Obama Is Threatening To Veto the GOP's Latest Assault On Net Neutrality (vice.com) 135
An anonymous reader cites a Motherboard article: President Obama has long been a vocal supporter of net neutrality. In a "
Statement of Administration Policy" (PDF) released Tuesday, Obama signaled that he intends to veto Republican-backed legislation that open internet advocates say could eviscerate federal net neutrality protections. Earlier this year, a GOP-controlled House subcommittee approved the "No Rate Regulation of Broadband Internet Access Act," (H.R. 2666) which net neutrality supporters say could severely undercut the Federal Communications Commission's ability to police the nation's largest cable and phone companies. The House bill would "undermine key provisions in the Federal Communications Commission's open internet order and harm the commission's ability to protect consumers while facilitating innovation and economic growth," said the Obama administration's statement. "If the President were presented with H.R. 2666, his senior advisors would recommend that he veto the bill."Please do, Obama.
Which version of net neutrality? (Score:1)
Which version of net neutrality is this bill going to do harm to? The American or European version?
Re: (Score:1)
Which version of net neutrality is this bill going to do harm to? The American or European version?
Huh? I... I don't know that. Auuuuuuuugh!
Re: (Score:3)
They're the same, except for the capacity of unladen packets to carry coconuts.
Re:Packets ARE equal (Score:5, Insightful)
Wrong. Net neutrality ensures competition by equal availability. The packets from netflix are not more important than those from youtube or hulu, and net neutrality is about preventing paid performance advantage over common carrier networks aimed at capturing market share from competitors.
Re:Packets ARE equal (Score:4, Insightful)
We need this last mile provision as well as preventing companies who create and sell media be the ones to control the access to said media. Imagine if your home gas and electricity was through the same company and that company also happened to be a natural gas producer. Would it be fair for them to artificially inflate the cost of electricity to encourage the consumption of their other subsidiary's product?
Make it like natural gas or electricity. The supplier of the data and the provider of the service through the lines should be separate. The supplier of the lines can charge a connection and service fee, but not control at all what types or how much data passes through their pipe as long as it fits. Let the data providers compete over business while the lines themselves are charged for maintenance and upgrades.
Re: (Score:2)
Imagine if your home gas and electricity was through the same company and that company also happened to be a natural gas producer.
I'm in California, in Silicon Valley. In my area (as with much of the state) the electric and gas utility are both PG&E. I get a single bill for both services, and the regulated rates are set by government approval of rate proposals generated by that company.
So it looks like exactly the doomsday market scenario you describe applies to me - and millions of others here on the
Re: (Score:2)
The doomsday scenario is not that you have one provider, but if that provider had the power to increase electricity rates to encourage the use of natural gas while the same provider is doing fracking. It sounds like the government regulates their charged rates and something tells me they wouldn't allow the increase of electricity rates because PG&E wants to sell more gas.
Re: (Score:2)
Think about what you just said. You want to control the work of others, completely, via Legislation. Are you REALLY comfortable with that?
You're already marked Troll, and probably you are, because you can't be as stupid as you sound. But I'll bite anyway.
Yes. Yes. I am. I'm really really comfortable with that. See, there are assholes in the world who think it's fun to break capitalism. Some of them might even have pretentious names resembling that of Christian demi-gods. I'm perfectly comfortable with controlling everything that kind of asshole does, with legislation, backed up by jack-booted thugs. Because otherwise those assholes wil
Re: (Score:2)
I can't believe I'm feeding the troll, but dammit I'm a libertarian. As crazy as this might seem to you, libertarians do support government action when it is necessary to ensure a free market. You cannot have a free market when a cartel of companies control the media and the access. The problem is not that Comcast, Time Warner, and others want to control the distribution of their own work, they want to discourage the distribution of competing works. This is fundamentally no different than UAW workers vandal
Re:Packets ARE equal (Score:4, Insightful)
That is government granted franchise agreement to the Cable Company.Government rules and regulations caused this mess, and everyone's idea of how to fix it is MORE government solutions.
The first thing you need to realize is.... laying cable or fiber, required for internet, is a natural monopoly. It is exacerbated by government regulation and only providing a limited number of entities access to "Rights of Way" required to put cables in the ground.
Preferably, the municipalities would just bring fibre to everyone, and access to communications would be like getting a Plain old Telephone or Electricity, or other utilities; then you could pick your ISP of choice, just like you call whoever you want on the Telephone.
