It was the PENTAGON that created it not the government - the military is the only part of the government that works remotely like it should.
Great. I'm glad you agree that government works.
----------
RESULTS are what get you TYRANTS - Liberty is what gets you the INTERNET
If you are typical of an average American then we have lost and humanity is DOOMED
And Governments Job is to GET THE HELL out of the way and let people be free and productive, not tell us how to live, where to live, what we can do -ect because that is where big government leads to . Sorry but you are blind and a fool
Government's job is to limit your rights and freedoms so that I get what I want.
Big government is good. The fruits of your labor belong to me, because I am the reason you are rich in the first place.
Don't believe me? Then get rid of the roads I pay for, and see how successful you are. Get rid of the schools I pay for, and see if you can find any employees that can follow your instructions. Get rid of the police, military, fire dept, etc.. and see how rich you become.
Government is the reason you are rich.
You're welcome.
Ive lived in Maryland my whole life - I see what the government has become I despise it.
I used to be able to at least trust some of what they said now I can trust nothing it says.
I would be down right happy if the FED CUT Spending 30% and all the money from the FED left Maryland, and every other state
One of the richest, lowest crime, most successful states in the nation, and you're complaining?
Or did you want Maryland to be worse?
----------
Where does the government get the money to do such things as build roads and give you free healthcare and free internet and free food and free education?
They get the money from the taxes I make you pay.
If you don't like it, you can always move to a different place?
Maybe a place with less government?
Oh wait.. you WANT more government because you like the things I made you pay for.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
FCC to Propose Regulating Internet Service as a Utility for Stronger Net Neutrality Rules
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
And Maryland is BROKE - the last governor spent us into oblivion.
The state is far worse now then it was 20-30 years ago. Traffic SUCKS near DC we have highways that are 7 lanes wide and still takes an hour to go 15 miles from 5AM to 10AM every weekday. The work life balance in the state sucks unless you are a federal employee.
Unless you are a federal employee you really cannot afford to live anyplace within 50 miles of DC unless you get government assistance.
Sorry but a big over powering federal government has ruined the state I live in.
I remember the town I grew up in used to be a tiny farming community that is now a huge city.
Sorry but having 1 - 2 million dollar homes stacked up next to each other is not progress - the only reason this has happened is the Federal Government - the avg income near where I work is 190,000 dollars a year, all federal employees living off of my taxes - I can't afford to live where I grew up had to move much further out to afford to live a decent lifestyle.
Sorry but a ultra powerful central government telling us how to live where to live and what we can and cannot do is not what I want and that is where it is heading, all due to the power it has given itself and the infusion of money from the ultra rich making it do what they want done. It is no longer a Federal Republic that is supposed to be of for and by the people.
The state is far worse now then it was 20-30 years ago. Traffic SUCKS near DC we have highways that are 7 lanes wide and still takes an hour to go 15 miles from 5AM to 10AM every weekday. The work life balance in the state sucks unless you are a federal employee.
Unless you are a federal employee you really cannot afford to live anyplace within 50 miles of DC unless you get government assistance.
Sorry but a big over powering federal government has ruined the state I live in.
I remember the town I grew up in used to be a tiny farming community that is now a huge city.
Sorry but having 1 - 2 million dollar homes stacked up next to each other is not progress - the only reason this has happened is the Federal Government - the avg income near where I work is 190,000 dollars a year, all federal employees living off of my taxes - I can't afford to live where I grew up had to move much further out to afford to live a decent lifestyle.
Sorry but a ultra powerful central government telling us how to live where to live and what we can and cannot do is not what I want and that is where it is heading, all due to the power it has given itself and the infusion of money from the ultra rich making it do what they want done. It is no longer a Federal Republic that is supposed to be of for and by the people.
PRSI is quickly becoming the right-wing cesspool akin to the last forum I left. I have a feeling my time here is limited.
I honestly cannot fathom that there are people who want carriers to be able to throttle internet sites and charge more for companies to get access. What the hell is happening here?
I honestly cannot fathom that there are people who want carriers to be able to throttle internet sites and charge more for companies to get access. What the hell is happening here?
