lol.. There is no municipalities rights in the US constitution that is supposed to limit what the feds can do. But yes, the closer to the people the better.
Indeed they do. And as someone who lives in that section of town, I would really like to have an option overpriced crappy cable and dialup 2.0 (DSL). And you know what? That isn't going to happen with the way things are setup now, is it?
Then your best bet is to petition your local government to increase the demands on the providers. Without it, your options will be the same until they degrade to the point they are abandoned and you have less. Well, maybe not your specific area but the reasons you have those options is likely because it's expensive to reach you meaning without a lockin, it isn't profitable to service large portions of towns.
I think you've got that backwards in many cities. What I see is the Fios being rolled out in the wealthy neighborhoods, typically rich suburban ones, while the inner cities are screwed.
But even if you were correct, why the heck would anyone want a monopoly system?
A necessary evil that forces companies to spend money where it wouldn't otherwise be profitable. If the option is to service 2 miles from the business (where the CO was located) district and screw everyone else like DSL did for the longest of time, or to force them to instal signal boosters and/or fiber to remote locations to run multiplexers from as to service the entire town which would you take? There is a lot of cable wire extending signal out to the edge of town, even more to reach outside the city limits. It gets expensive when the number of drops coming from them decrease. How would you like your only option to be satellite?
Where do you get this? Companies being mandated to serve low income neighborhoods? Do you see Verizon rolling out Fios in your low income neighborhoods? No? Me either.
In fact, with the exception of Google deploying FTTH in St Louis, do you see any low income neighborhoods with state of the art connectivity?
No, you don't and neither do I.
Telephone and cable is mandated to low income areas. The entire idea of FIOS being deployed there is what will happen if these technologies did not previously have a monopoly and were forced to service them because of that. That was the entire point behind why they existed. The only think that would change that would be to require them to roll out equal access in these areas and without exclusive access to the profitable areas, the unprofitable ones will likely stop it altogether.
Let's see, began a broadband only ISP back in 1999, co-founded an industry, non-profit trade group in 2004, acted as an industry spokesperson in the MuniWireless space for a couple of years - so, you thinking that I only rely on SlashDot comments is pretty funny.
IF any of that is true, you should start acting like you have a clue then. Seriously, what you have said so far is lacking on so many levels.
Has it occurred to you that government regulation built what was at one time considered to be the gold standard in telecommunications worldwide?
So, what you just admitted is that the FCC does have jurisdiction in this matter. Thank you.
I never said they do not have jurisdiction in this matter. I said they have no legal standing to reclassify it and the FCC ignored it until the courts thrust it onto them.
Now if you'd like to make the case that Chairman Wheeler needs to go to the NPRM process, I don't know if you've been under a rock for the last year or so but the FCC has received record breaking amounts of comments on this subject.
There is no process in law that allows the FCC to change a classification without input from congress.
Really? So in cases of emergencies, say a Katrina or a Sandy, we don't need no stinking regulations?
You could possibly make the case that internet connectivity isn't crucial but voice communications are used to call police, fire and for medical help - in other words, critical infrastructure.
Please stop taking crap out of context in order to make some point that couldn't otherwise stand in the light of day. Just because someone sends smoke signals does not mean all fires are now regulated by the FCC.
That explicitly means that the FCC also has the power to reverse that decision.
Actually, no it does not. For a detailed reason, read this FCC report to congress during the clinton years. In it, they discuss the ability to regulate the internet under title II and come to the conclusion that congress specifically intended the internet to be an information service. They even cite legislative history in doing so.
Bullshit. The SCOTUS ruled that the FCC does have that authority and you just admitted that.
The authority to regulate under title I as in information service. Please pay attention.
I would agree that Title II isn't exactly tailored for the job, it's a holdover from the past. And to be quite frank with you, I would have loved to see Congress step up to the plate and do something for the American people for a change - but that's not what's happening here. Since Congress isn't going to do it, the FCC should impose Title II and then fix what doesn't work, even if that means having the courts argue over what works and doesn't. What we can see here is that Congress isn't fixing the problem, they are making it a lot worse.
