In this case, people will be paying for the service. If the costs aren't subsidized by the government then it isn't socialism. Based on what I've read about other communities that have done this, the costs and services can be better without the community using tax money.
The ISPs calling government provided internet socialism makes it sound like they endorse capitalism. Having the government protect their monopoly certainly isn't capitalism.
This is a step in the right direction. Next, they need to open the market to true competition. If they did that, they wouldn't have to get into the ISP business. In my case, I have the option of AT&T or Comcast. That's it. That isn't enough to create competition.
Since when has having Congress, a group that caters to the highest bidder and has little to no technological knowledge, legislate a solution actually worked?
Based on your post, you must think Barnes and Noble can be held responsible for something published in Time magazine simply because Barnes and Noble sells Time. It's the same paradigm. Facebook isn't the publisher. They are the distributor.
The second problem is who gets to determine what is false. An ad may say that Warren is the best candidate for President. I say that is false. Should Facebook be required to remove the ad? If not, why not? A large percent of the population agrees with me.
Removing protections is wrong but since almost all political ads contain something that could be proven "demonstrably false", we wouldn't have to watch these stupid ads. We loose either way.
No, but the problem is that the ISP's are allowed to lie about their coverage and have their monopolies protected by the government. Most industrialized countries have better coverage at lower costs. If the government wasn't protecting the ISP's, capitalism would force the ISP's to provide better coverage at better prices.
Yes. I want her to win the case and stop this stupidity. No, I don't want her to win a boat load of money. The money will be paid by the American tax payers. I already pay too much that is wasted.
If it is a crime, it is a crime. It doesn't matter who else did the same or similar things. If you want to point out hypocrisy, look at the FBI investigation of Hillary Clinton's email server. Comey spent almost 15 minutes listing her crimes but said that she should be charged because she didn't mean to do it. It that is the case, everyone in jail for involuntary manslaughter should be released. The charge itself says that they didn't mean to do it. If I text while driving and kill someone, I guess I shouldn't charged either. I wouldn't have meant to kill the person.
How many times did Obama say that the Constitution prevented him from doing something and then do the prohibited action a few months later? Our federal government hasn't worried about the Constitution is decades. It it had, the federal government would be considerably smaller than it is today.
The article says it won't be out nationwide until 2023 at the earliest.
"However, if you think a country needs to roll out 5G to all its major cities in order to claim leadership, China looks likely to come out ahead. China Tower, a company that builds infrastructure for the country’s mobile operators, has said it can cover China with 5G within three years of the government’s allocation of spectrum. That points to national coverage by 2023."
I'll try to clarify the difference. If I stand in my from yard, I'm out in public but I'm not on public property. If I go to a local park, I'm out in public and on public property.
Watch out
Blizzard Entertainment will be next.
Re: Re: Re:
In this case, people will be paying for the service. If the costs aren't subsidized by the government then it isn't socialism. Based on what I've read about other communities that have done this, the costs and services can be better without the community using tax money.
The ISPs calling government provided internet socialism makes it sound like they endorse capitalism. Having the government protect their monopoly certainly isn't capitalism.
A step in the right direction
This is a step in the right direction. Next, they need to open the market to true competition. If they did that, they wouldn't have to get into the ISP business. In my case, I have the option of AT&T or Comcast. That's it. That isn't enough to create competition.
This won't work
Since when has having Congress, a group that caters to the highest bidder and has little to no technological knowledge, legislate a solution actually worked?
Re: Re: Curiously petty censorship is a problem here in the stat
Then it isn't a standard. If it is standard, it will always have the same results.
Re:
Based on your post, you must think Barnes and Noble can be held responsible for something published in Time magazine simply because Barnes and Noble sells Time. It's the same paradigm. Facebook isn't the publisher. They are the distributor. The second problem is who gets to determine what is false. An ad may say that Warren is the best candidate for President. I say that is false. Should Facebook be required to remove the ad? If not, why not? A large percent of the population agrees with me.
Mixed feelings about this.
Removing protections is wrong but since almost all political ads contain something that could be proven "demonstrably false", we wouldn't have to watch these stupid ads. We loose either way.
Re: 100% coverage
No, but the problem is that the ISP's are allowed to lie about their coverage and have their monopolies protected by the government. Most industrialized countries have better coverage at lower costs. If the government wasn't protecting the ISP's, capitalism would force the ISP's to provide better coverage at better prices.
Re:
NO! We don't.
Re: the problem is...
No. The problem is that both parties just throw money at the problem rather than actually try to fix it.
Look! The blind squirrel found a nut.
Re: Yes and no
Yes. I want her to win the case and stop this stupidity. No, I don't want her to win a boat load of money. The money will be paid by the American tax payers. I already pay too much that is wasted.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If it is a crime, it is a crime. It doesn't matter who else did the same or similar things. If you want to point out hypocrisy, look at the FBI investigation of Hillary Clinton's email server. Comey spent almost 15 minutes listing her crimes but said that she should be charged because she didn't mean to do it. It that is the case, everyone in jail for involuntary manslaughter should be released. The charge itself says that they didn't mean to do it. If I text while driving and kill someone, I guess I shouldn't charged either. I wouldn't have meant to kill the person.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
How many times did Obama say that the Constitution prevented him from doing something and then do the prohibited action a few months later? Our federal government hasn't worried about the Constitution is decades. It it had, the federal government would be considerably smaller than it is today.
Re: Re: Re: 5 years?
The article says it won't be out nationwide until 2023 at the earliest. "However, if you think a country needs to roll out 5G to all its major cities in order to claim leadership, China looks likely to come out ahead. China Tower, a company that builds infrastructure for the country’s mobile operators, has said it can cover China with 5G within three years of the government’s allocation of spectrum. That points to national coverage by 2023."
Re: Re:
Your comment stopped being relevant once you started using all capital letters an profanity.
Re: Wrong
Most did not choose to serve in Vietnam. They were drafted. We did not have a volunteer military like we do today.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'll try to clarify the difference. If I stand in my from yard, I'm out in public but I'm not on public property. If I go to a local park, I'm out in public and on public property.
Re: Re: Re:
No he isn't. Anyone with reasonable intelligence knows the difference.