FCC To Propose Net Neutrality Rules 110
wiredog writes "From The Washington Post comes news that the FCC is preparing to propose net neutrality rules on Monday. Quoting: '[FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski] will discuss the rules Monday during a keynote speech at The Brookings Institute. He isn't expected to drill into many details, but the proposal will specifically be for an additional guideline on how operators like AT&T, Verizon, and Comcast can control what goes on their networks. That additional guideline would prevent the operators from discriminating, or act as gatekeepers, of Web content and services. ... The agency is expected to review what traffic management is reasonable and what practices are discriminatory. The guidelines are known as "principals" at the agency, which some public interest groups have sought to codify so that they would clearly be enforceable.'"
Just one question: (Score:4, Insightful)
Define "reasonable" - reasonable according to the end-user (okay, somewhat geeky end-user), or "reasonable" to Comcast, Verizon, AT&T...
Re: (Score:1)
It's whatever is "reasonable" to the side with the most lobbyist $$$
Re: (Score:1)
Same as always.
Reasonable to the judge and/or jury.
Re:Just one question: (Score:5, Insightful)
Define "reasonable" - reasonable according to the end-user (okay, somewhat geeky end-user), or "reasonable" to Comcast, Verizon, AT&T...
Here's my take: if you provide service to the end-user, you only take money from the end-user. When providing said service, you don't look at where a packet is coming from, only where it goes.
If your network can't handle it, you upgrade your network.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And speaking of competition, all this net neutrality stuff would go away if there were any real competition. Almost all markets are duopolies, with basically the tel
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"If it's VOIP or P2P or constant video streaming"
Personally I would rather them downgrade the P2P priority so that my Skype call doesn't break up. Traffic shaping in moderation is a good thing.
Re: (Score:2)
Personally I would rather them downgrade the P2P priority of other people so that my Skype call doesn't break up.
I see what you did there.
Re: (Score:2)
Reasonable... (Score:3, Interesting)
From the summary:
prevent the operators from discriminating, or act as gatekeepers, of Web content and services.
My initial prediction.... (Score:5, Insightful)
The operators will think that any level of control they have is insufficient and the users will think that any level of control the operators have is far too much.
Re: (Score:1)
the users will think that any level of control the operators have is far too much.
90% of the users won't care as long as the advertised speed is still 5 Megs, and they can still get to Youtube, Facebook, CNN, and Twitter.
Backdoor for fairness doctrine (Score:3, Insightful)
I know this is going to modded troll, but you know how Congress always tacks on stuff to bills, nobody will dispute that.
I heard a warning in November (from Republicans of course) that the Fairness Doctrine, trying to legislate the content of the internet and talk radio, would come under the guise of Net Neutrality.
I bet a dollar and a nickel that debate will somehow come out of this bill.
Re:Backdoor for fairness doctrine (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
I mean who doesn't want a double whammy? You insult your opponent, prove him wrong when there is TONS of press on you and to top it off you get to prove the pres is a wad for enacting the rul
"emberassing" (Score:2)
Eww you just admitted something emberassing, you are subscribed to rush limbaugh's site.
And that is bad... why?
Re:"emberassing" (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Backdoor for fairness doctrine (Score:5, Insightful)
The Democrat party is all about silencing the opposition.
Anyone who has paid any attention to politics in the past 9 years knows how ridiculous that statement is, and also knows how to correctly spell "the Democratic Party". But more importantly, even the fairness doctrine that conservatives dread so much (even though no one is trying to bring it back) was never about silencing opposition. It was about providing a balance of viewpoints -- you know, like Fox News claims to do.
BTW, your second link requires paid registration. I'm amused that you're paying to hear conspiracy theories when there are already plenty online for free.
Re: (Score:2)
what business is it of the government whether or not there is a "balance of viewpoints?" how would it be enforceable and who would decide what "balance" means? Don't like what Fox news is spewing? Good. You can think for yourself. Change the channel.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
never about silencing opposition.
