Because (D) wants expansion in area 1, but not area 2. They get expansion in area 1.

Next election, (R) wins and wants to expand in area 2, and they expand in area 2.

Wash, rinse, repeat. And if anyone proposes to cut Area 1 or 2, they are accused of "Tossing grandma off a cliff" or "Not caring about security" or "hating children" or "killing kittens and puppies"

The result is the same.

As for ISP, the problem is limited last mile options. Nothing more, nothing less. By removing the last mile from the equation, from "Comcast Franchise agreement" to Municipally owned infrastructure, we'd be pushing competition away from last mile to a CO-LO, and actually be able to increase competition, without increasing regulations.

Google Fiber is still Google Fiber. I'm talking about municipality owned infrastructure. City of ______ Fiber, owned, operated and maintained by the municipality, with the fiber being terminated in a CO-LO facility, where you could get Google, Time-Warner, Comcast, DirectTV, or whatever other options were available.

The issue is removing last mile ownership by a commercial enterprise.

Chicago, DC, LA ... that pretty much explains things right there. What do they all have in common? Liberal leadership

You can't buy away competition without big government collusion.

Here are a couple differences between drinking too much water and too big of government: 1) the number of affected people (one vs Millions), 2) You have to try to drink too much water vs natural progression of governance.

Slippery Slope is a logical fallacy not because it isn't true, it is a logical fallacy because it isn't always true; sometimes is not good enough in logic. The question is, have you seen government that has grown too big?

Here are a few acronyms that most citizens hate: IRS, NSA, CIA, DHS ....

Lastly, is there anyone that can seriously argue that government is not big enough?

Or, you can realize that Broadband is as simple as building out a new Fiber infrastructure, replacing Cable, using the model I've suggested.

Municipalities build out the infrastructure using one time Bond money, building a CO-LO facility and auction space to CONTENT and INTERNET providers. All last mile connections terminate in the CO-LO and a network technician processes connection requests from customers, "I want Time-Warner" or "I want Comcast", or "I want Google", who then patches customer to provider.

The cable is not owned by any single vendor, and there is competition for customers individually. No need for any regulation, and market forces will lower costs to the end user. AND things like the Comcast/Netflix argument simply disappears.

I output Toast.

...pooh-pooh the entire idea, but then I realized a recent project of mine was putting various aspects of my salt aquarium's systems on my LAN using an RPi+.

So I'll just crawl back in my hole now.

At least I became aware of a new (to me) acronym. :)

I was saying that it makes a lot of sense for Facebook not to allow pictures of Mohammad in Turkey. Just like they don't allow boobies in the USA.

It doesn't "make sense", it simply retards social progress by keeping neurotics from considering the darker corners of their own thought processes. I mean, seriously. "Boobies bad"? That's just... pitiful. I am perfectly ready to describe anyone who isn't pleased by the sight of a nice pair of boobies in any neutral, humorous, peaceful, appreciative or loving context as a broken human being. One for whom I have sympathy and pity, but in no way does this engender any urge to force the world into a form that serves to insulate them from the toxic processes of their own twisted psyches.

As for drawing Mohammad, your assertion that there is no purpose but offense is wrong out of the gate. Art is one reason, political commentary is another, historical illustration is another, simple choice is another, and yes, offense is one but that doesn't make it an invalid use.

What offends you may not offend me. And vice-versa. What serves no purpose for you, may serve a purpose for me. Be it intended offense, or otherwise, or both at once.

No one in the USA has the "right to not be offended." Being offended is subjective. It has everything to do with you as an individual, or as part of a particular group; it varies due to your moral conditioning, your religious beliefs, your upbringing, your education; what offends one person or group (of any size) may not offend another, nor a person of another grouping; and in the final analysis, it requires one person to attempt to read the mind of other persons they do not know in order to anticipate whether a specific action will cause offense in the mind of another.

And no, codifying an action in law is not in any way sufficient... it is well established that not even lawyers can know the law well enough to anticipate what is legal, and what is not -- any more than you can guess what is offensive to me, or not.

Sane law relies on the basic idea that we try not to risk or cause harm to the bodies, finances and reputations of others without them consenting and being aware of the risks. It does not rely on the idea that we "must not cause offense."

Law that bans something based upon the idea that some individual or group simply finds the behavior objectionable is the very worst kind of law, utterly devoid of consideration or others, while absolutely permeated in self-indulgence.

i stopped reading there

And I stopped reading there. See how that works?

Well, if you keep voting for the same thing, expecting different results, who is the crazy one?

I know, how about taking the fucking power away from people we have no access to and giving it back to the people to live their lives as they see fit? Oh right, because (R) want to toss Grandma off a cliff and (D) are in bed with the Islamists (IOW ... Fear Mongering).

Oh, don't forget to mention Somalia in your next reply.

what have you "won" exactly?

You "win" Turkish citizens annoyed with their government -- a win in the only venue likely to be able to create change there.

so you're for not opening diplomatic relations with cuba? we should just never ever ever reconcile or talk with cuba?

Diplomatic relations are not on the same level as corporate sponsorship of repression. Yes, we should talk to other governments, definitely including cuba, and yes, we should allow our citizens access if they wish to go there, and vice-versa.

But no, I don't think it is a positive thing when corporations adopt behavioral restrictions that are antithetical to freedom in general. It's not that I expect them to change, it's just that I don't like it, and as I am free to object and explain here, I do so.

we don't talk to iran? what is iran's attitude going to be then?

This is a straw man. I am all for talking to, and mutual visitation of, Iran (Cuba, etc.) These things allow cultural values to spread -- because generally, the dialog is quite open. I am not for FB repressing speech. These are not the same issues.

you are a dogmatic rigid ideologue

It's always entertaining to watch someone slinging mud at their own straw man.

If you want to know what I think, ask me. Don't put words in my mouth.