That's why regulation and taxes are legitimate means towards solving the failures of market economics, like pollution.
And yet it consistently fails to accomplish anything other than squeezing the middle class, increasing poverty, and increasing income disparities. It never affects "the rich", it falls predominantly on the middle class, which has already suffered from globalization, job competition with 3rd world wages, and excessive regulation that protects the larger corporations and creates barriers for small businesses and sole proprietorships. Doubling-down on these policies simply ensures a neo-feudalism, a partnership between the corporate executives and the government bureaucracies, swapping positions with the revolving door of regulators and boards of directors of the regulated, and the lawmakers that pass laws that they write.
So, the pollution drifting over San Francisco is just the pollution catching up with the stuff shipped over and sitting on WalMart shelves.
Yea, I went to Walmart today to get some PrimoWater (I can't use the chemical laden municipal water for some things, because it's so hard). What a crowd! Don't go on the first of the month - it's when the SS checks hit the bank and the EBT cards are re-loaded so all the Americans depending on public assistance descend on the Walmart to buy food and other "cheap crap", like clothes and housewares they need to live. Their below-livable wages go further there, so that's where they go.
Not sure how we ask these folks to sacrifice more, since they have so little as it is. And most of the middle class folks that can afford to shop elsewhere and actually vote (with their dollars) for non-Chiner produced goods are living paycheck-to-paycheck, because wages for jobs that still exist have been consistently suppressed for over 40 years now. So I don't think many of them are too concerned with a couple of degrees warmer weather, either, it sounds like a lower winter heating bill to them. Much less "sacrificing" to help China and India with their energy resources when they have to budget carefully to afford gas to get to work or payments on a newer more efficient car.
I don't know what the answer is, but adding more taxes to everything, and raising prices on all of it, doesn't seem like a workable plan. The leveling of global wages has been on-going, but it hasn't reduced the cost of living in the US at all, only forced those that managed to maintain a livable wage to make hard choices about what to give up. It didn't help when so many ended up in underwater homes, or, worse, cast out of their homes and back to being renters with nothing to show for it.
I'm afraid any "assistance" the usual suspects from the US (McCain, the John F. Kerry, Gates, the Kochs, Soros, USAID and others) will be "helping" China and India do is learn to further expand the income disparities in their own countries, which is already worse than the US, and has only gotten worse since the US started importing a lot of their stuff.
The traditions in the US come from fierce independence, but living off the land is becoming a lost art, now that her citizens are being trained to ask permission from a bureaucrat before cutting a tree or digging a ditch. And that's only going to get worse before it gets better. Because the Walmart is still taking EBT cards for food.
Nope. Skeptical Science tells you that 90% of the warming went into the oceans. That is, of the heat remaining in the system, 90% went into the oceans.
But they really left out the percentage that has merely been emitted back to space and/or is simply missing.
The IPCC says that the net forcing is +2.30 W/m2 right now. On top of that, there should have been water vapor and cloud feedbacks for another +1.75 W/m2.
But all that is showing up is 0.535 W/m2. 86% of the energy is no longer here or is missing. Here is your reference.
It's interesting that while 8.1 is around 10%-ish, 8 is still about 5%. Considering 8.1 is a free update for registered copies of 8, how many of the un-updated copies of 8 are pirated versions?
I wonder about the Windows 8 being so high, too, especially considering the many issues (and complaints) there were fixed or improved with 8.1 and Update 1. I doubt it has anything to do with piracy, though, certainly not with those numbers. Are there some Surface and other tablet devices that are either difficult to update or will not accept 8.1?
If you think Fox is "the right" and MSNBC is the "far-left" I have some bad news for you. You've slid way too far to the right due to your biased news sources. The far-right didn't stop being far-right just because they drove everyone sane out of the Republcan party and took over.
They are both statists. Fox parrots the Republican statist talking points, and MSNBC parrots the Democrat statist talking points.
If you want a populist viewpoint, try the podcast world. Oddly enough, the US is one of the few countries without a major news media outlet funded by the state itself.
