...derived from an early twentieth century utilities act.
Most politicians are criminally stupid when it comes to technology.Stupidity has nothing to do with this. Guys like Ted Cruz know exactly what’s at stake and who they’re helping here.
Anyway, government regulation is rarely the answer to issues like this.You especially should read Tim Wu’s book. You’ll find that every one of our mass communication technologies (wired and wireless telephone, radio, broadcast and cable television, movies, internet) has been regulated up the wazoo for >100 years (in every country in the world). The main question is not whether there will be regulation, but whether the regulation will favor particular corporate interests or the broader society.
love the do not reply address
Can we now get internet even if we had pre-existing connections?Thanks, Obama.
Show Image(http://i.imgur.com/AsLFWRV.jpg)
Most politicians are criminally stupid when it comes to technology.
This proposal has been described by one opponent as "a secret plan to regulate the Internet." Nonsense. This is no more a plan to regulate the Internet than the First Amendment is a plan to regulate free speech.
As a resident of Georgia (I live in the North Atlanta suburbs), we have long been known for electing transcendentally stupid and ignorant politicians, but this really goes over the top:
Show Image(http://i.imgur.com/AsLFWRV.jpg)politicians are criminal
Mostly stupid when it comes to technology.
the communications industry is already formulating plans to circumvent the new rules or looking for new ways to exploit the market.
and I do think that capitalism and democracy (even though America is not a true democracy) are the best models for economy and government that we have invented so far.
the communications industry is already formulating plans to circumvent the new rules or looking for new ways to exploit the market.
and I do think that capitalism and democracy (even though America is not a true democracy) are the best models for economy and government that we have invented so far.
So true.
But at least there is a toehold on the concept that the internet is a pervasive "utility" that we all rely on.
And "democracy" has never worked since the ancient Greek city-states in anything much larger than a village because the communication was too slow and cumbersome.
Now, the internet could really create a "global village" but everyone fears the ease with which it could be hacked.
As a resident of Georgia (I live in the North Atlanta suburbs), we have long been known for electing transcendentally stupid and ignorant politicians, but this really goes over the top:
the fact that he (among with many other politicians) is either a complete idiot and doesn't understand the concept of net neutrality or, more likely, is just trying to help out all the ISPs that backed himAs a resident of Georgia (I live in the North Atlanta suburbs), we have long been known for electing transcendentally stupid and ignorant politicians, but this really goes over the top:
Sorry, fohat, I don't understand why you think this is stupid and over the top. I read a couple of times and still don't get what's dumb about it.
I read a couple of times and still don't get what's dumb about it.
I read a couple of times and still don't get what's dumb about it.
This part – “These new regulations represent radical change from the openness policy that previously guided the Internet and encouraged innovation and creativity to flourish” – is unadulterated bull **** with no resemblance to reality.
It's not intended to make sense as a whole; it's intended to offer competing interests in a democracy something for everyone.If he had said “Comcast and Verizon have convinced me that they could offer more useful services to customers if they didn’t have to worry about the net neutrality that has prevailed on the internet to date,” then that would be a bad prediction, but at least nothing factually wrong. What he said instead was completely false. You don’t have to lie to “offer something for everyone” in a democracy.
You want fairly clear and specific legislation that aren't muddleheaded concatenations of what different legislators want, you need to look at laws passed by electoral monarchies since the monarch decides all and has a god's eye view of things.This is bull****. You should try looking at the actual legislative results in monarchies sometime. It’s usually a big pile of handouts to the monarch’s personal buddies, and horribly broken institutions. Occasionally you get a particularly good monarch, and the few pet issues that the monarch is paying attention to get handled properly. Even then, the dude’s son or grandson usually ends up being an idiot and the whole thing falls apart.
Singapore law is a particularly good example. That's why this country is so favoured as a place to do business and so touted as a place where rule of law prevails.Singapore is an interesting place, but it’s not a very good example at all for any kind of comparison with other places, since almost everything about it is highly particular. It’s a great spot for a port connecting different parts of the world, perched along the main trade route between Europe/Africa/the Middle East and East/Southeast Asia, which especially took off, like Hong Kong, in an era when Chinese ports were relatively closed, and other nearby countries were in political turmoil. Like Hong Kong, it was kickstarted by the British dumping a bunch of resources in, because they valued its strategic value. These days, it’s a tax haven for the ultra wealthy and for corporations looking for a spot conveniently close to Asia but not responsible to the citizens of a large country. It’s an authoritarian police state, with the highest income inequality in the world, and few rights for its lower-class residents, or for anyone who disagrees with government policy.