Steve Wozniak: Net Neutrality Rollback 'Will End the Internet As We Know It' (siliconbeat.com) 215
An anonymous reader quotes Silicon Beat:
Apple co-founder Steve Wozniak penned an op-ed on Friday with a former Federal Communications Commission chairman, urging the current FCC to stop its proposed rollback of Obama-era net neutrality regulations. In the op-ed published by USA Today, Wozniak and Michael Copps, who led the FCC from 2001 to 2011, argued the rollback will threaten freedom for internet users and may corrode democracy... "Sometimes there's a nugget of truth to the adage that Washington policymakers are disconnected from the people they purport to represent," they wrote. "It is a stirring example of democracy in action. With the Internet's future as a platform for innovation and democratic discourse on the line, a coalition of grassroots and diverse groups joined with technology firms to insist that the FCC maintain its 2015 open internet (or 'net neutrality') rules."
In the joint letter, Wozniak and Copps write that "We come from different walks of life, but each of us recognizes that the FCC is considering action that could end the internet as we know it -- a dynamic platform for entrepreneurship, jobs, education, and free expression."
"Will consumers and citizens control their online experiences, or will a few gigantic gatekeepers take this dynamic technology down the road of centralized control, toll booths and constantly rising prices for consumers? At stake is the nature of the internet and its capacity to transform our lives even more than it already has."
In the joint letter, Wozniak and Copps write that "We come from different walks of life, but each of us recognizes that the FCC is considering action that could end the internet as we know it -- a dynamic platform for entrepreneurship, jobs, education, and free expression."
"Will consumers and citizens control their online experiences, or will a few gigantic gatekeepers take this dynamic technology down the road of centralized control, toll booths and constantly rising prices for consumers? At stake is the nature of the internet and its capacity to transform our lives even more than it already has."
What bugs me (Score:2)
I love the Woz (Score:3, Insightful)
But he's really gone over the top on this one. The Net Neut rules have barely been in place for a year and a half. For him and the vast majority of the rest of us, "the Internet as we know it" is the Internet that existed before these rules were put into place.
Re:I love the Woz (Score:4, Informative)
Re:I love the Woz (Score:4, Insightful)
Similar rules have always been in place, it's just that the rules have only applied to the telecom provider. . . . Prior to about 2005 your ISP was just the internet provider - other companies did the telecommunications and still others provided content.
I'm not sure what that has to do with my original point. We all experienced "the Internet as we know it" through those unregulated ISPs (including those such as AOL that offered their own content in addition to raw Internet access), and the world kept turning just fine.
IMO the real elephant in the Net Neut room is streaming. People want to be able to watch Netflix all day and yet pay their ISP at a rate that was sized more for sporadic web browsing. That simply can't work as a matter of basic math, and this entire battle is little more than a tug-of-war over whether the heavy streamers pay for their own use, or whether the rest of us subsidize them. And that phenomenon is only a few years old itself, and thus has little to nothing to do with "the Internet as we know it."
Re: (Score:3)
Nonsense. Streaming video is part and parcel of modern web usage. ISP's are fully aware of the fact that people aren't just using their connections to read news and email anymore.
Re:I love the Woz (Score:4, Interesting)
If the wire isn't filled, it's under utilized. Once the capacity is built, it's no skin off their noses whether a bit flows down the wire or not save a comparative minuscule cost in electricity.
It matters which wire you're talking about. For wires the ISP owns (e.g., cable infrastructure and internal networks), that's absolutely true. For upstream wires receiving data from the world at large, more data flow due to the ISP's customer demands will cost the ISP more. That's at least one reason why ISPs want to offer their own content since the distribution cost to them is low and it reduces the collective demand for external bandwidth, which allows them to better predict their costs and keep customer prices stable.
The ISPs have long figured out data rates. If you want 'unlimited' you pay a handsome monthly fee, at least here. Otherwise, there are caps past which one is charged per GB.
I presume "here" is across the pond, and if so I agree that the concept of metered data is a lot more mature there than it is in the U.S. (Unsurprisingly, as far as I can tell Netflix et al. usage is a lot lower there as well.) Caps and pricing in the U.S. are very fluid right now as streaming services become more of a viable alternative to conventional TV and as content resolution increases.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The internet is worldwide. US net neutrality only affects one country.