NPR is quite unbiased. If you disagree--you're likely the one with a bias.
Yea, sure. NPR is only as unbiased as their corporate and foundation advertisers... err "sponsors" want them to be. Quite like the US government, in fact.
How does CableCARD work for video on demand or for less popular channels that have been moved to switched video?
The CableCard does not work for VOD at all - it's one-way communication only. Most ISPs will offer an alternate method such as a web site or phone number you can call to order a broadcast.
GP said they weren't in the US, so CableCard might not be an option. I am in Canada and nobody here offers CableCard, which is why we had to give up TiVo when it came time to get an HDTV. TiVo is CableCard only (and there's a good reason for it). The real reason they want to encrypt everything is to rent you the DVR.
In the US, the FCC has mandated all cable companies to provide CableCards as an option to their customers. The ISPs managed to make their offerings available by the deadline, but service is very spotty and it can be difficult to find the option. I use a SiliconDust HDHomeRun Prime with it, but when talking to Verizon support I have to just tell them it's a TiVo.
They do like renting the boxes, though, which can be pretty expensive, if you want a HD and a DVR. I used a box for a couple of weeks at one time, and they refuse to acknowledge that I sent it back to them. It's been about 6 months and they put it on the bill every month. I have to call to get a credit, but they won't take it off the bill.
I actually watched a good portion of that debate. Bill Nye, frankly, was awful as a debater - he went off-topic frequently, failed to address many of the specifics of Ham's arguments, and seemed to repeating points and following a script rather than thinking on his feet. Ham actually showed a lot of knowledge about current theories in science, and specifically evolution and cosmology. He was able to point out a lot of glaring flaws (or at least issues) in many prevailing theories. His fatal flaw (which Nye never exploited as he should have), was that he continually fell back on the "And we know this because it's written in this book..." argument, and worse, that he understood everything in it and had the ultimate insight into what was written there and how it should be translated and interpreted. It was really a pathetic display. I seriously doubt either side had any converts based on that debate.
Creationism is NOT knowledge, it is unfounded belief. That is the point.
No, that is NOT the point. The point is that SOME people (like you) want to silence people, to stop them from speaking, due to the CONTENT of their message. Unless the message is a call to violence, it's wrong to silence speech, PERIOD. In fact, it is the GP's position that is closer to advocating violence than the people he wants to silence, by advocating throwing tomatoes at people.
Creationism is not "knowledge", it is ignorance.... In a similar (but not identical, so please don't debate the analogy) way to illiteracy being a 'threat'.
No wonder you don't want to "debate" that - it falls far short of being an analogy, it's just bullshit. And your attitude about it is the same as any idea that falls outside of your tiny world, do not debate it, I don't want to hear it, I'd rather it be suppressed and not spoken about than point out its flaws and the merits of my own set of beliefs. Because that's all you're talking about, is belief. Science is NEVER settled. That idea is just as ignorant as the beliefs you would like to simply ban from discussion, and probably a much more dangerous one.
Creationism in and of itself isn't a threat. A large scale plan to have it taught in schools and universities most assuredly is a threat, and should be treated as such. Ignoring it will not make it go away.
Really? It's a threat to teach ? Since when is any knowledge a "threat" to anything? A threat to ignorance?
No wonder our universities are not what they used to be, with people like you wanting to ban dissenting opinions. If anyone is convinced by their rhetoric to buy into the extremist views they are peddling, they probably don't belong at University anyway.
Threat my ass. The threat is tyrants like you that want to judge people and silence their opinions.
He also happens to be an outspoken critic of the current movement demanding "'Net Neutrality" by FCC / government regulation. He makes some good points, too. I won't repeat them here, because I always get hammered and flamed when I point out the flaws in the proposals in this space.
You mean behave like those people organizing the conference. Check.
I didn't see anything about a "Throw tomatoes at scientists" workshop.
Seriously, the best way to combat something like this is to just ignore it. Showing up to cause a scene and throw rotten fruit just gives them a reason to think their ideas are a threat. Unless you think they actually are.
