Every nuclear capable nation's capital is within Tomahawk range of the sea. The Navy could keep a few W-80 equipped Tomahawks on the SSGNs to mess up things if anyone attacked the US
Tomahawks can be shot down. We've never even used them against an adversary with a modern air defense network. SLBMs are a bit harder to deal with.....
All you morons scream about a true free market. Then when the companies start killing you and your family you scream at the government asking why it isn't doing anything about it.
The only moron here is the one who made a bullshit comparison between building codes and internet service. The last time I checked a bad ISP can't kill you. I suppose it's possible for the WoW addicts out there but I've yet to see a documented case;)
Apparently you have no problem with corporations buying elections or enjoying rights they shouldn't have.
Buying elections eh? I wasn't aware that they are donating money directly to voters to influence their votes. Amazing that the media hasn't picked up on this.
Alternatively, you could be one of those people that thinks the American public is too stupid to make an informed decision if they are allowed unfettered access to political speech and hence need to be protected from that speech.
Your point rather misses the big picture. It was the unregulated nature of the internet that spawned so many of the neat toys that we take for granted around here.
It's also wrong. In the last 15 years I've seen my internet access speed increased roughly 450 times (33,600 bit/s to 15,000,000 bit/s)
If you won't provide a citation that the op-ed page of the New York Times is 'regulated' then I'm going to regard that claim of yours as bullshit. It's not my job to research your claims. To the best of my knowledge newspapers in the United States are not regulated in the manner that you claim. Nor should they be if the 1st amendment is to mean anything.
I'm trying to put qualifications on the source of free speech.
Then it's not free speech.
it's pretty clear you've made your bed on the side of complete deregulation
No, I've made my bed on the side that says Government has no business regulating the manner or content of speech. Incidentally, it's the same side that the ACLU was on in the Citizens United case.
Rights aren't god given or natural, they're an agreement by the population on what works and what doesn't.
Bullshit. Our rights are natural and inalienable. The whole point of the Bill of Rights is to prevent the majority from stripping those rights away from the minority. Otherwise we would have to acknowledge that injustices like Jim Crow were acceptable because they were supported by the majority of the population at the time.
Because corporations are about jobs, money, products and services, not politics.
You are painting with a rather broad brush. Corporations like the ones I've mentioned are entirely about politics. Other corporations that are allowed to participate in the political process are about jobs, money, products and services. The New York Times and News Corp are both for-profit companies the last time I checked.
Because news organizations and opinion pieces are already regulated.
What? Regulated in what manner? Citation needed.
The NRA and the Sierra Club can perform their core duties without directly entering into the political process and commentary
No they can't. Their core duties are to advance their individual causes. That's done by engaging in the political process. Really, is that so hard to understand?
You're also confusing commercial and political speech.
No, you are trying to muddle the waters by putting qualifications on the source of free speech.
Actually, yes, given that around 25 years ago I had a pulse rotary phone with no 3-way calling, no call waiting, no E911, no caller id, long distance calls cost about a "beer per minute"...
You realize that many of the innovations you just named happened after telecommunications deregulation, right?
No, that's not at all what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that for the most part (political action committees are the one exception that springs to mind) corporations are prohibited from giving money to political campaigns. Where did you get 17 year old from?
It also requires government regulation to get you into the market. If you want to sell DSL to an AT&T subscriber, AT&T has to allow you into the market and has to allow you to co-locate your equipment in their CO. Without government regulation, AT&T would just give you the finger and your ISP would be dead in the water.
No, without government regulation you'd be able to string your own wires and reach your customers regardless of what AT&T is doing. Instead we have a situation where local governments conspire with the telco and cableco to prohibit people from doing this. Pray tell, why should AT&T or Time Warner have special rights to access the utility easement that a start up lacks? Why is said easement being given away to monopolies that extort ever increasing fees out of the communities they serve?
Moving beyond wireline services, why does the FCC allow companies like AT&T and Verizon that already have ample spectrum to grab more spectrum? When the DTV transition went through we were told that it had to happen to open up a "third pipe" for broadband services. Then all of the freed up spectrum was sold to the very companies that already provide broadband services and whom have zero incentive to shake up the market with new offerings.
