@Q.U.: Fine, I'll give you that there is inequality between poor and rich (I wasn't arguing that anyway). That graph you just showed me even proves that the Democrats are more responsible for it than Republicans, which is counter to what you've been saying about Republicans. But even so, why is the solution to "distribute the wealth" to the poor? Doesn't that just mean that the poor can do little to no work since they'd just be given a handout anyway? Why is that a good thing?

"You don't have to worry about working anymore, we're taking money from someone at the top and giving it to you! Yaaay!"

It's about as stupid as it sounds. What about those of us who actually like our jobs and have satisfaction in them, and who take in enough to be happy (as I said, I am one of these people)? Just because someone else doesn't like their job or doesn't make as much as they like means they should be allowed to quit but still draw what is essentially a paycheck?

Instead of just giving everyone a handout, why not put that money to good use? Like nonprofit, low-cost or even government programs (although government programs tend to be less effective) to train people into skill sets that are needed in the economy?

And in terms of taxation, have you ever heard of the Fair Tax? It's a tax that replaces income and sales tax and grades taxation according to spending, not income. I think, at least in theory, this sounds like a better option.

_________________

Thought you guys might like this:

_________________

Fair tax penalizes the poor. $4,000 out of a $40,000 income hurts a lot more than $20,000 out of a $200,000 income. There is a minimum consumption rate people have, and with prices rising on commodities such as food, they can't make up the difference as easily. A rich person can choose to live in a modest home to make up for the difference. A poor person doesn't have the same option to trade down without sacrificing quality of life. Fair tax is a misnomer in a way. A progressive tax lets the poor keep more of their money, because most of their spending goes to necessities, which isn't the case with the rich, who easily cover the necessities such as shelter and food.

However there are merits to it, because the American economy does need to cut down on imports. Food prices are rising, but people still do spend a lot on crap they don't really need. If anything, it could teach the middle class to be more conscious of what they spend their money on, instilling in them the habits necessary to become rich.

I'd love to see an explanation as to why it proves that.


Here's a homework for you. Check the income rates and assets held by each quantile of the US population in 2001 when Bush took office. Then look up the same data from year 2009 when Bush left. Add up the amount of money lost in total by the bottom 80% of the society and compare to the amount gained by the top 20%. Look up and consider the GDP growth throughout those years.

Then answer me this, did the growing GDP benefit every quantile as they respective shares in the total country income were? (I already know the answer is no, the rich had their income increased, the rest had it decreased.) If not then tell me, what is it that takes money from one social group and gives to another? That's right genius, that's called redistribution of wealth. You know the thing all those ignorant tea party members seem to be protesting against? It's funny but, didn't Bush like, move money from the poorer 80% to the richer 20% through his tax cuts and other policies? Funny how nobody seemed to object. And now Obama came along and wants to revert it. And what do we get? I find all that hilariously ironic.


Please tell me you're just making up bullshit arguments cause you're out of good ones? Please don't tell me you actually mean that? Calculate the total worth of all billionaires and divide all that money on all the people in US who would need more, see how much you get. Really, stop working cause they get a tiny little more? Money for a new stove or a working refrigerator? Really, that's incentive to stop working in your opinion?

Hey, tell you what. I'll pay you $30 a month if you quit your job. Permanently. Good offer?


I don't even see how you managed to get from that^, to this. Really... what? We're giving money to people who have all they need? I don't think that was the plan man. I think it was more on the lines of "help those who can barely afford to live". But hey, seems I don't know crap.

_________________
This post is intended for information only. Please do not reply to this message as responses cannot be read or acknowledged due to the stupidity of the user.

If we use the $1.3T figure for US billionaires and those below the poverty line for "all the people in US who would need more" it's about $30k per needy person, or about 109k needy people per billionaire.

i disagree, there's plenty of facts to support that at least a few of the positions RuffDraft is advocating are not supported by factual evidence, and instead by the gut feeling of wanting to impose a fair morality without knowing the complete set of circumstances that would lead to a fair morality, and has been told his whole life that trusting other people AS THE MODERATING RULE to not be lazy or exploitative is bad. Since most people are poor, the common sense assumption is that these poor people must inherit the burden of the responsibility for not only their actions and beliefs, but circumstances in life (no matter how little control they have in those circumstances), to the exclusion of accepting aid, no matter the personal cost, to maintain one's dignity as a hard-working, principled person.