What? Congress is stepping up to the plate right now. This entire conversation is about a bill being introduced and unlike with Harry Reid in charge of the senate, amendments and crap will be allowed. But here is some opinions on the matter you might want to consider too.
Of course those links go to an extreme right wing organization so take it with a grain of salt..
Instead, we're handing control over one of our most critical pieces of infrastructure to monopolies who survive by using the public right of way as well as spectrum owned by the American people. I maintain that if any American wants access to that right of way, they have every bit as much right to do so as any large company.
I agree, so lets get an act of congress that give access to those right of ways.
Further, if the voters in any municipality vote to roll out their own network, no one should be able to take that right away form them - unless you want to make a case that the local people shouldn't have that right of self-determination. Personally, I'd love to hear you make that argument.
You simply do not know what you are talking about. Even as long ago as the Clinton administration the FCC has only ever classified it as an information service.
This PDF explains it better and more accurate than I am willing to invest time and effort in. Now granted, it is prepared by a bunch of industry insiders but it is references and to date I have found no one claiming anything in it of material fact is incorrect, misleading, or false.
The FCC ignored the internet or more precisely broad band internet until the court made them classify it as an outcome of the Portland case. The FCC argued until that time that the internet was an information service residing on a regulated network just as a channel line up would have been. The court case in which Portland Oregon's franchise board attempted to hold up the sale of a cable provider unless they opened up the internet portion to others lost in court with the final decision being that the FCC had jurisdiction not the franchise board. The FCC then classified cable internet which has since become known as broadband internet as an information service subject to title one. A consortium of cable providers sued and it went back and fourth in the courts with the Supreme Court of the United States siding with the FCC. The only time it was reclassified or classified other than as an information service is when a court incorrectly overruled the FCC. The FCC has never reclassified the broad band. It has never reclassified any other object or technology under it's control without an act of congress making it so.
Sigh.. There is absolutely nothing in law that allows the FCC to change the classification of anything it regulates and it certainly does not allow it to do so in order to escape a court order.
The FCC never even had power over the internet outside of encouraging it's adoption until a court case in the late 1990 which was appealed in 2000 thrust it on them. The FCC then classified it as an information service and several appeals later, the US supreme court confirmed the FCC's determination.
Now, after more than a decade, the FCC loses a battle with comcast in which a court said that the FCC does not have the power to regulate comcast's throttling users, they are inventing a way to circumvent the court rulings and all the precedence behind them including the supreme court ruling, and via executive fiat, change the classification of something in which there is absolutely no provision in law to do.
The timing of this is suspect - I have no doubt we're looking at political theater - but the FCC seems to be well within its charter.
The timing of this is suspect and it likely is political theater, but the only reason you think the FCC is within it's rights is because you are ignorant of the facts and seem to take other people's words for it rather than look it up yourself. The FCC already classified the internet when it was thrust upon them. This had survived appeals and the supreme court validated it. Reclassifying it has little to do with net neutrality as many would want you to think, it has to do with the FCC losing a court case and instead of getting congress to step up and fix the problem, they decided to manipulate and contort the law in order to avoid court rulings.
If you somehow think that is double speak, you simply have not been paying attention.
The problem is the net neutrality agenda wants to invalidate these explicit access contracts so anyone can come on and compete with the profitable sections of towns. Cities will be able to build out their own service which will pretty much kill off any competition in the area so those outside the city limits will be stuck with whatever they have now until it degrades to the point it isn't usable.
No, I'm not against regulation if that is what you are trying to suggest. And yes, I do see where governments mandating access and companies service the unprofitable areas as a condition of servicing the profitable ones has helped the economy quite a bit. But you seem to be missing the boat on everything involved. Have you even bothered looking some of this shit up yourself instead of relying on what someone posts at slashdot? I mean the guy I was replying to thought government regulation was fantastic until it came to government regulating which is the entire reason I posted what you replied to.
