Sure. But then what about the "handling" for streaming? Cost and maintenance for the servers, the storage, the routers and network equipment. The software! All that is a lot more of a capital investment than a bunch of mailing envelopes...
In all cases those are restrictions on companies, not private citizens.
In several cases, it involves restrictions on anyone selling specific goods. So, for instance, if I'm fond of raw milk, I have to buy a cow? That's not a restriction on private citizens to you? It's a distinction without a difference.
Besides, isn't it a conservative article of faith that localities should be able to make their own laws, and that if you don't like them, then other states or cities won't have 'em and you can move?
I have heard that excuse used for draconian measures before - I don't know whether it's a "conservative article of faith" of faith or not, though, and don't care. I do think that government should be strongest at the local level and weakest at the federal level, though. The point is that it seems government meddling is always justified as "consumer protection", and that the policy always ends up reducing consumer choice. Eventually it will be nothing but sackcloth and gruel for everyone but the "protectors".
Generally when these kinds of personal accusations are made anonymously, they are not given any credibility. Even your scenario where a network of anonymous and semi-anonymous pseudo personalities are created to spread a lie, there are those that look for an original source to determine credibility. I've never heard of a case that has worked otherwise. Consider, for example, the widely-spread rumor that "Glenn Beck raped and killed a girl in the 1990's". I've heard it repeated quite frequently, but I've never heard anyone seriously consider it credible.
So, yea, even your scenario means that there needs to be no "limits for good reason." There are far more, historically demonstrated reasons for protecting anonymous free speech (consider the pamphlets spread anonymously during the British government's tyrannical crack-down on the American colonists in the 18th century).
The other problem is that Pickens is apparently an idiot
That's just what he wants you to think. In fact the whole "wind power" thing was nothing but a diversion planned to allow him to gain control over a huge amount of fresh water..
The water wars are going to get nasty very soon. The US Federal government is trying to get greater control over all water. They diverted a great deal out of the San Joaquin Valley, which devastated the farms, put 40,000 farmers out of work, and forced many farmers to sell off their land cheap or hand it over to the Federal conservation programs for relief.
The Bush's bought a lot of land in Parguay, which prompted a lot of speculation, but the big deal is that the land sits on top of one of the largest fresh water aquifers in the world, giving them control of all that water.
T. Boone Pickens himself gets it, too. I'm skeptical whether the whole wind idea was real, anyway, as it created an excellent diversion from speculation what his land purchases were all about. As it turns out, the land he now owns and/or controls gives him access to a huge portion of America's fresh water supply, as it's sitting in a mid-west aquifer that he now has right to drain.
Don't worry - congress has taken care of that with the new Food Safety Bill. Oh, wait - actually, it will actually decrease food choice and favor Big Ag and multinational food processing conglomerates.
Nevermind.
I don't have to "pine" for a chance to call people statist - there are ample opportunities for that these days.
Just so you know, I used to be a very outspoken supporter of net neutrality. That is, until the modis operandi of the rulers in Washington became clear. They have no interest in doing anything that doesn't expand their power - and despite the attempts to educate the legislators what was meant by "network neutrality", it quickly became clear that what they were fishing for was an excuse to implement broad new authority over the entire medium.
Make no mistake - this first step is just that: a first step. The reason for appeasing the ISPs has nothing to do with "caving in" - it was vital to ensure buy-in to the new regulatory regime. First they let the ISPs marginalize the smaller players while raking in extra profits, then they use the partnership to start shutting down their political opponents' voices entirely.
Sound too much like tin-foil-hattery to you? History is replete with examples of these types of slow build-up of tyrannical power. Why would here and now be any different?
That is not what you want. A common carrier has to follow rules that allow for easy wiretapping by law enforcement at any time. That can only be implemented by banning any kind of encryption that allows private citizens or end-user business to maintain control of the keys. Sure, you can use encryption provided by your ISP or a public CA - as long as they have the keys or use an algorithm with an NSA "back door".