(This belief, I would assert in a highly circumspect counterpoint of belief, is based on early indoctrination, and enhanced through negative reinforcement. How many parents justify cruelty to their children in hopes that it will "better" them? How many comedians insist that they're stronger because they had to suffer? How common is the theme of "tough love"? As someone who suffers on a day to day basis, I really dispute the claim that suffering can only make someone better. >:\

THIS argument isn't really based on anything, and frankly can be ignored.)

The facts presented are constantly pointing to the idea that the rich benefit too much at present to the exclusion of poor people, so the policies we implement should specifically burden the rich to dampen the benefit they receive, and specifically ease the burden of the poor.

_________________
Bleedcomics Staff Writer/Editor, , and Keeper of the Jar Brain of Secret President. RIP Ku Ku Ku \(-^.^-)/ U Wuz A REAL N***A!!!!!!!
"We're quite aware of this. BR is no happy rainbow face man. He is simply our neighborhood best fucking poster." ~ Warbear
Puff Most Epic.

Except that $40k is currently taxed at 25% which is $10k, and $200k is taxed at 33%, which is $66k. Fair Tax is currently proposed at 23%. Top tax bracket for people making about $379K and up is about 35%. But considering how much the rich are basically required to spend and invest in order to stay rich, I find it hard to believe that most rich people will end up paying a lower effective tax rate than people who make $40k a year and pay for a mortgage (payments for things like mortgages and rent etc. are not taxed under the Fair Tax; presently, the money is taxed before you make the payment).


Well, currently, with taxes being taken out before you spend your money, and because you have less money to spend in the first place, and because there is also an added sales tax to most things, you are taxed twice, once when you earn and once when you spend, and you end up with less money. If you are only taxed by a flat--and lower--rate as you spend, you do wind up with more money. Simple math.

...and your point is what? That a person who has had more success in life and maybe has a better skill set than another guy is a bad person for living in a better home? I don't understand what you're trying to argue here.

So the rich are able to spend more, and we desire a system in which the rich spend more and the poor are permitted to save more, correct? So how much more would the rich spend in a system where they're taxed as they spend rather than as they earn? Currently there are deductions that the rich can get on their taxes by employing tax accountants. Many big earners pay a lot less in taxes because of tax loopholes and deductions, things of that nature. In the Fair Tax, those loopholes and deductions would not exist, so they would be forced to pay their due on what they spend as graded by a higher average tax rate.

Yes. And if they're more conscious on what they spend, they wind up with more money, don't they? So if they're not taxed on what they earn, but they are on what they spend, and they spend less, they save more, isn't that right?

@Valhallen: If the government did as you say they should, and raise taxes (let's say that the deficit would be fixed if they raised the top income tax bracket to 60%, for the sake of this), what would the negative repercussions be?

_________________

Also, Net Neutrality. Video. Discuss.

_________________

Lol that video.

So the whole argument of no-net-neutrality case is: if right now we don't have a law that says you're not allowed to use a high-tech magnetic satellite to grab a meteor from the meteor belt and lunge it at your neighbour's back yard ruining his lawn, and still nobody does it, then it's clearly not a problem to be looking at? Well, not now perhaps, does that also mean that there won't be a case like that EVER in human history? You'd have to be an idiot to be confident that there won't. It's all a matter of progress and technology.
So now what, just because no ISP ever tried to abuse lack of net-neutrality laws (which is still not true 1 2) then we don't need them and never will? Put the damn law in place and relax, right now it won't change anything because there already IS net-neutrality, more of a self-imposed one. But if that law doesn't change anything, and only limits cases that might be moving away from that standard then why is it a problem? We don't like an extra new law to be put in place?

Also, that guy is greatly misinformed. Net neutrality does not mean every site has to load as slowly as all others. It says you cannot ban or limit access to sites in any way. The fact that SNAFU runs on a slow and shitty server that makes it slow in peak traffic hours, does not concern the ISP, who grants access to that site of the same size and speed at all times anyway. There's a difference between limiting access by the ISP, and limited speed due to the server you're accessing.

_________________
This post is intended for information only. Please do not reply to this message as responses cannot be read or acknowledged due to the stupidity of the user.