Strange, the FCC doesn't have the ability to place ISPs under Title II? How did Kevin Martin (acting in his capacity as FCC Chair) get the authority to declare ISPs informational services?
It was actually put in the FCC hands by the courts which in ATTv Portland the 9th circuit said Portland could not regulate broadband internet access over cable because the "Communications Act prohibits a franchising authority from doing so". The FCC adopted the rule making process and comments period and then classified it as information services.
And given that ISPs now provide the pipes where many of our voice communications now travel, why is it that you don't think this is exactly what Title II (and the FCC) is supposed to regulate?
Where voice communications go to or from or travel is meaningless. They can go anywhere they want. If a car runs through your back yard, it doesn't automatically give some government agency the right to declare your back yard a road. The classification of internet services as an information service has went from being thrown on the FCC by the courts, to appealed and rejected by the courts, to validated by the supreme court.
To all the sudden say that all this court process (precedent) including the Supreme Court's ruling is BS and doesn't apply because a government agency by executive fiat is going to change the rules of the game without any legislative input is severely troubling as well as unconstitutional. And you will find this will end up as unconstitutional in the US supreme court because if they do change the classification, there will be court challenges out the ass and quite a few of them will include expectations of payment via the 5th amendment just compensation clauses.
Reclassifying ISPs under Title II is not a legislative act. On the contrary, it depends on the legislative Act known as Title II.
The law never intended reclassification of anything. There is no provision within the law to reclassify anything. There is only provisions of classes in which certain elements reside.
It is a legislative act because it would take an act of legislation to otherwise bring someone not regulated by the government into new ways of regulation.
You seem to think that classifying communications companies requires a legislative act when it does not. It simply requires a vote by the FCC and a reclassification of ISPs as common carriers under Title II would have consequences but the enactment of new legislation is not one of them.
And you would have the US constitution ignored and have government dictators ruling over you. You cannot take rights and freedoms from people, from businesses, without an act of congress which is specifically what reclassification would be.
Again, if you believe that, you should check your beliefs and positions moreso than mine.
Nothing I've said is not verifiable by independent sources outside of not having cable. But if you need to believe that is a lie, - well I'm repeating myself again.
You can believe whatever you want. I have no reason to lie about something as silly as that. But if you must think I am lying in order to reinforce your predetermined world view, I suggest you should be looking at yourself more than me.
In order for ars to be correct, it has to presume that the FCC has authority already over the internet. It doesn't which is why it is trying to give itself authority by reclassifying it for it's convenience in the feb vote.
However, which do you stand to have more harm from- rules put in place by laws which both parties can amend as the normal process of making laws when Harry Reid is not presiding over the senate, or some arbitrary panel that has coerced itself into governing authority over something that is not answerable to congress?
If the Republicans are so concerned for consumers, then why aren't they making local monopolies illegal? Why are they not going along with the Obama administration with Net Neutrality?
You mean why do they allow local jurisdictions have explicit access to areas provided they build out into the unprofitable portions of those areas? If some of these areas did not have monopolies, you would only find these services within the most densely populated portions and everyone else would be screwed.
I don't even have to look at the bill to know that it will favor the ISPs at the expense of the consumer.That's real intelligent. You do not even need to know what you are talking about before you start talking bullshit about it. The rest of your hogwash shows it too. I'm simply amazed as the stupidity of some people.
They want to crash the economy again will Wall Street crooks run away with billions in tax payer money!?
Are you a moron? The wall street bail out, as well as the GM bailout is said to have profited the tax payers something like 15 billion dollars. And if you actually check, it was many of the republicans in congress holding the damn bailouts up as well as who limited the TARP amounts in the Dodd Frank act.
But you already admitted to not needing to know about what you are talking about so it doesn't surprise me one bit at all. Everything is how someone told you it is in your mind right?