Re: (Score:2)
That would be anti competative behavior, and there are already laws in place to prevent that. Laws, not arbitrary rules made up by a committee.
Re: (Score:2)
This isn’t about what anyone has experienced. This is a contest to dream up the scariest story about the future, then trick angry, easily manipulated internet followers into believing it and forming an online lynch mob.
For politics, for power, for contributions, for Google and Netflix corporate convenience.
I wonder why Woz is involved. Does he really believe the stories? Is he easy to manipulate?
Re: I love the Woz (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Is a problem "solved" in your book when it is still ongoing? https://www.engadget.com/2017/... [engadget.com]
Realistically the problem isn't that it would happen, but that our ISPs WANT it to happen, which means it is going to wind up mysteriously occurring. The will of the ISPs is the actual problem here, not the symptoms of throttling.
So yes, this does make the internet worse. "But that's just mobile traffic!" nope it aint:
https://arstechnica.com/inform... [arstechnica.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Umm, they weren't turned into law, they where turned into rules. Rules which have been enforced like, once? Much better to spend the governments time and money establishing rules so people in public restrooms are legally obligated to flush. Yes, I'm being a smart ass. Regulation isn't required until something bad is happening.
And who's freedom is that? (Score:1)
Who's freedom would that be? The freedom of companies like Google and Cloudfare to ban websites and confiscate domains they don't like? I sure hope it's the end of that internet! I liked the one we had before.
Consumers are part of the problem. (Score:5, Insightful)
Part of the problem is that while yes, there are many users of the Internet who want it to stay open and free, there is a segment of the Consumer population that wants it to be Cable TV, and Perhaps Gaming Distribution 2.0
The idea behind DRM, and video rental systems over the internet is just asinine. But you have to look at where a particular segment of the Computer using public is going: Android Tablets, which is Linux turned against iteslf, and iPads. What do both of these things look like? Portable Televisions. They don't have keyboards, they don't have mice. They are tools of Content consumption.
Steve Jobs, Woz's partner, was a huge part of this. Openness on the Apple Platforms ended with the Apple II GS series, and the Macs were all largely closed to the outside world until the advent of OSX. Many Pre-OSX Macs, had proprietary EVERYTHING, and even the speaker Jack was proprietary. OSX opened the Mac world up some by giving us a MacOS running on BSD.
This allowed Mac to Survive and gve us the Trusted Computing Nightmare that was iOS. All the sudden you have what the DRM Corps want: A Computing platform where everything is a Rental transaction, and consumers money can be funneled from their wallets constantly. Thats what is happening now with iDevice owners.
Apple should have died off back in the 90s. They should have gone out of business completely. Consumers should have resisted the introduction of DRM into computers and rejected networks like NetFlix.
Consumers are the foundation of everything (Score:3)
Just to play devil's advocate for a moment, the other side of that coin is that goods and services can be funneled to the consumer constantly as well. That's sort of the whole idea of a consumer. It's not a one-way street. When it is, consumers aren't consumers any longer, and their willingness to let the funneling of their resources away will also go away.
At the most basic level, either you consume, or you die. Next step up, you consume and
That's at least somewhat fair (Score:4, Insightful)
Can you, though? I just sent a gift to a friend on the opposite coast. The package weighed 52 lbs. I paid about $70 to get it there. Can you do that? I don't think you could even do it for fuel costs, much less pay the driver and the wear and tear on the transport vehicle(s.)
Yes, there's a lot of truth to this, especially since we now have a bought-and-paid for legislature. Net neutrality is definitely very high up on the list of things like this, too.
I'm not really suggesting that. I'm more suggesting that the consumers aren't the problem. IMHO, the regulators are the problem. The people that are supposed to be watching out for the best interests of the consumers. The post which I replied to was proposing that consumers were a significant part of the problem - I don't see it that way.
Re: (Score:2)
You should probably have taken the time to find out what net neutrality actually refers to before spending all that time typing. Net neutrality has nothing to do with DRM or video rental systems beyond making sure your ISP can't dictate what you use with selective bandwidth throttling.
Re: (Score:2)
Net neutrality does not ban QoS. It can't without breaking the net.
Putting the definition of QoS into the hands of the federal government? What could go wrong?