Sounds fair enough. I also had the thought that if all taxes went to consumption, companies would be a lot more motivated to cut the price on their final product, spurring more competition (hopefully without corner cutting in safety and regulations, but oh well), whereas a tax on one's property doesn't motivate anything.


I was just saying that if a rich person has too much of a financial burden, it's probable he can just trade down to a lower standard of living while still maintaining a comfortable life. A $500,000 house to a $250,000 for instance. A person already living in an apartment is only going to be able to trade down to crap. But if the effective tax rate ends up to be lower for poor/middle class people than this example doesn't matter. I can see why you're confused, I was thinking about taxation in general, whereas property value would be irrelevant in a fair tax scheme. So you can discount this.


I may be only using cursory knowledge of the fair tax system, but it sounds good enough. The biggest problem I have with the tax code currently is its complexity, not necessarily how it taxes the rich or poor. The tax code inherently favors the rich who can afford to hire people to do their taxes, rich corporations that can have a whole team of accountants, and so on, due to its complexity. A fair tax I suppose would involve basically zero thought and work on the part of the taxpayer, so I can favor it for that. Occam's razor has generally held true for me throughout my life.

In this system as well, you wouldn't suddenly have taxes popped up on you either.

One concern I have about it though is a black market forming to avoid taxes, but your points seem solid.

Graduated sales tax, graduated income tax, graduated property tax. GRADUATE ALL TAX.

_________________
Escape will make me God.

@DaCrum: Present the tax with its High School diploma?

Um. Okay?

The Meteor Metaphor notwithstanding, I think you're kind of missing the point. Right now, we have no such "Net Neutrality" laws and Neutrality on the Net is exactly what we have. The issue is that the government wants to have the ability to control the function of the internet. At the core, it's a rehash of the Fairness Doctrine applied to the internet. For example, I find it very telling that proponents of Net Neutrality are saying things such as "We need to do whatever we can to limit capitalist propaganda, regulate it, minimize it, and perhaps even eliminate it." [-Robert McChesney]

As for the above, even if you agree with the above statement, how does a statement such as that apply to neutrality on the internet? If he really cared about neutrality, he would be letting everyone say what they wanted. But here he's calling for a restriction on free speech in this form. This is not neutrality. This is a clear bias.

Except, those two links are not related to this issue.

1) Comcast tries to block file-sharing because it is used to share music, which is against the law. They're trying to protect themselves by appeasing those who, under the idea that the ISP is permitting illegal acts by simply not doing anything, could sue them (I know it's not likely, but if they wanted to I'm sure the RIAA would find a way). Whether or not I agree with this practice, this is simple port blocking. They're not being paid to do it, and they're not even doing anything illegal.

2) Q.U., it may come as a surprise to you, but I actually work with network and internet security. Please trust me when I say that Deep Packet Inspection by ISPs has nothing to do with Net Neutrality. Privacy and security are mutually exclusive to one another when an ISP wishes to protect its assets. It is especially so if an ISP has rules in its terms of use (of which, most ISPs have readily available for download from its website or in print from its service centers) that govern the use of its service as well as their rights to monitor.

Net Neutrality, as pushed by its proponents is little more than a veil for their true intentions. They use the misleading, aesthetically pleasing name "Neutrality" to try and convince us that there is a problem with the current system. Then, once everyone they need is on their side, they enact laws that try to change the flow of information on the internet in their favor. People like Robert McChesney, who wants to prevent the spread of "capitalist propaganda," and who would probably not have a problem with "socialist propaganda." Obviously, that's just speculation on my part, but from what I can tell, there is evidence that says what his true intentions are.

The problem is that we would be trusting the government with more control over how the current system would work, and ultimately what can and cannot be put on the internet. Essentially we'd be giving them free range to decide whether or not the bandwidth for one website is fair compared to any other website. That would mean that an FTP site, which often requires much more bandwidth due to its primary duties, would have the same bandwidth as a news site, which often transfers very small files, usually no more than 100kb.

I'm sorry, but that's not right. Do you recall that woman who was trying to use the car example of an 18-wheeler going 100 miles per hour down the highway? That's analogous to bandwidth, not to access. The ideas pushed by proponents of Net Neutrality include restricting bandwidth to sites that have more bandwidth than others. Meaning they would force ISPs to limit bandwidth on high-bandwidth sites because it's unfair to low-bandwidth sites.