Still think you have the right to free and open Internet? I've heard all sorts of naysayers claiming that Net Neutrality is no threat to small ISPs, content providers and consumers. They say the fears about Net Neutrality are unfounded and that the government can't possibly shut down your little website or control your access. They say this with the kind of smug certainty you might typically hear from an economist who thinks he knows everything about the global economy (but who actually knows nothing the activities of the Federal Reserve).
These naysayers tend to operate out of an assumption that Big Government will never take away their rights and freedoms and that expanding the reach of agencies such as the TSA, FDA, DEA, FTC and FCC with even more power and more armed agents is a good thing because the government always takes care of the people. We need more protection from telecoms, they argue, so let's unleash 4,000 armed FCC agents instead to protect us from corporate cable and phone companies. (But who will protect us from the FCC?)
What these ignorant naysayers don't understand is that government is constantly trying to expand its power to the point of tyranny. As a current example of this, look at what just happened with Chavez in Venezuela. He has now been granted what are essentially dictatorial powers over the country. Chavez is now the King of Venezuela, and whatever he says is now law. Venezuelan citizens are now slaves to his tyranny, and they must follow his orders or be executed.
The United States is moving in precisely the same direction. First, power gets stripped away from the People little by little. Then it gets concentrated in the hands of a few regulatory agencies who write their own laws and who stay in power year after year because none of their officials are elected. (Think the FCC commissioner is elected by the people? Think again) And then, over time, a few powerful individuals concentrate power from those agencies into their own hands. Before long, the country is run by a handful of power-crazed tyrants who disregard all freedoms and rights of the People.
I'm not trying to pigeon-hole anyone. I know Franken has supported the right side of the issue here. I used to be a supporter of net neutrality, but as I've seen the power-grabs going on in DC, and the turn-around of companies like Comcast's bitorrent policies simply by public pressure, and companies like Google standing up to AT&T's demands, I've switch my position on the matter.
I mean, watching the way the government reacts to things like Wikileaks, and the recent domain name grab that will take huge funds by the innocent victims to resolve, I just don't trust those in Washington not to use their new powers for political gain. It's just too tempting for them, and it seems they don't respond to their constituents - they just make promises at election time then stab them in the back.
Well in my view, government intervention is what made the Wall Street meltdown so bad. And it probably would be all over by now if the government hadn't stepped in to socialize all the debt, including bailing out foreign banks and their chosen money monopolists handing out $12.3 trillion to their favored corporations. Companies that fail, including financial companies, should be allowed to fail. Instead, we'll be dealing with the consequences for decades.
Well, according to Merriam-Webster (which dictionary are you using)?
often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition.
Which implies government controlling corporations, not the other way around. Wikipedia avoids defining it by simply saying the definition is "controversial". Mussolini, the original Fascist, certainly had control of the corporations, but it could more accurately be called a partnership. In fact, whenever I see politicians proposing "public-private partnerships" as a solution to some problem, I have to wonder why people don't recognize it as a fascist idea.
It's not corporate control or government control. It's corporate control or freedom.
I've never seen the federal government take control of anything that made for more freedom. Just the opposite. I'm always wary when the government talks about "consumer protection", because these days that always leads to "limiting consumer choice."
Specifically charging for particular routes or traffic types fractures a network that the public created and all but guarantees grossly anti-competitive behavior. It allows supposed "free-market" monopolies and oligopolies to run rampant in using one business sector to artificially strengthen another.
You do realize that this is exactly what the FCC is planning to bless in their regulations, don't you?
We're not talking about content control, Fairness Doctrine, or anything like that.
Not yet, no. That will come later, after the government has tightened it's control and can implement such a thing without seizing too many more domain names and networks. It will just take some perceived "crisis", and if it doesn't show up organically, they can just pay to commission a study to show how much danger the children are in if the government doesn't do something!!