That's ALL it was about. Specifically talk radio. Far-left-wing talk shows simply couldn't turn a profit on radio (and were thus dumped) so they figured they could legislate themselves onto the radio waves.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
It's not exactly healthy for the only voices to be heard are those who can afford to make themselves heard, i.e. big businesses. It sounds to me like it's the left who have been silenced, if what you say is true.
Less of an issue with the internet, of course, with its much lower barrier to entry.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That's like saying "it isn't healthy to ignore flat-earthers so we need to force you to listen to them!" If customers don't want to listen to left talk-show hosts, you must not force them to. They have been tried, a small few do manage to make it, but the truth is the demand just isn't there.
The Constitution says "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press"
or more simply, "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom...of the press"
That means no regulation, period. T
There's a hint of persecution complex... (Score:5, Interesting)
... and whiny martyrdom among certain conservatives that sometimes make me wish that Democrats were in fact exactly as dirty-handed, ruthless, and out to get the GOP would-be victims seem to think it was.
So, yeah. The Fairness Doctrine meant that you could be "harrassed" to provide alternate points of view if you dedicated a broadcast outlet to partisan purposes.
Here's some interesting questions:
If the article of faith on the right that The Media(TM) is a veritable fifth column of liberal political support is true, why wouldn't this state of affairs benefit conservatives *far* more than it would liberals?
For the obviously very few and utterly beleaguered bastions of conservative broadcasting, why would it be "silencing" them media outlet to require them to broadcast expressions of other views? Do conservatives consider themselves silenced when they are encounter opposing views? Is freedom of speech for conservatives the right to avoid this?
Far-left-wing talk shows simply couldn't turn a profit on radio (and were thus dumped) so they figured they could legislate themselves onto the radio waves.
Yeah. Apparently the prospective audience was less interested in transparent polemics and more interested in reality than their conservative counterparts.
Re: (Score:2)
never about silencing opposition.
That's ALL it was about. Specifically talk radio. Far-left-wing talk shows simply couldn't turn a profit on radio (and were thus dumped) so they figured they could legislate themselves onto the radio waves.
There is a helluvalot of rightward spin on those words.
Following a time when unscrupulous politicians were able to lead the country into hell-holes by abusing mass media with "silent majority" fictions, the Fairness Doctrine was a much needed correction. Its adoption made it much harder for ethically corrupt politicians to claim that the apathetic were actually supporting their position. And in a democracy like the USA, a large segment of potential voters are going to be too apathetic on just about any is
Re: (Score:2)
"But more importantly, even the fairness doctrine that conservatives dread so much (even though no one is trying to bring it back)..."
No one is trying to bring it back now, at least not openly. Last year was a different case. The Speaker of the House of Representatives and the Senate Majority leader both expressed support for it [wikipedia.org]. It's unpopular. Presidents from FDR to Nixon used it to smother opponents. That's why it was eliminated (by a Democratic Congress in the 80's, I would add).If Democrats ever do try
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It mandates, under government authority, that you give an "equal" block of airtime to someone in opposition to your programming, whether or not your listeners want it. It's Big Brother on the radio.
Actually, it's the opposite of Big Brother. Read 1984 again; it sounds like you missed the point entirely.
Your only alternative is to turn the radio off.
No, you have other alternatives: change the station, listen to internet or satellite radio, do something else for a while, or even (gasp!) just listen to a dissenting opinion once in a while.
That's regulating speech and micromanaging private enterprise.
No, it's not regulating speech, it's regulating the use of one particular forum (the public airwaves). The First Amendment doesn't entitle you to say whatever you like on the radio any more than it entitles you to s
Re: (Score:2)
No, it's not regulating speech, it's regulating the use of one particular forum (the public airwaves). The First Amendment doesn't entitle you to say whatever you like on the radio any more than it entitles you to say whatever you like on your neighbor's lawn.
Being on your neighbor's lawn has nothing to do with free speech, it has everything to do with private property. What you say is irrelevant to the law.
They paid for the right to broadcast on those frequencies, but their use is subject to certain terms, which they knew when they paid for it.
BTW, radio was still profitable when the fairness doctrine was in effect.
Air space is just as much private property as land is, it can be owned and within a specific area. The FCC was created to defend this private property right, so broadcasters would not interfere with each other, and nothing more.
