If we want to make cabs safer, I have a better idea: How about we background check the passengers to make sure they don't assault the driver?

Seriously, who's more likely to be a criminal? A guy with a job to keep or a random stranger hopping in a car?

It's called DANE, or DNS-based Authentication of Named Entities and described in RFC 6698. The DNS record is TLSA, it associates a TLS certificate to a domain name.

Unfortunately a major browser vendor has yet to implement it. How about supporting the feature requests to implement it? https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/s...

Net Neutrality is a routing philosophy. It doesn't state that recipients of these packets have any obligation to listen.

Mod parent up

Just because one thing you do is interstate, doesn't mean every part of your job is.

What if the states did this? "Someone sold your product within state lines, and therefore we get to tax and regulate your product even though it was manufactured it in another country entirely. Pay up."

A constitutionalist (you know, the supreme law of the land, the thing they all swore to uphold) would also notice that no part of the Constitution granted authority to do such a thing: An application of Sarbanes-Oxley needs to involve interstate commerce in some fashion.

Fishing is distinctly intrastate commerce (if commerce at all!), and cannot be covered by federal law. Criminal law is supposed to be a state issue.

The Eighth Amendment to the Constitution also requires "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted." I doubt 20 years prison listed in the statute is ever warranted.

Both chambers voted down the Executive's proposed budget, though.

Citation needed.

When you OWN the pipe you don't have marginal costs until the pipe becomes saturated. Get out of your little fantasy world where prices are crapped out by little price pixies.

Sure we do, it's an RFC even: http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc...

"Upload" and "download" here is from the viewpoint of that server.

Sending data from my computer here on my desk to my AWS instance, AWS bills me nothing. Why? Because it's so under-utilized that it's practically free. People just don't use servers for consuming stuff.

Upload (from server to my desktop) is what it utilized, and pushes prices upward.

Residential connections tend to be the opposite, though there's no hard rule that this must be true, as TFA points out. The pricing phenomenon is decided by how people are using their connections, not how the Internet is designed. The Internet doesn't care. And neither should the FCC.

Um, your solution also only works if you get to choose when you drive home. Work a 10-to-19 job? Sorry, drive home in the dark.

Most employers choose 9-to-6 or whatever because it's during daylight. Not the other way around!

Not sure what I'm doing, but I'll bite.

The House is the chamber that produces the budget; it was controlled by the Republicans who produced budgets, and the Senate kept voting the budgets down. Several budgets were voted down by the Democrat-controlled Senate, actually, and they somehow blamed it on Republicans by saying "See! They won't send us a budget with everything we want, so it's THEIR fault!" Hissy fit drama at its finest.

Upload (out) is what's expensive. Download (in) is what's nearly free.

Amazon likely pays for the entire pipe which is rated at a certain capacity; they charge those particular prices because of supply and demand. Same thing with your commercial ISPs. The fixed costs and cost of the pipe is irrelevant; the price they charge is chosen because that is what that market can bear.

You're diving into the finer (but equally important) points of a change in supply vs. changing the quantity supplied. Yes, a change in supply can happen as a result of a change in cost, and affects the market price. That's not the phenomenon in question here.

Have you deployed to a data center recently? Like, any data center anywhere? Unless you're in with people doing really bizarre, high-download stuff.. How about how about Amazon's AWS:

Data Transfer IN To Amazon EC2 From Internet $0.00 per GB

You can saturate your download speed 24/7 and they won't charge you a penny, whereas "Data Transfer OUT" starts at $0.12/GB, past the first GB.

In any event, there's this thing called supply and demand, which says (among other things) that prices of products are set completely independently of their cost.

These prices are what determine costs, and where to most effectively allocate capital (being servers, households, or routers alike).

Any position of power is going to get abused by someone. Period. This is why we have checks and balances.

Checks and balances means that anyone in a long chain can "veto" use of force, and prevent it from being used:

0. The Constitution has to grant the legislature powers to propose a law
1. The legislature has to propose a law granting powers to the executive branch
2. The executive has to sign it into law
3. The treasurer has to put money towards enforcing the law
4. The sheriff has to begin enforcement of the law
3. The prosecutor has to decide to enforce the law
6. The judge has to be willing to hear a trail for the law (or can decline if any of the above has been done illegally, i.e. unconstitutionally)
7. The relevant parties (e.g. prisons) have to be willing to impose the judgments ordered

Ideally, checks and balances means that anyone in this system can say "Nope, I don't agree with that use of force" and veto, and the use of force dies. They shouldn't have to worry about losing their position: This is why Federal judges get life tenure.