Re:Consumers are part of the problem. (Score:4, Informative)
The net neutrality rules didn't ban QoS or put the definition of it into the hands of the government. They did require that companies show technical, rather than financial, justifications for managing traffic.
People arguing that rules should be repealed based on hearsay without taking the time to find out what the rules actually say? What could go wrong?
Re: (Score:2)
You don't know how laws work. Who decides what is and isn't a 'technical justification for managing traffic'? The feds, specifically clueless bought lawyers working for the feds, who will decide what is QoS and what isn't.
Actually, bullshit is the problem. (Score:2)
Since most people don't really understand how the net work, let alone how computers work, it's ridiculously easy to bullshit the masses. You can see this every day with phishing scams, "Your PC/phone/tablet is INFECTED!" scamware, social media hoaxes, and on and on. Unfortunately, this also gives big ISPs (and Hollywood for that matter) plenty of room to sling their own bullshit as well.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, no one likes Netflix or anything from Apple out there on the extreme ideological fringe.
Re: (Score:2)
All the sudden you have what the DRM Corps want: A Computing platform where everything is a Rental transaction, and consumers money can be funneled from their wallets constantly. Thats what is happening now with iDevice owners.
Windows 10 is moving towards this as well.
Re: (Score:2)
Apple might die off in the future with the issues they're having. And no Steve Jobs to fix them!
How does it feel, liberals? (Score:2)
How does it feel to have big companies refusing to transmit your bits because they don't like the content? Maybe you're getting a feeling of what the alt right has to put up with now. Don't worry though - they are private companies and they can do what they like. It's not the same as government censorship.
Re: 30 years (Score:5, Insightful)
It's only in the last few years that companies have created totally vertical integration with content creation to delivery. That is a major difference, in my mind; hence the need for laws.
1990s rollout of the Internet (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Did not CompuServe, Prodigy, AOL, and many other internet providers have this same vertical integration?
Sure, but the difference between AOL lusers and people who had a clue was vast, and the latter never took the former seriously. Some still remember Eternal September...
Re: (Score:2)
Just like twats (twitter users) today. You're making the GP's point better than anyone.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but they did not control the physical backbone as well.
Re: (Score:2)
There is no such thing as a 'physical backbone'. Such is the nature of the internet, and why Netflix can trunk direct to say, Comcast, and yet my internet (not comcast) is unaffected..
Re: 1990s rollout of the Internet (Score:2)
The difference is choice. While AOL tried to lock you in to their ecosystem, you were a month away from a different provider if you chose. There hundreds of different dialup companies back when AOL was its peak.
How many viable broadband does the average American actually have? At the city level, my city has two fiber companies, three cable companies, and two DSL companies; however, at the neighborhood level, the choices are quite limited. Most people in my neighborhood have 1 cable and 1 DSL. Fiber is a mil
Re: (Score:2)
But it's all gated by demand. If, for example, an area desperately desires an alternative, and alternative can then present itself.
Re: 1990s rollout of the Internet (Score:2)
Re: 1990s rollout of the Internet (Score:2)
Obviously not enough that a company was willing to step in and invest in the infrastructure. Ironically enough mostly because they can't get to your house because local contracts are granted two things like cable companies because they're considered essential infrastructure. Funny what happens when you regulate things as utilities. Your granted localized monopolies.
Re: 1990s rollout of the Internet (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Nonsense; we've had those kinds of companies since the earliest days of the Internet.
Re: (Score:2)
There were large content creators that were also large nationwide ISPs in the 1980s? Because that's what we're dealing with now.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, there were.
In any case, whatever problem you delude yourself into thinking exist in the marketplace, regulation by the FCC is not the answer.
Re: 30 years (Score:5, Insightful)
Very true indeed. We don't need laws until people seek to do things that are unfair and unacceptable - then we have to make laws to forbid those acts. However, any societies that has to make laws against X is likely already to be saturated with X; the existence of the laws strongly suggests that they are being broken wholesale.
The following extract from the Tao Te Ching is relevant, especially the final part about "thieves and brigands".
"The more prohibitions that are imposed on people,
The poorer the people become.
The more sharp weapons the people possess,
The greater is the chaos in the country.
The more clever and crafty the people become,
The more unusual affairs occur.
The more laws and regulations that exist,
The more thieves and brigands appear".
