trying to force higher densities, and the developers keep lobbying hard enough to stop it. As a result, every new house built costs the city more per year in infrastructure than it pays in taxes, making taxes for everyone climb.
I'm tired of paying more in taxes because the newest communities are too sparse and too far out to be sustainable! I'm tired of having a public transit system that's useless because we don't have the population density to support it. But every time council tries to fix the problem it gets drowned out by a combination of the developers lobbying for more low density housing on the fringe of the city, and the NIMBYs screaming to prevent high density housing in the city core.
If I buy bolts from a company, they don't send me the spreadsheet that they used to calculate their raw metal purchasing, yet somehow I'm liable if it wasn't made on a legit copy of Excel. This law makes you liable for a violation that you have no way of knowing anything about, nor have any way of preventing.
I'm willing to be liable for the product I buy from a company, and for any illegal acts I know about and have influence over. But I am not liable for things that I have no visibility or control of.
No, you're responsible for the benefit you voluntarily and actively obtain from what Kevin Bacon does.
You know what happens if you pay a contract killer? Same principle.
I don't know why I bother replying to someone with a 2xxxxxx user ID, as we all know, you're simply a shill... but it's not the same at all
If I hire a contract killer to kill someone, then I bear some responsibility in the death. But if I hire someone to mow my lawn, and it turns out he's also a contract killer (something that I knew nothing about) then I'm not in any trouble.
Same here, if I hire someone to pirate software, then I should be in trouble. However, if I buy bolts from someone, and it turns out he's also a software pirate (something I knew nothing about) then I shouldn't be liable.
You can't shift that responsibility to people who have no way of knowing about, or dealing with the issue.
Well if you want to look at mining deaths, 100,000 people have been killed in the US alone mining coal. More people were killed building the hoover dam than in all nuclear power accidents worldwide to date. The largest hydro electric disaster is thought to have killed up to ten thousand people. More people die in the US oil patch every year than have died from all nuclear power accidents worldwide to date.
More radiation is released by a single coal burning power plant than any nuclear one.
Nuclear power isn't safe. BUT it's the safest power source we've come up with yet. This very plant was scheduled to be decommissioned, but had been kept operating because, due to anti-nuclear sentiment, you can't get approval to build newer, and even safer, plants to replace the aging ones.
The anti-nuclear lobby kills thousands of people and exposes the world to increased levels of radiation and pollution by forcing more dangerous, and more environmentally devastating, generation techniques such as coal or hydro electric to be used instead.
TELUS has been in court, in the media, and lobbying Government to loosen foreign ownership restrictions. Doubt their motives all you want, but that doesn't change which side of this issue they're on.
Sure I'll admit they aren't doing it to be nice to the competition, but they have decided that the benefits (more money in their pockets from foreign investors) outweigh the risks (a startup stealing enough of their customers to be a real problem)
exactly the same problem I have, I work on an ambulance, I'm used to seeing and dealing with all sorts of patients in all sorts of conditions from "just fine" to "oh my god!"
When I've called 911 when not working (and I've had to do so on quite a few occasions, usually while volunteering my first aid services) I've already confused some dispatchers by being too calm. I explain the situation, the measures that have been taken, and the resources I need. All without panicking I've certainly heard a few dispatchers stop stunned at a bit of a loss for words before coming back and confirming that they heard me right.
This seems like a neat technology, but I just don't think this is the appropriate implementation of it. maybe better used on a counselling hotline...
No, they never followed the law, they tried to invent a loophole that didn't exist. The CRTC knew this, the courts knew this, it's only the government that pretended that it was ok, and in fact they didn't even state that Wind was following the rules, they instead ruled that "in the interest of increased competition" they would waive the requirement for Wind... but ONLY for Wind. The courts ruled that the government broke the law by doing this.
This isn't a case of Wind following the law and the big bad CRTC beating them down. it's the case of Wind deliberately trying to hide the fact that they were foreign owned hoping nobody would notice, and fooling nobody.
I applaud the idea of increased competition, but I can't stand a government that undermines the rule of law by giving exceptions to those it likes better than others.
Additionally it wasn't the incumbent telecoms in Canada that challenged this decision, it was another startup who claimed this wasn't fair, and they were right, this isn't fair. Either change the rules, or make everyone follow them, it's that simple.