Can't you people see that it's this unholy marriage between governmental regulation and big business that's resulted in the current broadband situation? You'll forgive my skepticism when someone tries to tell me that further regulation will address these imbalances. Were none of you around for the glory days of telecommunications regulation when long distance services cost $0.10/min (or more!) and "innovation" consisted of rolling out "advanced" features like call waiting?
Does it make any difference whether I'm saying "Senator, here is $10,000 in cash" or "Senator, here is $10,000 in free advertising"? Either way, he's my bitch now.
By that logic, Barack Obama is the New York Time's bitch. Pray tell, why is it acceptable for a for-profit company like the New York Times or Wall Street Journal to endorse candidates but not acceptable for the Sierra Club or NRA to do the same?
Do you know what the vast majority of the money in a campaign is spent on? That's right, advertisements.
What's your point? Political advertisements == speech. In this country, speech is protected. I honestly don't understand the argument that a collection of individuals (i.e: a corporation) is entitled to less freedom of speech than individuals. Particularly when you consider the fact that political advocacy groups are also corporations.
Consider this: The New York Times is a for-profit corporation. Nobody got worked up when they endorsed Barack Obama in the run up to the 2008 elections. Why do supporters of the old law believe that the New York Times is more worthy of participation in the political process than the Sierra Club or NRA?
If the FCC has any backbone (I'm not necessarily convinced they do, but hey, sometimes you can hope) they'll turn this into a regulated service.
And then you can kiss any hope of innovation goodbye. In the last few years the speed of my consumer broadband connection has quadrupled. It went from 5 mbit/s to 8, to 10 and finally to 15. You really think that such improvements would happen in a hyper-regulated marketplace? When was the last time your landline phone company or electric utility came out with anything new and exciting?
The solution isn't to treat them like utilities, the solution is to remove the stumbling blocks that prevent upstarts from competing with them. The solution is to take away their special tax/franchise agreements and force them to compete on a level playing field.
There is no need for government regulation here - it would only benefit the existing ISPs at the expense of the consumer.
That's why big corporations welcome regulation. They know it's easier for a big corporation with legions of lawyers to comply with said regulations than it is for a small start up. They also have lobbyists working for them to ensure that the regulations are written in such a manner as to protect their existing business model.
ISPs will be formed with the specific selling point of having no traffic shaping/filtering/prioritizing.
Of course, thanks again to governmental interference in the marketplace (franchise agreements) starting a new ISP is easier said than done. More's the pity.
Allowing corporations to pump money into specially-created PACs causes their voices to be heard disproportionately, drowning out the free speech rights of everyone else.
I wasn't aware that the 1st amendment had a "free speech must be proportionate" clause in it.
Congratulations on your witty reply that required no critical thinking whatsoever. Apparently you don't see any issues with muzzling political advocacy groups in the months leading up to an election. The 1st amendment apparently doesn't exist in your world.
Inaccurate reporting on this issue is a public disservice. Frame it as a free speech issue and people's opinions change. Frame it inaccurately as "big business" writing checks directly to politicians bank accounts and people assume that politicians are being bought off.
Do you realize that under the old law advocacy organizations such as the Sierra Club were prohibited from running advertisements on behalf of or in opposition to political candidates? How is that remotely compatible with free speech? How is it compatible with the right to peaceable assemble? You really would support a system that says the Sierra Club can't produce literature condemning a candidate who wants to open up National Parks for energy drilling?
Slashdot Mirror
Every nuclear capable nation's capital is within Tomahawk range of the sea. The Navy could keep a few W-80 equipped Tomahawks on the SSGNs to mess up things if anyone attacked the US
Tomahawks can be shot down. We've never even used them against an adversary with a modern air defense network. SLBMs are a bit harder to deal with.....
Ah, the classic Eric Cartman "screw you guys, I'm going home" response. Well played, sir.
All you morons scream about a true free market. Then when the companies start killing you and your family you scream at the government asking why it isn't doing anything about it.
The only moron here is the one who made a bullshit comparison between building codes and internet service. The last time I checked a bad ISP can't kill you. I suppose it's possible for the WoW addicts out there but I've yet to see a documented case ;)
Apparently you have no problem with corporations buying elections or enjoying rights they shouldn't have.
Buying elections eh? I wasn't aware that they are donating money directly to voters to influence their votes. Amazing that the media hasn't picked up on this.
