Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
and for the record, people didn't vote for Ron Paul because he's incoherent and the prospect of him leading anything is frightening. not because of "net neutrality"
There has never been any regulation of the internet only bandwidth providers and networks. Ever.
Sigh.
Quote:
Verizon wants a “two-sided market,” involving payment for Internet service by subscribers and by companies that want to reach them, Helgi Walker, a lawyer for the New York-based carrier, told the appeals panel.
“I’m authorized to state from my client today that but for these rules we would be exploring those types of arrangements,” said Walker, working at the time for the law firm Wiley Rein LLP.
Net neutrality is the kind of regulation that Adam Smith asked for, it keeps the market open and free. Open and free markets aren't possible without government protection.
Now watch the Randians rip into Adam Smith as someone who has no idea of what a free market is.
The irony of this?? The net neutrality argument was one of the big talking points against Ron Paul....
Heh. As evidenced by this thread, libertarians haven't the first clue about what NN actually is, much less the implications of doing away with it. (Well, apart from the traditional "the free market will sort it out" invocation.)
which of these executive orders directly challenge the authority of the judicial branch?
because that's what we're talking about here.
Look, I'm not playing Capitol Hill with you...they don't pay me (or you) the medium bucks to do that.
If you want to sit here and act like an EO blowing this determination to bits is a huge, even a significant, example of a "dictatorship"...maybe you should go take a tour of the middle east.
Would you like a potato with your steak or po-tah-to?
I'm so happy we agree that the Internet could be considered a common carrier.
Quote:
It shall be unlawful for any common carrier to make any unjust or unreasonable discrimination in charges, practices, classifications, regulations, facilities, or services for or in connection with like communication service, directly or indirectly, by any means or device, or to make or give any undue or unreasonable preference or advantage to any particular person, class of persons, or locality, or to subject any particular person, class of persons, or locality to any undue or unreasonable prejudice or disadvantage.
Heh. As evidenced by this thread, libertarians haven't the first clue about what NN actually is, much less the implications of doing away with it. (Well, apart from the traditional "the free market will sort it out" invocation.)
Well, the reality is a free market is really a black and white phenomenon. The gray areas between are just tilting the game board. It's a catch 22. The Constitution was supposed to sort this out... but unfortunately, America hasn't learned that a 260 year old document just might not work that well anymore.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
