Despite your apparent issue with apostrophes, I agree completely. We are supposed to be a nation of laws. No other nation has its basis in its founding documents. All other nations are based on ethnicity, religion, the longevity of the ruling junta, etc.

When we turn our back on those founding principles and the rule of law, even if that's only against a certain segment of our nation, we are all diminished, and we all lose.

Back in the 1970s when there were many more street gangs in NYC, the police were just considered the biggest and best armed gang. They still are, there just aren't many other street gangs left in NYC. I guess they won and are now trying to make sure they're the only street gang out there.

You're conflating the Broken Windows Theory with the Broken Windows Fallacy.

They are not at all the same thing. They are both also wrong.

There. FTFY.

[Emphasis Added]

And who gets to decide which is which? You? That kind of bigoted twaddle isn't so different from the racism being discussed here.

What is more, morality is an individual thing. Many people share similar attitudes and ideas about good ways to live. But morality is sum total of the choices you make when faced with situations that call for a moral choice (e.g., I found a wallet. Do I return it with or without the cash that was in it?). Your morality is not my morality, and mine isn't anyone else's.

Research? Ten seconds with a search engine shows you're wrong. So you're either trolling, stupid or a government shill.

Well, yes, they do that. But they are also doing this:

Real Time Access to Phone and Internet Traffic Second, the same telecommunications companies also allowed the NSA to install sophisticated communications surveillance equipment in secret rooms at key telecommunications facilities around the country. This equipment gave the NSA unfettered access to large streams of domestic and international communications in real time—what amounted to at least 1.7 billion emails a day, according to the Washington Post. The NSA could then data mine and analyze this traffic for suspicious key words, patterns and connections. Again, all of this was done without a warrant in violation of federal law and the Constitution.

The relevant Executive Order (12333) details the scope of domestic surveillance for US Intelligence agencies (Section 2.3b) and states:

Information constituting foreign intelligence or counterintelligence, including such information concerning corporations or other commercial organizations. Collection within the United States of foreign intelligence not otherwise obtainable shall be undertaken by the FBI or, when significant foreign intelligence is sought, by other authorized agencies of the Intelligence Community, provided that no foreign intelligence collection by such agencies may be undertaken for the purpose of acquiring information concerning the domestic activities of United States persons; [emphasis added]

That's so cute that you believe that! The average congressional campaign cost USD$1.2 million this year. Money talks and it's corporations and other monied interests that are doing the talking, not "concerned citizens." Sure your congressperson will pat you on the head and say "I work hard to make sure our district gets what it needs! I work for you." But the truth is they work for those who pay their way.

You must think things work as they did back in 1946 when this was written. Sorry champ. Those days are long gone.

There. FTFY.

But you repeat yourself. With apologies to Mark Twain.

Hey! don't give that out, that's my IP address!

I've gotten a few of those calls too and played the same game. But before he could (in his thick Hindi accent) express his outrage, I verbally abused him until he hung up.

I do have a spare Windows VM for the next time, assuming I have time to block all network access except the screen sharing app. That could be fun. A waste of time, but possibly amusing.

Many folks would probably class me as a "liberal" for one reason. And that reason is the only major difference my political philosophy differs from the standard "Libertarian" platform. I believe that helping the less fortunate is an appropriate role for government. The logical extension of that idea is rather far-reaching. However, aside from that, I think most Libertarian ideals are pretty good.

It seems to me that even though many of us disagree with respect to policy choices, the vast majority of the US population can agree about individual liberties, a government which represents the electorate and equality of opportunity for everyone.

As I said, reasonable people may disagree about how to achieve these things (as we certainly don't have that now), if we can stop the absurd kabuki of right vs. left (news flash: the US Democratic party is a center-right party), perhaps we could work together to address the cesspool of money flowing into our political system and the circumstances that drive that process, we might get representative that actually represent their electorate, rather than those who drown them in filthy lucre. That might give us better laws and better government.

As I said, I think reasonable people (and there are both reasonable and unreasonable people on all sides) can disagree on specific policy points, but it seems to me that we should all agree that the US should be a nation of laws which respects individual liberty and provides a level playing field for everyone.

So while you folks are bashing your "enemies" those who are really in control are laughing all the way to the bank.

Your spelling choice ("nationlialise" rather than "nationalize") leads me to believe (my apologies if I am mistaken) that you are a product of the UK educational system. As such, it's worthwhile to clarify that last mile infrastructure is strictly a local issue. That is to say all last mile infrastructure requires approvals and oversight from the local and/or state govenrment, *not* the Federal government. In fact, attempting to nationalize such infrastructure would be contrary to both the letter and spirit of laws in the US. Not only would such a plan be struck down in the courts, you'd have people protesting in the streets all over the country.

What is more, it is absolutely not necessary to purchase existing infrastructure. The infrastructure that exists is sited in rights-of-way controlled by local governments. They can provide access to other players (e.g., a local non-profit tasked with implementing and managing their infrastructure) to provide real competition (in Intenet access, not last mile infrastructure) in the marketplace.

This does present both problems for standardization, but the benefits of local management and regulations far outweigh any benefit from nationalization as it can be handled just as other public works projects are implemented by local governments all over the United States.

Actually, the FCC can do just that, according to the relevant law (cf. SEC. 203. [47 U.S.C. 203] SCHEDULES OF CHARGES):

(2) The Commission may, in its discretion and for good cause shown,
modify any requirement made by or under the authority of this section either in
particular instances or by general order applicable to special circumstances or
conditions except that the Commission may not require the notice period specified
in paragraph (1) to be more than one hundred and twenty days.

I'd also point out that until 2002 (for cable ISPs) and 2005 (for DSL ISPs), these guys were subject to Title II regulation. Since they were reclassified under Title I, we've seen less competition, higher prices, more abusive terms of service and the theft (it's hard to call it anything else) of nearly USD$200 Billion in subsidies for new infrastructure and upgrades. As such, it seems to me that while Title II reclassification isn't the solution to the issues associated with broadband in the US, it would be a good start.

All that said, I do believe that reasonable people can disagree, and we should all try to hash this out in a way that favors the vast majority of people in the US, and not the large ISPs who have spent lots of money lobbying in Washington, DC and in statehouses across the country.

I believe that creating competition is the best way to do so. I also beiieve that this needs to be done both at the national, and more importantly, the state and municipal levels. I can detail what I think should be done if you like and we can certainly discuss it. I don't claim to have a monopoly on good (or bad) ideas, nor is my mind necessarily made up as to what the best way to go about it.

I do understand your suspicions about government intrusion into the private sphere, and I'm sure that in many areas we are in agreement about how big government is screwing us in favor of both monied interests and enhancing its own power and control. At the same time, some in government still think that they need to at least appear to be working for their constituents, so if we can leverage that to make a difference in our favor, I'm all for it.

I am convinced that the big ISPs have used their preferential positions to stifle competition, slow innovation and enrich themselves at the expense of the rest of us.

That's what I think. I understand if you don't agree with me, but I don't consider you to be my enemy. Rather, I think that at heart, we have the same ideals (a nation of laws, which strives to provide maximum liberty and equality of opportunity). Perhaps we disagree on policy specifics, but I hope we can agree on the ideals.

All that said, what say you? What is your prescription to address the lack of competition, cronyism, regulatory capture that plague the broadband internet market?