Yeah, because BOTH the natural and the legal situation AND the lack of foresight by legislators this has created major entities, and realistically, they aren't going away, although I would like them to. Regulation is a good first step, since it's not going to be possible to eliminate these monopolies and have broad competition in the short run, without hurting everyone.
We need network neutrality as long as the monopolies and no competition continue to exist.
We should just accept the regulation and apply it only to providers WHO:
1. Own or partner with internet properties, such as competing video service companies above a certain size, and the neutrality protection rule applies to all companies in the same industry as their in-house service.
, AND
2. The operation of any broadband provider in a geographical region where there is not at least 1 competing service of a minimum size with medium of a similar level of mobility and reliability (Wireless not similar to Land) with these competitors offering service to any household in the market (Competitors that only service Urban areas do not count), and the competitors' service is either all 100 Megabits or higher, or within 10% deviation.
Re: (Score:2)
The first thing you need to realize is.... laying cable or fiber, required for internet, is a natural monopoly.
So are roads. My suggestion is to treat them like roads. We don't let FEDEX have a franchise agreement and build roads that only they can use.
Preferably, the municipalities would just bring fibre to everyone, and access to communications would be like getting a Plain old Telephone or Electricity, or other utilities; then you could pick your ISP of choice, just like you call whoever you want on the Telephone.
This is exactly what I am proposing.
Everything else is subject to real competition. I don't want, we don't need government restricting commerce because of some myopic view. I've had to deal with legislatively created monopolies that lived LONG past their usefulness simply because they were legislated into being. TelCo LATA lines (Geographic Boundaries) that separated
Re: (Score:2)
Please explain to me, how more laws fixing problems caused by existing laws is going to make things better, and not actually cause more problems than they solve?
My solution is simple, and would be VERY easy to implement on a small scale to show what it could do. Your solution proposes fixes for problems cause by government in the first place, in a "one size fits all" model that I can assure you doesn't fit ANYONE.
Re: (Score:2)
Suppose we have one law, which bans murder. The law has problems in that it allows all sorts of other things to happen. Therefore, according to you, a law to ban rape or armed robbery would be trying to fix a problem with the murder law, and therefore won't make things better and will cause more problems than it solves.
Re: Packets ARE equal (Score:1)
It's been done successfully in other countries. What makes the US such a special flower that it wouldn't work here? Because we love capitalism and hate the government for any and everything? Boo fucking hoo.
Re: (Score:2)
Because we love capitalism and hate the government for any and everything?
That's not why. The current situation is almost as far-removed from capitalism as you can get --- it's the opposite of capitalism, where the government creates a monopoly and incentivizes the monopolist to abuse their position, and doesn't do much to reign them in.
Re: (Score:1)
Perhaps, but most people don't seem to realize that despite the appearance of choice, they don't have a choice.
Especially when it comes to the ISP market.
And often when it's WAY past "too late".
In any case I've seen it referred to around here as "crony capitalism" and I neglected to add that modifier... but you may talking about something else entirely.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. My solution is initially hard, as you have to build the infrastructure right. But once that is done, everything becomes MUCH easier.
The Infrastructure can be built with Bonds and paid by property taxes, or taxes on service (when purchased) or both.
Re: (Score:2)
This is a decent idea in itself but I'm not sure the increased competition would give enough motive to voluntarily enact net neutrality. For example, there's a lot of competition among cellular providers and data plans with zero-rated services (Facebook, Netflix etc) are still common. It's a big guy vs. little guy problem - data providers can safely collude with the big guy and few people will be upset. It still stifles competition, perhaps even moreso in the long term than more targeted or self-serving arr
Re: (Score:2)
Geeks can band together and build their own "neutrality" based service
Re: (Score:2)
I agree.
That may be a reasonable practical solution, given the way our roads are owned and managed today.
However, I think it's worth pointing out that the reason we have this economic "last
Re: (Score:2)
it exists because the inability of services to compete for last mile access customers right now.
Correct. But that is largely due to Franchise agreements that restrict competition for that last mile. Those agreements served their purpose during the early periods where CATV didn't offer but one service (TV). Now you have it competing with TriplePlay style services (Internet, Voice, TV). And many of these are irrelevant once you realize that two of the three services (perhaps all three) are just Internet.
