McCain's new target - your neutral internet

[The_pantless_hero]

http://tech.yahoo.com/news/zd/20091022/tc_zd/245316

John McCain, the Manchurian candidate, has a new task-master now - the telecoms.
He has introduced a bill to Congress to prevent FCC from doing anything that stops the telecoms from being able to do whatever the fuck they want. All of you Canadians already know what happens when telecoms are allowed to run wild without any government intervention or regulation. The telecoms seem intent on making the FCC a paper tiger now that it intends to actually doing its job and our, I mean corporations' congressional representatives intend to help them along.

I urge anyone in Arizona to vote the bum out and everybody else to write their representative and don't let the telecoms bazillion dollar lobbying initiative turn into a black cheque for themselves.

[Bluth Corporation]

He has introduced a bill to Congress to prevent FCC from doing anything that stops the telecoms from being able to do whatever the fuck they want.

Sounds like he's doing what he wants for a change.

All of you Canadians already know what happens when telecoms are allowed to run wild without any government intervention or regulation.

They get to do whatever they want with their own property...which is a good thing, and as it should be.

It's theirs. They're entitled to do what they want with it. No government ever has any sort of morally legitimate authority to stop them.

[Sumamba Buwhan]

He has introduced a bill to Congress to prevent FCC from doing anything that stops the telecoms from being able to do whatever the fuck they want.

Sounds like he's doing what he wants for a change.

All of you Canadians already know what happens when telecoms are allowed to run wild without any government intervention or regulation.

They get to do whatever they want with their own property...which is a good thing, and as it should be.

It's theirs. They're entitled to do what they want with it. No government ever has any sort of morally legitimate authority to stop them.

With virtual monopolies or duopolies, in most places, telecom companies should not have the right to cut off service to companies that they compete with because they offer similar products (like AT&T cutting off Vonage). Especially on a shared computer network that was only made possible through government research and development. There wouldn't be an internet without DARPA and congressional bills to promote the internet and internet commerce.

[Charlotte Ryberg]

In my opinion this could mean bad news for the small organizations. Of course, I would be in favour of open competition, but for ISPs to control traffic would be considered unfair IMO.

[Dashret]

McCain already lost my vote when he decided that allowing companies go cover up rape was good thing.

[Bluth Corporation]

With virtual monopolies or duopolies, in most places, telecom companies should not have the right

SInce the set of rights one enjoys is static, universal, and timeless, arguing about what "should" or "should not" be a right is meaningless and nonsensical.

to cut off service to companies that they compete with because they offer similar products (like AT&T cutting off Vonage).

Why not? It's their service, to run as they see fit.

Especially on a shared computer network that was only made possible through government research and development.

That's a gross historical myth.

There wouldn't be an internet without DARPA and congressional bills to promote the internet and internet commerce.

There actually would, considering the Internet came about completely independently of ARPAnet.

At most, all the defense research did was develop the general idea of a wide-area network. The specific technologies used on the Internet arose completely independently of any DoD research.

[Maurepas]

eh, McCain=Republican...Obama, who's been avowedly against that sort of thing = Democrat...

Democrats>Republicans at the moment...

McCain + Bill - Obama = Fail,

[Rolling squid]

With virtual monopolies or duopolies, in most places, telecom companies should not have the right

SInce the set of rights one enjoys is static, universal, and timeless, arguing about what "should" or "should not" be a right is meaningless and nonsensical.

Prove that they have a right to do whatever they want with their property.

That's a gross historical myth.

Source?


As for the actual topic, I have officially lost respect for McCain. Not that I had much after he picked Palin and ran a dirty campaign.

[Rhodmhire]

Anything that I even suspect that might tamper with the neutrality of my home I will oppose no matter who proposes it, how many diseases it will cure, how many children won't die if it goes through, etc.

Therefore,

(McCain + neutral + Internet{target}) = no.

Please note "McCain" can be substituted with "government" which is arguably less than or equal to sooociiiety.

[Conserative Morality]

Anything that I even suspect that might tamper with the neutrality of my home I will oppose no matter who proposes it, how many diseases it will cure, how many children won't die if it goes through, etc.

Therefore,

(McCain + neutral + Internet{target}) = no.

Please note "McCain" can be substituted with "government" which is arguably less than or equal to sooociiiety.

What exactly is your problem with 'society'? We're all part of it.

[Astholm]

Isn't the Internet basically a virtual version of the public domain materials we already have now? Sort of like Wikipedia being a one-stop library, metaphorically speaking.

[Ifreann]

With virtual monopolies or duopolies, in most places, telecom companies should not have the right

SInce the set of rights one enjoys is static, universal, and timeless, arguing about what "should" or "should not" be a right is meaningless and nonsensical.

Prove that they have a right to do whatever they want with their property.

In b4 A=A

[Maurepas]

Anything that I even suspect that might tamper with the neutrality of my home I will oppose no matter who proposes it, how many diseases it will cure, how many children won't die if it goes through, etc.