Oh, that's right. it's because the line of argumentation which backs populist conservative/Republican talking points cannot understand that Constitutionality does not prohibit the regulation of public utilities, especially when such regulation is in alignment with even the most hardcore conservative defenders of free market capitalism.
Actually, it is unconstitutional to have laws enacted in ways other than the constitution proscribes. Leaving that aside, you have a serious problem here anyways. The constitutionality does require an act of congress to all the sudden include scopes of the economy into the regulation schemes that it previously was not in. Now think about that for a minute.
Can the US government with absolutely no legislative act making a change but by board or panel constituted under it- constitutionally declare pot illegal, Constitutionally revoke divers licenses for failing or refusing to take drug tests? Can these government boards require everyone to purchase a hand gun or pay a fine if they do not? Can these departments declare computers illegal unless used for work only? Can they do anything they want?
Of course the answer to that is no, no, NO. Any of those would specifically take an act of congress and unless it is specifically tied into the duties of congress, they would be unconstitutional. It's these unconstitutional laws, these unconstitutional regulations (that supposedly are equal to laws as you will still be fined, jailed, and perhaps have assets and your freedom confiscated if you ignore them) enacted by government entities outside of the constitution that makes complying with the government spying on everyone possible, It's the same that makes smoking pot illegal on a federal level which it still is on the states that "legalized" it. It will only take another administration to undo the executive order banning prosecution under the federal laws.
Here you are blabbering about die hard conservatives and free market and ignoring the problems of unconstitutional laws and unconstitutional regulation because you actually want them in place when you think you might benefit from the dictatorships of government. What you are failing to see is that those same dictatorship decrees can be used against you when someone else thinks it might benefit them. And you have absolutely no moral ground to stand on when complaining that some government agent is jerking off to your phone sex calls when you are out of town on business. Because you think those conservatives or free market capitalism is the problem and not the unconstitutional laws in place or the unconstitutional regulations. You might not like it, but you support the process that allows it to happen. Pathetic in my opinion.
I don't watch Fox News or any 24 hours news channel for that matter. I gave up cable TV a little over a decade ago.
I do however know how to find news online that is not tainted by partisan BS and I am smart enough to discern facts from opinion which I think a lot of people, including you struggle with.
Well, sort of. The president signs a bill into law- no passing necessary unless the president vetoes the bill and it goes back to congress and the senate in which if two thirds still want it, they can vote again and make it law independent of the president.
A bill can also become law if the president does nothing and leave it sit for ten days or longer if congress is in session. It will automatically become law then. If congress is not in session, then it sort of disappears and does not become law.
Why would you think that other than needless partisanship and bullshitery?
Republicans have long been for making sure the customers get what they pay for. They have also long been against unelected officials consuming portions of the US economy without legislative oversight by elected representatives which is what the FCC would be doing. The problem with the FCC taking control of something it has previously refused to control is a steep problem for republicans to overcome on a constitutional basis. So this, and as with all bills-can be amended, will at least make the regulation constitutional. So I guess instead of crying that it isn't the way you or your favorite party wants it, contact your representatives and have the bill changed to encompass whatever concerns you think it is lacking (Yes, to date, the republican controlled legislature has not yet barred amendments by the democrats like Reid did at times in the senate) and lets do this constitutionally.
It will make the cease about as much as you calling them names will. However, calling them names will also have the effect of you splitting momentum between more than one group because of fallacies you hold largely only in your mind. This ensures your defeat at any change if effecting change you agree with. But go ahead and demonize the people on your side. It's works so well so far hasn't it. I mean you have gotten everything you wanted and government listens to the people right?
All you get with open primaries is strategic traversals of voters loyal to other parties crossing and voting for the least likely person win on a competitive party's platform. It's nothing but legal sabotauge of the political system. If you want to vote for a party's primary candidates, declare for that party. If not, then don't.
There are major countries in the same boat. In fact, The Netherlands for instance has been dealing with this for hundreds of years and about two thirds of the country is subject to coastal flooding.