Re: (Score:2)
Net Neutrality is a problem of the "last mile", the inability of the customer to SHOP for the service / price / quality of the products and services we wish to purchase
I agree.
You are wrong. Net neutrality has nothing to do with how much you pay for the pipe into your home, or who sells it to you. Net neutrality means that when you use that pipe the service provider does not differentiate unnecessarily based on the source of the data you access.
That means that an ISP that is also a content provider does not artificially limit your access to content from other providers in preference to its own. It does not mean that the ISP cannot allow unmetered access to some content based on
Re: (Score:2)
The only reason a content provider can artificially limit access to content from other providers is because access to the "last mile" is limited. If access to the last mile weren't limited, then if one provider attempts to limit access to the content f
Re: (Score:2)
You mean like when government forces companies and people to invest in expensive ISDN and fiber infrastructure for the long term? You know, when ISDN is replaced rapidly by DSL, never recouping the investment, and the fiber technologies that were deployed "for the long term" turned out to be obsolete by the time fiber actually was commercially feasible? That happened where I used to live.
Corporations frequently think and plan long term.
Re: (Score:2)
Technology Infrastructure has a lifespan of about 10 years, Max.
However, the pathways needed last forever. You can pull new fiber down existing conduit, provided you put the conduit in place when you pulled it the first time.
Give me a budget for a small town (mine would work) where I could build out a COLO facility, and put in conduit and fiber to every home, and I'll show you how well it would work. I'll bet that I could have most houses wanting High Speed Internet at a fraction of the cost of Cable. I'll
Re: (Score:2)
You could. But you don't have such a budget and you don't run a small town, and that's no accident. If you did, you'd have donors, lobbyists, unions, and corporations breathing down your neck, and you would end up making the choices
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly how my solutions solves that problem. Customers choose the service from ANY number of providers, as they see fit. Best fit solution.
Re: (Score:2)
VOIP and other time-sensitive packets must be prioritized over other packets or performance of those services won't be acceptable to users.
ISPs want to argue that, but it's not as relevant as it looks. Because QOS priorities really only matter if the network is congested. And, the ISP shouldn't have congested backbone links.
The car analogies the ISPs offer up are broken. It's not really about being able to have a faster than *normal* lane. Having a higher QOS priority is more like driving in a normal speed toll lane during rush hour because the the non-toll lanes are congested. But, outside of rush hour, when the non-toll lanes are run
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Unfortunately, the concept of Net Neutrality ruins such innovative business models.
Net Neutrality also stops "innovative" business models like charging people who live where there are few broadband choices a extortionate fee to enjoy Netflix while at the same time also charging Netflix to deliver that content to those people.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Do you think Netflix gets their bandwidth for free? They pay to send their bits out just like customers pay to pull those bits in. The only difference is that Netflix is making money and impacting cable companies' TV revenues. Those cable companies want to use their ISP monopolies (or duopolies in some markets) to charge extra for streaming video (caps/overages) and to promote their own services (bundling pricing schemes/degrading streaming video connections). These companies don't like that the FCC is s
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
somebody PLEASE mod this guy up
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Packets not all equal (Score:5, Insightful)
Unfortunately, the concept of Net Neutrality ruins such innovative business models.
Unfortunately, your puppydog and unicorn concept of the benevolent provider allowing for humanity to reach never before achieved levels of awesomness.
All it sounds like is an overall adoption of the phone carrier's unlimited data packages concept for everyone. So at home, we'll be throttled after a few Gb's, and if we want the "real unlimited" package, we can pay 2X the amount, and get 3 Gb before they throttle us.
Which in today's internet, the ads should take care of the unthrottled data after 3 or 4 page views.
In the end? If I want to keep the service I have now, it will only cost 4 times as much.
4. Profit!
Re: (Score:1)
Unfortunately your idea the the fix for Government created problems is more government created problems. It is this myopic view that is really the fault of "there ought to be a law" crowd, that cannot fathom anything other than legislative solutions to legislatively created problems.
The problem starts and ends with the Last Mile. Fix the customer's inability to buy service from ONLY one company, and you'll solve the Net Neutrality problem once and for all, without the need of more legislation.
But, for simpl
Re: (Score:2)
It is this myopic view that is really the fault of "there ought to be a law" crowd
Actually; it's more like Dear Federal government: YOU created this monster by giving special grants to incumbents and approving corporate mergers that resulted in a centralization of what used to be local ISPs into a few major companies. Now YOU tame your monster and work on a plan of putting permanent free-market checks against it.