Exactly. Nothing about the arrangement needs to be changed. Snafu being slow does not affect anyone (or at least, negligibly). No one is arguing that.

Except that no one's ISP is limiting access to them because someone else gives them more money to. That's what people who are pushing Net Neutrality are trying to claim is/might happen/ing. And they want to enact laws that give the government the authority to control bandwidth if they feel that there's too much bandwidth going to one site over another.

Keep in mind that most ISPs have more than enough bandwidth to support any amount of traffic. You can't run a web server with even 100 users off of a laptop (unless the laptop weighs sixty pounds).

_________________

GRADUATE THAT MOTHERFUCKER.

_________________
Escape will make me God.

I know we don't have laws for it now, and there's still neutrality. I pointed it out. Why do you take that away and try to make it your point? I mentioned already that the fact that RIGHT NOW nobody abuses a system which is not properly regulated does not mean nobody ever will.


Beck's conspiracy theories don't work with me well.

Let me put it this way. I am against the net neutrality as these people are proposing it right now. Because I believe it infringes on the "unrestricted competition" in the online world. On the other hand, I see and believe there is a need for a basic regulation that will act as a safeguard to prevent abuses of the system, to which it is currently vulnerable.

The idea is simple, you cannot slow down or limit access to any website below its capacities, unless that limit applies to all websites as described by your internet connection speed. There should be no selectivity and no activity to "adjust" the access speeds to different websites.
What the guy in that video is saying, is that if I make a website on a slow shitty server, net neutrality will mean that the ISP will have to make all sites as slow as mine. But I don't think that's the case. Not to mention I'd obviously be against it. There should be no action on the ISP's part, to regulate anything. If my website is run on server that can serve 4 hits per minute, then that is the speed I'd expect every ISP to provide. What I don't want is a provider saying "this website is non-important, we can save up money by decreasing the bandwidth allocated to it by a half, since nobody will be accessing it anyway". Hey, if there is no traffic there and the bandwidth can do better when allocated elsewhere where traffic is high, then that's not the problem for me. The problem is the ISP gains the ability to decide the accessibility to different websites, and they are NOT restricted to follow any kind of a common denominator to determine the accessibility. In other words they can use any reason, including their own wants and likes, to tell people how much access will be possible to which website.

Some people argue that bandwidth cap is against net neutrality. I'd say it isn't. It's okay to cut costs by having "dynamic bandwidth" that can shift depending on the traffic. Just like dynamic IP ISP providers have fewer IPs than clients, and exploit the fact that all their clients won't be using the internet at the same time. Hey, that's fine man, I don't have any quarrel with that, just like I don't have a quarrel with speeding up access to a website that is currently under a lot of traffic in exchange for the access to other websites.
But here's the point. Right now they do it to ease access and even out the traffic. To increase the efficiency and speed of service for their clients. But there is no clear law that would prevent them from abusing this, should they want to, in order to limit accessibility to websites/servers they don't like (like the competing ISP's website for instance). Sure you can trust that they never will do such a thing, but I don't trust them on it. That's why we need a basic form of regulation that will tell the ISPs the common standards and rules with which they can alter their bandwidth and accessibility, and for what reasons/purpose.

Also, net neutrality is a big term, it encompasses a lot of issues. You seem to be focusing on those little details that even I am not in favour of. But the general form of some law or limitation is still needed. As well as a limitation that will once and clearly state that websites cannot be given access to in different packets and with different prices. When you buy internet connection you buy the access to ALL of the internet, and let's keep it that way. And that's another issue falling under net neutrality, equalising internet access to that of TV channels, where you often have to pay extra for some more exotic channels. What would you feel like if I, as a cable provider, were to take FOX News channel off of all channel packs and sell it separately for a ridiculous amount of additional money? I can understand how sports channel can be used for that, but no news channel should be underprivileged in any situation. And similarly with the internet.

Finally, no. The last thing we want is government running the internet. That's how it works in China and we know how they like to ban whole websites whenever they see anything bad being said bout the Chinese government. All I want is simple and clear limits for ISPs as to how much they can do in that department. Because we don't want the ISPs to have the power to ban a website, without stating a legitimate reason, even if they don't use that power at all.

