But that was your choice. You did not have to rent an apartment in that building. I actually lived in an apartment complex with a similar contract. Except that about 5 years before I moved out, the complex found that they needed to bring in a second ISP for competitive reasons (some people chose not to rent there because they preferred the other ISP).

The reason the problem is systemic throughout the nation is because the federal government encouraged this situation in the first place. The local/regional monopolies exist because of a federal law which allowed them to exist. So, the federal government abused its power by encouraging local/regional monopolies to come into existence. Now you want to reward the federal government by asking them to gather even more power to themselves?

Maybe instead we should ask the federal government to eliminate the law allowing local governments to enter into franchise agreements?

It is not "people" who are signing exclusive deals. It is government which is doing so. May I suggest that the answer is for people to demand that their local government allow such exclusive deals to expire and allow actual competition? Rather than reward the government for abusing its power by demanding that it gather even more power?

It has nothing to do with "unregulated corporate greed". It has a lot to do with corporate greed using regulations for their own benefit. The "problem" this new "net neutrality" regulation is supposed to fix was created by the government in the first place when it granted cable companies monopoly status in various areas. I never cease to be amazed at how often people respond to problems created by abusive use of government power by demanding that the government be given even more power.

I wouldn't get my hopes up if I were you. Nobody but the FCC commissioners have seen these 300 pages of regulations yet (well OK, people are getting a look at them now). This is another, "We have to pass it so that you can see what is in it" set of rules. I would be a lot more likely to believe it was a good thing if they had not kept the wording hidden up until they passed it. Of course, at over 300 pages I doubt I would have believed it was a good thing any way.

It's good to see that people who favor government regulation admit that the only reason they support government regulation is because they are evil.

The problem with this scheme is that currently is a 1st generation i7 better than a 5th generation i3? My guess would be "probably not", but having looked at a very limited amount of information, the answer appears to be a definite "maybe". Basically, ever since Intel gave up on 80x86 designations for its chips they have failed to settle on a naming convention that allows me to easily compare their CPUs (although the Core series is easier to compare than what came just before that). I used to regularly do a review of CPUs from both Intel and AMD to determine what I considered to be the best bang for the buck, but it has become too much work to do so any more. Now I only do it when I am buying a new computer, and I put that off as long as I can.

In a true free market they would be able to start a business. There are a lot of things which I could do to make money, but the cost of meeting the government regulations raises my costs above what people are willing to pay.

The problem is that you wait for the general election when the choice for each party has already been selected. You need to take part in the process by which the candidates for your party of choice is selected.

Yes, the Times said that, but that was not what they said when the U.S. was preparing to go for war. Nor was it what they said right after the invasion. What they said right after the invasion was that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq...now they are saying that there were.

No, but it is evidence suggesting that the Germans were prepared to use chemical weapons in WWI

Oh, I don't suppose it occurred to you that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is unlikely to want to bring attention to the fact that ISIS came into being on her watch. When I did a Google search of her comments about ISIS, her statements were mostly supportive of Obama's strategy, primarily suggesting a slightly more aggressive bombing program than the current one (but supportive of the current program none-the-less). As to JEB Bush, it is hard to imagine him coming out touting wmds found in Iraq, when his own brother did not do so as President. Even though these weapons were found while W. was being shellacked for failing to fin them, it was his decision to keep it quiet. Of course, it doesn't help that people like you continue to believe that WMDs were the sole, or at least primary, justification given for invading Iraq, when in fact the primary justification given at the time was Saddam's refusal to abide by the agreement he made at the end of the first Gulf War.

It is interesting that the Huffington Post does not use the "degraded over time" argument. They instead claim that the "lie" told by the Bush Administration was that Saddam was producing weapons of mass destruction rather than that he had them (contrary to what they argued in 2004, when they claimed that no wmds were found in Iraq). Of course, the fact that ISIS has actually used these chemical weapons in the manner for which they were created does not suggest to you that perhaps they are still potent enough to cause mass destruction?

Perhaps you failed to notice that my source was the Huffington Post. It is they who are saying that ISIS troops are using chemical weapons which they obtained from Saddam's stockpiles. While I will agree that Huffington Post is a bunch of wingnuts, they are are not noted for thinking that Bush was right about anything.

You mean the way Democrats keep mentioning the Koch brothers, while Republicans also mention people like Tom Steyer? And Herbert and Marion Sandler? The interesting thing about Soros, Steyer, and the Sandlers is that all three have been either involved with, or associated with illegal activities.