By the way: 4G, Cable Internet, DSL, Satellite Internet, Fibre, and providers
Re: (Score:2)
Actually the problem is the last mile, not at the Federal Level. Quite frankly, everything that follows is a result of that CONTINUING business model of Franchise Agreements at the local level.
The solution is local. We have no need for the Congress to be involved at all. And quite frankly, if you trust EITHER party to do what is right you just haven't been paying attention.
Re: (Score:2)
You only have true competition, when there are multiple providers with access to the same kind of service medium;
The competition comes from the same service; the medium is irrelevant. The internet and ebooks and e-magazines have put local magazine stores out of business. The medium is vary different, but the competition is very very real. And Amazon and other online stores have put a lot of brick-and-mortars out of business through competition. Medium, again, is very very different.
Customers who want broadband don't really care if the medium is cable or wireless if the service is the same. They don't care if the tele
Re: (Score:2)
Customers who want broadband don't really care if the medium is cable or wireless if the service is the same.
Nonsense..... We know wireless is always subject to interference and limitations that come from wireless; we need both landline and wireless for different applications. The fact is SERVICE IS NOT THE SAME, And Physics dictates that service cannot be made the same.
The competition comes from the same service; the medium is irrelevant.
No it isn't.... The change of medium is a step change.
Re: (Score:1)
Yes, Simpletons. We ought to have 25 people selling the last mile - which of course all of them have to not only pay themselves a living wage, but pay the big carriers for the bandwidth they sell.
this will keep costs down and the gubment will be all mad and stuff cause they didn't pass a law.
Simpletons!
Re: (Score:2)
Municipal owned last mile to a COLO where you can buy service from anyone. Of course, you didn't actually read what I posted.
But by all means, keep promoting more government regulations to fix the problems government regulations caused, and expecting different results.
Re: (Score:1)
There is no need to continue reading.
Think of it like water. two or three individuals own all the water. For a fee they will let you attach a hose to get the water - then charge you for the water you use.
You want a bunch of folks to
A: Pay to attach hoses
B: Pay for the Water
C: Pass the cost of the water, Hose attachment, and wages for brokering it down to the end user.
Somehow "additional cost" is going to promote competition and lower pricing.
Then, your other fallback when challenged on that is State Regulat
Re: (Score:2)
There is no need to continue reading.
Well Okay. Shouldn't you have wrote that after your last sentence, because I don't know what else you wrote?
Re: (Score:2)
Municipal owned last mile to a COLO where you can buy service from anyone. Of course, you didn't actually read what I posted.
But by all means, keep promoting more government regulations to fix the problems government regulations caused, and expecting different results.
If I put up fiber, why shouhld I have ot allow anyone at all to have access to it, and undercut my business expenses I bought it, I put it up, and now some cutrate company that does nothing but move in and charge people for no work on their part?
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, Simpletons. We ought to have 25 people selling the last mile
Here's the libertarian version of network delivery - New York City:
http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-... [kinja-img.com]
https://keithyorkcity.files.wo... [wordpress.com]
Lest we think it can't happen today - in India:
http://farm2.staticflickr.com/... [staticflickr.com] By the way folks, don't use the many providers over one fiber stuff - to have one company put up the wire/fiber then force them to allow anyone to use and charge fo rit is about as anti-libertarian as you can get.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
You didn't say how the last mile problem will be solved. It sounds like a...law...will be needed. :|
Life, life is just not so simple for these things. I don't know if anyone remembers Broadband over Power Line, or BPL. Probalby 6-7 years ago, Private industry figured out that "Hey! People have electrical wires runing from the power ples to their houses - last mile problem fixed. Then htey ran into some issues.
First off they were limited to DSL speeds. Then since power lines kinda make antennas, the digital signals on them ended up making for unwanted radio signals. These signals interfered with licens
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately your idea the the fix for Government created problems is more government created problems.
I know exactly what you mean, unfettered by regulations, the free market has always operated in everyone's best interest. It is amazing how we go for corrupt government actions, when there has never ever been corruption, greed or avarice on the free market.
You'd think that with the inherent advantages of the free market, some country would figure it out, and show the rest of the world, or watch them go bankrupt with their silly government shenanigans. The true invisible hand of the free market, should ta
Re:Packets not all equal (Score:5, Insightful)
The protocols don't work that way. (&FCC vs F (Score:2)
I think hard-wired networks should be so robust that no set of user demand could ever saturate the possible bandwidth.