Now the big players have stepped in to provide their points of view (as is their right) However it isn't the point of view that you seem to think it is. The incumbant telecom companies are campaigning to relax the foreign ownership rules which would allow MORE competition. Now I'll admit they aren't doing it to be generous to the newcommers, they are doing it because they want the foreign capital too, but the end result would be the same either way.
The only way a society can function is if the same rules apply to everyone, making an exception for specific entities undermines that whole concept and shouldn't be tollerated.
You don't "just add another tower" you ALSO reduce the power of neighbouring towers to accommodate it.
This is something providers do all the time. you can say it's impossible all you like, but it's done daily by cellular providers all over the world.
The spectrum isn't saturated, and even if it was, you just add more towers and lower the power on each one to get around the problem. it's not that difficult. It's the same reason that when I use my wifi in Canada it doesn't decrease your bandwidth on your wifi in the US even though they're on the same channel, the signal simply doesn't travel far enough to interfere. Same deal. if the 2 are closer together you put them on seperate channels or lower the power, or both.
I did that at an office of 15 computers where high speed internet wasn't an option (well we got a quote from the cable company for $40/mo..... and a $11,000 install fee to run coax in to a community that wasn't otherwise served by it)
At home though the advantage of cable internet over dialup was worth the risk of doing something they didn't officially allow, and realistically couldn't detect at the time.
How free do you think the "free" phone is? As posters above have noted, the cost of the "free" phone in monthly increments to the basic service over the duration of the contract (typically 2 years) amounts to several times what the phone would actually cost. The phone is paid for, with a heck of a margin added on.
When the service plan costs you the same either way, you might as well take the "free" phone, because you pay for it even if you choose not to. and that is the reality of almost any provider in north america.
You can pretty much guarantee that the phones will still be provider locked though. and the prices are likely the same as the same phones on any other provider.
The contract vs no contract thing is pretty much a joke anyway, you pay the same price either way, the only difference is how much you pay for the phone and how long you have to stay, not the cost of the plan or the ability to move your phone to another provider
fraud is paid by the retailer, but non payment is paid by the card issuer.
To clarify, if someone copies my Visa card and buys something with it, that's fraud, and the retailer is usually on the hook for it. However if I legitimately buy something, but then never pay my Visa bill, Visa is on the hook for it, they'll do their best to get me to pay, but if I simply don't have the money, they won't get it. If I declare bankruptcy, they loose. These charges aren't passed back to the retailer.
Visa does have a lot of non-zero costs and risks in running their business. That said, the amount they charge, on transaction fees, merchant account fees, monthly or yearly card fees, interest on late payments or cash advances, etc. Are way more than enough to cover all of that.
He said we needed net neutrality, not that we needed the ridiculous bill put before congress by the same name. There's an important difference there. I think I prefer our Canadian method of naming bills, we don't, they all have a number, and that way they don't pervert the english language with this sort of misunderstanding. Suddenly you can't be for net-neutrality without being for all the perversions of law in the act, you can't be patriotic without giving the government the ability to spy on you and detain you without charge, and any of a number of other named laws that say one thing and mean the other (with the amazing exception of the CANSPAM act which does exactly what it says, give permission to spam...)
We DO need net neutrality. I want to be provided with a pipe that I can do anything I want on, whenever I want, and without any interference from my service provider. THAT is net neutrality.
Slashdot Mirror
Unfortunately the other parties are all just as bad.... THAT's what he means.
I don't know anyone at this point who thinks the conservatives area a good choice. But I also don't know very many people who think any of the other major parties are likely to be even the slightest bit better.
I think it's time people started voting for the small parties. Vote pirate, or green, or communist, or libertarian, or ANYONE but the liberals, ndp, conservative, or bloq. Maybe we can send a message, even if none of these parties get a single seat, they'll still get portions of campaign funding for the next election, and we know there is one thing that all the big parties pay attention too... and that's money flowing in to their own accounts.