To be fair, Mozumder's post seems to be the leftist extreme to tomwvr's rightists. If he's not being sarcastic, that is. Kinda hard to tell.
Because some people start jerking their knees all over the place the moment they hear the word "government". Granted, I've seen a couple of people post some compelling arguments against net neutrality in this thread, but for the most part, it's just people smearing their near baseless opinion all over the place because they read The Fountainhead once or something.
I live in Texas and have a few dozen companies to chose from. I'm constantly getting other companies competing for my business.
Hogwash. Any news source cannot possibly SUBTRACT from your knowledge. It can only add. You can tune to more than one source, to further increase your exposure to information and perspectives. This includes going to non-us based news outlets that don't feel this ridiculous need to play stupid dem-rep partisanship. My experience of people like yourself that bash Fox News is that they never even watch it, and are merely told why they should not like it. I've never found someone that could actually point to anything they report as being false... They just don't like seeing a perspective that they don't like being reported on. Period. It's like watching a local broadcast of your favorite sports team... They broadcasters are likewise rooting for your team, and are far more passionate about them doing well. If you watch the same event broadcast from the opposing teams city... It's a very different vibe for the same plays.
Not all governments are equal. We're not living in a dictatorship, and regulating the internet as a utility will not lead to a slippery slope that causes government to kill us.
Everything is a give and take. Government needs to be restricted in some areas, and corporations need to kept in check too. Our government at least theoretically represents its people. This regulation in particular will enable more competition, which is something we should all cheer for.
You do understand he is President of the USA, and not the UK, I know you two have a special relationship but it's not that close.
That message you alerting at is some law passed by the UK government and has absolutely nothing to do with Net Neutrality.
Back to topic.
On June 4, 2012, the Netherlands became the first country in Europe and the second in the world, after Chile, to enact a network neutrality law. The main net neutrality provision of this law requires that "Providers of public electronic communication networks used to provide Internet access services as well as providers of Internet access services will not hinder or slow down services or applications on the Internet".
This assumes that the information has always a positive value, or at least zero. This is not the case: disinformation is easily worse than no information at all. If the news source adds to your knowledge false, misleading or inaccurate information it can very well have a negative impact, making it worse than not being exposed to the news source at all.
Are you even sure what net neutrality is?
A real life case from the Netherlands.
In April 2011, Dutch telecommunications company KPN announced that it would start to block services such as VoIP and instant messaging unless customers paid a fee. Later that week, Vodafone said it was already blocking those services. During an investors meeting in May, KPN admitted to using deep packet inspection. These events accelerated the implementation of net neutrality, as a house majority was against the blocking of specific Internet services.
On June 22, 2011, the house voted for the amendment of the Telecommunications Act with net neutrality regulations. The Labour Party mistakenly voted for an amendment supported by the Christian parties SGP, CU and CDA that would allow filtering by ISPs for ideological reasons. A rectification was later plugged into an unrelated amendment.
The amendment was passed by the Senate in 2012, and with the publication of the amendment and the rectification in the official journal of the Netherlands on June 4 and June 5, respectively, network neutrality became the law.
The law
On June 4, 2012, the Netherlands became the first country in Europe and the second in the world, after Chile, to enact a network neutrality law. The main net neutrality provision of this law requires that "Providers of public electronic communication networks used to provide Internet access services as well as providers of Internet access services will not hinder or slow down services or applications on the Internet".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality_in_the_Netherlands
Yeah, I'm really curious how requiring equal access to all internet traffic is "destroying the internet". You're really going to have to explain that one.
What you call disinformation I and many call the other side of the story. A different perspective. If you are content informing yourselves only from sources that want to paint certain people or parties in a rosy colored light, and ignore other perspectives... Well that is sad. Too many people now could not tell you what more than one viewpoint is on any topic (if they can even tell you one). And it's sad that foreign news sites like Al Jazeera often do a better job covering US political stories than do many news sources here. There used to a time when citizens felt their obligation to be informed and involved. That day is long gone.
And it's sad when in he US there is only one television station that dares give a conservative viewpoint.... When all of the others do not. And that angers so many of you. You just insist on having a complete monopoly of your viewpoint.