It's not like we do not have time to adapt or anything. It's not like it is anything new. And unlike New Orleans which is essentially the same thing, we will not be building fortifications on top of 200 year old sea walls with improper foundations so it's reletively more safe anyways. The biggest problem is that the city won't look the same and the rich people who own the land will have their property values drop a bit. But guess what, it will change hands so often before that becomes a reality, the drop in value will be spread along several people or organizations and will not be catastrophic by any gauge.
The key to survival in the surveillance world is simple: Never do anything that actually *matters* or is *worthy* of their attention.:D
The problem is that you never know what actually *matters* or is *worthy* of their attention. We've all seen the warnings that the government thinks you are a terrorist if you participate in politics like going to a local political rally, abstain from politics like refusing to register to vote, hell if you do not sell your soil to social media you are considered a potential terrorist now.
It's not that it isn't happening, it is that we deal with things as they happen. The western US used to be all dessert, now it's one of the most fertile crop lands around because of damns and irrigation. Rivers used to flood and drown entire cities, now with damns, it is not only controlled largely, but there is enough warning to evacuate all the people in danger if they want to leave. We as humans adjust our surroundings all through history in order to tame the harshness and make our lives better. We have diverted entire rivers, damned the sea back, we have adapted and overcame obstacles that presented certain death in the past.
Like I said, the world will be different, but it will not be different overnight. We will just adapt and overcome like history has showed we can. The only losers in these scenarios seems to be the rich 1%ers who can afford ocean front property and frankly, I don't care if their summer house is now a mooring dock in the middle of a new bay.
I think his comment was more about never letting a crisis go to waste. About the government being behind it in order to impose freedom stealing laws that the people would normally/otherwise revolt over.
Slashdot Mirror
lol.. There is no municipalities rights in the US constitution that is supposed to limit what the feds can do. But yes, the closer to the people the better.
Then your best bet is to petition your local government to increase the demands on the providers. Without it, your options will be the same until they degrade to the point they are abandoned and you have less. Well, maybe not your specific area but the reasons you have those options is likely because it's expensive to reach you meaning without a lockin, it isn't profitable to service large portions of towns.
A necessary evil that forces companies to spend money where it wouldn't otherwise be profitable. If the option is to service 2 miles from the business (where the CO was located) district and screw everyone else like DSL did for the longest of time, or to force them to instal signal boosters and/or fiber to remote locations to run multiplexers from as to service the entire town which would you take? There is a lot of cable wire extending signal out to the edge of town, even more to reach outside the city limits. It gets expensive when the number of drops coming from them decrease. How would you like your only option to be satellite?
Telephone and cable is mandated to low income areas. The entire idea of FIOS being deployed there is what will happen if these technologies did not previously have a monopoly and were forced to service them because of that. That was the entire point behind why they existed. The only think that would change that would be to require them to roll out equal access in these areas and without exclusive access to the profitable areas, the unprofitable ones will likely stop it altogether.
IF any of that is true, you should start acting like you have a clue then. Seriously, what you have said so far is lacking on so many levels.
Sure. And as I said, I'm not against regulation. I am however against power grabs by government agency without any laws supporting it's move and without an act of congress to support it. Hell, even the FCC under Bill Clinton's administration came to the conclusion that the internet is an information service and nothing in the law allows them to regulate it under title II.
Oh and these loons seem to share my concerns over this power grab for what its worth.
Interestin
I never said they do not have jurisdiction in this matter. I said they have no legal standing to reclassify it and the FCC ignored it until the courts thrust it onto them.
There is no process in law that allows the FCC to change a classification without input from congress.
Please stop taking crap out of context in order to make some point that couldn't otherwise stand in the light of day. Just because someone sends smoke signals does not mean all fires are now regulated by the FCC.
Actually, no it does not. For a detailed reason, read this FCC report to congress during the clinton years. In it, they discuss the ability to regulate the internet under title II and come to the conclusion that congress specifically intended the internet to be an information service. They even cite legislative history in doing so.