- Tao Te Ching
Re: (Score:2)
In case it was not already glaringly obvious, consider how amazingly applicable the extract from the Tao Te Ching is to today's USA.
More and more prohibitions... and the people (except for the 1%) have become steadily poorer.
The more "sharp weapons" (nowadays mostly guns, although knives are also common), the greater the chaos (mass shootings..., police brutality...)
The more clever and crafty the people become (in response to the cleverness and craftiness of politicians, Wall Street, and their pet lawyers),
Re: (Score:2)
Naw, in the old days before the mainstream media content was online, everything was already vertically integrated. They create their giant silos of crap, but you can't even smell it from someplace decent.
They're way less integrated than AOL or Delphi were.
The reason it can't "end the internet as we know it" is because the internet is not only proprietary video services. Those are what will be harmed, but that was always a shit show. In the old days you had to pay bribes to RealMedia if you wanted your conte
Re: (Score:2)
Yea, I mean, if years ago, imagine how the net would be destroyed if a company like Time Warner and America Online had merged to become a mega.... Oh, wait...
Re: (Score:2)
foreverity
I think the word you're looking for is eterness or something like that.
Re: (Score:3)
They'be both perfectly cromulent words.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Lets face it, American internet users are just cattle who need to be fed and exploited by a few walled garden corporations farming income for their billionaire owners. The idea that the internet is useful for anything but extorting money from its users is laughably left wing. Enjoy your slavery cattle!
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Perhaps you weren't born at the time, but it used to be that you could pick any ISP you wanted...by simply dialing a phone number with your modem. Since those days, technology has advanced, but policy has regressed. I should be able to connect to an ISP of my choice...over a high-speed broadband connection. That is what the FCC mandated for 'long distance' providers. The Internet should be no different.
Re:30 years (Score:5, Informative)
For the 1990's to mid 2000's ISPs and telecoms were typically separate entities. Telecom access was dialup or DSL - both regulated by Title II. Since the ISPs weren't in the telecom business they didn't require regulation - they had no reason to block/throttle based on service/source/destination/whatever.
From then until 2014 various FCC rules and regulations (including the "Open Internet Order") governed ISPs. In 2014 Verizon "ruined it for everyone" by challenging the OIO and taking the FCC to court. They won, but the judge suggested that if the FCC was going to police ISPs it would have to classify them as common carriers. So the FCC did.
Re:30 years (Score:5, Insightful)
I can still use the Internet without touching Facebook or Google. For the time being. The Net Neutrality laws were put in place to maintain the status quo in the face of possible breaking the 'net into walled gardens. 'But we would never block or restrict access to the Internet' many ISPs say. Fine. Then Net Neutrality rules won't affect the way you do business, so shut up.
Yeah, these rules are a prior restriction on certain business models. Which isn't really the American way. We'd rather leave the market open, allow businesses to develop their own products and structures and apply rules and legislation once some harm to consumers has been identified. But the Internet is a natural monopoly of sorts. There isn't another one that I could choose should the current one prove to be unsatisfactory. Even if I have multiple ISPs serving me, should Google, Sourceforge or the GOP fundraising websites end up on the other network, that would pretty much destroy the utility of the single interconnected network.
Re: (Score:2)
I can still use the Internet without touching Facebook or Google. For the time being. The Net Neutrality laws were put in place to maintain the status quo in the face of possible breaking the 'net into walled gardens. 'But we would never block or restrict access to the Internet' many ISPs say. Fine. Then Net Neutrality rules won't affect the way you do business, so shut up.
Uh uh. The way to regulate is to wait until anti-competitive or anti-consumer behavior manifests, THEN start rolling out the rules. Prospective regulation is a recipe for stifling innovation and locking in the status quo. Saying, "You won't be hurt so shut up" is not sufficient reason for slapping rules on people.
Re: (Score:2)
The way to regulate is to wait until anti-competitive or anti-consumer behavior manifests, THEN start rolling out the rules.
Too late. And very difficult to do once a company has monetized some particular behavior. You'll get shareholders to come crying to their legislators to lay off, lest the proposed rules harm profits and their holdings value.
Prospective regulation is a recipe for stifling innovation and locking in the status quo.