Yes, profit is a good thing, but in this situation the existence of a profit is not what matters: economics is about value on the mar
Re: (Score:2)
Air space is just as much private property as land is, it can be owned and within a specific area. The FCC was created to defend this private property right, so broadcasters would not interfere with each other, and nothing more.
And yet we already impose plenty of other restrictions on how the airwaves can be used, from station ID requirements to bans on profanity and nudity (you may recall an incident with Janet Jackson). A broadcasting license has never given the broadcaster absolute control over content.
By the way, we are a constitutional republic, not a democracy.
Oh, please. Under that definition, there are no democracies. But you and I both know that "democracy" commonly refers to forms of government in which citizens elect their representatives, and such arrangements are harmed when cit
Re: (Score:2)
And yet we already impose plenty of other restrictions on how the airwaves can be used, from station ID requirements to bans on profanity and nudity (you may recall an incident with Janet Jackson). A broadcasting license has never given the broadcaster absolute control over content.
Regulation doesn't mean it isn't privately owned, businesses are regulated and licensed. Government prohibits employers from paying/employees from accepting wages below a given rate, for instance. That, of course, doesn't mean it is right.
Oh, please. Under that definition, there are no democracies. But you and I both know that "democracy" commonly refers to forms of government in which citizens elect their representatives, and such arrangements are harmed when citizens are uninformed or misinformed -- even if it's due to their own listening preferences.
Correct, while the idea of a constitution had been around for a while, nothing as formal as the US Constitution had ever existed (the articles of confederation carried no coercive authority and was therefore more of a treaty). The constitution became immensely popular afte
Re: (Score:2)
Government prohibits employers from paying/employees from accepting wages below a given rate, for instance. That, of course, doesn't mean it is right.
Heh. The question of whether regulations are "right" was settled long ago: the laissez-faire fundamentalists lost. Condolences!
Libel and false advertising would be fraud, not free speech.
So you agree that "free speech" doesn't mean absolute control over content. What are we arguing about, then?
So the issue appears to be how limited is the broadcast time for that media?
Exactly. That's the difference between broadcast media and newspapers: the airwaves are fundamentally limited in a way that newspaper space is not. That's why radio spectrum is licensed and printing presses aren't, and why broadcast media is subject to restrictions that don't
Re: (Score:2)
Yep, laissez-faire lost. That doesn't mean they are right. How is that "sound" regulation working out? No regulation has put a dent in the business cycle, quality, or cost, or at the very least, the supposed benefits were grossly overestimated.
You have not made the case that those limitations are actually causing any problems. I showed that it is entirely possible to start new stations with alternative viewpoints, and many are - they simply don't do well. The problem is always economics - limited resources
Re: (Score:2)
How is that "sound" regulation working out? No regulation has put a dent in the business cycle, quality, or cost, or at the very least, the supposed benefits were grossly overestimated.
It's working pretty well in my experience. For example, just a few hours ago I ate some food that wasn't filled with rat droppings or workers' severed digits. I have confidence that the money in my bank account today will still be there tomorrow. I can use third-party car parts without voiding the warranty on my car.
I showed that it is entirely possible to start new stations with alternative viewpoints, and many are - they simply don't do well.
You're missing the point. "New stations with alternative viewpoints" are a poor substitute for balanced presentation of viewpoints within a single station. Just because no one wants to hear pro-
Re: (Score:2)
How is that "sound" regulation working out? No regulation has put a dent in the business cycle, quality, or cost, or at the very least, the supposed benefits were grossly overestimated.
It's working pretty well in my experience. For example, just a few hours ago I ate some food that wasn't filled with rat droppings or workers' severed digits. I have confidence that the money in my bank account today will still be there tomorrow. I can use third-party car parts without voiding the warranty on my car.
Again, that would be fraud. That is a legitimate purpose of government. What about the hair dryers that have electrocuted so many people, dish washers that have mutilated so many people, or the movies theaters that are spewing explicit content out... oh wait, those aren't regulated by government, or with the coercive authority they carry. They are regulated by the UL and MPAA. (I don't know if you have seen a variety of early electrical appliances, especially "dish washers" to know how much good the UL does
Re: (Score:2)
So it is about shutting down dissent then. It is about restricting how much speech one side may present.
