The Senate action "would allow Comcast, Verizon, Charter, AT&T, and other broadband providers to take control away from consumers and relentlessly collect and sell their sensitive information without the consent of that family," Markey said. That sensitive information includes health and financial information, and information about children, he said. ISPs want to "draw a map" of where families shop and go to school, and sell it to data brokers "or anyone else who wants to make a profit off you," Markey said.
Regulations are evil! Let's put lead back in paint! Coal mining runoff back in rivers! Nobody needs seat belts or windshield wipers on cars! Down with regulation! Up with capitalism!
Have to agree with Threedog on this one. I'm not in favor of this.
------------------ Ron
Isn't it strange that after a bombing, everyone blames the bomber, his upbringing, his environment, his culture, his mental state but … after a shooting, the problem is the gun....
The next thing you know, they'll be using motorized vehicles to mow down pedestrians. Wait, that's already happening. OK, ban vehicles......
If you wish to upset a Conservative, lie to him. If you wish to upset a Liberal, tell him the truth.
Neither are others Ron. That is why in a free market capitalist economy customers can *choose* to give their business to ISPs that will contract with their customers to guard their privacy. Those providers that will not offer this contractual assurance will obviously lose business to those that will. If it is important enough to consumer demand, the market will sort it out.
What ISN'T being mentioned here is that this issue is tied at the hip to something that the "I give you a dime - You give me a dollar", left desperately wants: The "net neutrality" legislation.
Warning: You're about to be told next that cheap / free internet is a *right*.....
[This message has been edited by randye (edited 03-23-2017).]
Neither are others Ron. That is why in a free market capitalist economy customers can *choose* to give their business to ISPs that will contract with their customers to guard their privacy. Those providers that will not offer this contractual assurance will obviously lose business to those that will. If it is important enough to consumer demand, the market will sort it out.
What ISN'T being mentioned here is that this issue is tied at the hip to something that the "I give you a dime - You give me a dollar", left desperately wants: The "net neutrality" legislation.
Warning: You're about to be told next that cheap / free internet is a *right*.....
Admittedly, I have not studied this subject to the point of having an informed opinion. Will look into this more.
------------------ Ron
Isn't it strange that after a bombing, everyone blames the bomber, his upbringing, his environment, his culture, his mental state but … after a shooting, the problem is the gun....
The next thing you know, they'll be using motorized vehicles to mow down pedestrians. Wait, that's already happening. OK, ban vehicles......
If you wish to upset a Conservative, lie to him. If you wish to upset a Liberal, tell him the truth.
This is part of why there is a push to encrypt most sites. Many Banks and others have done this for years. All Google services and many others default to use HTTPS too.
You could use a VPN service or TOR but both can cause problems login to you bank etc.
------------------ Dr. Ian Malcolm: Yeah, but your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn't stop to think if they should. (Jurassic Park)
Neither are others Ron. That is why in a free market capitalist economy customers can *choose* to give their business to ISPs that will contract with their customers to guard their privacy. Those providers that will not offer this contractual assurance will obviously lose business to those that will. If it is important enough to consumer demand, the market will sort it out.
What ISN'T being mentioned here is that this issue is tied at the hip to something that the "I give you a dime - You give me a dollar", left desperately wants: The "net neutrality" legislation.
Warning: You're about to be told next that cheap / free internet is a *right*.....
This will help. Normally, Id agree with you. But ISPs are different.
People(especially in rural America) do not have choice between providers. Four in ten Americans can only get broadband from one provider. The ISPs have a monopoly in many ways. It's also just too expensive to bring multiple providers to every single Ameican. Even more Americans can only choose between the top two, what if they both sell information?
The only way that we can keep from being completely under the control of whatever provider we happen to have is to regulate the internet as a utility. ISPs already have a monopoly and likely always will, giving them the freedom to do whatever they want is insane.
The only way that we can keep from being completely under the control of whatever provider we happen to have is to regulate the internet as a utility.
First off, Thank You for at least having the honesty to give up your transparent pretense about "personal privacy" when it is obvious by your next post that you know full well, or at least have a vague understanding, what the REAL issue with the legislation is.
Secondly, if you want to regulate ISPs as a "utility" then the FCC is obviously the wrong government agency to be doing that. Additionally, your proposition regarding ISP monopolies in rural areas might have been valid years ago, but *satellite* providers changed that.
