news.yahoo.com— "Regulators should be careful not to impose regulations that could limit consumer choice and investment in broadband facilities," the department's antitrust chief, Thomas Barnett, said in a statement.
Sep 6, 2007View in Crawl 4
Yeah, I don't think so. Private property? The PUBLIC owns the spectrum of wireless airwaves. There are only so many. The PUBLIC owns the roads the fibre and other cabling runs down. This has NOTHING to do with private property, especially when it's publically regulated.Some people become libertarians because they are enamoured with the philosophy, and then use any sort of argument they can find to back it up. Then there are people like me who become libertarians because we see what works and what doesn't. The difference is that your approach is dogmatic and that you believe in the free market, private property, free speech to the point that no central gov't can abrogate anything for any reason. People such as myself understand that there were always reasonable limits to things, and if we could not voluntarily be responsible enough to follow it, we would be a people who RESPECTED simple laws that were as unobtrusive as possible. You'll notice guys like Ron Paul are CONSTITUTIONALISTS. The Constitution may not be perfect, but they are for respecting laws. Laws that work. Laws that ensure freedom.Private property has NOTHING to do with public access to public utilities and public airwaves. Without regulation, everyone would be tearing up roads for whatever reason they chose, all of the wireless spectrum would be unusable...chaos. Be libertarian that is scientific and support what makes sense and let go of what doesn't. We're not handing out an Ayn Rand award here.
There are plenty of competing carriers! You've got Comcast with cable service (which I can't get, because there aren't any cable lines near my house... hey, thanks Comcast, I actively seek out your service and you tell me you can't be bothered placing the infrastructure in place to actually provide your service... that helps me out a lot), Verizon for DSL (which is notoriously unavailable for those of us who don't live near the phone company... yup, can't get that either), and if all else fails, HughesNet for satellite (which I don't actually consider broadband, since they constantly reduce my speed to LESS than dial-up, which is a crock since they charge out the ass because their market is for customers like me who can't get cable or DSL and have no other choice).Of course, Obviously 3 carriers isn't "plenty," especially when a lot of people don't even have a choice between which one is available in their area.
Not necessarily zanzzz….By allowing the ISP’s to charge the CONTET PROVIDERS in a teired fashion, more dollars the burden will be placed on such CORPORATIONS as Yahoo and Google….You know the folks who make their living on the backs of the internet. If those businesses continue their current business model, the burden will be passed again to the advertisers.
I don't understand why Yahoo watered down this story. I've seen half a dozen other stories on this. The justice department isn't wary of net neutrality. They outrightly condemned net neutrality. The justice department saying they are acting for the interests of consumers is like hitler saying he was just trying to improve cultural relations.
I'm thinking that comments on Digg should be limited to people who have passed an IQ test. A "Moron" test. A bigot test. They also have to fail an "I'm an elitist assh**e" test.The rest of you simply have no idea what you're asking for, aren't a consumer, and clearly have never lived in a rural area where only one ISP is available. Really. It's kind of like hearing a Telecom company say that it costs sooo much money to push data around that we not only have to charge everybody twice, but we have to charge insanely high amounts for the little we *do* provide. It's cute when a small-time ISP from your town says it, pathetic when its someone who earns more for doing less in two days than the average citizen does in two years.Quit yer f**kin' bitchin. You have the money. Use it. Like all the other connected countries in the world already have.
Various telecom giants like AT&T quietly cooperated with the government by providing them with direct access to their fiber lines and did not even attempt to fight the FBI requests (without a court order) for information pertaining to their users. Now these telecom companies are cashing in on their cooperation by getting the backing of this administrations "Justice" Department. The Bush administration will no doubt go down in history as one of the most aligned with private industry interests. One day perhaps enough American citizens will have woken up to the illicit affair our government is having with private industry such that they are willing to do whatever it takes (yeah that means hitting the damn streets if needed) to clean up the political cesspools in DC and across the country. Its a rare occurrence these days to find a political leader which actually serves the American people.