The authority to regulate under title I as in information service. Please pay attention.
What? Congress is stepping up to the plate right now. This entire conversation is about a bill being introduced and unlike with Harry Reid in charge of the senate, amendments and crap will be allowed. But here is some opinions on the matter you might want to consider too.
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/...
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/...
Of course those links go to an extreme right wing organization so take it with a grain of salt..
I agree, so lets get an act of congress that give access to those right of ways.
Obligations is my argume
You simply do not know what you are talking about. Even as long ago as the Clinton administration the FCC has only ever classified it as an information service.
This PDF explains it better and more accurate than I am willing to invest time and effort in. Now granted, it is prepared by a bunch of industry insiders but it is references and to date I have found no one claiming anything in it of material fact is incorrect, misleading, or false.
Sigh.. Who told you those lies?
The FCC ignored the internet or more precisely broad band internet until the court made them classify it as an outcome of the Portland case. The FCC argued until that time that the internet was an information service residing on a regulated network just as a channel line up would have been. The court case in which Portland Oregon's franchise board attempted to hold up the sale of a cable provider unless they opened up the internet portion to others lost in court with the final decision being that the FCC had jurisdiction not the franchise board. The FCC then classified cable internet which has since become known as broadband internet as an information service subject to title one. A consortium of cable providers sued and it went back and fourth in the courts with the Supreme Court of the United States siding with the FCC. The only time it was reclassified or classified other than as an information service is when a court incorrectly overruled the FCC. The FCC has never reclassified the broad band. It has never reclassified any other object or technology under it's control without an act of congress making it so.
Read this from the EFF
Here is another you should consider.
"I don't think you know the history of what's going on here. I don't think you know what you're talking about at all."
Sigh.. There is absolutely nothing in law that allows the FCC to change the classification of anything it regulates and it certainly does not allow it to do so in order to escape a court order.
The FCC never even had power over the internet outside of encouraging it's adoption until a court case in the late 1990 which was appealed in 2000 thrust it on them. The FCC then classified it as an information service and several appeals later, the US supreme court confirmed the FCC's determination.
Now, after more than a decade, the FCC loses a battle with comcast in which a court said that the FCC does not have the power to regulate comcast's throttling users, they are inventing a way to circumvent the court rulings and all the precedence behind them including the supreme court ruling, and via executive fiat, change the classification of something in which there is absolutely no provision in law to do.
The timing of this is suspect and it likely is political theater, but the only reason you think the FCC is within it's rights is because you are ignorant of the facts and seem to take other people's words for it rather than look it up yourself. The FCC already classified the internet when it was thrust upon them. This had survived appeals and the supreme court validated it. Reclassifying it has little to do with net neutrality as many would want you to think, it has to do with the FCC losing a court case and instead of getting congress to step up and fix the problem, they decided to manipulate and contort the law in order to avoid court rulings.
If you somehow think that is double speak, you simply have not been paying attention.
The problem is the net neutrality agenda wants to invalidate these explicit access contracts so anyone can come on and compete with the profitable sections of towns. Cities will be able to build out their own service which will pretty much kill off any competition in the area so those outside the city limits will be stuck with whatever they have now until it degrades to the point it isn't usable.
No, I'm not against regulation if that is what you are trying to suggest. And yes, I do see where governments mandating access and companies service the unprofitable areas as a condition of servicing the profitable ones has helped the economy quite a bit. But you seem to be missing the boat on everything involved. Have you even bothered looking some of this shit up yourself instead of relying on what someone posts at slashdot? I mean the guy I was replying to thought government regulation was fantastic until it came to government regulating which is the entire reason I posted what you replied to.
It was actually put in the FCC hands by the courts which in ATTv Portland the 9th circuit said Portland could not regulate broadband internet access over cable because the "Communications Act prohibits a franchising authority from doing so". The FCC adopted the rule making process and comments period and then classified it as information services.
