If there is no demand/traffic, wouldn't that be the single point of failure that every cloudy system is designed to take advantage of?

I'll eat quantum M&Ms!

My point is that my constitutional freedom and liberty is not being defended. Not by the telecoms, not by the government, and not by you. My point is that I'd rather pay a little extra to protect what America stands for: freedom and liberty. And lastly, sane regulation keeps the game fair. My proof is that net neutrality got us where we are today.

You seem to have lost my point in your corporate propaganda induced rationalizations.

What part of all my messages did I say "government is efficient?" Don't put words in my mouth.

lol. You're a funny person. your stink about 1 example not being a trend is correct. I'll point out that having no examples is hurting your case, though.

And, once again, your inability to identify and discuss oligopoly behavior is obvious.

Let me try a different approach: What part of the first 20 years of the internet was bad?

really? that's your argument? Some non-sense anti-anti-capitalism ideological drivel?

I'm not surprised. Awesome, no evidence.

Besides, you haven't offered any of the proof I asked for, just vague associations with no hard facts. Net Neutrality in the telecom merger a few years ago = jobs and build out. No Net Neutrality the day after that clause was sunset = everyone fired, no build out.

Effective regulation was enough.

illogic?

Dude, you haven't addressed the fact that oligopolies make their own rules and don't play by capitalism or entrepreneurial rules. Every point you've made is moot until this is addressed, which is why I asked you to address this. Oligopolies don't fight to give you what you want. Oligopolies fight to take more of your money either directly or through government subsidies. That is what they are fighting for in their battle against net neutrality. They use corporate bull crap propaganda to get people like you to get all defensive about "capitalism" and "yay, deregulation" when they really are about as antithetical to capitalism as it gets. If you buy into it, great, but don't expect their arguments to win me over just because it came out of your mouth.

You are absolutely correct.... if it were not a captured market with so few choices that to disavow such unconstitutional behavior means no internet for you.

The telecoms aren't by decent entrepreneurs today and thus don't play by the same rules.

They, in fact, make their own rules with lobby power... including the ones to remove your ability to say what you just said. Or really. being pro-corporations, you would be fine. I could be blocked for my views. Some day you may be against corporations for something else and could be blocked. Extreme, yes, but without restoring the regulation that has gotten us to the point we are at (ahem.... WITH NET NEUTRALITY), this has become a possibility.

Are you really arguing that not having referees at a sports game is better because it frees players to kill each other? That's not a game, that's something else entirely. Rules are there to keep things sane. Not over regulate, which you seem to be confusing with my view. There are just enough rules in chess to keep things structured but not over burden. Net Neutrality was not a burden and we got many many great things out of it. This doesn't seem to be a part of your value equation but is a part of mine and many other geeks out there.

Your argument doesn't address the reality that net neutrality creates jobs at least in the instance of that large telecom merger a few years ago. You don't need studies to show what affect it had. People lost their jobs, and customers got slower service due to the lack of build out. Your argument also doesn't address the overwhelming political power held by telecom oligopolies or their "donations".

To me, the only incentive to not having net neutrality is more money for the telecoms. Do you have evidence otherwise? Or do you just have some corporate study to back your understanding? Personal experience also counts.

Small business would have to start paying to play on the internet. This would cost small businesses a lot of money to pay for internet tolls. That's money that could be creating jobs if there were net neutrality. Forcing telecoms to build out their infrastructure would actually create jobs. It wasn't until the net neutrality contractual obligation of a large telecom merger ran out that they stopped building infrastructure and fired the masses of people working on the build out.

Also crazy is the cost of anti-competitive behavior, the cost of innovative ideas being squashed because they didn't fit the business model of the telecoms, and enabling corporations to be the enforcers of freedom of speech is just plain unconstitutional and is just an abrogation of the responsibility of Congress and Whitehouse.

I'd rather pay slightly higher prices to enable innovation, freedom of speech, equality of information, and decrease the power of the oligopolies.

Call me crazy but the intangibles tip that balance for me. There is more to life than money like freedom and liberty.

Of course this report isn't going to discuss these things... it was funded by large corporations. They don't value anything but money.

I, for one, welcome our new square overlords. It'll give the "religious circles" a run for their money. I can see how the religious circles would be irked by the homo-erotic behavior of four squares vs a normal single square married to a traditional acute triangle. Then again, it's also much less dangerous as the known dangers of being stabbed to death on a daily basis don't exist. /flatland-humor

Just wait till someone patents patenting.

User Error: Fixed by pressing play again to unpause.

Maybe this should be a part of the standard. HTML5 anyone? It's usage would be instant and 100% saturated in the market (mainly because you are banned from using it). You then describe in the standard that is the canadian linking which the law refers to. Then you redefine as being some synonym of "link." Problem solved, eh?