Think about it Ruff. You argued just a day ago that you want the government to patch up the tax loopholes. What if there was a loophole that nobody used, but could use? Don't patch it up cause nobody uses it right now? I think it's better to be safe than sorry.


So to sum up, I'm against this. Just as I'm against penalising any website for having a fast/better server/bandwidth than others. What I want is for the ISP to give as much bandwidth to each server as they can handle. To allow all websites run as fast as they can. I'm against slowing down the faster sites, just as I'm against slowing down the already slow and unused sites.


It might happen someday. But that's also besides the point. I don't want the government to have the right to tell ISPs how to treat each case. I want one simple bill to state clear boundaries and limitations for ALL ISPs to prevent potential abuse. After putting out a standardised bill the government is out of the picture. Cause that's all it's good for anyway.

_________________
This post is intended for information only. Please do not reply to this message as responses cannot be read or acknowledged due to the stupidity of the user.

literally: net neutrality is what we have. taking it away is corporate incentive;

_________________
Bleedcomics Staff Writer/Editor, , and Keeper of the Jar Brain of Secret President. RIP Ku Ku Ku \(-^.^-)/ U Wuz A REAL N***A!!!!!!!
"We're quite aware of this. BR is no happy rainbow face man. He is simply our neighborhood best fucking poster." ~ Warbear
Puff Most Epic.

In what way is that a corporate incentive?

Consider the flow of how I wrote my message. You hadn't said that at that point. I was talking about a specific argument. You'll notice I didn't say "Are you suggesting there is a clear bias on the internet?" Because you weren't saying that.

The fact that you and I agree on the fact that there is already neutrality was not the point I was making. I wasn't saying you weren't saying that. I mentioned it because it was relevant to what I had to say at that time. And now you're trying to say I'm trying to take credit for the idea? I am not some pompous, self-important jerk, and I'd appreciate it if you stopped treating me like one. You'll notice I don't go out of my way to insult you like you insult me.

Who said I got any of this from Beck?

It's obvious, by the way they're talking, and the way the facts stack up, that they either don't know what they're talking about, or they're being careful about what they say so that they don't come off as purely suspicious or radical.

By the way, there's a book, published in 1971, that is basically a guide for radicals, written by one of the biggest radicals of all time, Saul Alinsky. It's called "Rules for Radicals," (read that first description at the bottom by Philly Phool for a brief synopsis) and it talks, among other things, how you can get people to join an otherwise dangerous-sounding cause by simply changing the language to something more pleasant. It would explain, in part, how "The Democratic Party's Total Waste Of Money That Will Destroy Society In Detroit As We Know It And Fill Their Own Pockets With Copious Wads Of Cash At The Same Time Plan" (T.D.P.T.W.O.M.T.W.D.S.I.D.A.W.K.I.A.F.T.O.P.W.C.W.O.C.A.T.S.T.P. for short) became the "Model Cities Program" circa 1965.
[What, I'm not allowed to amuse myself?]

But, do you see abuses of the system currently happening? That's the issue. The internet has been vulnerable to those very abuses for about 20 years, and we see nothing of that nature. Granted, it's much more practical to do it now, when access to the internet is more available than ever and fiber-optics have hundreds if not thousands of times the bandwidth versus coaxial, and not even a tenth of the attenuation.

But if it's not happening, and if we've been talking about the issue for several years now and nobody's tried to capitalize on it, then I think it's pretty safe to say that extra litigation is not necessary.

No, what he's saying is that if you have a high-bandwidth medium and someone else has a lower-bandwidth medium on the same ISP, proponents of NN say that that guy can pay the ISP to shift bandwidth in his favor (or the ISP could simply do so on its own if it sees higher activity either way), which would be considered unfair.

Excepting that which is clearly defined in its terms of use; otherwise regular people could be running attacks against its servers, and the ISP couldn't arrest them for it because it would be illegal to monitor their activity without a terms of use policy to that effect.

Well setting "4 hits per minute" aside, if you want to increase popularity on your site, you could register with a domain that has faster servers, or pay an additional fee (if applicable) with the one you have to increase your bandwidth. This is also good if you are an FTP site that needs faster download speeds. Under Net Neutrality, this would be impossible within the same ISP. You couldn't have different servers with different speeds for users with different needs regardless of what type of service you need. The same thing would apply to ISPs who offer customers higher download speeds, etc. For example, in Guam, MCV gives customers the option of purchasing 1 megabit (mbit), 2.5 mbits, 7 mbits, or 18 mbits of bandwidth at varying prices. A lot of people don't realize, the more bandwidth an ISP can give you, the more it costs them.