Where voice communications go to or from or travel is meaningless. They can go anywhere they want. If a car runs through your back yard, it doesn't automatically give some government agency the right to declare your back yard a road. The classification of internet services as an information service has went from being thrown on the FCC by the courts, to appealed and rejected by the courts, to validated by the supreme court.
To all the sudden say that all this court process (precedent) including the Supreme Court's ruling is BS and doesn't apply because a government agency by executive fiat is going to change the rules of the game without any legislative input is severely troubling as well as unconstitutional. And you will find this will end up as unconstitutional in the US supreme court because if they do change the classification, there will be court challenges out the ass and quite a few of them will include expectations of payment via the 5th amendment just compensation clauses.
Silly rabbit, tricks are for kids.
The law never intended reclassification of anything. There is no provision within the law to reclassify anything. There is only provisions of classes in which certain elements reside.
It is a legislative act because it would take an act of legislation to otherwise bring someone not regulated by the government into new ways of regulation.
And you would have the US constitution ignored and have government dictators ruling over you. You cannot take rights and freedoms from people, from businesses, without an act of congress which is specifically what reclassification would be.
Again, if you believe that, you should check your beliefs and positions moreso than mine.
Nothing I've said is not verifiable by independent sources outside of not having cable. But if you need to believe that is a lie, - well I'm repeating myself again.
You can believe whatever you want. I have no reason to lie about something as silly as that. But if you must think I am lying in order to reinforce your predetermined world view, I suggest you should be looking at yourself more than me.
In order for ars to be correct, it has to presume that the FCC has authority already over the internet. It doesn't which is why it is trying to give itself authority by reclassifying it for it's convenience in the feb vote.
However, which do you stand to have more harm from- rules put in place by laws which both parties can amend as the normal process of making laws when Harry Reid is not presiding over the senate, or some arbitrary panel that has coerced itself into governing authority over something that is not answerable to congress?
You mean why do they allow local jurisdictions have explicit access to areas provided they build out into the unprofitable portions of those areas? If some of these areas did not have monopolies, you would only find these services within the most densely populated portions and everyone else would be screwed.
Actually, it is unconstitutional to have laws enacted in ways other than the constitution proscribes. Leaving that aside, you have a serious problem here anyways. The constitutionality does require an act of congress to all the sudden include scopes of the economy into the regulation schemes that it previously was not in. Now think about that for a minute.
Can the US government with absolutely no legislative act making a change but by board or panel constituted under it- constitutionally declare pot illegal, Constitutionally revoke divers licenses for failing or refusing to take drug tests? Can these government boards require everyone to purchase a hand gun or pay a fine if they do not? Can these departments declare computers illegal unless used for work only? Can they do anything they want?
Of course the answer to that is no, no, NO. Any of those would specifically take an act of congress and unless it is specifically tied into the duties of congress, they would be unconstitutional. It's these unconstitutional laws, these unconstitutional regulations (that supposedly are equal to laws as you will still be fined, jailed, and perhaps have assets and your freedom confiscated if you ignore them) enacted by government entities outside of the constitution that makes complying with the government spying on everyone possible, It's the same that makes smoking pot illegal on a federal level which it still is on the states that "legalized" it. It will only take another administration to undo the executive order banning prosecution under the federal laws.
Here you are blabbering about die hard conservatives and free market and ignoring the problems of unconstitutional laws and unconstitutional regulation because you actually want them in place when you think you might benefit from the dictatorships of government. What you are failing to see is that those same dictatorship decrees can be used against you when someone else thinks it might benefit them. And you have absolutely no moral ground to stand on when complaining that some government agent is jerking off to your phone sex calls when you are out of town on business. Because you think those conservatives or free market capitalism is the problem and not the unconstitutional laws in place or the unconstitutional regulations. You might not like it, but you support the process that allows it to happen. Pathetic in my opinion.
