Net neutrality

I often wonder just what the hell it is about "Congress shall make no law..." that socialists find so damn confusing.

The argument "government can regulate content" is an odd one. Surely it's clear that the federal regulation of interstate commerce doesn't PREVENT any interstate commerce, rather it makes OTHER governments (state, local) incapable of preventing such trade. Trying to make middlemen on the internet deal from the top of the deck, to ALL network messaging, is the issue here.

Remember, the 'net neutrality' initial test case was on an internet service provider (ISP) which was cheating their own customer (by spoofing communications when a hang-up-now signal was presumably not visible to the user). How can any individual navigate the maze of interconnections if there are minotaurs allowed?

Jim Thompson wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:

"neutrality" must be another of those Newspeak words the "progressives" like to use.

Nothing the "progressives" do is actually,literally neutral.

flipper wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:

We need a bigger cluestick for them;and whack them upsides their heads with it.

Of course not. But trash of both colors will re-elect Obama. Think not? Listen to callers to John Gibson's show on Fox to hear who will vote that way.

Fortunately the trash are inconsistent in other voting. If we can seize control of the Senate we can impeach his ass... which I like even better than beating him at election.

(My best guess: Romney will be the "sacrificial candidate" :-) ...Jim Thompson

Requiring a carrier to carry all traffic identically, and not snoop on or discriminate about content, is reasonable. Your cable company is usually a regulated monopoly; if they were allowed to, they would slow down or block Netflix downloads that compete with their own pay-per-view revenue.

Sounds like a simple antitrust issue to me. NN as such requires openness.

Charging customers for bandwidth is logical. Snooping content, or charging content providers, is not.

John

There is no evidence of this. The content on PPV traffic is paid for one way, and the content on Netflix traffic another.

PPV is the stuff that used to be at the front of the video store, and Netflix the old dusty movies at the back.

-- Les Cargill

You fail to understand.._Congress_ is not making the laws, so therefore ANY law on ANY subject in ANY direction can be made (and will..).

Jim Thompson wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:

IMO,impeachment of Comrade Hussein is a fantasy,it will never happen in real life. the only way Comrade Hussein is leaving office early is if he has a medical failure ("vapor-locks",to use Clint Eastwood's expression)or someone takes him out.

I'm very worried that Republicans will select a candidate not capable of winning over Comrade Hussein,driving people to a third-party loser and giving Comrade Hussein the win,just like the last time.

Absolutely my prediction :-(

But you don't think we'll reach majority in the Senate? ...Jim Thompson

To convict you need a *lot* more than a majority. No, I don't think the Rs will get 66 Senate seats. Fifty is easy, particularly if the Republicans run another McCain. Sixty-six is impossible, and in reality they'll need more than that because of the RINOs.

I debated with myself about bringing up the sophist argument that 'regulation' by an 'agency' is not 'Congress making law' but opted for the plain and simple direct approach.

To wit, calling a pig a duck doesn't make it a duck but even if one fell for that sophistry Congress still 'makes a law' in creating and 'authorizing' the offending agency so the 'simple and direct' approach, that "Congress shall make no law...," is still perfectly apropos.

Logically speaking, you are 100% correct. BUT.. Politics seems to be as anti-logic as one can get..

Jim Thompson wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:

I'm not sure at all. There's a lot of voters stuck on stupid.

Besides,Congress is not a total solution to stopping a 2nd term Comrade Obama. There is SO much damage he could still do to the US,and probably would. He's likely to encourage an attack on the US itself by foreign nations,not terrorists,but powerful nations like Russia and Red China,taking advantage of his indecision and inexperience. Iran might decide to use it's new nukes for an EMP attack on the US. (have you read One Second After by William Forstchen? it's chilling.) Iran has been testing SCUD launches from containerships,with HIGH altitude detonations that are only useful for EMP attacks. Venezuela is turning out to be spreading new communism in South and Central America,a move that can directly affect the US.It's becoming the Iran of S.America,trouble for everybody.

Then there's regulation(strangulation) by government agencies like EPA,FCC,DOE,etc.,that greatly affect our economy. Destroying our economy has been recognized by the communists as the key to destroying America. They have a good start going for them right now.

Yes, well, hence my wonderment.

How long can people continue to refuse to see that the terrorists won on the day when the US government started strip-searching American Citizens and molesting little girls in the name of "National Security?"

The "terrorists" are sitting in their caves, yurts, and huts watching satellite TV, rolling on the floor laughing their asses off watching Washington DC do far more damage to The American Way than any number of them could possibly dream of.

Hope This Helps! Rich

An excellent argument if it was 1990. The only people in the US seeing a free market for Internet services are those that are still using dialup.

Huh?

flipper wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:

I pay for my dialup. I don't know of any company that gives dialup for free.