I've always been conservative (because we don't have a libertarian party here)
http://www.libertarian.ca/
Quit voting exclusively for the big parties, nothing will change if you keep voting for them. Even if your preferred party doesn't get a single seat, keep voting for them, our campaign finance laws allocate funding based on popular vote, so every vote increases their chance at the next election. Over time great things can happen.
The party system in Canada is a problem. Here are a couple ways we could elect people more fairly:
1) elect people who represent your riding, eliminate parties all together. In this situation the people you elected would represent their own riding, or wouldn't get re-elected, We'd actually get the representation we supposedly vote for.
2) elect the party to represent us, eliminate ridings all together. In this situation the percentage of people nationwide who support a party would cause that party to have the appropriate number of seats. This would eliminate situations like we have right now where the Greens and the Bloq have roughly equal support, but the Bloq has about 1/3 of the seats in the house of commons while the greens have zero.
The problem is that our whole system is set up so that we get the worst of both worlds. The parties once elected vote on any important issue strictly along party lines, denying us representation for our riding, If a bill is put forward with major disadvantages for your riding, your own MP won't stand up for you because the party chooses how they vote. But at the same time we don't elect parties nationally, so theoretically you can have a situation where one party has a majority government, but they could easily have less than 30% of the popular vote.
Our entire electoral system is badly broken.
I'd say the Liberals are closer to the conservatives than they are to the NDP. Though honestly, none of the major parties are particularly conservative, they are all way to the left of anything in the USA for example.
I still want to know how people who either a) refuse to swear the oath of office, or b) blatently lie while doing so, are allowed to sit in our parliament. They are traitors by definition, and should not be allowed to participate in the house of commons.
The green party has a lot of energy, and a lot of fresh ideas... unfortunately those ideas are way too socialist for my likings, they make the NDP look like an ultra-right wing party! (Perspective for Non-Canadians, from left to right in Canada between the major parties NDP - (Bloq?) - Liberal - Conservative (and if you were to put this whole thing in to perspective internationally, much of europe is on the left end of our spectrum (probably somewhere between Liberal and NDP), and all of the USA is WAY to the right of of the Conservatives)
I think I could really like the Greens as an official opposition, but I'd be pretty frightened of them as a government. You do however bring up a good point, with funding based on percentage of votes, vote for whoever you really like. Even if they don't get any seats this election, you will have helped them in the next election, and who knows where it could lead. So be it Green, Communist, Libertarian, or Pirate party, Vote for who you truly believe represents you, not just who you think will win.
Personally I know in my riding who will win, and likely who will win in my riding for the foreseeable future. But I'm not going to vote for them, and I'm not even going to vote for their largest rival, I'm going to vote for the party that represents me the best. The only way to generate effective change is to stop voting exclusively for the big 2-4.
The real issue is that the politicians are always looking for ways to generate new revenue. How about we have them look at reducing costs and just spending less?
They try, but every time they try to do something to reduce costs people like you insist that people should keep doing the things that cost the government more....
Our city council has admitted that our urban sprawl is the reason our taxes keep going up, and the more we build out instead of up, the more it costs and the more it will take to maintain.
Unfortunately (as proven by the ignorant responses to my original post) the average person (and the average slashdoter) can't wrap their head around the idea, and defend urban sprawl to the bitter end, forcing me to pay for services to their houses. The simple fact is that a new house in a new suburb in my city costs $X to provide initial city hookups for sewer, water, roads, electricity, etc. but that same house will not pay $X in taxes in the lifespan of that infrastructure. As a result every other house in the city is taxed extra to cover the costs. If the population density was higher that same $X would be split among more people making the cost per capita lower and actually DECREASE overall costs.
Too bad you don't want that.
The most expensive property is that close in, we have million plus dollar condo appartments in the core, and 5 million dollar houses within a couple km of the city centre. the houses on the outskirts are "only" $400,000 or so. but it costs more to supply the services to the outskirts than to the inner city ones.
The tax costs don't cover the extra costs associated, hence why the costs to the city are going up the more we build out.
property taxes are calculated as a percentage of property value, not as a figure relating to the cost of providing service to the property. The two things are very different, in fact often reversed, houses further from the city core don't cost as much, and therefore have lower taxes, even though they cost more to provide services too.
you can't afford it...
No, the problem is that people living in those sprawling houses aren't usually willing to pay the true costs to do so.