I don't watch Fox News or any 24 hours news channel for that matter. I gave up cable TV a little over a decade ago.
I do however know how to find news online that is not tainted by partisan BS and I am smart enough to discern facts from opinion which I think a lot of people, including you struggle with.
What does that have to do with anything I said?
Well, sort of. The president signs a bill into law- no passing necessary unless the president vetoes the bill and it goes back to congress and the senate in which if two thirds still want it, they can vote again and make it law independent of the president.
A bill can also become law if the president does nothing and leave it sit for ten days or longer if congress is in session. It will automatically become law then. If congress is not in session, then it sort of disappears and does not become law.
Why would you think that other than needless partisanship and bullshitery?
Republicans have long been for making sure the customers get what they pay for. They have also long been against unelected officials consuming portions of the US economy without legislative oversight by elected representatives which is what the FCC would be doing. The problem with the FCC taking control of something it has previously refused to control is a steep problem for republicans to overcome on a constitutional basis. So this, and as with all bills-can be amended, will at least make the regulation constitutional. So I guess instead of crying that it isn't the way you or your favorite party wants it, contact your representatives and have the bill changed to encompass whatever concerns you think it is lacking (Yes, to date, the republican controlled legislature has not yet barred amendments by the democrats like Reid did at times in the senate) and lets do this constitutionally.
It will make the cease about as much as you calling them names will. However, calling them names will also have the effect of you splitting momentum between more than one group because of fallacies you hold largely only in your mind. This ensures your defeat at any change if effecting change you agree with. But go ahead and demonize the people on your side. It's works so well so far hasn't it. I mean you have gotten everything you wanted and government listens to the people right?
All you get with open primaries is strategic traversals of voters loyal to other parties crossing and voting for the least likely person win on a competitive party's platform. It's nothing but legal sabotauge of the political system. If you want to vote for a party's primary candidates, declare for that party. If not, then don't.
There are major countries in the same boat. In fact, The Netherlands for instance has been dealing with this for hundreds of years and about two thirds of the country is subject to coastal flooding.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F...
It's not like we do not have time to adapt or anything. It's not like it is anything new. And unlike New Orleans which is essentially the same thing, we will not be building fortifications on top of 200 year old sea walls with improper foundations so it's reletively more safe anyways. The biggest problem is that the city won't look the same and the rich people who own the land will have their property values drop a bit. But guess what, it will change hands so often before that becomes a reality, the drop in value will be spread along several people or organizations and will not be catastrophic by any gauge.
The problem is that you never know what actually *matters* or is *worthy* of their attention. We've all seen the warnings that the government thinks you are a terrorist if you participate in politics like going to a local political rally, abstain from politics like refusing to register to vote, hell if you do not sell your soil to social media you are considered a potential terrorist now.
http://www.washingtonsblog.com...
Good luck doing absolutely nothing in your life.
It's not that it isn't happening, it is that we deal with things as they happen. The western US used to be all dessert, now it's one of the most fertile crop lands around because of damns and irrigation. Rivers used to flood and drown entire cities, now with damns, it is not only controlled largely, but there is enough warning to evacuate all the people in danger if they want to leave. We as humans adjust our surroundings all through history in order to tame the harshness and make our lives better. We have diverted entire rivers, damned the sea back, we have adapted and overcame obstacles that presented certain death in the past.
Like I said, the world will be different, but it will not be different overnight. We will just adapt and overcome like history has showed we can. The only losers in these scenarios seems to be the rich 1%ers who can afford ocean front property and frankly, I don't care if their summer house is now a mooring dock in the middle of a new bay.
Gee, that was fraught with insight. I bet your mom is so proud of you.
It appears that what is not in agreement between them is more about who holds the keys to the car not who can use it.
Or in other words, it isn't substantially different. Its just that cameron seems to want a set of keys and not have to ask the US before using it.
I think his comment was more about never letting a crisis go to waste. About the government being behind it in order to impose freedom stealing laws that the people would normally/otherwise revolt over.