Not everyone wants to live in small town or farm communities.
Every city started out as a small town and it is not the fault of 'big' government that some have grown to be metropolitan areas. Times change and If you live near the power center of the US, chances are the cost of living will increase (as with any city).
Really...The news is the news.
The problem with that conservative stations is don't report the news. They report their conservative view points AS news.
What you have forgotten is that conservatives where always on what you call liberal stations. They even had their own shows and some still do.
You cannot say that about 'the conservative stations', who have abandoned reporting to simply push an agenda.
Of course a news source can subtract from your knowledge of a situation. There have been studies that Fox news does just this. If you watch Fox, you could be aware that they are not about engaging your intellect but rousing your emotions. This can limit your intellectual engagement with a subject and so your knowledge of the facts. I agree that for the most part Fox is not lying about facts. "Climate change scientists disagree, here is one that says it is a hoax." Factual. Don't mention how few believe it is not happening. Your audience is less informed of the truth.
I agree that any single news source is going to skew your viewpoint. I would suggest that the counter to Fox is not the NYT or BBC but more something like Democracy Now. BBC is a valuable perspective for those in the US to experience. It is still mainstream. I think to be actually informed we need to find more independent sources. This is hard. This is why I support Net Neutrality. It will continue to leave the path open for smaller, less mainstream voices to reach me. There is the very real threat that Comcast and others will decide to restrict sites based on content. We saw a version of this years ago with CNN. I don't remember the issue anymore, but Ted Turner explained why they were not covering a story, "We have a dog in this fight." Our big news organizations have dogs in many fights. I do not trust the government to be immune to this but I think it is harder for them to pull off. There is more public scrutiny and less, "Well, it is their system they can do what they like."
Man... As someone with a non-us citizen spouse, who has spent a great deal of time outside of the US, and talk to non U.S. citizen people regularly about current news topics.... I just gotta shake my head in dismay at what the youth of today are being taught in the US. Debate is thoroughly useless.
Sometimes the other side of the story is a perfectly valid opinion, sometimes is a dishonest account based on misleading if not outright fabricated sources put together to push an agenda. Only if it's the former it can and should enrich your knowledge and help you in forming an educated opinion on the matter. If it's the latter it should be rejected as disinformation. The choice is yours, which is why the keyword is critical thinking. It's paramount to check the credibility and factuality of the informations you get, be it from a single or multiple sources, otherwise you risk forming opinion based on misleading if not outright false information.
Today there is little excuse not to compare multiple sources for news since there are news aggregators which allow to easily check the same news reported from different sources and multiple countries, but you still have to decide yourself how to separate the wheat from the chaff.
I parse this:
I have knowledge, cred, because I know and talk to non- U.S. citizens. This is pretty lame as an argument.
I imply that you are young and inexperienced and unworthy of a response. Implied Ad Hominin attack. You are clueless to my age/experience.
"Debate is thoroughly useless." This gives the lie to your "More info is better" meme. You don't mean it. You want more info you agree with. If you wanted more info/fresh perspectives you would not be lamenting that there is only one conservative network. You would be lamenting that there are NO progressive ones.
FYI- Misinformation can be tested. It is contra-factual. You are entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts.
Well, the proposal is official.
http://www.cnet.com/news/fcc-chairman-wheeler-to-use-utility-style-rules-to-enforce-net-neutrality/
Of note:
http://www.cnet.com/news/fcc-chairman-wheeler-to-use-utility-style-rules-to-enforce-net-neutrality/
Of note:
Not even close, cable and telecom companies cannot take your assets and put you in jail if you do not conform. No court order needed.
Did you read the story of the guy that got put in jail because he paid his taxes with tightly rolled dollar bills. You cannot live one day without breaking a law, and if the government decides they don't like you, then your toast. We don't need to give the government any more power.
Wise up, police departments can seize your property if they suspect you committed a crime involving drugs, no court, no judge, etc. And it does happen to innocent people all the time.
I think you are looking at this wrong, some people think that the only way to get things the way they want is to have the government make a law. Others know from experience that freedom from regulation will allow us to get what we want without laws.
