Many Bush appointees are still entrenched in the govt. Perhaps you are the one who needs to read some news once in a while.
Name one of them that is in the FCC.
Michael J Coops appointed to the FCC by Bush in 2001. Robert M. McDowell, appointed to the FCC by Bush in 2006. That's 2 FCC commissioners appointed by Bush who are still on the FCC board.
The FCC should get full say over what American telecom companies do.
No, the FCC should be abolished, it was only created for big media businesses who had commissioners working for them.
Now as for telecom and cable companies, they should have their monopolies removed. Allow competition and watch how they act then. With someone being able to get cable from 3 or 4 different companies watch how much Comcast will block or throttle net traffic. Better yet, allow local coops, governments, or other groups to build and own infrastructure but then require them to sell access to providers. Coop X owns the fiber but Comcast can sell access, along with ATT, and Mom and Pop ISP.
Barriers would destroy the value of the Internet, and if any carrier were stupid enough to use them, people would scream bloody murder until they were removed.
That is not true where there is a monopoly, ask those who can only get broadband from Comcast.
All the more reason for the development and mainstreaming of reliable, high bandwidth peer-to-peer ad hoc networking over wifi or wimax, or something else not controlled by telcos and googles.
With such a network how do I visit Brazilian, Chinese, Danish, Joburg, and Sydney websites?
At least right now they are being governed by their customer's interests
Broadband providers are not governed by their customers' interest because most customers do not have have a choice as to who they get broadband from. Anyone in the US who disagrees, and belives most people have a choice for broadband, lives in a fantasy world.
Ah yes - please tell that to laborers in China or India, where such solutions don't exist.
I agreed with you up until here. Chinese and Indian laborer's lives have improved greatly since their markets have opened up. They each now have millions of millionaires as well as billionaires. Though more than 2 years old here's 2 lists of Greater China's 40 Richest and India's 40 Richest. On Fortune's List of billionaires for 2008 India has 56 and is tied with Germany.
You may think of working in one of China's factories as working in a sweat shop but Chinese compeat to get those jobs. After a few years working and saving money they can then have enough money to start their own business.
Heck not everyone can get broadband period never mind have a choice. In most places that can get broadband the provider has a monopoly. Even if I had a billion dollars I would not be able to dig up the ground and lay my own fiber. Anyone who says people can get broadband from a competitor doesn't live in the real world.
I would start my own community ISP buying and reselling raw bandwidth. The worse they treat their customers the faster I would grow.
And how would you deliver it? Start digging up the ground to lay fiber and watch how fast law enforcement will put a stop to it. Try to deliver wirelessly, to get around them, and watch how fast the FCC shows up. That only leaves you with fairy dust.
The great thing about the Internet is that if someone becomes disruptive, they will just be routed around.
This only works if there is no monopoly. How many choices do you have for cable? DSL? Any other broadband access? Most people don't have a choice, many can't even get broadband. At the sane tyme big businesses took hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars to build out broadband but all they did with it was pad their pockets. Besides the $200 Billion the feds gave them state and local governments gave them more. As long as they took taxpayer money and have monopolies they should meet certain minimum requirements such as open access.
The answer to your question "What motivation do they have to restrict access by some subset of users?" is: restricting access to information posted by those who oppose their political agenda is a fairly strong motive.
And as soon as that happens searchers can point their browsers to other search engines. Though I use mostly Google I still use Alta Vista. I also use About.com, Teoma (now Ask.com), Cuil, DMoz, and Mooter.
Don't they teach any kind of civics courses in high school anymore?
They also don't teach what open never mind limited government means anymore. The liberty and small government the USA's Founding Fathers fought for means nothing now.
Wasn't the Bill of Rights and entire Constitution made in a secret meeting not privy to the public by a very small group of men?
We don't have foreign troops stationed here who can bust down doors and drag us away on someone's whim either. Instead of a monarchy we're supposed to have a representative republic. There is no need for government to hide from citizens.
You want to claim the origins of liberalism for the American Libertarians
I want to make no such claim, I am stating what liberalism used to mean before others distorted the meaning. Back when the Founding Fathers used it there was no qualification to liberal or liberalism. To them liberalism meant liberty and small government. You are making the claim as to w2aht it means not me. Only now you're using "Lockean Liberalism". I dare you to find any qualifications to "liberal" such as "Classical" or "Lockean" used by Jefferson, Madison, or any of the other Founding Fathers. Heck, even Onelook defines liberalism as "an economic theory advocating free competition and a self-regulating market and the gold standard". Looking at the first three links to online definitions, American Heritage Dictionary, Encarta® World English Dictionary, and Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary also define it that way.
It is called classical liberalism now but it was called liberalism before. Don't blame me if others don't use a word properly and instead redefine "liberalism". Are you going to say Thomas Jefferson was not a Liberal?