Fine. I want to buy a product that meets some consistent and repeatable standards. Innovation can be provided by new entrants into new markets, selling their products as enhancements to the current baseline. I'd be really pissed if my power company started delivering 48 Vdc or 400 Hz pow
Re: (Score:2)
Re:30 years (Score:5, Insightful)
'But we would never block or restrict access to the Internet' many ISPs say. Fine. Then Net Neutrality rules won't affect the way you do business, so shut up.
Exactly. I wonder why no one has bearded Ajit Pai on the record -- preferably on camera -- and asked him outright, "Mr. Pai, if the Internet corporations say they're not violating net neutrality now, and they have no intentions of violating net neutrality, then the existence of net neutrality regulations has no effect on them. Why would you want to waste the FCC's resources in the repeal of something which won't affect them unless they want to engage in practices that are prohibited under its provisions? This creates the appearance of your acting solely for the benefit of the corporations, rather than for the citizens of the United States."
Re: (Score:3)
Re:30 years (Score:5, Informative)
Uhh...we actually did have net neutrality for most of the time that we had the Internet. Remember: the Internet operated over telephone lines for most of its existence, and those lines were regulated under the same Title II classification that Obama’s FCC simply extended to cable ISPs. It’s a matter of bringing Internet-over-cable in line with the regulations that have existed for Internet-over-anything-else for the duration of the Internet’s history.
Re: (Score:2)
Remember: the Internet operated over telephone lines for most of its existence
This is a gross oversimplification that elides the entire point of the Net Neut debate: Yes, the user's connection to the ISP was over a telephone line and was regulated by Title II. But so what? There was zero regulation of (1) the rate at which the ISP decided to send any particular piece of data over that telephone line; and (2) the rate at which the ISP decided to allow its customers access to the Internet at large. All that was handled by big scary market forces.
Net Neut regulations truly paralle
Re: (Score:1)
For the first half of that, the Internet was not widely commercialized. Was it more free before it was commercialized or after?
Will you join me in condemning commerce on the Internet?
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure why you'd say it wasn't commercialized. It was open and blossomed commercially from like, 1993 on.
Re: (Score:2)
Most stupid comment already at the beginning. You probably do not realize that there is a dynamic to the behavior of anti net-neutrality entities as well.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Not sure why this is modded Troll. Agree or disagree with the his po
Re: 30 years (Score:2)
These days, we have genuine trolls who use "f
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, solid logic. The guy with a 4 digit UID just got on the internet yesterday. Couldn't possibly be that I understand the difference between "network neutrality" and "Network Neutrality(TM) Inc, A Google Enterprise".
Re: (Score:2)
As someone who's been on 'The Internet' since 1992 via a dialup account at standard tool and die, I can say the conversation on both sides has merits, and it's not trolling. Personally, I happen to disagree, and think net neutrality is a power grab by the FCC to legislate something that the government should have no roll in.
The internet was created, NOT by the us government, but by the whole over time. Yes, the groundwork was founded, however, it was rightfully relinquished years ago. Why should the US g
Re: (Score:2)
I know right? Why do we even have speed limits on the road. It's not like a horse drawn carriage can do any more than 20km/h. Nothing ever changes. We as a species are in a perfectly stable equilibrium. We certainly don't need any regulations, every regulation anyone could ever need already exists.
Or maybe... and just hear me out... Maybe the world has changed, corporate interests have changed, and the reason the regulations were brought in to begin with was that the first 28+ years of the internet was acti
Re: (Score:2)
Who here really thinks that the internet is more free today than it was just a few years ago, ...
Everyone who thinks that the net was MORE FREE after the corporate takeover of independent providers of Cable services, raise your hand to your ass and insert.
Re: (Score:2)
I've said this dozens of times: Find the local impediment that keeps competitive cable companies from moving into your area, and fix it. Your state government, state public utilities commission (government), county government or city government is keeping competition out. Figure it out and fix it.
Re: (Score:2)
If I had mod points, this would get bumped up. People assume that there is no options, and as such, much be legislated all to hell. Fostering new ways to connect, and removing impediments to competition, is the true answer, so people can speak with their $$.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I notice you conspicuously ignored the "domains registrations being seized" part of the post. Why would that be?