The second page specifies "Sensitive Companies", which is a different agreement and does indeed cover a lot more than just executives and managers.
Actually, it covers LESS. It's just a "notification of recruitment" provision.
Executive Recruiting: Inform EMG of any Director level or above candidate who we have engaged and who is starting the interview process at Google Executive Recruiting: If we go to offer with a Director or above candidate, Staffing should inform EMG and EMG will designate a senior exec to place a courtesy call into the Sensitive company to let them know we have made an offer...
General Recruiting: For any non-exec position, we should be aware the company is on the Sensitive Company list but there are no restrictions to our recruiting from these companies at junior levels.
The memo only talks about executives and product managers. Engineers (at ANY level) are explicitly excluded from the agreement (that is, they can be recruited at will), as well as any product "contributors".
Agreed. As usual, the people don't matter in Washington. They ask for universal health care, they get Obamacare. They ask to hold the banks accountable, and the banks get a bailout. They ask for safety from terrorists, and they get the PATRIOT act and ubiquitous surveillance of their lives.
I pointed out what the regulation says, with a verbatim quote, and you accused me of lying (editing it).
Yes, it's verbatim, but it's not the rule. You quoted an introduction to the rule. Here is the entire thing:
Based on the record,227 we propose a general rule prohibiting a broadband Internet access
service provider from discriminating against, or in favor of, any content, application, or service, subject to
reasonable network management. More specifically we propose the following new rule:
5. Subject to reasonable network management, a provider of broadband Internet access
service must treat lawful content, applications, and services in a nondiscriminatory
manner.
That takes no "new" government regulation, just applying existing laws as intended. But since the government refuses to do so, people called for the government to make more regulations (on companies, not people or the Internet) to prevent damaging behavior.
Well that's how Hitler came to power.
BOOM! DONE! You can stop calling me names for pointing out what the regulations say now.
Sorry you're so butt-hurt by the facts that you have to try to resort to offensive name-calling and wild speculation. Some people are such blind fools they just refuse to see the world as it is. The FCC have themselves stated that they would have different regulations that would not look like the POTS common-carrier rules. It's right there in the proposal. But I know you can't be bothered to read more than soundbites from UpVote, and can't understand more than 2 sentences strung together.
So I'll leave this excerpt from the FCC's proposed rules, for anyone else that may come along actually interested in something more than screaming and shouting down anyone pointing out inconvenient facts.
As explained above, rather than extending that common carrier standard to broadband Internet access services, we propose a general nondiscrimination rule subject to reasonable network management and specifically enumerated exceptions (including separate treatment of managed or specialized services). We believe that a bright-line rule against discrimination, subject to reasonable network management and enumerated exceptions, may better fit the unique characteristics of the Internet, which differs from other communications networks in that it was not initially designed to support just one application (like telephone and cable television networks), but rather to allow users at the edge of the network to decide toward which lawful uses to direct the network.
Why did you leave out the "lawful" qualifier? Because it's in there, and it won't go away. What you're asking for, in fact, is government regulation of the Internet. And 107 pages of legalese is just the beginning of that. It's no strawman. You're ignoring the facts. You know the FCC is a former lobbyist for Comcast, don't you? Comcast is not just an ISP - they are also a content provider and copyright owner. You will comply with Comcast's terms and services if you are a customer, and I guarantee the FCC will allow them to do whatever they want, because they will just be "reasonable measures" to filter "unlawful transfers" and such.
Net Neutrality is all about classifying the ISPs as what the other telecom and freight companies are: common-carriers.
They actually state in the rules that they will NOT be doing that. They want something different than the common-carriers rules, because it is "not like the phone system which used only one application." Here is a quote directly from the proposed rules:
As explained above, rather than extending that common carrier standard to broadband Internet access services, we propose a general nondiscrimination rule subject to reasonable network management and specifically enumerated exceptions (including separate treatment of managed or specialized services). We believe that a bright-line rule against discrimination, subject to reasonable network management and enumerated exceptions, may better fit the unique characteristics of the Internet, which differs from other communications networks in that it was not initially designed to support just one application (like telephone and cable television networks), but rather to allow users at the edge of the network to decide toward which lawful uses to direct the network.