The place you went to has loads of polls to demonstrate exactly what I was talking about. You cherry picked an outlier poll that is not in line with the large consensus of the rest from that same site.
I only picked those polls that were done this year, so if that cherry picking then yes I cherry picked. Not one of those polls done this year, the current year, had more than 60% of the people supporting single payer health care.
As for the rest, since you can't civilly debate the issue I see no reason to continue.
I think that fewer people would be up in arms of the secrecy of the draft text if some public interest groups were among the stakeholders allowed to see it.
Public interest groups are represented. Those listed are:
Gigi Sohn, Public Knowledge
Rashmi Rangnath, Public Knowledge
Sherwin Siy, Public Knowledge
David Sohn, Center for Democracy and Technology (CDT)
Well, yes, the Republicans only pay lip service to a smaller Federal Government, until the question of home-town pork comes up. Which is one reason why conservatives need to find themselves a new party that better represents them. And the fact that many liberals thought Obama was a liberal shows why they need to get themselves a new party too. We've got the Blue and the Red Plutocrats Parties here in the US, all beholden to corporate interests.
You're talking as if it was conservatives not liberal who believe in small limited government. In fact is was liberalism that called for small limited government, chief among those in the US to do so was Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and the other Thomas, Thomas Paine.
Why would you think flames targeted at you would imply you were anti-American? You aren't saying anything new or controversial. States' rights and a limited Fed are a key plank in the Republican platform.
This has nothing to due with the current administration. The ACTA was formed in 2007 and is an international organization. Sure the administration could try and force them to open up... but who knows how high on their list this issue is.
It has everything to do with this administration. Obama ran on a platform of open government and this is any but open government. And it doesn't start, or end, there. Obama also sold out civil rights when he voted as a senator give large corporations immunity for helping Bush spy on people. Then there's the health insurance issue.
Maybe we should start demanding politicians with REAL degrees who understand the REAL world, not worthless cr@p subjects like English, law, art, history that politicians seem to specialise in.
Not sure about the US, but in the UK there still exists council housing (despite the best efforts of the last Conservative government to sell it off)
The US has some public housing projects, where do you think all the gangs are in Chicago? There are problems with them though, other than crime. With low income housing projects the area gets blighted and run down, which leads to crime. They concentrate whats bad into one place.
just because someone else is profiting, doesn't mean that it's not a good idea.
I agree but why pay someone else's mortgage and profits when you can be building up your own equity? And unlike mortgage payments, unless the mortgage is an adjustable mortgage, rent goes up year after year after year. After 5, 10, and 20 years while rent has continued to go up the mortgage payment has stayed the same. You pay more in rent than in mortgage payments, and what do you have to show for it?
If you rent then you have no liabilities like a mortgage, you aren't responsible for maintenance, and typically have more freedom to move on short notice if you get a good job offer elsewhere.
Sure moving can be easier if you rent but if you own you can still move. Then you can hire a property management business, many real estate agents in the US can do it, to rent out and maintain your old home. Property management companies charge around 5% of the rent, depending on how much the rent is. You can have renters pay your mortgage on the old home building up equity on it then buy a home where you move to. If you move again just do the same thing each tyme.
fetishization of homeownership raised the default rate among the poorest buyers, who should have been renting
The poor should be renting and paying someone else's mortgage as well as paying them profits instead of paying their own mortgage? I can see renting when home prices are skyrocketing or if the renter is only going to be there a short period, but that's it. If you rent someone else is profiting off of you.
Are you seriously telling me that the mighty US financial industry lost hundreds of billions because of a modest, and highly predictable, increase in default rates of relatively small loans, often government backed, to known credit risks? Was that all it took?
Too many lenders made mortgages for more than borrowers could reasonable afford, I don't expect borrowers to know how much they can afford any more than the bank that lends them money, banks are supposed to be the experts. It didn't help that government encouraged mortgage companies to make those mortgages. Building regulations don't help keep cost down either, and may drive costs up.
it was the Clinton administrations wet dream that everyone no matter how poor should own their own house that is the root cause of the current situation
And Bush's ownership society had nothing to do with it? When Clinton left office the budget was almost balance but under Bush it ballooned into the largest deficit ever. Though I hate to admit it Clinton cut government and Bush expanded it.
Republican presidents expanded government and a democrat shrank it.
Slashdot Mirror
Many Bush appointees are still entrenched in the govt. Perhaps you are the one who needs to read some news once in a while.
Name one of them that is in the FCC.
Michael J Coops appointed to the FCC by Bush in 2001. Robert M. McDowell, appointed to the FCC by Bush in 2006. That's 2 FCC commissioners appointed by Bush who are still on the FCC board.