Alternatively, you could be one of those people that thinks the American public is too stupid to make an informed decision if they are allowed unfettered access to political speech and hence need to be protected from that speech.
Your point rather misses the big picture. It was the unregulated nature of the internet that spawned so many of the neat toys that we take for granted around here.
It's also wrong. In the last 15 years I've seen my internet access speed increased roughly 450 times (33,600 bit/s to 15,000,000 bit/s)
You can use Google, yes? [lmgtfy.com]
If you won't provide a citation that the op-ed page of the New York Times is 'regulated' then I'm going to regard that claim of yours as bullshit. It's not my job to research your claims. To the best of my knowledge newspapers in the United States are not regulated in the manner that you claim. Nor should they be if the 1st amendment is to mean anything.
I'm trying to put qualifications on the source of free speech.
Then it's not free speech.
it's pretty clear you've made your bed on the side of complete deregulation
No, I've made my bed on the side that says Government has no business regulating the manner or content of speech. Incidentally, it's the same side that the ACLU was on in the Citizens United case.
Rights aren't god given or natural, they're an agreement by the population on what works and what doesn't.
Bullshit. Our rights are natural and inalienable. The whole point of the Bill of Rights is to prevent the majority from stripping those rights away from the minority. Otherwise we would have to acknowledge that injustices like Jim Crow were acceptable because they were supported by the majority of the population at the time.
Yes, because telegraph cables correspond to modern fiber and coax networks. Could you find a more pointless comparison?
And yet Lucas keeps on living and living. If there is a goddess, she's not even *trying* to be fair.
Fixed that for you ;)
Because corporations are about jobs, money, products and services, not politics.
You are painting with a rather broad brush. Corporations like the ones I've mentioned are entirely about politics. Other corporations that are allowed to participate in the political process are about jobs, money, products and services. The New York Times and News Corp are both for-profit companies the last time I checked.
Because news organizations and opinion pieces are already regulated.
What? Regulated in what manner? Citation needed.
The NRA and the Sierra Club can perform their core duties without directly entering into the political process and commentary
No they can't. Their core duties are to advance their individual causes. That's done by engaging in the political process. Really, is that so hard to understand?
You're also confusing commercial and political speech.
No, you are trying to muddle the waters by putting qualifications on the source of free speech.
Actually, yes, given that around 25 years ago I had a pulse rotary phone with no 3-way calling, no call waiting, no E911, no caller id, long distance calls cost about a "beer per minute"...
You realize that many of the innovations you just named happened after telecommunications deregulation, right?
No, that's not at all what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that for the most part (political action committees are the one exception that springs to mind) corporations are prohibited from giving money to political campaigns. Where did you get 17 year old from?
It also requires government regulation to get you into the market. If you want to sell DSL to an AT&T subscriber, AT&T has to allow you into the market and has to allow you to co-locate your equipment in their CO. Without government regulation, AT&T would just give you the finger and your ISP would be dead in the water.
No, without government regulation you'd be able to string your own wires and reach your customers regardless of what AT&T is doing. Instead we have a situation where local governments conspire with the telco and cableco to prohibit people from doing this. Pray tell, why should AT&T or Time Warner have special rights to access the utility easement that a start up lacks? Why is said easement being given away to monopolies that extort ever increasing fees out of the communities they serve?
Moving beyond wireline services, why does the FCC allow companies like AT&T and Verizon that already have ample spectrum to grab more spectrum? When the DTV transition went through we were told that it had to happen to open up a "third pipe" for broadband services. Then all of the freed up spectrum was sold to the very companies that already provide broadband services and whom have zero incentive to shake up the market with new offerings.
Can't you people see that it's this unholy marriage between governmental regulation and big business that's resulted in the current broadband situation? You'll forgive my skepticism when someone tries to tell me that further regulation will address these imbalances. Were none of you around for the glory days of telecommunications regulation when long distance services cost $0.10/min (or more!) and "innovation" consisted of rolling out "advanced" features like call waiting?
Yeah, I fucked that up. My connection went from 4mbit/s to 5mbit/s to 8, to 10, to 15.
Regardless, the point still stands. Have you seen a 3-4x improvement in the product you receive from your POTS provider?
Does it make any difference whether I'm saying "Senator, here is $10,000 in cash" or "Senator, here is $10,000 in free advertising"? Either way, he's my bitch now.