Those that want new government laws have no faith, they want a dictator, someone that can make everyone behave. They believe that people in power can do the right thing, when history shows they won't.
Carriers will only throttle the internet if there is a monopoly (usually by government regulation). If carriers A and B are competing, then either A or B will be the winner. The loser will do whatever they can to get ahead and if that means not throttling, then they will not do it, unless the government regulations prevent it. Which they will. Who funds elections, big business.
Remember the statement "you will still be able to use your existing doctor". The government knew that was lie when it was said. Same thing here. Just give them the power and it will be ok. But history proves that is a lie.
Now are you a 2 year old demanding to get what you want, or an adult that understands the game at play?
The right thing is what the FCC is proposing right now. At least in order to protect net neutrality.
In the U.S., there is practically no such thing as local loop unbundling. This means that whoever owns the infrastructure can dictate who uses it. They are not currently obligated to give access to competitors. Telecoms is a natural monopoly. It is not feasible for every new competitor to build separate ducts underground and telegraphs above ground, nor is it fair that they should have to pay extortionately high costs to use a competitor's network, which defeats the point of competition.
Your explanation works well for the consumer electronics industry but not the telecommunications industry.
To put it simply, AT&T, Comcast, Verizon, Time Warner et al should not both be the owner and operator of their cable infrastructures. If they are, then they have a vested interest in making sure they are the only operator in a particular area (which is what is happening right now, as has been for many years).
The infrastructure and its maintenance should be owned by an entity that has no interest in end-user services. As a matter of fact, since it would be charging a fair cost for operators to provide services on their network, it would be in this entity's best interests to encourage as many competitors as possible to provide service in a particular area.
This entity should be publicly-owned. It is the only way to ensure all competing providers get fair and equal access to a particular area. Then you'll have real competition.
Source please.
Libertarians showing their true colours: characterise those who disagree as statist children and themselves as Nobel prize winning economists.
Actually, I think you may be looking at it wrong. You see, as someone not devoid of logical thought based on reality, the internet hobby known as libertarianism never really appealed to me as a viable philosophy. While I'd love to believe it were possible, it's fairly certain that humans, and most decidedly Americans, are incapable of true freedom. I'll explain that in a bit.
It's odd that you think that the government not allowing a company to do something isn't necessary since they wouldn't do it on their on anyway, even though that is exactly what they seem to be lobbying for, and exactly what happened before regulation. Yes, competition is great and needed, but some regulation is also needed.
Can you explain how a locality with 10 different cable providers would work, if one of them didn't own the actual cable network? Would you actually want to see 10 different providers' lines strung up all over town? What about water? Natural gas? It's highly unlikely that you'll ever see a non-monopoly on these things, without making it a public service. Even in places without a "government approved" monopoly on a utility, a natural monopoly often occurs on its own, simply because it's just too expensive to build dual competing systems. And then, we end up with things like this.
Now, back to my point about humans being incapable of true freedom. Do you honestly think that if we got rid of noise regulations, zoning laws, pet laws, parking laws, property code laws, and all that, that everyone would just get along and it would all be hunky dory? Do you really think that if we got rid of worker-protection laws and safety laws that businesses would just do the right thing? If so, you live in la-la land.
Or, do you subscribe to the "I should be able to do whatever I want to do on my property" mantra. While this is a solid idea in the vacuum of libertarianism, it's not viable out here in the real world. If you want to let your grass grow 4' high and surround your 3 rusted out project cars on blocks in your front yard, while your deadbeat son's punk band practices in the driveway, and your four dogs howl until 3am, that might be perfectly okay with you. But if you think that your neighbor who is fed up with it is just "being a 2-year-old demanding to get what he wants" , then I doubt there's much we can really discuss.
Comcast as a cable company is well known for their deceptive practices and abhorrent customer service, and I've experienced it first-hand. And there is competition in our area, albeit minor. With Google Fiber coming in soon, I'll be interested to see what Comcast has to do.
But the main point being, this free world you imagine, where everyone gets along and companies do the right thing, and everyone is just peachy, is complete fantasy.
They can only get away with being so terrible because the government ensures that they are no competitors.
----------