Falcon
The FCC should get full say over what American telecom companies do.
No, the FCC should be abolished, it was only created for big media businesses who had commissioners working for them.
Now as for telecom and cable companies, they should have their monopolies removed. Allow competition and watch how they act then. With someone being able to get cable from 3 or 4 different companies watch how much Comcast will block or throttle net traffic. Better yet, allow local coops, governments, or other groups to build and own infrastructure but then require them to sell access to providers. Coop X owns the fiber but Comcast can sell access, along with ATT, and Mom and Pop ISP.
Falcon
Barriers would destroy the value of the Internet, and if any carrier were stupid enough to use them, people would scream bloody murder until they were removed.
That is not true where there is a monopoly, ask those who can only get broadband from Comcast.
Fslcon
All the more reason for the development and mainstreaming of reliable, high bandwidth peer-to-peer ad hoc networking over wifi or wimax, or something else not controlled by telcos and googles.
With such a network how do I visit Brazilian, Chinese, Danish, Joburg, and Sydney websites?
Falcon
At least right now they are being governed by their customer's interests
Broadband providers are not governed by their customers' interest because most customers do not have have a choice as to who they get broadband from. Anyone in the US who disagrees, and belives most people have a choice for broadband, lives in a fantasy world.
Falcon
Ah yes - please tell that to laborers in China or India, where such solutions don't exist.
I agreed with you up until here. Chinese and Indian laborer's lives have improved greatly since their markets have opened up. They each now have millions of millionaires as well as billionaires. Though more than 2 years old here's 2 lists of Greater China's 40 Richest and India's 40 Richest. On Fortune's List of billionaires for 2008 India has 56 and is tied with Germany.
You may think of working in one of China's factories as working in a sweat shop but Chinese compeat to get those jobs. After a few years working and saving money they can then have enough money to start their own business.
Falcon
There are alternatives
Heck not everyone can get broadband period never mind have a choice. In most places that can get broadband the provider has a monopoly. Even if I had a billion dollars I would not be able to dig up the ground and lay my own fiber. Anyone who says people can get broadband from a competitor doesn't live in the real world.
I would start my own community ISP buying and reselling raw bandwidth. The worse they treat their customers the faster I would grow.
And how would you deliver it? Start digging up the ground to lay fiber and watch how fast law enforcement will put a stop to it. Try to deliver wirelessly, to get around them, and watch how fast the FCC shows up. That only leaves you with fairy dust.
Falcon
The great thing about the Internet is that if someone becomes disruptive, they will just be routed around.
This only works if there is no monopoly. How many choices do you have for cable? DSL? Any other broadband access? Most people don't have a choice, many can't even get broadband. At the sane tyme big businesses took hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars to build out broadband but all they did with it was pad their pockets. Besides the $200 Billion the feds gave them state and local governments gave them more. As long as they took taxpayer money and have monopolies they should meet certain minimum requirements such as open access.
Falcon
The answer to your question "What motivation do they have to restrict access by some subset of users?" is: restricting access to information posted by those who oppose their political agenda is a fairly strong motive.
And as soon as that happens searchers can point their browsers to other search engines. Though I use mostly Google I still use Alta Vista. I also use About.com, Teoma (now Ask.com), Cuil, DMoz, and Mooter.
Falcon
Don't they teach any kind of civics courses in high school anymore?
They also don't teach what open never mind limited government means anymore. The liberty and small government the USA's Founding Fathers fought for means nothing now.
Falcon
Wasn't the Bill of Rights and entire Constitution made in a secret meeting not privy to the public by a very small group of men?
We don't have foreign troops stationed here who can bust down doors and drag us away on someone's whim either. Instead of a monarchy we're supposed to have a representative republic. There is no need for government to hide from citizens.
Falcon
You want to claim the origins of liberalism for the American Libertarians
I want to make no such claim, I am stating what liberalism used to mean before others distorted the meaning. Back when the Founding Fathers used it there was no qualification to liberal or liberalism. To them liberalism meant liberty and small government. You are making the claim as to w2aht it means not me. Only now you're using "Lockean Liberalism". I dare you to find any qualifications to "liberal" such as "Classical" or "Lockean" used by Jefferson, Madison, or any of the other Founding Fathers. Heck, even Onelook defines liberalism as "an economic theory advocating free competition and a self-regulating market and the gold standard". Looking at the first three links to online definitions, American Heritage Dictionary, Encarta® World English Dictionary, and Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary also define it that way.
Falcon
It is called classical liberalism now but it was called liberalism before. Don't blame me if others don't use a word properly and instead redefine "liberalism". Are you going to say Thomas Jefferson was not a Liberal?
Falcon
The place you went to has loads of polls to demonstrate exactly what I was talking about. You cherry picked an outlier poll that is not in line with the large consensus of the rest from that same site.