You don't want government reaching in and telling you what you can and can't push over that internet connection, but you don't want corporations doing it, either. Trust me.
Right. But right now, that's not an issue. And once the government creates a program to regulate the Internet, it will do nothing but grow. Unlike corporations, which grow, shrink, go bankrupt, get bought out, suffer from competition, and are subject to all kinds of shutdowns.
Well "revisionist history" cuts both ways, doesn't it? In fact that term is only used when you don't agree with the outcome. If you support the new view, you call it a "view of history from a modern perspective."
While it is your opinion that Obamacare is unconstitutional
Well I'm a constitutional scholar, as every US citizen should be. Just for your edification, here's the opinion of an actual Constitutional judge - the highest federal judicial opinion rendered regarding Obamacare so far:
[the Secretary of HHS] argues, requiring advance purchase of insurance based upon a future contingency is an activity that will inevitably affect interstate commerce. Of course, the same reasoning could apply to transportation, housing, or nutritional decisions. This broad definition of the economic activity subject to congressional regulation lacks logical limitation and is unsupported by Commerce Clause jurisprudence.
You mean the interstate commerce clause? The one that allows the feds to make commerce between the several states regular?
How does that allow the feds to station a federal agent in the doctor's office watching the examination? Are we using roving doctors offices and hospitals that travel the freeways treating the peoples?
I was still skeptical but he showed me follow up letters from Franken's staff, hand signed by Franken explaining why Franken had voted on some bills that my grandfather had phoned him about. I was pretty impressed.
I get those letters from my senators, too. They still ignore my opinion, and while the letters have a lot of words, and talk a lot about the controversy of whatever issue the administrator selected to print the form letter about, they don't really say anything.
Slashdot Mirror
Too inspirational for /.
Sure. But then what about the "handling" for streaming? Cost and maintenance for the servers, the storage, the routers and network equipment. The software! All that is a lot more of a capital investment than a bunch of mailing envelopes...
In all cases those are restrictions on companies, not private citizens.
In several cases, it involves restrictions on anyone selling specific goods. So, for instance, if I'm fond of raw milk, I have to buy a cow? That's not a restriction on private citizens to you? It's a distinction without a difference.
Besides, isn't it a conservative article of faith that localities should be able to make their own laws, and that if you don't like them, then other states or cities won't have 'em and you can move?
I have heard that excuse used for draconian measures before - I don't know whether it's a "conservative article of faith" of faith or not, though, and don't care. I do think that government should be strongest at the local level and weakest at the federal level, though. The point is that it seems government meddling is always justified as "consumer protection", and that the policy always ends up reducing consumer choice. Eventually it will be nothing but sackcloth and gruel for everyone but the "protectors".
Oh, of course. I mean, they would never actually create laws or public policies that would put restrictions on unhealthy food, and would certainly never try to restrict the consumer access to certain foods!!
People that think that must be morons.
To me the fight between big Government and Big Corps
What fight?
Generally when these kinds of personal accusations are made anonymously, they are not given any credibility. Even your scenario where a network of anonymous and semi-anonymous pseudo personalities are created to spread a lie, there are those that look for an original source to determine credibility. I've never heard of a case that has worked otherwise. Consider, for example, the widely-spread rumor that "Glenn Beck raped and killed a girl in the 1990's". I've heard it repeated quite frequently, but I've never heard anyone seriously consider it credible.
So, yea, even your scenario means that there needs to be no "limits for good reason." There are far more, historically demonstrated reasons for protecting anonymous free speech (consider the pamphlets spread anonymously during the British government's tyrannical crack-down on the American colonists in the 18th century).
There ARE universal moral laws
If there are, one is an absolute right to express unpopular views anonymously. Without limitation.
The other problem is that Pickens is apparently an idiot
That's just what he wants you to think. In fact the whole "wind power" thing was nothing but a diversion planned to allow him to gain control over a huge amount of fresh water..