Unfortunately, the protocols don't work that way. In particular, things like file transfer over TCP and things like streaming over UDP, inherently break such scenarios.
TCP, used for file transfer (and other things that require reliable delivery of large amounts of data, where the delivery time is not critical but higher data rates are better), increases the bandwidth used until packets are
Re: (Score:2)
Netflix did do video wrong; they really do stream it in real time like VoIP.
I think they were all but physically forced to do it wrong by copyright holders.
But if you are an ISP with enough traffic to Netflix, they'll deploy caching boxes into your POPs/datacenters For free.
It's just that the largest service providers who want to charge Netflix for the privilege of more bandwidth are unwilling to do that, while Mid-Sized providers such as local ISPs are very happy to do so, But due to "Industry c
Re:Packets not all equal (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Comcast Basic Internet Service: $49.99
YouTube: $3.99*
Netflix: $14.99*
Hulu: $6.99*
Comcast xWhoopDeDoo Streaming: Free!
* May require additional subscription fee
Re: (Score:2)
*Prices valid for 1 year after which time you will have to call and threaten to cancel to pay any reasonable or competitive rate
*Offer valid only if you let us snoop on your browsing habits and share this information with other companies so they can try to sell you crap
*Rate includes 50% discount with automatic checking account electronic payments that we will screw up frequently which will be hard for you to contest since we already have the money
*Signal may be degraded and connections randomly dropped if
Re: (Score:2)
Prioritizing packets can be done for both good and evil purposes.
Re:Packets not all equal (Score:4, Insightful)
The packets that compose an email do not have the same time constraints of packets that compose a Netflix video stream.
NN can, in theory, allow packets to have different priorities based on the type of data, just not based on the source of that data.
Net Neutrality is really about truth in advertising
No. NN is about countering monopoly power. NN would not be necessary in a competitive market. Advertising is irrelevant if customers have no other choice.
Netflix, for example, could become its own ISP
Sure, and FedEx and UPS could each build their own set of roads.
Re: (Score:2)
The term 'conflict of interest' does not come up enough in these discussions.
Re: (Score:2)
Your "innovative business model" makes no technical or economic sense for the customer.. Once you've paid for the high bandwidth, consistent latency you need for efficient streaming from any video service, your ISP may as well throw in better-than-necessary access to any email service.'
Your scenario only really make sense for customers who like the way old-fashioned cable TV works: choosing your provider and content as a package. If you only wanted Netflix and didn't want YouTube or Hulu, the Netflix-as-I
Read the text of the bill (Score:2, Informative)
Unlike some monstrosities, the text of the bill is short enough that you can read it and form your own opinion. [congress.gov]
Here's the main part:
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Federal Communications Commission may not regulate the rates charged for broadband Internet access service.
Here are the exceptions:
Nothing in this Act shall be construed to affect the authority of the Commission to—
(1) condition receipt of universal service support under section 254 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.
Re: (Score:3)
but... the FUD! (Score:3)
Like you I read the bill and wonder why on earth the President would threaten to veto a bill which ensures that the Government can not mandate the rate people pay for service. Then I consider that this is FUD, and it all makes perfect sense.
Re: (Score:2)
He knows his base. Most democrats won't read it and will just assume Obama is protecting them (since apparently they feel he has a great track record on that.)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
https://www.publicknowledge.org/news-blog/blogs/the-emperors-new-clothes-rate-regulation-as-an-excuse-to-gut-fcc-consumer-protection-authority
I can't believe so many people believe this would be better for the general public, instead of yet another hand out to the industry...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not forcibly preventing people from voluntarily contracting with each other isn't a government "hand out" to an industry. It's the default state which departures from have to be justified against for any changes.
Re: (Score:2)
LOL - I loves me that partisan knee-jerk moderation! Let's see how many "overrated" mods I can get today in a desperate attempt to drown the post... ;)
Misleading name for a bill (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
What the GOP claim is that the FCC will regulate pricing by imposing net neutrality.
Where in the bill can we find this alleged claim? There is a difference between rhetoric and the text of an actual bill or law.
...the FCC will regulate pricing by ensuring that the cable companies don't use their pseudo-monopolies to gouge customers for internet access.
The FCC has already pledged to not do any price regulation whatsoever, so where is the support for this claim?