By that logic, Barack Obama is the New York Time's bitch. Pray tell, why is it acceptable for a for-profit company like the New York Times or Wall Street Journal to endorse candidates but not acceptable for the Sierra Club or NRA to do the same?
Just admit that the old law made no sense at all.
Quit while you're ahead. The cost of entry into the ISP market is a huge barrier that can't be overcome at this point.
That's funny, because there are quite a few companies that have managed to do exactly that in the handful of US markets that aren't franchised.
Anyone who wants to "start their own ISP" is going to end up leasing lines from the telcos.
Starting your own ISP requires an uplink to the internet? Who'd of thunk it!
Any new competitor needs to gain right-of-way to the homes, install cable/fiber, etc.--it's not worth it.
So I assume you've done a business study to conclude that it's "not worth it" across the entire United States to start up your own ISP?
Let's assume you're correct.
There is no 'assume', I am correct.
Do you know what the vast majority of the money in a campaign is spent on? That's right, advertisements.
What's your point? Political advertisements == speech. In this country, speech is protected. I honestly don't understand the argument that a collection of individuals (i.e: a corporation) is entitled to less freedom of speech than individuals. Particularly when you consider the fact that political advocacy groups are also corporations.
Consider this: The New York Times is a for-profit corporation. Nobody got worked up when they endorsed Barack Obama in the run up to the 2008 elections. Why do supporters of the old law believe that the New York Times is more worthy of participation in the political process than the Sierra Club or NRA?
Whenever a monopoly exists, the government should either regulate the monopoly, or regulate it, or break it up and restore competition.
In this case the government created the monopoly. Ever heard of franchise agreements?
There isn't a lot of choice for most people on what ISP they use
That wouldn't have anything to do with the fact that your local government grants monopoly status to your local cable and telco, would it?
Government regulations may not always be good
Indeed. Government regulations are the very reason why most Americans live under a monopoly/duopoly environment for internet access.
Of course that doesn't resonate well with the tin-foil hat and Fox News watchers out there.
A genuine free market for internet services would also help everyone, but that doesn't resonate well with the MSNBC watchers out there.
If the FCC has any backbone (I'm not necessarily convinced they do, but hey, sometimes you can hope) they'll turn this into a regulated service.
And then you can kiss any hope of innovation goodbye. In the last few years the speed of my consumer broadband connection has quadrupled. It went from 5 mbit/s to 8, to 10 and finally to 15. You really think that such improvements would happen in a hyper-regulated marketplace? When was the last time your landline phone company or electric utility came out with anything new and exciting?
The solution isn't to treat them like utilities, the solution is to remove the stumbling blocks that prevent upstarts from competing with them. The solution is to take away their special tax/franchise agreements and force them to compete on a level playing field.
There is no need for government regulation here - it would only benefit the existing ISPs at the expense of the consumer.
That's why big corporations welcome regulation. They know it's easier for a big corporation with legions of lawyers to comply with said regulations than it is for a small start up. They also have lobbyists working for them to ensure that the regulations are written in such a manner as to protect their existing business model.
ISPs will be formed with the specific selling point of having no traffic shaping/filtering/prioritizing.
Of course, thanks again to governmental interference in the marketplace (franchise agreements) starting a new ISP is easier said than done. More's the pity.
Allowing corporations to pump money into specially-created PACs causes their voices to be heard disproportionately, drowning out the free speech rights of everyone else.
I wasn't aware that the 1st amendment had a "free speech must be proportionate" clause in it.
Congratulations on your witty reply that required no critical thinking whatsoever. Apparently you don't see any issues with muzzling political advocacy groups in the months leading up to an election. The 1st amendment apparently doesn't exist in your world.
So what did I miss?
Inaccurate reporting on this issue is a public disservice. Frame it as a free speech issue and people's opinions change. Frame it inaccurately as "big business" writing checks directly to politicians bank accounts and people assume that politicians are being bought off.
Do you realize that under the old law advocacy organizations such as the Sierra Club were prohibited from running advertisements on behalf of or in opposition to political candidates? How is that remotely compatible with free speech? How is it compatible with the right to peaceable assemble? You really would support a system that says the Sierra Club can't produce literature condemning a candidate who wants to open up National Parks for energy drilling?
They'd end up executed for sorcery.
Strange village guy: But she's a witch!
Mal: Yeah, but she's our witch.