The water wars are going to get nasty very soon. The US Federal government is trying to get greater control over all water. They diverted a great deal out of the San Joaquin Valley, which devastated the farms, put 40,000 farmers out of work, and forced many farmers to sell off their land cheap or hand it over to the Federal conservation programs for relief.
The Bush's bought a lot of land in Parguay, which prompted a lot of speculation, but the big deal is that the land sits on top of one of the largest fresh water aquifers in the world, giving them control of all that water.
T. Boone Pickens himself gets it, too. I'm skeptical whether the whole wind idea was real, anyway, as it created an excellent diversion from speculation what his land purchases were all about. As it turns out, the land he now owns and/or controls gives him access to a huge portion of America's fresh water supply, as it's sitting in a mid-west aquifer that he now has right to drain.
Don't worry - congress has taken care of that with the new Food Safety Bill. Oh, wait - actually, it will actually decrease food choice and favor Big Ag and multinational food processing conglomerates. Nevermind.
I don't have to "pine" for a chance to call people statist - there are ample opportunities for that these days.
Just so you know, I used to be a very outspoken supporter of net neutrality. That is, until the modis operandi of the rulers in Washington became clear. They have no interest in doing anything that doesn't expand their power - and despite the attempts to educate the legislators what was meant by "network neutrality", it quickly became clear that what they were fishing for was an excuse to implement broad new authority over the entire medium.
Make no mistake - this first step is just that: a first step. The reason for appeasing the ISPs has nothing to do with "caving in" - it was vital to ensure buy-in to the new regulatory regime. First they let the ISPs marginalize the smaller players while raking in extra profits, then they use the partnership to start shutting down their political opponents' voices entirely.
Sound too much like tin-foil-hattery to you? History is replete with examples of these types of slow build-up of tyrannical power. Why would here and now be any different?
Quit your belly-aching and get on with it already.
I think the words you're looking for are
Common Carrier
That is not what you want. A common carrier has to follow rules that allow for easy wiretapping by law enforcement at any time. That can only be implemented by banning any kind of encryption that allows private citizens or end-user business to maintain control of the keys. Sure, you can use encryption provided by your ISP or a public CA - as long as they have the keys or use an algorithm with an NSA "back door".
Still think you have the right to free and open Internet? I've heard all sorts of naysayers claiming that Net Neutrality is no threat to small ISPs, content providers and consumers. They say the fears about Net Neutrality are unfounded and that the government can't possibly shut down your little website or control your access. They say this with the kind of smug certainty you might typically hear from an economist who thinks he knows everything about the global economy (but who actually knows nothing the activities of the Federal Reserve).
These naysayers tend to operate out of an assumption that Big Government will never take away their rights and freedoms and that expanding the reach of agencies such as the TSA, FDA, DEA, FTC and FCC with even more power and more armed agents is a good thing because the government always takes care of the people. We need more protection from telecoms, they argue, so let's unleash 4,000 armed FCC agents instead to protect us from corporate cable and phone companies. (But who will protect us from the FCC?)
What these ignorant naysayers don't understand is that government is constantly trying to expand its power to the point of tyranny. As a current example of this, look at what just happened with Chavez in Venezuela. He has now been granted what are essentially dictatorial powers over the country. Chavez is now the King of Venezuela, and whatever he says is now law. Venezuelan citizens are now slaves to his tyranny, and they must follow his orders or be executed.
The United States is moving in precisely the same direction. First, power gets stripped away from the People little by little. Then it gets concentrated in the hands of a few regulatory agencies who write their own laws and who stay in power year after year because none of their officials are elected. (Think the FCC commissioner is elected by the people? Think again) And then, over time, a few powerful individuals concentrate power from those agencies into their own hands. Before long, the country is run by a handful of power-crazed tyrants who disregard all freedoms and rights of the People.
Exactly. And this is the fault of all you statists screaming for the government to "do something!!". Well, they did something.
