The problem with making the internet a tier II common carrier is that it will get all the regulations and control of a tier II common carrier along with a right of way to telephone poles and net neutrality. A much better solution would be to allow the internet right of way access and net neutrality, unfortunately this requires congress to create another classification which doesn't seem likely to happen in the current political climate.

Exactly you may not be specifically targeted but your identity and financial information certainly are targeted along with everyone else's.

The government use right of way laws to force private land owners to have telephone poles on their property, they did this as the poles were for a common good. The right of way laws allowed telephone, cable and power companies all access to the poles but not ISPs. Essentially they allowed a third party confiscate property and only forced them to share with two other groups as a condition of letting them confiscate it. Then a third party comes along and can make the same common good argument but was not granted right away access.

Be nice to BMG they are charging $20 for a $10 cd not $10,000 for a $5 science fiction novel.

It's not a natural monopoly ISPs are not allowed to run fiber on the telephone poles simply allowing them the same access to telephone poles as telecos and cable providers would be a hug step. That issue is the #1 problem with Google fiber moving in to many areas.

Because of how access to telephone poles is regulated there is a government controlled monopoly on the last mile. Reclassifying the internet as a common carrier utility allows IPS's access to those poles and lines to run fiber they can no longer be closed out telecos and cable providers. This is the only good to come from the reclassification. If either party truly wanted to protect the internet from government regulation and censoring while fostering competation they would create a another type of carrier classification that would severely limit the scope of government regulation while allowing ISPs to run fiber on poles.

Leaving the government out of it would be just fine no more work visa's problem solved.

There are more then enough qualified Americans to fill the jobs, it's not about lack of training it's about diluting the market and making the labor cheaper so that Bill Lumbergh's stock will go up a quarter of a point. When ever someone says that are not enough qualified Americans to do a job just remember to add at the current price point.

Anakin went from wanting to protect his family to slaughtering children and killing his wife in a few scenes. He should have drifted to the dark side over the three movies not went from squeaky clean good guy to super villain in the last 30 minutes of the 3rd film. The character development was a joke no actor could have shined that turd enough to make it passable.

If you simplify it you can understand the US's point, in the eyes of the US government Snowden is a spy. An allied country harboring a spy would be a serious betrayal and it's not that unreasonable to no longer trust that country. These US response is probably a standard response part of a boilerplate agreement on sharing intel.

Before you can perfect editing the genome without side effects you are going to mess things up. That is the ethical dilemma that needs to be answered who do you practice on.

You are getting caught up in rhetoric which has blinded you to the issue. Money is not free speech but saying money can't be used to disseminate speech is limiting/abridging speech.

If a company commits crimes to make money all it's ill gotten gains should be seized the same as what they do with drug dealers. You shouldn't be able to commit a crime make $10muillion and pay a $1million fine, the $10 million should be seized along with the $1million fine. CEO's who knowingly commit crimes are not protected nor have they been protected by limited liability.

What the courts stated was that corporations are just groups of people, and that they should not lose rights for simply being in a group. If a person can donate to a political campaign then a group of people should be able to pool their money and do the same. The corporations are people is just rhetoric designed to make you emotional and stop thinking critically so you will blindly support it's cause.

Conservatives dislike federal regulation on guns and federal regulation on the internet. More government control of any entity should be met with suspicion until the details are known, and the FCC has yet to release those details. The big question is why would you blindly support a rule that you have no idea how it is implemented.