Absolutely not. It's about providing a balance of opinion. You can say whatever you want, for as long as you want, as long as you provide a balanced view of the controversial issues.
That doesn't "restrict how much speech one side may present" any more than the station ID requirements do, or the fact that the day only has 24 hours in it. Sure, you can't spend all 24 hours railing on one side of the issue, but you're embarrassing yourself if you're equating that to "shutting down dissent". You can fit plenty
Re: (Score:2)
Absolutely not. It's about providing a balance of opinion. You can say whatever you want, for as long as you want, as long as you provide a balanced view of the controversial issues.
That doesn't "restrict how much speech one side may present" any more than the station ID requirements do, or the fact that the day only has 24 hours in it. Sure, you can't spend all 24 hours railing on one side of the issue, but you're embarrassing yourself if you're equating that to "shutting down dissent". You can fit plenty of "dissent" into 12 hours, even if you have to devote the next 12 to providing a balance of opinions.
That doesn't change the fact it still demands someone be shut down, and it is the government that is making that decision. Government being the one to tell people who may not speak, that is shutting down dissenting views.
You're still not grasping the difference between one station balancing another and one station balancing itself.
If a radio host decides to spend an hour promoting longer copyright terms, where should listeners go to hear the counterargument? Does a group like the EFF have to run its own station dedicated to shorter terms? Should we expect every single issue to have a station running 24x7 just in case someone on another station decides to talk about it? Of course not, it's wasteful and there isn't enough radio bandwidth for it anyway.
Now that is shutting down dissent -- free market style. "Your opinion on this issue isn't important to enough people to support its own radio station, so I guess it doesn't deserve to get heard on the radio at all."
That is what economics is for, to objectively determine how to allocate limited resources based on subjective exchanges. It determines how resources are allocated most effectively. A free market cannot, by definition shut down dissent - because a free market is void of violence or the threa
Re: (Score:2)
That doesn't change the fact it still demands someone be shut down, and it is the government that is making that decision. Government being the one to tell people who may not speak, that is shutting down dissenting views.
No, you could hardly be more wrong. It doesn't demand anyone be shut down. It only demands that the station provide a balance of opinions. It's up to the station to arrange their schedule in such a way that those opinions can be heard. The government would not make any decision about the length of any particular show.
Likewise, consider the station ID requirements. Every so often, the station must devote some airtime to telling its listeners what station they're listening to. Does that mean the government is
Re: (Score:2)
Stop with the citations of examples of regulations for a second. I never said they were good, I never said they were bad. However, it does not follow that just because government requires public decency regulations (irrespective of if it is a good idea or bad idea), it does not follow that government can also tell broadcasters how to allocate their time. Just because government can search your moving car, does not mean they can search your car in your garage.
You cannot (objectively) comment on scarcity, onl
Re: (Score:2)
You need to explain why, even though there is plenty of chances for opposing viewpoints to be broadcast, they fail, and why that makes it necessary to use coercive authority to tell the stations otherwise.
I have explained this multiple times already. Pay attention.
You need to explain where the broadcast exemption to the first amendment is in the Constitution
No, I really don't. The courts have already ruled on it, and it's not my job to defend that ruling.
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
The Democrat party is all about silencing the opposition.
Anyone who has paid any attention to politics in the past 9 years knows how ridiculous that statement is,
You mean the way that the Obama Administration prosecuted the members of the New Black Panther Party who were carrying weapons in front of a voting location and yelling racial slurs at whites who approached to vote (oversimplifying for brevity, if you are familiar with the case, you know what happened. If you aren't familiar with the case, why not?)? BTW for those who don't know, the Obama Administration dropped the charges when they were about to get a guilty verdict. If you aren't familiar with the case g
Re: (Score:2)
You mean the way that the Obama Administration prosecuted the members of the New Black Panther Party who were carrying weapons in front of a voting location and yelling racial slurs at whites who approached to vote (oversimplifying for brevity, if you are familiar with the case, you know what happened. If you aren't familiar with the case, why not?)?