Reasonable network management consists of: (a) reasonable practices employed by a provider of broadband Internet access service to (i) reduce or mitigate the effects of congestion on its network or to address quality-of-service concerns; (ii) address traffic that is unwanted by users or harmful; (iii) prevent the transfer of unlawful content; or (iv) prevent the unlawful transfer of content; and (b) other reasonable network management practices.
All emphasis from the FCC rules excerpts below is mine.
To encourage broadband deployment and preserve and promote the open and interconnected nature of the public Internet, consumers are entitled to access the lawful Internet content of their choice.
The nondiscrimination principle would prohibit broadband Internet access service providers from favoring or disfavoring lawful content, applications, or services accessed by their subscribers, but would allow broadband providers to engage in reasonable network management.
Note in the above, we are now addressing not just whether content is lawful, but even services and applications being used or accessed.
The draft rules would not prohibit broadband Internet access service providers from taking reasonable action to prevent the transfer of unlawful content, such as the unlawful distribution of copyrighted works.
Now a broader definition of copyright infringement is being implemented - not just "illegal" infringement, but any distribution not explicitly allowed is subject to "reasonable action" by ISPs.
The Commission determined that consumers are entitled to:
access the lawful Internet content of their choice[;] . . . run applications and use services of their choice, subject to the needs of law enforcement[;] . . . connect their choice of legal devices that do not harm the network[; and] . . . competition among network providers, application and service providers, and content providers.
Here, again, we see that what the FCC wants to ensure is that "consumers" can "access" content that they consider lawful. How far can we go? What if we need to ensure what content is "lawful" by ensuring that anyone, say, running a server, writing a blog, etc., has a valid license from the FCC to do so. Want a domain name from ICANN? What will you be using it for? Do you have a journalism license? Is your content lawful?
we propose that all the principles be subject to the needs of law enforcement, as well as public safety, and national and homeland security, by proposing separate draft rules on these topics. As explained in more detail below, we intend to leave sufficient flexibility in all our rules to allow broadband Internet access service providers to address law enforcement, public safety, and national and homeland security needs. Furthermore, we have no intention of protecting unlawful activities in these rules. Therefore, for additional precision, we add the word “lawful” to the proposed second rule to make clear that nothing here requires broadband Internet access service providers to allow users to engage in unlawful activities. The addition of the word “lawful” also harmonizes the second proposed rule with the first and third.
The emphasis above is from the original document.
As explained above, rather than extending that common carrier standard to broadband Internet access services, we propose a general nondiscrimination rule subject to reasonable network management and specifically enumerated excep
That's what you would like it to be about - but it's a mistake to look to government (and the former Comcast lobbyist who is now head of the FCC) to look out for your interests. To them, it's about control. And if they can get you to support giving them the control they want, all the better.
Everybody keeps claiming that it will be like POTS voice regulation. But that was back in the 1930's. The FCC exercised much more control over television broadcasting, and they will implement even greater control over the Internet, if given half a chance.
Think for a minute about how Comcast, the FCC, most of Congress, etc., views you as an Internet user. You are a member of the "consumer" group, while the 5 media corporations are the "content owners". They have licenses, and you do not. They distribute lawful content, and your content will be subject to their terms and conditions.
Slashdot Mirror
That's why regulation and taxes are legitimate means towards solving the failures of market economics, like pollution.
And yet it consistently fails to accomplish anything other than squeezing the middle class, increasing poverty, and increasing income disparities. It never affects "the rich", it falls predominantly on the middle class, which has already suffered from globalization, job competition with 3rd world wages, and excessive regulation that protects the larger corporations and creates barriers for small businesses and sole proprietorships. Doubling-down on these policies simply ensures a neo-feudalism, a partnership between the corporate executives and the government bureaucracies, swapping positions with the revolving door of regulators and boards of directors of the regulated, and the lawmakers that pass laws that they write.