Government control is *always* the leftist's answer to any given problem, and then *any* failure of government is proof positive of the need for even MORE government. Healthcare, internet, education, it doesn't seem to matter what it is, you lefties want the *government* to run it, regulate the hell out of it, and then somehow give it to you for "free".
You, predictably, mentioned "broadband* and lament that only so many people have access. Couple that with your statement that you think ISPs should be regulated like utilities and we have arrived precisely where I warned Ron, (blackrams), we would. You want the "net neutrality" bill because what you REALLY want is government price controls over a free market that give you artificially cheap, unrestricted internet access that *somebody else* has to foot the bill for. Now go ahead and tell us how it is somehow a "right" that you get that.
[This message has been edited by randye (edited 03-24-2017).]
Originally posted by randye: (snip) You want the "net neutrality" bill because what you REALLY want is government price controls over a free market that give you artificially cheap, unrestricted internet access that *somebody else* has to foot the bill for. Now go ahead and tell us how it is somehow a "right" that you get that.
Which, incidentally, is the economic component of Fascism.
Private ownership, government regulated markets and pricing.
Originally posted by Threedog: ... ISPs are different.
People(especially in rural America) do not have choice between health insurance providers. Four in ten Americans can only get broadband from one health insurance provider. The health insurance providersISPs have a monopoly in many Statesways. It's also just too expensive to bring multiple providers to every single American. Even more Americans can only choose between the top two, what if they both sell information?
The only way that we can keep from being completely under the control of whatever provider we happen to have is to regulate the internet as a utility. ISPs already have a monopoly and likely always will, giving them the freedom to do whatever they want is insane.
First off, Thank You for at least having the honesty to give up your transparent pretense about "personal privacy" when it is obvious by your next post that you know full well, or at least have a vague understanding, what the REAL issue with the legislation is.
Secondly, if you want to regulate ISPs as a "utility" then the FCC is obviously the wrong government agency to be doing that. Additionally, your proposition regarding ISP monopolies in rural areas might have been valid years ago, but *satellite* providers changed that.
Government control is *always* the leftist's answer to any given problem, and then *any* failure of government is proof positive of the need for even MORE government. Healthcare, internet, education, it doesn't seem to matter what it is, you lefties want the *government* to run it, regulate the hell out of it, and then somehow give it to you for "free".
You, predictably, mentioned "broadband* and lament that only so many people have access. Couple that with your statement that you think ISPs should be regulated like utilities and we have arrived precisely where I warned Ron, (blackrams), we would. You want the "net neutrality" bill because what you REALLY want is government price controls over a free market that give you artificially cheap, unrestricted internet access that *somebody else* has to foot the bill for. Now go ahead and tell us how it is somehow a "right" that you get that.
You realize that broadband refers to satilite as well, right? I posted a link to the stats, please educate yourself on the issue.
There are some things that should be regulated, some things that shouldn't.
This actually isn't an issue for me because I live in a major city, I have choice. But many suburban and rural areas do not. Why should any private corporation be allowed to have a monopoly over millions of Americans?
Regulations are evil! Let's put lead back in paint! Coal mining runoff back in rivers! Nobody needs seat belts or windshield wipers on cars! Down with regulation! Up with capitalism!
You realize that broadband refers to satilite as well, right? I posted a link to the stats, please educate yourself on the issue.
There are some things that should be regulated, some things that shouldn't.
This actually isn't an issue for me because I live in a major city, I have choice. But many suburban and rural areas do not. Why should any private corporation be allowed to have a monopoly over millions of Americans?
Even when there is a "choice" there really often is no choice. So many people have no idea what "net neutrality" actually means, they have to make up some BS about it to make it sound evil, and then try to argue with you that it shouldn't be regulated like a utility.
People are so ignorant they would vote against their own interests, in the name of "free market," wrapped up in their own little worlds, with no idea of what is truly required for life at scale to function peacefully.
Even when there is a "choice" there really often is no choice. So many people have no idea what "net neutrality" actually means, they have to make up some BS about it to make it sound evil, and then try to argue with you that it shouldn't be regulated like a utility.
People are so ignorant they would vote against their own interests, in the name of "free market," wrapped up in their own little worlds, with no idea of what is truly required for life at scale to function peacefully.