I have no problem with people having the sprawling mansion in the country. What I have a problem with is that I have to pay for them to do so. I pay the same amount per month for garbage collection, recycling, water, and sewer that they do, but the cost to deliver those services actually costs less to my house closer in than it does to theirs further out.
This is why my taxes go up every single year, and by more than inflation. It's because the taxes paid by those in the new communities on the outskirts of the city do not cover the costs associated with providing them the services, so they raise everyone's taxes to compensate.
Live wherever you like, live in whatever type of house you like. But don't pass your costs on to me.
I think you have it backwards... where I live the developers are the ones holding back population density. The city keeps trying to force higher densities, and the developers keep lobbying hard enough to stop it. As a result, every new house built costs the city more per year in infrastructure than it pays in taxes, making taxes for everyone climb.
I'm tired of paying more in taxes because the newest communities are too sparse and too far out to be sustainable! I'm tired of having a public transit system that's useless because we don't have the population density to support it. But every time council tries to fix the problem it gets drowned out by a combination of the developers lobbying for more low density housing on the fringe of the city, and the NIMBYs screaming to prevent high density housing in the city core.
If I buy bolts from a company, they don't send me the spreadsheet that they used to calculate their raw metal purchasing, yet somehow I'm liable if it wasn't made on a legit copy of Excel. This law makes you liable for a violation that you have no way of knowing anything about, nor have any way of preventing.
I'm willing to be liable for the product I buy from a company, and for any illegal acts I know about and have influence over. But I am not liable for things that I have no visibility or control of.
No, you're responsible for the benefit you voluntarily and actively obtain from what Kevin Bacon does.
You know what happens if you pay a contract killer? Same principle.
I don't know why I bother replying to someone with a 2xxxxxx user ID, as we all know, you're simply a shill... but it's not the same at all
If I hire a contract killer to kill someone, then I bear some responsibility in the death. But if I hire someone to mow my lawn, and it turns out he's also a contract killer (something that I knew nothing about) then I'm not in any trouble.
Same here, if I hire someone to pirate software, then I should be in trouble. However, if I buy bolts from someone, and it turns out he's also a software pirate (something I knew nothing about) then I shouldn't be liable.
You can't shift that responsibility to people who have no way of knowing about, or dealing with the issue.
Well if you want to look at mining deaths, 100,000 people have been killed in the US alone mining coal.
More people were killed building the hoover dam than in all nuclear power accidents worldwide to date.
The largest hydro electric disaster is thought to have killed up to ten thousand people.
More people die in the US oil patch every year than have died from all nuclear power accidents worldwide to date.
More radiation is released by a single coal burning power plant than any nuclear one.
Nuclear power isn't safe. BUT it's the safest power source we've come up with yet. This very plant was scheduled to be decommissioned, but had been kept operating because, due to anti-nuclear sentiment, you can't get approval to build newer, and even safer, plants to replace the aging ones.
The anti-nuclear lobby kills thousands of people and exposes the world to increased levels of radiation and pollution by forcing more dangerous, and more environmentally devastating, generation techniques such as coal or hydro electric to be used instead.
TELUS has been in court, in the media, and lobbying Government to loosen foreign ownership restrictions. Doubt their motives all you want, but that doesn't change which side of this issue they're on.
Sure I'll admit they aren't doing it to be nice to the competition, but they have decided that the benefits (more money in their pockets from foreign investors) outweigh the risks (a startup stealing enough of their customers to be a real problem)
exactly the same problem I have, I work on an ambulance, I'm used to seeing and dealing with all sorts of patients in all sorts of conditions from "just fine" to "oh my god!"
When I've called 911 when not working (and I've had to do so on quite a few occasions, usually while volunteering my first aid services) I've already confused some dispatchers by being too calm. I explain the situation, the measures that have been taken, and the resources I need. All without panicking I've certainly heard a few dispatchers stop stunned at a bit of a loss for words before coming back and confirming that they heard me right.
This seems like a neat technology, but I just don't think this is the appropriate implementation of it. maybe better used on a counselling hotline...