I must be missing something. How is this connected to the question of whether or not the Democratic Party is interested in silencing the opposition?
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe because they are all examples of, oh, I don't know, SILENCING THE OPPOSITION?
Re: (Score:1)
The Democrat party is all about silencing the opposition.
Anyone who has paid any attention to politics in the past 9 years knows how ridiculous that statement is, and also knows how to correctly spell "the Democratic Party". But more importantly, even the fairness doctrine that conservatives dread so much (even though no one is trying to bring it back) was never about silencing opposition. It was about providing a balance of viewpoints -- you know, like Fox News claims to do.
BTW, your second link requires paid registration. I'm amused that you're paying to hear conspiracy theories when there are already plenty online for free.
You might want to go over to democrat.com and tell them they've got their own name incorrect. It could be your good deed of the day
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
At least Fox leans to the center periodically.
On that basis, I would be fascinated to hear your description of the BBC, considering how outrageously right-wing Fox really, and consistently is.
Re: (Score:2)
On that basis, I would be fascinated to hear your description of the BBC, considering how outrageously right-wing Fox really, and consistently is.
I will occasionally visit bbc.com for news. Being in the States (and without cable or satellite) I only rarely get the opportunity to view their news broadcasts. (Video at bbc.com is off limits to Americans.)
I have little specific opinion of the BBC, but acknowledge that they do have a good reputation. They do have some British bias, but they can hardly be faulted for that! I simply haven't seen enough to label them (or to see if they are above labels).
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
So you agree Rush is wrong, good.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
I know you Libertards like to misquote and claim the memory of Jefferson, founder of, among other things, some of Virginia's oldest public schools, who knew how to get public moniez easily and could play his state's legislature like a fiddle, but this one is from Gerald Ford, who invented it of whole cloth.
Re:Backdoor for fairness doctrine (Score:5, Insightful)
I heard a warning in November (from Republicans of course) that the Fairness Doctrine, trying to legislate the content of the internet and talk radio, would come under the guise of Net Neutrality.
Republicans spreading FUD against a proposal (net neutrality) that favors consumers over big business? What a shocker!
The fairness doctrine has never had anything to do with the internet, BTW. There aren't even any serious proposals to bring it back for radio, much less apply it to the internet.
Re: (Score:1, Interesting)
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10320096-38.html
yeah..those wacky republicans...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Are you suggesting that off-topic posts don't deserve to be modded down?
Re:Backdoor for fairness doctrine (Score:5, Insightful)
"It should be clear by now that my focus here is not freedom of speech or the press," [Lloyd] said. "This freedom is all too often an exaggeration. At the very least, blind references to freedom of speech or the press serve as a distraction from the critical examination of other communications policies." (http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/53055)
Notice he first says that his focus is not freedom of speech, but then dismisses it as unimportant and irrelevant. Lloyd apparently, by his own words (read the rest of the article in which he outlines his plan) believes the federal government, through the FCC and other satellite offices should be carefully controlling not just ownership (which in itself is an issue) but also the *content* of the media.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Because he's correct - FCC is not there to guarantee freedom of expression. Far from it. FCC is there to guarantee that *communication* stuff works - to follow the rules of communication as outlined in the law. And to put it simply, communication fails when Comcast or Verizon start to filter one content over another.
Now, Net Neutrality law would specify the meximum amount of filtering that the companies can do. What type of policies are allowed and not allowed under that law. And FCC *job* is then to enforc
Re: (Score:2)
The FCC regulates what goes on in our communications commons -- traditionally, the electromagnetic airwaves, but others too (think publicly-owned, -funded, -subsidized, and/or -monopoly-granted cable/Internet/telephone infrastructure). Since these are owned by (or owed to) the public, they must be regulated for the public good. You have the right to speak freely, but you don't have the right to do whatever you want to alter, pollute, or dominate our commons. And just because some have built huge business
Of course- it's the Brookings Institute (Score:1, Funny)
The Brookings institute is a socialist thinktank. Expect for this to start, run, and end badly.
Re: (Score:1)
I know this is going to modded troll, but ...
It is interesting how this "I know this is going to modded [insert random negative mod label], but ..." trope almost guarantees positive moderation here.