Next time, be careful what you ask for.
I'm not trying to pigeon-hole anyone. I know Franken has supported the right side of the issue here. I used to be a supporter of net neutrality, but as I've seen the power-grabs going on in DC, and the turn-around of companies like Comcast's bitorrent policies simply by public pressure, and companies like Google standing up to AT&T's demands, I've switch my position on the matter.
I mean, watching the way the government reacts to things like Wikileaks, and the recent domain name grab that will take huge funds by the innocent victims to resolve, I just don't trust those in Washington not to use their new powers for political gain. It's just too tempting for them, and it seems they don't respond to their constituents - they just make promises at election time then stab them in the back.
Well in my view, government intervention is what made the Wall Street meltdown so bad. And it probably would be all over by now if the government hadn't stepped in to socialize all the debt, including bailing out foreign banks and their chosen money monopolists handing out $12.3 trillion to their favored corporations. Companies that fail, including financial companies, should be allowed to fail. Instead, we'll be dealing with the consequences for decades.
Not when it's so obviously orchestrated - it's fairly clear that people are pushing their own agenda and using media outlets to do it.
Yes, I know. Like I said, it cuts both ways.
Well, according to Merriam-Webster (which dictionary are you using)?
Which implies government controlling corporations, not the other way around. Wikipedia avoids defining it by simply saying the definition is "controversial". Mussolini, the original Fascist, certainly had control of the corporations, but it could more accurately be called a partnership. In fact, whenever I see politicians proposing "public-private partnerships" as a solution to some problem, I have to wonder why people don't recognize it as a fascist idea.
What's wrong with being a socialist?
Nothing, as long as you are willing to own up to being one.
It's not corporate control or government control. It's corporate control or freedom.
I've never seen the federal government take control of anything that made for more freedom. Just the opposite. I'm always wary when the government talks about "consumer protection", because these days that always leads to "limiting consumer choice."
Specifically charging for particular routes or traffic types fractures a network that the public created and all but guarantees grossly anti-competitive behavior. It allows supposed "free-market" monopolies and oligopolies to run rampant in using one business sector to artificially strengthen another.
You do realize that this is exactly what the FCC is planning to bless in their regulations, don't you?
We're not talking about content control, Fairness Doctrine, or anything like that.
Not yet, no. That will come later, after the government has tightened it's control and can implement such a thing without seizing too many more domain names and networks. It will just take some perceived "crisis", and if it doesn't show up organically, they can just pay to commission a study to show how much danger the children are in if the government doesn't do something!!
You don't want government reaching in and telling you what you can and can't push over that internet connection, but you don't want corporations doing it, either. Trust me.
Right. But right now, that's not an issue. And once the government creates a program to regulate the Internet, it will do nothing but grow. Unlike corporations, which grow, shrink, go bankrupt, get bought out, suffer from competition, and are subject to all kinds of shutdowns.
Well "revisionist history" cuts both ways, doesn't it? In fact that term is only used when you don't agree with the outcome. If you support the new view, you call it a "view of history from a modern perspective."
While it is your opinion that Obamacare is unconstitutional
Well I'm a constitutional scholar, as every US citizen should be. Just for your edification, here's the opinion of an actual Constitutional judge - the highest federal judicial opinion rendered regarding Obamacare so far:
You really do not know about the commerce clause?
You mean the interstate commerce clause? The one that allows the feds to make commerce between the several states regular?
How does that allow the feds to station a federal agent in the doctor's office watching the examination? Are we using roving doctors offices and hospitals that travel the freeways treating the peoples?
I was still skeptical but he showed me follow up letters from Franken's staff, hand signed by Franken explaining why Franken had voted on some bills that my grandfather had phoned him about. I was pretty impressed.
I get those letters from my senators, too. They still ignore my opinion, and while the letters have a lot of words, and talk a lot about the controversy of whatever issue the administrator selected to print the form letter about, they don't really say anything.