No, they never followed the law, they tried to invent a loophole that didn't exist. The CRTC knew this, the courts knew this, it's only the government that pretended that it was ok, and in fact they didn't even state that Wind was following the rules, they instead ruled that "in the interest of increased competition" they would waive the requirement for Wind... but ONLY for Wind.
The courts ruled that the government broke the law by doing this.
This isn't a case of Wind following the law and the big bad CRTC beating them down. it's the case of Wind deliberately trying to hide the fact that they were foreign owned hoping nobody would notice, and fooling nobody.
I applaud the idea of increased competition, but I can't stand a government that undermines the rule of law by giving exceptions to those it likes better than others.
Additionally it wasn't the incumbent telecoms in Canada that challenged this decision, it was another startup who claimed this wasn't fair, and they were right, this isn't fair. Either change the rules, or make everyone follow them, it's that simple.
Now the big players have stepped in to provide their points of view (as is their right) However it isn't the point of view that you seem to think it is. The incumbant telecom companies are campaigning to relax the foreign ownership rules which would allow MORE competition. Now I'll admit they aren't doing it to be generous to the newcommers, they are doing it because they want the foreign capital too, but the end result would be the same either way.
The only way a society can function is if the same rules apply to everyone, making an exception for specific entities undermines that whole concept and shouldn't be tollerated.
You don't "just add another tower" you ALSO reduce the power of neighbouring towers to accommodate it.
This is something providers do all the time. you can say it's impossible all you like, but it's done daily by cellular providers all over the world.
The spectrum isn't saturated, and even if it was, you just add more towers and lower the power on each one to get around the problem. it's not that difficult. It's the same reason that when I use my wifi in Canada it doesn't decrease your bandwidth on your wifi in the US even though they're on the same channel, the signal simply doesn't travel far enough to interfere. Same deal. if the 2 are closer together you put them on seperate channels or lower the power, or both.
I did that at an office of 15 computers where high speed internet wasn't an option (well we got a quote from the cable company for $40/mo..... and a $11,000 install fee to run coax in to a community that wasn't otherwise served by it)
At home though the advantage of cable internet over dialup was worth the risk of doing something they didn't officially allow, and realistically couldn't detect at the time.
How free do you think the "free" phone is? As posters above have noted, the cost of the "free" phone in monthly increments to the basic service over the duration of the contract (typically 2 years) amounts to several times what the phone would actually cost. The phone is paid for, with a heck of a margin added on.
When the service plan costs you the same either way, you might as well take the "free" phone, because you pay for it even if you choose not to. and that is the reality of almost any provider in north america.
But the point is you CAN, but it costs you more because you have to buy the phone, and you don't get a discount on the plan for bringing it.
You can pretty much guarantee that the phones will still be provider locked though. and the prices are likely the same as the same phones on any other provider.
The contract vs no contract thing is pretty much a joke anyway, you pay the same price either way, the only difference is how much you pay for the phone and how long you have to stay, not the cost of the plan or the ability to move your phone to another provider
fraud is paid by the retailer, but non payment is paid by the card issuer.
To clarify, if someone copies my Visa card and buys something with it, that's fraud, and the retailer is usually on the hook for it. However if I legitimately buy something, but then never pay my Visa bill, Visa is on the hook for it, they'll do their best to get me to pay, but if I simply don't have the money, they won't get it. If I declare bankruptcy, they loose. These charges aren't passed back to the retailer.
Visa does have a lot of non-zero costs and risks in running their business. That said, the amount they charge, on transaction fees, merchant account fees, monthly or yearly card fees, interest on late payments or cash advances, etc. Are way more than enough to cover all of that.
He said we needed net neutrality, not that we needed the ridiculous bill put before congress by the same name. There's an important difference there. I think I prefer our Canadian method of naming bills, we don't, they all have a number, and that way they don't pervert the english language with this sort of misunderstanding. Suddenly you can't be for net-neutrality without being for all the perversions of law in the act, you can't be patriotic without giving the government the ability to spy on you and detain you without charge, and any of a number of other named laws that say one thing and mean the other (with the amazing exception of the CANSPAM act which does exactly what it says, give permission to spam...)
We DO need net neutrality. I want to be provided with a pipe that I can do anything I want on, whenever I want, and without any interference from my service provider. THAT is net neutrality.