In most markets, consumers have at best two choices...
Actually, at least five methods in most markets for general access, and at least four if you don't count dial-up: Cable, DSL, 3/4G tether/dedicated, and Satellite. Fiber/FiOS is also available in many markets still.
Suddenly the cable companies lower their prices AND start to offer higher speeds.
Seeing the same thing here in and among the Sat. providers,
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, at least five methods in most markets for general access, and at least four if you don't count dial-up: Cable, DSL, 3/4G tether/dedicated, and Satellite. Fiber/FiOS is also available in many markets still.
Bahahahahaha. In most markets, you only have 1 cable company. But you say there is DSL. The answer is maybe [consumerist.com] you can get 20MB down and 1MB up. That's a maybe. Oh what about 3/4G tether/dedicated. That's a farce. Satellite? Sure: 15MB down and 3MB up (best case scenario) up is so much better than 30MB down and 2MB up and cheaper of cable. Or 1GB down/up with Google Fiber
A point is that the 5 methods are inherently not equal. The other point is within each of the 5, most consumers have 1 choice in their area.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, at least five methods in most markets for general access, and at least four if you don't count dial-up: Cable, DSL, 3/4G tether/dedicated, and Satellite.
Satellite is to high-speed internet as typewriters are to high-speed typing: the very worst of available options. 30GB is what I typically use in a week (and I wouldn't consider myself a heavy user), 25Mbit is 15% of the speed I get, and I pay just a touch under $60/mo. Satellite is so low bandwidth, latent, and expensive, that it shouldn't even
Re: (Score:3)
Dial-up would be unsuitable for streaming video (something that most people do nowadays as evidenced by the huge amount of Netflix traffic).
DSL is an older technology, much slower, and phone companies are actively trying to ditch it as soon as
Threaten? (Score:2, Insightful)
He should grow a pair ans say, "I will veto this, that is a promise."
Honestly, the repubs just utterly hate the american people, and prove it by constantly trying to pass this crap.
Re: (Score:2)
I'll simplify. It is "Group Politics"
I like my groups, and hate yours. You love your groups, and hate mine. My (X) party is better than your (Y) party.
And people think we've evolved beyond simple tribalism.
Re: (Score:2)
Honestly, the repubs just utterly hate the american people, and prove it by constantly trying to pass this crap.
Honestly, stop drinking the Kool-Aid - *both* parties have nothing but contempt for the American people, and prove it by promising you the moon during election season, but only providing a slice of processed cheese after getting elected.
Re: (Score:2)
I disagree. Democrats promise the moon and then provide a slice of processed cheese. Republicans promise you the moon and then provide you a steaming turd.
Actually that's a lie, they're not even promising that anymore, these days it's pretty much just turds straight up, so at least they're more honest.
Re: (Score:2)
Yep. Every single republican bill is a "Fuck americans and bend over for Corp XYZ" type. Hell they even fucked over the Affordable healthcare bill to be an EXACT COPY of the fucking Romneycare system that Mitt unleashed on his state.
And the democrats simply rolled over and said, Please can I have another... when the best choice would have been to let it die.
Every single Democrat bill seems to be for propping up the Disney Cartel, and a Mental patient focus on "evil guns, must get rid of evil guns" So we
Re: (Score:1)
I dunno, there's one congressperson running for president who fought it, as well as voted against the Patriot act, against the Iraq War, wants to reign in the NSA, and supports an actual socialized healthcare system. That's who I'll be voting for.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, no matter which party you agree with, if either, you have to admit that a large portion of that contempt is well-earned. Democracy may be better than any alternative we've tried, but that doesn't automatically make it a net positive. There must exist optimum paths to maximum happiness and fairness, but democracy limits our ability to find them in a rational and methodical manner rather than through emotional and haphazard currents of public support.
So in TFA (Score:1)
So he tried to amend the bill to point out it will not prevent the FCC from doing the things the OP worries about. Did that amendment succeed?
If so, there is no issue here. You just won't have the govenmemt communistically, central planningly setting rates for things.
Re: (Score:3)
Got it. Boogeyman bad. But you're perfectly OK with Comcrap and Asinine Telephone & Telegraph monopolistically dictating utility rates in their respective fiefdoms.
Thanks Obama! (Score:2)
Thanks. No, seriously this time.
Think about this carefully... (Score:1)
It's like this (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)