So, the pollution drifting over San Francisco is just the pollution catching up with the stuff shipped over and sitting on WalMart shelves.
Yea, I went to Walmart today to get some PrimoWater (I can't use the chemical laden municipal water for some things, because it's so hard). What a crowd! Don't go on the first of the month - it's when the SS checks hit the bank and the EBT cards are re-loaded so all the Americans depending on public assistance descend on the Walmart to buy food and other "cheap crap", like clothes and housewares they need to live. Their below-livable wages go further there, so that's where they go.
Not sure how we ask these folks to sacrifice more, since they have so little as it is. And most of the middle class folks that can afford to shop elsewhere and actually vote (with their dollars) for non-Chiner produced goods are living paycheck-to-paycheck, because wages for jobs that still exist have been consistently suppressed for over 40 years now. So I don't think many of them are too concerned with a couple of degrees warmer weather, either, it sounds like a lower winter heating bill to them. Much less "sacrificing" to help China and India with their energy resources when they have to budget carefully to afford gas to get to work or payments on a newer more efficient car.
I don't know what the answer is, but adding more taxes to everything, and raising prices on all of it, doesn't seem like a workable plan. The leveling of global wages has been on-going, but it hasn't reduced the cost of living in the US at all, only forced those that managed to maintain a livable wage to make hard choices about what to give up. It didn't help when so many ended up in underwater homes, or, worse, cast out of their homes and back to being renters with nothing to show for it.
I'm afraid any "assistance" the usual suspects from the US (McCain, the John F. Kerry, Gates, the Kochs, Soros, USAID and others) will be "helping" China and India do is learn to further expand the income disparities in their own countries, which is already worse than the US, and has only gotten worse since the US started importing a lot of their stuff.
The traditions in the US come from fierce independence, but living off the land is becoming a lost art, now that her citizens are being trained to ask permission from a bureaucrat before cutting a tree or digging a ditch. And that's only going to get worse before it gets better. Because the Walmart is still taking EBT cards for food.
In reality, most of the heat goes in the oceans
Nope. Skeptical Science tells you that 90% of the warming went into the oceans. That is, of the heat remaining in the system, 90% went into the oceans. But they really left out the percentage that has merely been emitted back to space and/or is simply missing. The IPCC says that the net forcing is +2.30 W/m2 right now. On top of that, there should have been water vapor and cloud feedbacks for another +1.75 W/m2. But all that is showing up is 0.535 W/m2. 86% of the energy is no longer here or is missing. Here is your reference.
It's interesting that while 8.1 is around 10%-ish, 8 is still about 5%. Considering 8.1 is a free update for registered copies of 8, how many of the un-updated copies of 8 are pirated versions?
I wonder about the Windows 8 being so high, too, especially considering the many issues (and complaints) there were fixed or improved with 8.1 and Update 1. I doubt it has anything to do with piracy, though, certainly not with those numbers. Are there some Surface and other tablet devices that are either difficult to update or will not accept 8.1?
Every one of your suggestions are media outlets funded by the state. Every single one.
If you think Fox is "the right" and MSNBC is the "far-left" I have some bad news for you. You've slid way too far to the right due to your biased news sources. The far-right didn't stop being far-right just because they drove everyone sane out of the Republcan party and took over.
They are both statists. Fox parrots the Republican statist talking points, and MSNBC parrots the Democrat statist talking points.
If you want a populist viewpoint, try the podcast world. Oddly enough, the US is one of the few countries without a major news media outlet funded by the state itself.
NPR is quite unbiased. If you disagree--you're likely the one with a bias.
Yea, sure. NPR is only as unbiased as their corporate and foundation advertisers ... err "sponsors" want them to be. Quite like the US government, in fact.
How does CableCARD work for video on demand or for less popular channels that have been moved to switched video?
The CableCard does not work for VOD at all - it's one-way communication only. Most ISPs will offer an alternate method such as a web site or phone number you can call to order a broadcast.