smacksawSep 7, 2007
Yeah, I don't think so. Private property? The PUBLIC owns the spectrum of wireless airwaves. There are only so many. The PUBLIC owns the roads the fibre and other cabling runs down. This has NOTHING to do with private property, especially when it's publically regulated.Some people become libertarians because they are enamoured with the philosophy, and then use any sort of argument they can find to back it up. Then there are people like me who become libertarians because we see what works and what doesn't. The difference is that your approach is dogmatic and that you believe in the free market, private property, free speech to the point that no central gov't can abrogate anything for any reason. People such as myself understand that there were always reasonable limits to things, and if we could not voluntarily be responsible enough to follow it, we would be a people who RESPECTED simple laws that were as unobtrusive as possible. You'll notice guys like Ron Paul are CONSTITUTIONALISTS. The Constitution may not be perfect, but they are for respecting laws. Laws that work. Laws that ensure freedom.Private property has NOTHING to do with public access to public utilities and public airwaves. Without regulation, everyone would be tearing up roads for whatever reason they chose, all of the wireless spectrum would be unusable...chaos. Be libertarian that is scientific and support what makes sense and let go of what doesn't. We're not handing out an Ayn Rand award here.
rarsonSep 7, 2007
There are plenty of competing carriers! You've got Comcast with cable service (which I can't get, because there aren't any cable lines near my house... hey, thanks Comcast, I actively seek out your service and you tell me you can't be bothered placing the infrastructure in place to actually provide your service... that helps me out a lot), Verizon for DSL (which is notoriously unavailable for those of us who don't live near the phone company... yup, can't get that either), and if all else fails, HughesNet for satellite (which I don't actually consider broadband, since they constantly reduce my speed to LESS than dial-up, which is a crock since they charge out the ass because their market is for customers like me who can't get cable or DSL and have no other choice).Of course, Obviously 3 carriers isn't "plenty," especially when a lot of people don't even have a choice between which one is available in their area.
geauxlsuSep 7, 2007
Not necessarily zanzzz….By allowing the ISP’s to charge the CONTET PROVIDERS in a teired fashion, more dollars the burden will be placed on such CORPORATIONS as Yahoo and Google….You know the folks who make their living on the backs of the internet. If those businesses continue their current business model, the burden will be passed again to the advertisers.
moulin1Sep 7, 2007
I don't understand why Yahoo watered down this story. I've seen half a dozen other stories on this. The justice department isn't wary of net neutrality. They outrightly condemned net neutrality. The justice department saying they are acting for the interests of consumers is like hitler saying he was just trying to improve cultural relations.
rapter09Sep 8, 2007
I'm thinking that comments on Digg should be limited to people who have passed an IQ test. A "Moron" test. A bigot test. They also have to fail an "I'm an elitist assh**e" test.The rest of you simply have no idea what you're asking for, aren't a consumer, and clearly have never lived in a rural area where only one ISP is available. Really. It's kind of like hearing a Telecom company say that it costs sooo much money to push data around that we not only have to charge everybody twice, but we have to charge insanely high amounts for the little we *do* provide. It's cute when a small-time ISP from your town says it, pathetic when its someone who earns more for doing less in two days than the average citizen does in two years.Quit yer f**kin' bitchin. You have the money. Use it. Like all the other connected countries in the world already have.
wodarSep 8, 2007
Various telecom giants like AT&T quietly cooperated with the government by providing them with direct access to their fiber lines and did not even attempt to fight the FBI requests (without a court order) for information pertaining to their users. Now these telecom companies are cashing in on their cooperation by getting the backing of this administrations "Justice" Department. The Bush administration will no doubt go down in history as one of the most aligned with private industry interests. One day perhaps enough American citizens will have woken up to the illicit affair our government is having with private industry such that they are willing to do whatever it takes (yeah that means hitting the damn streets if needed) to clean up the political cesspools in DC and across the country. Its a rare occurrence these days to find a political leader which actually serves the American people.