Here's another example.

1. Claim common carrier status
2. Get access to public rights of way
3. Raise rates
4. Say you aren't a common carrier
5. Profit.

there is no ?

http://www.theverge.com/2014/5...

Today New York's Public Utility Law Project (PULP) published a report, authored by New Networks, which contains previously unseen documents. It demonstrates how Verizon deliberately moves back and forth between regulatory regimes, classifying its infrastructure either like a heavily regulated telephone network or a deregulated information service depending on its needs. The chicanery has allowed Verizon to raise telephone rates, all the while missing commitments for high-speed internet deployment.

It's a mess -- and, by all appearances, it's completely legal.

* * *

First, Title II designation gives carriers broad power to compel other utilities -- power, water, and so on -- to give them access to existing infrastructure for a federally controlled price, which makes it simpler and more cost-effective for cables to be run. And that infrastructure adds up: poles, ducts, conduits running beneath roads, the list goes on. Second, Title II gave Verizon a unique opportunity to justify boosting telephone rates in discussions with regulators, arguing that these phone calls would run over the same fiber used by FiOS, Verizon's home internet service. According to PULP's report, Verizon raised traditional wired telephone rates in New York some 84 percent between 2006 and 2009, blessed by regulators in return for its "massive investment in fiber optics."

"Nationalize" ... whatever.

How is it what we have all that different from nationalized net access when 99% of users are locked into one of three major providers who then use that money to buy legislation and ordinances which favor them making even more money.

In the choice between a monopoly or nationalization, nationalization is a no brainer, because out of it might spring real competition as a GP poster pointed out, by leasing the pipes to any and all ISP wannabes. In contrast, monopolization leads to fat profits at users' expense, poor service, and crappy laws and it can never ever get better. Obviously, a free market would be better than either the other two, but we have a free market in net services like N. Korea has a free and open society.

Secondly -- exactly who invested in the network? I know I saw a recent article about cable companies taking Federal money to build out their networks and then claiming those lines aren't covered by common carrier rules --- a corollary to "socialize losses, privatize profits" would thus be "socialize expenses, privatize profits." I did find this about Comcast using $40m of public funds to build itself an office building Philly:

http://newslanc.com/2014/01/16...

Also how these assholes are making competition illegal: http://arstechnica.com/tech-po...

Or what about the fact that to lay all this wire, they are using public utility rights of way. If they aren't going to be a public utility they should have no right to use that right of way -- it's a kind of robbery of the commons -- a robbery of every American.

Until these monopolies start actually using their own money for stuff, the whole cry for the investors shit is just that, fetid stinking steaming shit. Cry a river of it. Then go swimming.

None of your examples are anything more than lotto tickets, they aren't real options. What you are saying actually, is that people who break immoral laws should with 99.9999% certainty go to jail. That is the effect of your argument. This whole, "I think they don't deserve it, but they should go to jail to jail anyway" line is total bullshit. And that is exactly what happens under the reality of the American _legal_ system -- you are operating under the fantasy that an American _justice_ system exists. It doesn't. It's just lip service. The reality is that there is a two tier justice system, and because Snowden is neither a multimillionaire nor a member of the ruling class in good standing, he would be destroyed in court.

the people have no say in the matter no matter what geek fantasy about jury nullification exists. The only people who have a say are our rulers.

Why is fleeing not valid in the context of civil disobedience? Especially when facing what is essentially a certain slow death sentence after trial based on Kangaroo Court procedures? There is no requirement that a person be a martyr to engage in civil disobedience.

Examples of how ludicrous the martyr requirement sounds are easy to come by, even without Godwinning this comment. Let's say a person is a N. Korean coyote, or whatever the term is there for helping people across the border illegally. If that person gets wind that the government is after him, should he not flee? Should he stay to face what is certainly death or close to it? Does staying and being destroyed set a good example for other coyotes? Does that really do anything to make the situation better for those who need coyotes?

All being a martyr does is annihilate our coyote -- nothing else. He should absolutely flee, I would say he has a DUTY to flee if the situation arises because by fleeing, he can be an example of how to get around unjust laws and live, rather than be an example of how to commit suicide.

Notable to Ellsberg's case, the government massively fucked up by breaking into his psychiatrists office, stealing documents, and getting caught red handed plus some other illegal wiretapping. This is the reason Ellsberg walked -- not because he managed to overcome the espionage act, but because the government screwed itself. In other words, Ellsberg won the lottery but nobody else has since.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D...

re: jury nullification, appeals, commutation, pardon

You are so deluded about the trial process it isn't funny.

Jury nullification basically never happens, and when it does, it's usually of the type that lets a lyncher go free. The appeal would only work if there was some procedural error -- the appeals court will give the trial court great deference on factual matters. As for the president --- buy lotto tickets. Better chance.

Our "justice system" operates on two tiers -- one tier which excuses the rich and politically connected, another tier that grinds up everyone else. You seem to be a man of great faith -- pray you never end up with a serious issue to be decided by the courts -- it's basically a crap shoot unless you are in tier 1.

Let me summarize your position: It's 1950, you aren't white, drink out of the "White's Only" fountain. You deserve to be in jail because you're a criminal.

Secondly -- there is no such thing as a "fair trial" -- even if a person is innocent and prevails, there is the fear, anxiety and financial devastation they had to go through.

Finally, Clapper would be allowed to mount a defense. Snowden would not because of the way trials are conducted under the espionage act. Snowden would get a show trial like you would expect in N. Korea -- he wouldn't even get the normal "destroy your life even if innocent" type of trial.

I understand that trials are better than summary assassination, but as a lawyer it is also somewhat sad to see how reverentially people look at the trial process. In the end, it is an ugly, dirty process that not infrequently perpetuates injustice -- and that's in fair trials where both sides are allowed to make a case. The way Snowden would be tried however, would basically mean that only the Government could present evidence. That's about as close to a summary proceeding as you get without just relying purely on the President's opinion.

So ... a big Fuck You to all the "Snowden should face trial" idiots who aren't aware that a trial is just a religious pageant for the faithful who've sold their Bill of Rights for a Bill of Goods. And to those who are aware of this and perseverate on "face the music," like the Bushes, Obamas and Clappers of the world -- here's to hoping they get a slow acting extremely painful cancer.

To be honest I am a sys admin, my coding experience is very limited. But comparing 4 to 500 million is a bit ridiculous and that's what I was trying to point out.

4 million lines of code isn't too far from 500 million? Math is not your strong suit is it.

The user who posted the numbers rounds out by saying 5 - 15 million lines of code. (It is a guess as his numbers only included part of the project.)

RTFG

"As Feared: House Guts USA Freedom Act, Every Civil Liberties Organization Pulls Their Support"

http://www.techdirt.com/articl...

Exactly -- this bill just "legitimizes" the assault on the 4th Amendment. The Constitution is basically dead.

You weren't asking for facts -- you were being an asshole pedant. A person gave a hypothetical based on widely known and scientifically studied data, and you oh so innocently asked about newspaper citations. RTFG.

Given that knowledge about the disparity in treatment in the court system is widespread, well reported, and scientifically studied, if you are unaware and making a comment, you are myopic, and to have managed to avoid being made aware, you must be a cloistered. To comment on what you do not know know, makes you an idiot.