That all might work in a utopian world, but internet providers can't operate on their own. They have to coordinate with government to use utility poles to provide the service, so with that comes government regulation. Otherwise in a government-free market they would have to negotiate with every single property owner how to run a wire to their home or business.
The sames goes for wireless, which must use limited spectrum, which must be regulated by the government.
Government serves a useful purpose, and it's not about letting businesses do whatever they want.
So you don't want government regulations on the internet (that the government created) but you're fine with the government breaking up the ISPs - which is also regulation.
The only way to have a free market is for the government to stand between the corporations and the people and protect them from each other with laws and regulations. A true government-free market just lets one party take advantage of another.
Net neutrality isn't about the government regulating the internet. It's about the government regulating the companies that provide access to the internet. The internet itself is doing fine.
I find it hard to believe that citizens were more interested in their government 200 years ago, but I guess if you included only the white landowners who could actually vote you might be right.
I'd argue that citizen today are better informed and more interested in politics than ever.
Former TV addict here and no, TV is a waste of life. Just about anything else you do will make you a better, happier person. Even the act of choosing to watch something rather than just turning on the TV and staring at whatever comes up is an improvement. It's one thing to enjoy a show from time to time, but for the most part too many people spend too much time watching TV, esp. the kind with commercials.
Please explain how you will organize civil society and not call it government - because that's exactly what government is whether it's democratic republic or socialism or communism; different ways to organize civil society.
Re:
For what it's worth, Hollywood is doing its best to make this happen.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yeah, right... the government had nothing at all to do with any of that.
Re: Re: Re:
That all might work in a utopian world, but internet providers can't operate on their own. They have to coordinate with government to use utility poles to provide the service, so with that comes government regulation. Otherwise in a government-free market they would have to negotiate with every single property owner how to run a wire to their home or business.
The sames goes for wireless, which must use limited spectrum, which must be regulated by the government.
Government serves a useful purpose, and it's not about letting businesses do whatever they want.
Re:
So you don't want government regulations on the internet (that the government created) but you're fine with the government breaking up the ISPs - which is also regulation.
The only way to have a free market is for the government to stand between the corporations and the people and protect them from each other with laws and regulations. A true government-free market just lets one party take advantage of another.
Net neutrality isn't about the government regulating the internet. It's about the government regulating the companies that provide access to the internet. The internet itself is doing fine.
Re: Wyden goes "over the top"
If Netflix is paying for the bandwidth, what does it matter how much they use?
Re: Re: Re: a letter that Wyden sent back in 1998 .....
I find it hard to believe that citizens were more interested in their government 200 years ago, but I guess if you included only the white landowners who could actually vote you might be right.
I'd argue that citizen today are better informed and more interested in politics than ever.
Re: Hope that stings like a slap to the face
Pai hasn't just earned a verbal lashing, he's practically begging for it.
Re: what about...
Since congress created the FCC and requires it to collect opinions, then obviously your congresscritter wants you to talk to the FCC too.
Re:
You'll just be infringing on someone else who was inspired by Mozart before you were.
Re: Re: The only way
Former TV addict here and no, TV is a waste of life. Just about anything else you do will make you a better, happier person. Even the act of choosing to watch something rather than just turning on the TV and staring at whatever comes up is an improvement. It's one thing to enjoy a show from time to time, but for the most part too many people spend too much time watching TV, esp. the kind with commercials.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Please explain how you will organize civil society and not call it government - because that's exactly what government is whether it's democratic republic or socialism or communism; different ways to organize civil society.
Re: Re:
Organized civil society IS government.
Re: Re: Caps are proof the ISPs have no competition
Back in the 1990s there was massive competition for dial-up service. If there was competition today, data caps would never happen.
(untitled comment)
Just ban baggage altogether, and ban clothes too, and ban passengers. It's the only way to be safe.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Then you more than anyone should be upset when the police does wrong or illegal things and demand change.
Re: Re: Everything the government does is evil
But Mr. Smith loved the government more than anyone.
Re: Re: "elected"
It's not a flaw. It's how it was designed.
Re:
The terrifying thing is it may not just be the money talking. She might actually believe all that stuff.
Re: Re: Topical jokes shouldn't be eligible for copyright
Unless they were talking to someone named Jim. Then it was fitting.
(untitled comment)
Looks like a great way to know which press is reliable on tech issues. Techdirt and Red Hat wins of course.