Cannot believe... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Cannot believe... (Score:4, Insightful)
just because they say they're going to do it is no guarantee that it will benefit us. the real problems which allow these carriers to be discriminative still exist. that is to say that local monopolies, fraud and such still exist.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
It's the reason that the six participants of the Parents Television Council can through their weight around regarding obscenity. They essentially game the system, commenting over and over again on the same issue and the FCC counts each one as distinct.
Words (Score:1)
I don't get it (Score:1)
If you don't like the internet, just go build your own military-industrial complex funded by a cold-war arms race culminating decades later in many scientific advances including high speed communications technology.
wrong approach, as usual (Score:1, Insightful)
Another layer of regulation by people who barely know what they are talking about.
How much and where packets get routed should be responsibility of the ISP.
Why that leads to problems for the user? because we have de facto oligopolies in telecommunication. Instead we ought to have a state controlled infrastructure, which is built mantained, proportionally according to the use, by a variety of private companies. This would let even very small companies get into the biz, thus permitting real competition. Then
Re: (Score:2)
It's not about deregulation, it's about ownership of infrastructure. The physical infrastructure should be owned by the people it serves. This has been done in a few towns in the USA, and works very well. Rather than cable and telephone companies getting government grants to build the infrastructure, suburbs build their own. They then get competing upstream providers to bid to offer them connectivity and competing local companies to bid to maintain (and upgrade) the infrastructure.
In this situation,
Net Neutrality (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
While what you say is true, it doesn't go far enough. Net Neutrality says: not only do they have to allow Skype, they can't charge the company running Skype extra for letting you get to it, or letting you get to it as quickly or as reliably as you do to anything else. Without full end-to-end protection against gotcha-games like this, the situation will hardly improve.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, it really does not make much sense, except for the 17 people in the country that have the massively over-priced unlimited data package (OK, I don't know exactly how much it costs now, but 2 years ago it was pretty pricey.) For everyone else, they are going to wipe out their data quota in about 5 minutes and start paying the equally massive overage costs. You would think that the cell companies would even encourage such behavior.
Re: (Score:2)
[1] Technically it's 'unlimited' with a 40MB/day AUP, so they won't charge if I go over 40MB, they just may decide to stop allowing me data access in the futu
Not real network neutrality, anyway.... (Score:2)
Whatever the FCC proposes, it almost certainly won't be the real thing [slashdot.org], but a legislative band-aid. It's sad that we still can't correct century-old mistakes.
Once the goverment can control internet traffic... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Gov't regulating the internet? (Score:1, Interesting)
Do we really want the government regulating the internet? What's next? Requiring ISPs to filter offensive material, track users, etc? This is a bad direction.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Funny, if they were planning on doing that, I imagine they should have done it when they invented the damn thing.
Rules Should Be Set by Legislature (Score:1)
I know it happens all the time, but there is something wrong about complex rules being set by a federal agency instead of a legislature. That's the organization that should hash out competing priorities.
Tethering... (Score:1)
Principals? (Score:4, Informative)
Principals run elementary schools. The word you want is "principles".
There STILL are morons who can tag this story (Score:2)
with 'bigbrother'.
i want to beat them each with a thick stick. maybe this can put some sense into their heads. how STUPID can someone be, to leave his/her freedoms in the hands of private people and groups, over whom s/he has no control with. it seems like some morons are SO affected by decades of brainwashing that they think that word 'private' is synonymous to the word 'good'.
die out please, will you ? most of you are generally old anyway. just phase out and leave this world be. your time is past.
Re: (Score:2)
Government has the guns, private companies do not. That is the entire story, in a manner of speaking.
