" The Lawful Content clause in the rules is setup to ensure only lawful content is transmitted over the Internet. In order to determine if your data/packet is lawful, the government will have to analyze your data. In order to do that, they will only allow an encryption to be used that they can quickly decrypt (similar to what they did with Fax machines -the clipper chip). This will still allow encryption to perform email and internet transactions to keep the tech and private security companies happy.

This is the launch board to end private encryption, and will finally allow government to have free and open access to all data transmitted on the internet. Because of this, all devices that connect to the Internet will have to follow the same guidelines, this being phones, printers, tablets, PC’s etc. This will end all debate about companies providing devices that government cannot easily gain access.

This clause is much larger than just making hate speech - opposite political views, etc, unlawful content, this is the purpose to gain access to all the Internet data traffic."

There may be a difference to you, but that doesn't mean there is a difference to the regulators or politicians. After all, there are children on the Internet - have to protect the children from all those "dark corners". The difference in the past was that Internet content was not controlled under a regulatory scheme (like broadcast TV). But now it is. And only "lawful" (that is, explicitly allowed) content and protocols are covered. Everything else is subject to censorship and blocking.

It's worse than that, actually. It clearly looks like a effort to bring the Internet into a regulatory scheme like broadcast TV. Note all through the regulations they point out that only "lawful" content is protected. Not "legal" - "lawful". It's an important distinction. For instance, if I want to show some nipple during a performance, that's perfectly legal. However, if I do it during a superbowl show on broadcast TV, it's not "lawful", and I will face a half million dollars in fines. And the "lawful" moniker applies not just to content, but protocols and "transport mechanisms" as well. Is that protocol "lawful"?

Some of the champions of net neutrality are now starting to question whether they really got what they wanted - or if it's going to be something else. There will be endless challenges in the courts, and some companies have already promised them. And, of course, the FCC has still not release the 300 pages of regulations, so nobody really knows the details yet.

That's consistent with the track record of most of these outsourcing companies. HCLA, for instance (Indian-based IT company), famously spent years writing the software for the Boeing Airbus. At the end it didn't work, failed FAA certification, and Boeing had to kick them out and hire a new team to do a re-write. HCLA has done the same on other projects.

You would think that at some point these companies (and government agencies) would figure out that they are wasting money on these low-bidder foreign companies, and stop using them. But no. They must be good salesmen, is all I can figure. They are certainly NOT good software engineers.

Because we've seen the work of those H1-B workers. Somehow, companies keep hiring them even though it's clear to most of us that they are NOT getting their money's worth. The issue is exacerbated by the fact that much of those salaries are being sent somewhere else, instead of being spent at home, so other businesses suffer, too.

Maybe first they should be trying to provide a little more "equality" in college admissions and graduation. Women are dominating right now, and no one seems to care that there is a significant and growing gender gap in higher education.

Obligatory: One Idea.

Because there are too many of those little dregs and not enough security for the elites to keep their heads.

Besides it's far cheaper just to send them some food stamps and a check every month than to try to educate them in a public school or teach them about running a business - just tell them to get a "job", and when they can't find one because nobody wants to hire some poor minority kid indoctrinated in a state-based/union-driven "feel-good center" where they learn to blame all their troubles on "the man", just offer some free health care and send them back to their Social Justice Government Housing.

Don't give them a place to live near the businesses, though, they'll just trash the neighborhood - there's some space down there between the railroad tracks and the city dump where you can build some brick boxes for them to live in.

History shows that businesses only need to look after their own self-interest. With all players acting the same way, there are, in fact, many checks built-in to a free market system. Intervention is only needed for things like, businesses that attempt to cut corners in dangerous ways by, for instance, using melamine-contaminated fillers for pet and baby food, or dumping toxic waste into the rivers or air.

The worst of monopolistic abuses, regulatory capture, and cronyism are actually side-effects of a run-away regulatory bureaucracy.

Same old fallacy. Supporters of unlimited central government always try to claim that the only choice is all the regulation or none at all. Of course there is also such a thing as too much regulation, which causes more problems than it solves. So of course if a regulation isn't working, you just need a new regulation, and a new one to fix that, and a new one to fix that, until there are so many it becomes an albatross.

Anyone that thinks there are no regulations that need to be removed in the US has NOT been reading the Federal Register every quarter.

Obligatory video of Wesley Clark on that issue.

When desires of government bureaucrats is "front and center" of thinking for a company making consumer products, then the company isn't working for it's customers any more. This is a system that has been tried before (and currently, in some places). In the 1930's and 40's it was called Fascism.

... of regulators, yes, I agree.

If you mean "all markets with excessive intervention by uninformed central planers will gravitate to monopoly/ oligopoly naturally" - I agree. If you mean all free markets do that - I've got about 400 years of history that prove you wrong.

When you say it like that, it's nothing but an unassailable straw man ploy aimed at denigrating anyone that disagrees with your extreme position. I could turn this around on you and use similarly loaded words, lump all supporters of regulation in with statists, totalitarians, eugenicists and communists, as well as point out these folks are on the wrong side of economic history and economic facts. But you're not interested in having a reasonable position, but in painting anyone that questions an armed bureaucrat's intentions as a total anarchist.

Good Day!