GP said they weren't in the US, so CableCard might not be an option. I am in Canada and nobody here offers CableCard, which is why we had to give up TiVo when it came time to get an HDTV. TiVo is CableCard only (and there's a good reason for it). The real reason they want to encrypt everything is to rent you the DVR.
In the US, the FCC has mandated all cable companies to provide CableCards as an option to their customers. The ISPs managed to make their offerings available by the deadline, but service is very spotty and it can be difficult to find the option. I use a SiliconDust HDHomeRun Prime with it, but when talking to Verizon support I have to just tell them it's a TiVo.
They do like renting the boxes, though, which can be pretty expensive, if you want a HD and a DVR. I used a box for a couple of weeks at one time, and they refuse to acknowledge that I sent it back to them. It's been about 6 months and they put it on the bill every month. I have to call to get a credit, but they won't take it off the bill.
I actually watched a good portion of that debate. Bill Nye, frankly, was awful as a debater - he went off-topic frequently, failed to address many of the specifics of Ham's arguments, and seemed to repeating points and following a script rather than thinking on his feet. Ham actually showed a lot of knowledge about current theories in science, and specifically evolution and cosmology. He was able to point out a lot of glaring flaws (or at least issues) in many prevailing theories. His fatal flaw (which Nye never exploited as he should have), was that he continually fell back on the "And we know this because it's written in this book..." argument, and worse, that he understood everything in it and had the ultimate insight into what was written there and how it should be translated and interpreted. It was really a pathetic display. I seriously doubt either side had any converts based on that debate.
Creationism is NOT knowledge, it is unfounded belief. That is the point.
No, that is NOT the point. The point is that SOME people (like you) want to silence people, to stop them from speaking, due to the CONTENT of their message. Unless the message is a call to violence, it's wrong to silence speech, PERIOD. In fact, it is the GP's position that is closer to advocating violence than the people he wants to silence, by advocating throwing tomatoes at people.
Creationism is not "knowledge", it is ignorance. ... In a similar (but not identical, so please don't debate the analogy) way to illiteracy being a 'threat'.
No wonder you don't want to "debate" that - it falls far short of being an analogy, it's just bullshit. And your attitude about it is the same as any idea that falls outside of your tiny world, do not debate it, I don't want to hear it, I'd rather it be suppressed and not spoken about than point out its flaws and the merits of my own set of beliefs. Because that's all you're talking about, is belief. Science is NEVER settled. That idea is just as ignorant as the beliefs you would like to simply ban from discussion, and probably a much more dangerous one.
Creationism in and of itself isn't a threat. A large scale plan to have it taught in schools and universities most assuredly is a threat, and should be treated as such. Ignoring it will not make it go away.
Really? It's a threat to teach ? Since when is any knowledge a "threat" to anything? A threat to ignorance?
No wonder our universities are not what they used to be, with people like you wanting to ban dissenting opinions. If anyone is convinced by their rhetoric to buy into the extremist views they are peddling, they probably don't belong at University anyway.
Threat my ass. The threat is tyrants like you that want to judge people and silence their opinions.
I have a TV antenna in the attic, let them raise the cable TV rates.
Dvorak says that OTA broadcasting is going away. http://www.pcmag.com/article2/...
He also happens to be an outspoken critic of the current movement demanding "'Net Neutrality" by FCC / government regulation. He makes some good points, too. I won't repeat them here, because I always get hammered and flamed when I point out the flaws in the proposals in this space.
You mean behave like those people organizing the conference. Check.
I didn't see anything about a "Throw tomatoes at scientists" workshop.
Seriously, the best way to combat something like this is to just ignore it. Showing up to cause a scene and throw rotten fruit just gives them a reason to think their ideas are a threat. Unless you think they actually are.
The second page specifies "Sensitive Companies", which is a different agreement and does indeed cover a lot more than just executives and managers.
Actually, it covers LESS. It's just a "notification of recruitment" provision.