And newsflash, there is no human right to Internet, or telecommunications, or anything owned by someone else. Private companies have the freedom to offer their services, or not, to anyone they wish, and possible customers have the freedom to accept or reject anyone they wish. You fail to realize the companies are providing a great benefit to most customers, the cost of DIY-Internet would otherwise be gargant
Re: (Score:2)
excuse me, but the 'freedom of choice' in market is total bullshit. all of the 'choices' you can make on the 'market' belong to companies which are either stakeholdings of bigger groups which are, in turn, belong to big conglomerates. if you look at names like procter & gamble, you will see that. there are seemingly zillions of brands in the market for everything, but actually, they stem from similar sources.
all that bullcrap you are trying to sell in the guise of freedom, were sold in roman republic at
Re: (Score:2)
I never said we had the guarantee of choice. Do you care to quote me on that? I said we have freedom. No one can force you to buy something, nor can (well, should) they prevent you from buying something. It is your decision.
I entirely agree, the mega-cooperations in bed with government is WRONG. In no way should there be welfare for cooperations. If you cannot turn a profit, you fail and let someone else have their chance to be productive. That is an argument to decrease the power of government, if they had
Re: (Score:2)
I never said we had the guarantee of choice. Do you care to quote me on that? I said we have freedom. No one can force you to buy something, nor can (well, should) they prevent you from buying something. It is your decision.
it is NOT your decision. that's what you dont understand. that's why i gave you procter&gamble example. half of what you can buy in your area will be coming from the same ultimate source. half of what you can buy in another area you relocate, will be coming from the same ultimate source too.
I entirely agree, the mega-cooperations in bed with government is WRONG. In no way should there be welfare for cooperations. If you cannot turn a profit, you fail and let someone else have their chance to be productive. That is an argument to decrease the power of government, if they had no power to tell companies what to do, they couldn't have bailed them out. You can't say both I am going to tell you how to operate, and then guarantee your success with taxpayer money, it is a financial black hole, not to mention corporate fascism.
what is a government ?
it is something that has the decision power on how certain things be done, and how certain things cant be done.
what is a corporation ? it is something that acquires resources, turns them
Re: (Score:2)
Well, I am not going to speculate on where you learned roman history, making such assumptions seems counter-productive :)
You must have a non-standard definition of profit. Usually when a company reports monetary profit (or, net profit) it works, but only on a large scale, e.g. the company took in more selling than they cost to produce. This doesn't work on an individual scale, otherwise you would be reporting a monetary loss of, say, $250 for a Wii. Profit means you decided it would leave you better off tha
Re: (Score:2)
Well, I am not going to speculate on where you learned roman history, making such assumptions seems counter-productive :)
long, self-study through numerous independent resources, offline and online.
You must have a non-standard definition of profit. Usually when a company reports monetary profit (or, net profit) it works, but only on a large scale, e.g. the company took in more selling than they cost to produce. This doesn't work on an individual scale, otherwise you would be reporting a monetary loss of, say, $250 for a Wii. Profit means you decided it would leave you better off than the alternative. Even though you may not enjoy paying $6/gal for gas, it is better than not getting it, therefore you profit (again, even if you don't enjoy it).
the problem here is not with profits. they may rise or lower their profit treshold depending on their political needs at the time, just like how the oil cartels in close friendship with gop have lowered or suspended oil prices prior to elections last year.
the problem here is CONTROL.
Again, freedom does not guarantee a certain number of choices. Just because you have the freedom to choose what or what you do not get, does not mean that you get to choose between two or more things. Largely this is a good thing, for instance it is counter productive to offer more than one Internet service in the US, while there are other areas that have no coverage. Instead of competing for a few people in one area, you could offer service to people who do not have any service at all, and benefit far more people. In other cases, like groceries, say, competition is profitable, and the public is benefited that way. For some services like air travel a regional monopoly would be inefficient, but thousands of airlines wouldn't have the capital necessary to serve the public efficiently either. Generally the market, when there is no violence (that government threatens) largely satisfies human wants not completely but as efficiently as possible.
You must also have a non-standard definition of choice. Companies have the choice of what to offer you, and you have the choice to take it. But the important thing is that no exchange is made unless you both voluntarily agree.
Perhaps I misspoke, selfishness when there is a threat of violence is typically bad. Selfishness when the only way you can be selfish is in return for something someone else offers you, it benefits both parties. This is by definition, it is called "voluntary exchange."
If I understand your definitions correctly I don't see any disagreement.
freedom has to be guaranteeing certain number of choices, because it is in the definition of freedom itself. if you are buying similar service from the