I agree, that's not a good thing. But I don't think the government should be allowed to tell an ISP what they can and cannot regulate on their own network. That strikes me as somewhat of an overstepping of bounds.

Exactly. In fact, that's the system we have now, and apparently that's what proponents of NN are trying to say is wrong. And I agree with you in that we don't need to change the current system.

Actually, that's called Anti-Trust. Creating a monopoly, or the appearance of one. That's why you'll see ads for Satellite TV on Cable and Cable on Satellite.

So you wouldn't trust the ISPs to do it but you would trust the government? lol

The only form of regulation you need is the User (collective). I firmly believe that the government shouldn't be given more power than is necessary to keep order.

Hey, I agree with you, at least in principle. That's why I don't want Net Neutrality; because it's not actually neutral, and really presents a clear bias. We are in agreement on this point. However, I don't think that a law is actually needed. It just doesn't seem necessary with the way things are run.

I could point out that FoxNews would probably be available by the competing broadcast network along with their basic cable bundle, but that's not really the point. I understand what you're getting at in any case. And for the most part, I agree, but I still believe that ISPs should be allowed to charge more for users that require higher bandwidth, etc.

We're talking about two different systems with two different sets of operational standards. If you don't close a tax loophole, there's a chance someone gets to keep more of the money they earned. The only way that analogy applies to the internet is in the form of an obscure security hole, and that may have more serious of an impact (for example, Anonymous exploits the hole and steals all your data, then ridicules you for it, causing loss of money and reputation).

Perfect. We are in total agreement.

That idea has some merits, but I still don't think it's necessary.

_________________

Why is everything you disagree with some sort of NWO conspiracy, or communist takeover, or something?

_________________
Escape will make me God.

Like I swear, if someone disagreed with your choice in sandwich, you would retort them with "That's what the communists want you to think!" or "Only George Soros and his evil one-world government condones the evil that is the Reuben!"

_________________
Escape will make me God.

"Beck warned me about that socialist Turkey, Bacon, Avocado!"

_________________
Escape will make me God.

1) You must be insulted easily if you felt insulted by anything I said. It was not the intention.
2) By asking you why would you make that an argument I was pointing at the fact that it's not a valid point. Especially after I've already noted and basically deconstructed it.


Not my intention. I just see you finding a possible conspiracy behind this whole charade laughable, and very Beck-like. We could assume everything is a conspiracy, but that would not make our discussions any more valid. It would make them less valid in fact.


Irrelevant.


Finally some interesting stance and opinion.
I see where you're coming from.
But I still disagree. Times change, companies die and new ones emerge. Again, better safe than sorry. Putting some general, barely restricting limitations is a good point to be advocating.


True, but that's not tangent to what we're discussing. Net neutrality and internet anonymity are a bit different issues.


Yeeees, and that's something I'd not vote for. Buying better servers or more bandwidth is one thing, and it's rather normal from general capitalistic competition point of view. Stealing away somebody else's bandwidth or sabotaging their accessibility through such actions is already taking it too far. Just like in whole US corporate economy. You invest in your factory, you raise your production and can sell cheaper, all fair. You use your wealth to hire a saboteur to cripple competition's production, that's illegal. (btw I wrote 4 hits per minute because it types faster and easier than 5834539 million hits per minute. How irrelevan that you should point that out.)


So an ISP banning a popular website for all its clients just because that website, oh I don't know, stole baby pictures of the ISP's CEO, is not overstepping of bounds? Well it's not, right now, cause there's no regulation.
The issue here being, that whatever the government does it is subject to the public criticism. Government is elected by the public after all. The CEOs of the ISP are not. The worst they can fear when overstepping is loss of clients, boycott and possibly protests. While the government officials risk their jobs directly.


Indeed we don't need to change the current system, because as we both agreed nobody has yet really attempted to abuse it. The difference is I want an insurance that it never will be, no matter the circumstances, and you don't think such insurance is necessary.


And that's as far as the analogy goes.


