Net neutrality supporters want new laws prohibiting Internet providers from blocking or degrading traffic from their competitors' networks.
Wasn't this already fought over in Congress. I remember hearing about this issue in particular, where ISPs wanted to be able to block certain sites, and they lost. I think what's going to happen here is what happened to Real Estate and all other businesses. There will be anti-discrimination laws most likely, but the real issue of Net Neutrality, at least from what i've read, is cost. This really only came to the table because Google and Yahoo and other such sites are implimenting Broadband streaming video, which uses a lot of bandwidth. They want to then use this "Net Neutrality" concept to pass their costs on to everyone else by forcing ISPs to charge everyone a flat rate. So, instead of each person paying for their own bandwidth use, everybody pays for everyone's bandwidth use. Which helps out big businesses a lot, but hurts smaller sites.
My problem with that view of the second amendment is that it leads to complete chaos. Eventually, a dictator or a group of dictators (not like the Directory) come together and take places over. You end up living in a pay-for-protection society because you don't have the money to fight back. We don't need military-grade weapons because if we do have a revolution I guarantee you soldiers and military men will be involved. Then we'll just take the stuff from the military and order it from other countries. Unless you want to form a "well-regulated militia," then I don't think that you're agrument holds much weight.
From what I've read about Net Neutrality, the telcos better not be held to those standards. I read a letter from a Congresswoman explaining what this issue was and why it was brought up. Net Neutrality has nothing to do with protecting the internet, it's all about cost. Since companies like Google and Yahoo are going to start adding streaming broadband video on their sites, they will be using a hell of a lot of bandwidth. This bandwidth use is going to cost a lot of money....unless Net Neutrality goes though. Net Neutrality doesn't make telcos treat each site equally as we'd like to see it, it just makes them charge equally, which means that they couldn't charge Google and Yahoo for the increased bandwidth. So what happens then? Everyone starts paying for the bandwidth everyone uses instead of each person paying for what they use. This is great for Google because it drastically reduces their costs, while everyone else starts seeing higher bills. This issue is separate from the bill it's tagged on to that deals with National franchising, which I think is a great idea, especially if you know what the utility companies are like.
"Ahh the American dream. It died long ago and now all that remains is a illusion to pacify the people. It is not impossible to start with very little and become wealthy, but it is so rare that it should not really be considered in practical models. Of the super wealthy 1% of the US population which controls 50% or more of the total wealth in the country the number who did not enter that percentage due to their inheritance is in the double digits, if you're lucky. Sure there is upward mobility, but only in very small amounts and it in no way counterbalances the advantage existing wealth bring. Money accumulates into fewer and fewer hands because of the nature of capitalism."
The American Dream isn't dead, but it has been redefined. Though it is true that social mobility has declined, it hasn't disappeared. This could actually be because the next generation of workers are not willing to put in the amount of effort it takes to move up socially, whether that be for personal reasons, family principles, or something else. Mobility goes up and down through the years, and generally seems to follow the swing of the economy. That doesn't mean it's gone or can't happen, it just means that you may find it in a different fashion. On a side note, horizontal mobility is up, which doesn't really mean anything.
Slashdot Mirror
Net neutrality supporters want new laws prohibiting Internet providers from blocking or degrading traffic from their competitors' networks.
Wasn't this already fought over in Congress. I remember hearing about this issue in particular, where ISPs wanted to be able to block certain sites, and they lost. I think what's going to happen here is what happened to Real Estate and all other businesses. There will be anti-discrimination laws most likely, but the real issue of Net Neutrality, at least from what i've read, is cost. This really only came to the table because Google and Yahoo and other such sites are implimenting Broadband streaming video, which uses a lot of bandwidth. They want to then use this "Net Neutrality" concept to pass their costs on to everyone else by forcing ISPs to charge everyone a flat rate. So, instead of each person paying for their own bandwidth use, everybody pays for everyone's bandwidth use. Which helps out big businesses a lot, but hurts smaller sites.
My problem with that view of the second amendment is that it leads to complete chaos. Eventually, a dictator or a group of dictators (not like the Directory) come together and take places over. You end up living in a pay-for-protection society because you don't have the money to fight back. We don't need military-grade weapons because if we do have a revolution I guarantee you soldiers and military men will be involved. Then we'll just take the stuff from the military and order it from other countries. Unless you want to form a "well-regulated militia," then I don't think that you're agrument holds much weight.
From what I've read about Net Neutrality, the telcos better not be held to those standards. I read a letter from a Congresswoman explaining what this issue was and why it was brought up. Net Neutrality has nothing to do with protecting the internet, it's all about cost. Since companies like Google and Yahoo are going to start adding streaming broadband video on their sites, they will be using a hell of a lot of bandwidth. This bandwidth use is going to cost a lot of money....unless Net Neutrality goes though. Net Neutrality doesn't make telcos treat each site equally as we'd like to see it, it just makes them charge equally, which means that they couldn't charge Google and Yahoo for the increased bandwidth. So what happens then? Everyone starts paying for the bandwidth everyone uses instead of each person paying for what they use. This is great for Google because it drastically reduces their costs, while everyone else starts seeing higher bills. This issue is separate from the bill it's tagged on to that deals with National franchising, which I think is a great idea, especially if you know what the utility companies are like.
"Ahh the American dream. It died long ago and now all that remains is a illusion to pacify the people. It is not impossible to start with very little and become wealthy, but it is so rare that it should not really be considered in practical models. Of the super wealthy 1% of the US population which controls 50% or more of the total wealth in the country the number who did not enter that percentage due to their inheritance is in the double digits, if you're lucky. Sure there is upward mobility, but only in very small amounts and it in no way counterbalances the advantage existing wealth bring. Money accumulates into fewer and fewer hands because of the nature of capitalism." The American Dream isn't dead, but it has been redefined. Though it is true that social mobility has declined, it hasn't disappeared. This could actually be because the next generation of workers are not willing to put in the amount of effort it takes to move up socially, whether that be for personal reasons, family principles, or something else. Mobility goes up and down through the years, and generally seems to follow the swing of the economy. That doesn't mean it's gone or can't happen, it just means that you may find it in a different fashion. On a side note, horizontal mobility is up, which doesn't really mean anything.