Speaking in generalities, its peace vs freedom sometimes.
Originally posted by 2.5: Speaking in generalities, its peace vs freedom sometimes.
True freedom only exists in solitude and death. In any society, freedom is going to be limited by some amount.
Profiting off the suffering or violation of others is not a freedom any civil society should support.
It was mentioned previously that regulation is the economics of fascism. To which I call BS. Corporate ownership is the economics of fascism, and killing net neutrality furthers the corporate interest at the expense of individuals. Regulations exist to protect consumers. They are not there for the government to profit. Lobbyists are.
Yet here we are, the vocal minority happy to profit from the suffering of others, and even hurt themselves to the benefit of their corporate overlords.
Some things require regulation, most things don't.
Electricity, internet, water, hospitals? Please regulate those. Its not practical to cross shop the water that comes through my pipes, or the hospital I go to while I am bleeding out.. For most goods and services, then the free market is pretty good.
Originally posted by Threedog: Some things require regulation, most things don't.
Electricity, internet, water, hospitals? Please regulate those. Its not practical to cross shop the water that comes through my pipes, or the hospital I go to while I am bleeding out.. For most goods and services, then the free market is pretty good.
For most goods and services, you might not much regulation at the retail level, but you absolutely do need it in manufacturing. The market is hardly free, and doesn't protect you from harm, or even from economic loss of buying a faulty product/service.
Ever gotten a class action settlement? How much did you get? $5? How much was that in relation to what you paid for the product or service? Ever read the Terms of Service these days for products and services you use? So many of them you automatically waiver your right to legal recourse.
The idea of a policy of regressive regulation (removing 2 for every 1 new), is exactly how the rights of corporations get preferred protection while the people get nothing.
Electricity, internet, water, hospitals? Please regulate those. Its not practical to cross shop the water that comes through my pipes, or the hospital I go to while I am bleeding out..
Dear God, Only a young leftie would try to make a comparison between emergency medial care and *internet* use!
I'm sure that from your young perspective the lack of either one is equally tragic.
quote
Originally posted by Threedog:
You realize that broadband refers to satilite as well, right? I posted a link to the stats, please educate yourself on the issue.
What are you trying to say? Are you going to go down the "dobey road" now and attribute any argument against your thesis as "ignorance", "illiteracy" or even "racism"?
I've been paying for internet service provided by various means since right after it was first invented young fellow. I know damn well that *broadband* service also includes satellite providers, but that didn't have anything to do with my point.
[This message has been edited by randye (edited 03-24-2017).]
Well now, if internet service is a right ( ), then I would like to know when we get our free computers to go along with my free phone to go along with my free internet to go along with my free food to go along with my free housing to go along with my free transportation to go along with my free utilitiles...
Wow! I have been doing this wrong all along. I could just jack the system, and earn free shat because it is my right. Damn, crab legs and lobster the first two nights, and Top Ramen the next 30 or so days until the next payday.
I was ready to respond until I saw the "yay free market" comment? Want to expand on that? I don't want to build you a straw man, but are you saying you prefer socialism? The reason WHY you (as a private citizen) have access to the internet at all right now is because of the free market. Or would you prefer that the US Government provide your internet access to you? ... that's a serious question.
Anyway, go download the TOR browser, and just don't use too many jumps. You should be just fine. Yay free market!
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: I was ready to respond until I saw the "yay free market" comment? Want to expand on that? I don't want to build you a straw man, but are you saying you prefer socialism? The reason WHY you (as a private citizen) have access to the internet at all right now is because of the free market. Or would you prefer that the US Government provide your internet access to you? ... that's a serious question.
Anyway, go download the TOR browser, and just don't use too many jumps. You should be just fine. Yay free market!
The only reason anyone has access to the internet right now has nothing to do with free market. If it wasn't for taxpayer dollars, the Internet would not exist.
The Internet is the result of a DARPA project. Something taxpayers funded. Without socialism, there would be no Internet.
This is the second thread citing a misleading article about this issue the first is here //www.fiero.nl/forum/Forum6/HTML/119630.html and has a little more info. The stuff in question here is pretty much whether to stay keep the status quo or add some new government regulations to the internet. not whether to vote in some new stuff that allows things to happen that haven't already been happening for quite some time. Im dont necisarily like the status quo, but Im not sure the cure inst worse than the disease.