Re: How is there "net neutrality" now? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The US FCC doesn’t control Canada's Net Neutrality rules, does it?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why would you put your servers in reach of Canadian human rights commissions? That's just stupid. Pseudo courts with no presumption of innocence, no free speech defense. Not just no. FUCK NO!
I'm not putting up a version of my site in broken incorrect frog for the quebecees either.
Re: (Score:2)
What does that have to do with US Net Neutrality rules? The US FCC has no authority over Rogers Cable.
Re: (Score:2)
However, people in Canada are free to set up their own alternatives. US doesn't like Chinas policies, and as such, don't use their services. No different. Being an open environment means, anyone can wake up tomorrow and provide something new and better then the alternatives.
Call a spade a spade (Score:2)
Um... no.
FTFY
Not saying it's a good thing, one party impeding another party's freedom to express themselves basically isn't a good idea, even if for no other reason than it's far better to know what's actually going on around you than not, but your case is always better if you're accurate about describing what's actually goi
Re: (Score:2)
Which will hurt the far left in the long run. Right now they are still throwing a tantrum. They'll cry themselves out.
Re: (Score:2)
I only dream the Ds nominate a full tilt loony lefty. Four more years!
Still a spade. A rightist spade. (Score:2)
Yeah, mostly at this point in time, it is about the far right. Because they're very active right now. The nail that sticks up the furthest is the nail that gets hammered down.
Either way, it's bad to repress anyone's speech. Anyone's speech, IMHO. But what's going on right now is a flare-up being caused by some very prominent far, far-right-wing talk. Moderate ideas don't tend to lead to repression of speech. Extreme
Re:How is there "net neutrality" now? (Score:4, Insightful)
How? By site policies being neither here nor there with respect to net neutrality.
The whole point of net neutrality is to create a kind of unfettered competition between information sources, not to compel every information source to have a policy for its content that you approve of. The solution to your not liking Yourtube's monetization policy is to turn to a different site, something you'll be hampered from doing under a non-neutral Internet.
Re: (Score:2)
How? By site policies being neither here nor there with respect to net neutrality.
The whole point of net neutrality is to create a kind of unfettered competition between information sources, not to compel every information source to have a policy for its content that you approve of. The solution to your not liking Yourtube's monetization policy is to turn to a different site, something you'll be hampered from doing under a non-neutral Internet.
If you take away net neutrality, do you open the door to competition? Why can't your city do what is being planned for my city, that is free everywhere wifi. Our big cross-Canada ISP is rolling out fibre to remote villages, and to new subdivisions. It is fibre to the home. The interface is fibre to modem-router.
Re: (Score:3)
I know. This is a clear sign that gay marriage laws aren't working. Wait what? What were we talking about? I mean none of the things you mentioned are related to net neutrality, so I assume you're talking about repealing the 9th amendment. Wait what?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So, call your representatives, and make it a law, now an arbitrary rule.
Re: (Score:3)
And the human race did fine for tens of thousands of years without any sort of regulation on nuclear weapons, so clearly we need to stop regulating them and let everyone have access to them... right?
Re: (Score:2)
And with that, it also means that we need to regulate how you wipe your bum in the toilet. I mean, we haven't regulated it so far, but nuclear weapons are regulated, so obviously.........
Re:you mean.. (Score:4, Insightful)
This is not about letting the government control the internet.
This is about giving the government power to stop companies from trying to control the internet.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Fuck them in the knife wound instead. EUrocrates want a fresh hole.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
We sure as hell will notice. Imagine not being able to have news about all their pointless political debates, the hollow bickering of hollywood stars, the religious zealots, the anti-science morons, the multiple failed reboots from J.J. Abrams...
Hum...
On second thought, let them close their internet borders.
Re: (Score:2)
That's a couple of years away.
Governments are slow to react and even slower to change and put regulations in place.
Except when it puts them in power, in which case laws are quickly scribbled, pushed and passed via expansive bribes in only a few weeks.
"We are from the government and we are here to help you."
"Trust no one".
Re:Same problem with health care. (Score:4, Informative)
Universal health care is about being decent human beings. Most first-world countries have it.
You guys have insane costs caused by letting corporations run your health care system so that needs to be fixed, but even lower costs could not be afforded by everyone. Your taxes are also wasted on the military, so fix that too and you'll have universal health care, universal income, ten times the budget for NASA, etc.