The memo only talks about executives and product managers. Engineers (at ANY level) are explicitly excluded from the agreement (that is, they can be recruited at will), as well as any product "contributors".
Agreed. As usual, the people don't matter in Washington. They ask for universal health care, they get Obamacare. They ask to hold the banks accountable, and the banks get a bailout. They ask for safety from terrorists, and they get the PATRIOT act and ubiquitous surveillance of their lives.
And that's my point.
I pointed out what the regulation says, with a verbatim quote, and you accused me of lying (editing it).
Yes, it's verbatim, but it's not the rule. You quoted an introduction to the rule. Here is the entire thing:
That takes no "new" government regulation, just applying existing laws as intended. But since the government refuses to do so, people called for the government to make more regulations (on companies, not people or the Internet) to prevent damaging behavior.
Well that's how Hitler came to power.
BOOM! DONE! You can stop calling me names for pointing out what the regulations say now.
Sorry you're so butt-hurt by the facts that you have to try to resort to offensive name-calling and wild speculation. Some people are such blind fools they just refuse to see the world as it is. The FCC have themselves stated that they would have different regulations that would not look like the POTS common-carrier rules. It's right there in the proposal. But I know you can't be bothered to read more than soundbites from UpVote, and can't understand more than 2 sentences strung together.
So I'll leave this excerpt from the FCC's proposed rules, for anyone else that may come along actually interested in something more than screaming and shouting down anyone pointing out inconvenient facts.
Why did you leave out the "lawful" qualifier? Because it's in there, and it won't go away. What you're asking for, in fact, is government regulation of the Internet. And 107 pages of legalese is just the beginning of that. It's no strawman. You're ignoring the facts. You know the FCC is a former lobbyist for Comcast, don't you? Comcast is not just an ISP - they are also a content provider and copyright owner. You will comply with Comcast's terms and services if you are a customer, and I guarantee the FCC will allow them to do whatever they want, because they will just be "reasonable measures" to filter "unlawful transfers" and such.
Net Neutrality is all about classifying the ISPs as what the other telecom and freight companies are: common-carriers.
They actually state in the rules that they will NOT be doing that. They want something different than the common-carriers rules, because it is "not like the phone system which used only one application." Here is a quote directly from the proposed rules:
Which rules are those? I've never seen "net neutrality" rules that would have the effect you state.
You haven't bothered to read them, then. Go have a gander at the full document. Since it's 107 pages long, and you're too lazy to read and try to understand it yourself, I'll provide a few excerpts. But first, let's check out the difference between "Lawful" and "Legal": There is a pretty good explanation here, but you should research it yourself. Basically, "unlawful" is MUCH broader than "illegal"
All emphasis from the FCC rules excerpts below is mine.
Note in the above, we are now addressing not just whether content is lawful, but even services and applications being used or accessed.
Now a broader definition of copyright infringement is being implemented - not just "illegal" infringement, but any distribution not explicitly allowed is subject to "reasonable action" by ISPs.
Here, again, we see that what the FCC wants to ensure is that "consumers" can "access" content that they consider lawful. How far can we go? What if we need to ensure what content is "lawful" by ensuring that anyone, say, running a server, writing a blog, etc., has a valid license from the FCC to do so. Want a domain name from ICANN? What will you be using it for? Do you have a journalism license? Is your content lawful?
The emphasis above is from the original document.
And that's what Net Neutrality is all about.
That's what you would like it to be about - but it's a mistake to look to government (and the former Comcast lobbyist who is now head of the FCC) to look out for your interests. To them, it's about control. And if they can get you to support giving them the control they want, all the better.
Everybody keeps claiming that it will be like POTS voice regulation. But that was back in the 1930's. The FCC exercised much more control over television broadcasting, and they will implement even greater control over the Internet, if given half a chance.
Think for a minute about how Comcast, the FCC, most of Congress, etc., views you as an Internet user. You are a member of the "consumer" group, while the 5 media corporations are the "content owners". They have licenses, and you do not. They distribute lawful content, and your content will be subject to their terms and conditions.
Be careful what you ask for.