I do not want the government to be overlooking the ISP's work. I want them to state clearly what is okay and what is not. Just like in the competition/sabotage scenario I mentioned before. After that the government doesn't do ANYTHING, until some company sues another for crossing these bounds. Then it becomes a court matter, for the justice system.


At least not right now.
We can take bets whether or not there will be a problem there some day or not. I'd bet there will, you that there won't. Still, it's not a big and important issue for me. Should an ISP overstep its boundaries in an obvious manner the case would most likely end up in court, and be finished by a ruling of the justice system producing an answer as to where the legal boundaries are. All I'm saying is that we can avoid that possibility by defining the internet law now.


If by users you mean the ISP's clients, then yes, same as with download speed, want faster internet pay more.


Why, I could think of a bunch of ways in which lobbyists would have been able to make profits or further their propaganda by abusing the current system. But security is a separate issue, ISP actions notwithstanding. As for your example, there had been cases of hackers stealing ISP's client's internet access information, and posting porn sites visited by some more notable senators in order to damage their reputation. ISP's shame for letting that get stolen. But that has little to do with net neutrality.
A better example would have been government control. As I said, I don't want the government to monitor the ISP's actions. Just to state which actions may warrant a legal action from the clients or domains, should they feel abused or discriminated against by the ISP. If we had the government controlling the internet wikileaks would have been down a long time ago.


As you said, we agree on what it should look like. Only difference being that I'd like the legal bounds written down and clearly stated, while you don't find it necessary. But either way, as I said, should a case or instance come to be where these bounds would be in question, the supreme court will end up ruling what is still allowed and what is not anyway.




It's hilarious you should bring that up. Because the Reps seem to be doing exactly that sometimes.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fEzTl2Wd35o

_________________
This post is intended for information only. Please do not reply to this message as responses cannot be read or acknowledged due to the stupidity of the user.

I don't have much to respond to, just a few things:

First, Wikileaks did not do anything "illegal" by posting Secret-classified documents. They were arguably wrong in posting them, perhaps disingenuous or had sinister intent; however, the law allows them to.

I know that you're thinking I'm out of my mind here, just let me explain. Sensitive information is not to be released to third parties without a need-to-know. It is the responsibility of those who have a need-to-know to safeguard that information. They were leaked to Julian Assange by a young, homosexual, anti-war (and yes, that's how he's been described) member of the Army. Julian Assange posted them to the internet for all to see. The kid who released the documents could be tried for at least one capital offense, and he could be executed for it (though I have read prosecutors are not seeking the Death Penalty). However, Julian Assange did not break any laws when he received the documents or when he transmitted them. The law basically says that if someone leaks classified documents to the press, the press cannot be charged with anything for reporting about them. Furthermore, the Constitution prevents the government from shutting down Wikileaks even though they posted military secrets.

It's a bit sad that freedom of speech can run both good and bad, and yet I wouldn't change a thing.



As to why no neutrality regulation is necessary, isn't it up to the ISP what internet traffic it decides to block? It's a private company, and as such, the only things they can or can't do would be defined in their Privacy Policy and Terms of Use, etc. If they reserve the right to allow or deny traffic on whatever grounds they desire, then there's nothing you can do... except find a new ISP, which is also your right. If the user thinks the ISP is doing bad things, they can take their business to another ISP that isn't. It's called competition. It's the unwritten regulation that controls all business-minded companies.

If the ISP isn't allowed to block any web traffic, then there would be nothing to stop people from looking at illegal sites (CP, etc.) or running malicious scripts to spread viruses. I think it's best to use a common-sense approach to private ownership and let them have their own clearly-defined rules. That way, if they break their own rules, you can sue them for it. I can't remember what that law is called, but it applies to pretty much everything.

_________________

And that burger thing: Really? Who cares? If they want to discuss and critique and joke about Obama's choice in condiments (I prefer banana peppers myselfjk), why is it worth his time to discuss it? Personally, I find mustard kind of disgusting (sort of like pineapple on pizza). But even so, Obama asking for Dijon mustard is rather absurd, I must say.

_________________

Ooooh, cheeseburger with cilantro cooked into the patty, banana peppers, and dijon mustard....

_________________
Escape will make me God.

My Dad makes a mean cajun-style burger.

_________________

I say we talk burgers rather than politics. We'll never agree on politics, but burgers, we'll agree on.

_________________
Escape will make me God.