I only picked those polls that were done this year, so if that cherry picking then yes I cherry picked. Not one of those polls done this year, the current year, had more than 60% of the people supporting single payer health care.
As for the rest, since you can't civilly debate the issue I see no reason to continue.
Falcon
I think that fewer people would be up in arms of the secrecy of the draft text if some public interest groups were among the stakeholders allowed to see it.
Public interest groups are represented. Those listed are:
Falcon
I am no government scholar, but I was under the distinct impression that legislation was required to be made public. Am I wrong about this?
You're right but it's not proposed legislation yet. It could be posted Friday evening then congress could stay up late to vote for it ;-)
Or is it the fact that ACTA is a 'treaty' make it substantially different?
Treaties have to be released as well, however this is not a treaty that has been submitted to congress yet.
Falcon
I think my state, and the few that surround it, should all consider secession.
You don't happen to live in New Hampshire, the home state of the Free State Project?
Falcon
Well, yes, the Republicans only pay lip service to a smaller Federal Government, until the question of home-town pork comes up. Which is one reason why conservatives need to find themselves a new party that better represents them. And the fact that many liberals thought Obama was a liberal shows why they need to get themselves a new party too. We've got the Blue and the Red Plutocrats Parties here in the US, all beholden to corporate interests.
You're talking as if it was conservatives not liberal who believe in small limited government. In fact is was liberalism that called for small limited government, chief among those in the US to do so was Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and the other Thomas, Thomas Paine.
Falcon
Why would you think flames targeted at you would imply you were anti-American? You aren't saying anything new or controversial. States' rights and a limited Fed are a key plank in the Republican platform.
And Republicans ignore that platform.
Falcon
This has nothing to due with the current administration. The ACTA was formed in 2007 and is an international organization. Sure the administration could try and force them to open up... but who knows how high on their list this issue is.
It has everything to do with this administration. Obama ran on a platform of open government and this is any but open government. And it doesn't start, or end, there. Obama also sold out civil rights when he voted as a senator give large corporations immunity for helping Bush spy on people. Then there's the health insurance issue.
Falcon
Maybe we should start demanding politicians with REAL degrees who understand the REAL world, not worthless cr@p subjects like English, law, art, history that politicians seem to specialise in.
Falcon
Not sure about the US, but in the UK there still exists council housing (despite the best efforts of the last Conservative government to sell it off)
The US has some public housing projects, where do you think all the gangs are in Chicago? There are problems with them though, other than crime. With low income housing projects the area gets blighted and run down, which leads to crime. They concentrate whats bad into one place.
just because someone else is profiting, doesn't mean that it's not a good idea.
I agree but why pay someone else's mortgage and profits when you can be building up your own equity? And unlike mortgage payments, unless the mortgage is an adjustable mortgage, rent goes up year after year after year. After 5, 10, and 20 years while rent has continued to go up the mortgage payment has stayed the same. You pay more in rent than in mortgage payments, and what do you have to show for it?
If you rent then you have no liabilities like a mortgage, you aren't responsible for maintenance, and typically have more freedom to move on short notice if you get a good job offer elsewhere.
Sure moving can be easier if you rent but if you own you can still move. Then you can hire a property management business, many real estate agents in the US can do it, to rent out and maintain your old home. Property management companies charge around 5% of the rent, depending on how much the rent is. You can have renters pay your mortgage on the old home building up equity on it then buy a home where you move to. If you move again just do the same thing each tyme.
Falcon
the "free market" has failed dismally in the health care and health insurance field.
There has been no free market in health care in the US since WWII.
Falcon
fetishization of homeownership raised the default rate among the poorest buyers, who should have been renting
The poor should be renting and paying someone else's mortgage as well as paying them profits instead of paying their own mortgage? I can see renting when home prices are skyrocketing or if the renter is only going to be there a short period, but that's it. If you rent someone else is profiting off of you.
Are you seriously telling me that the mighty US financial industry lost hundreds of billions because of a modest, and highly predictable, increase in default rates of relatively small loans, often government backed, to known credit risks? Was that all it took?
Too many lenders made mortgages for more than borrowers could reasonable afford, I don't expect borrowers to know how much they can afford any more than the bank that lends them money, banks are supposed to be the experts. It didn't help that government encouraged mortgage companies to make those mortgages. Building regulations don't help keep cost down either, and may drive costs up.
Falcon
it was the Clinton administrations wet dream that everyone no matter how poor should own their own house that is the root cause of the current situation
And Bush's ownership society had nothing to do with it? When Clinton left office the budget was almost balance but under Bush it ballooned into the largest deficit ever. Though I hate to admit it Clinton cut government and Bush expanded it.
Republican presidents expanded government and a democrat shrank it.
Falcon