Therefore,

(McCain + neutral + Internet{target}) = no.

Please note "McCain" can be substituted with "government" which is arguably less than or equal to sooociiiety.

What exactly is your problem with 'society'? We're all part of it.

Well...yall are part of it,

[North Suran]

With virtual monopolies or duopolies, in most places, telecom companies should not have the right

SInce the set of rights one enjoys is static, universal, and timeless, arguing about what "should" or "should not" be a right is meaningless and nonsensical.

The argument that rights - privileges issued by the government which have remained in a constant stage of change for centuries - are static, universal and timeless is "meaningless and nonsensical".

to cut off service to companies that they compete with because they offer similar products (like AT&T cutting off Vonage).

Why not? It's their service, to run as they see fit.

Why shouldn't the State charge you for taxes? It's their service, to run as they see fit.

Especially on a shared computer network that was only made possible through government research and development.

That's a gross historical myth.

If by "myth" you mean "fact", then yes, top marks.

There wouldn't be an internet without DARPA and congressional bills to promote the internet and internet commerce.

There actually would, considering the Internet came about completely independently of ARPAnet.

That, on the other hand, is a "gross historical myth".

At most, all the defense research did was develop the general idea of a wide-area network. The specific technologies used on the Internet arose completely independently of any DoD research.

That's akin to saying "The scientists working on the Manhattan Project were not responsible for the creation of the atomic bomb; sure, they came up with the formula and the theory and the core workings, but it's the corporations who provided the metal casing for the bomb!"

[Folk Metals]

With virtual monopolies or duopolies, in most places, telecom companies should not have the right

SInce the set of rights one enjoys is static, universal, and timeless, arguing about what "should" or "should not" be a right is meaningless and nonsensical.

Prove that they have a right to do whatever they want with their property.

*Cough* America *Cough*

Here, as long as you are not physically harming anyone, you can do what you will with your own property. (With the one exception if your property drives down others property value.)

[Maurepas]

With virtual monopolies or duopolies, in most places, telecom companies should not have the right

SInce the set of rights one enjoys is static, universal, and timeless, arguing about what "should" or "should not" be a right is meaningless and nonsensical.

Prove that they have a right to do whatever they want with their property.

*Cough* America *Cough*

Here, as long as you are not physically harming anyone, you can do what you will with your own property. (With the one exception if your property drives down others property value.)

No, you cant, there are restrictions, even in America, as well there should be,

[Kobrania]

McCain will ban porn.

[Maurepas]

McCain will try, and subsequently fail to ban porn.

Fixed,

[Conserative Morality]

Well...yall are part of it,

All of us are part of society.

[Folk Metals]

With virtual monopolies or duopolies, in most places, telecom companies should not have the right

SInce the set of rights one enjoys is static, universal, and timeless, arguing about what "should" or "should not" be a right is meaningless and nonsensical.

The argument that rights - privileges issued by the government which have remained in a constant stage of change for centuries - are static, universal and timeless is "meaningless and nonsensical".

to cut off service to companies that they compete with because they offer similar products (like AT&T cutting off Vonage).

Why not? It's their service, to run as they see fit.

Why shouldn't the State charge you for taxes? It's their service, to run as they see fit.

States do have a set tax. For example, Oklahoma's is 10%. Was 10.9%

[Maurepas]

States do have a set tax. For example, Oklahoma's is 10%. Was 10.9%

Most states dont actually enforce that over the internet though, Mississippi doesnt, and I dont see how its hurting it in the slightest, tbqh...

[Maurepas]

Well...yall are part of it,

All of us are part of society.

I was joking,

[Rolling squid]

With virtual monopolies or duopolies, in most places, telecom companies should not have the right

SInce the set of rights one enjoys is static, universal, and timeless, arguing about what "should" or "should not" be a right is meaningless and nonsensical.

Prove that they have a right to do whatever they want with their property.

*Cough* America *Cough*

Here, as long as you are not physically harming anyone, you can do what you will with your own property. (With the one exception if your property drives down others property value.)

That's not what bluth is arguing. Consider if that was true, the FCC couldn't exist at all. Bluth argues that some sort of universal morality exists that makes the FCC immoral and invalid.

[The Republic of Lanos]

I thought the Obama admin wanted to do that...

anyways, is this trolling?

[Folk Metals]

With virtual monopolies or duopolies, in most places, telecom companies should not have the right

SInce the set of rights one enjoys is static, universal, and timeless, arguing about what "should" or "should not" be a right is meaningless and nonsensical.

Prove that they have a right to do whatever they want with their property.

*Cough* America *Cough*

Here, as long as you are not physically harming anyone, you can do what you will with your own property. (With the one exception if your property drives down others property value.)

No, you cant, there are restrictions, even in America, as well there should be,

Actually, yeah you can with that one exception I just pointed out.

You can burn down your house and no one could do anything about it. Rip up your yard, destroy your tv on your front lawn, etc.

These are all things we own, being used how we see fit.

Please, if you can, give an example where this is wrong.