That is my point, without net neutrality, what you describe can happen. In addition, most people don't have many options for internet providers, so it's not like they can shop around. I should have been more clear in my original post that net neutrality is a good thing because it ultimately protects the consumer.
Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).
That was my point. Without these rules, the things I posted could happen. Unfortunately, I wasn't clear on that, I guess, so I was modded down.
The pay for speed guidelines cover content providors, not end users. Also what is there to pay for?
But users end up paying the subscription fee to those content providers, do they not? What is to stop an internet provider from throttle back bandwidth unless the content provider pays extra, which then gets past on to the consumer? What's to stop an internet provider from partnering with Amazon to provide videos and and Netflix and everyone else must pay a premium for their data to be streamed, thus causing their services to cost more? What's to stop Comcast from throttling content they don't control, causing it to be more expensive to the provider/consumer than their own content?
Data is just electrons flowing down a pipe. It doesn't "cost" any more if those electrons are emails, webpages, videos, or whatever.
Mitt Romney was convinced that he was going to be the next president of the United States. He was wrong. Microsoft may be convinced that Windows 10 will be the thing that gets them back on top, too. Maybe it will and maybe it won't. The problem is that like Romney, it doesn't matter what they think, it's what the public thinks that decides such things.
It's funny that you think I am somehow tied to the DNC or Clinton. If only you new. I make my comments because whether republican, democrat or whatever, people are entitled to due process. Clinton is no different.
If she broke the law, she will be charged, but like many experts have already publicly stated it is a gray area and does not appear to be a violation. At best, one would expect the law to be updated to remove the gray. Most likely, nothing will change, because both parties rely on that grayness. The republicans know all of this, which is why they have taken the "case" to the court of public opinion.
Regardless of my political persuasion, I and many others believe it is time to return civility to politics. One only needs to look at the tragedy that has occurred in Missouri to see how low political rhetoric has sunk and the damage it can cause.
There were not 50,000 Benghazi emails. It was, however, the Benghazi emails that first brought to light that she had used her personal email, but it wasn't an issue back then. Of course, she wasn't running for president back then, either.
As for what the head of the committee said, well, he is welcome to his opinion, but it would be a matter for the justice system to determine any wrong doing. The chair should be careful, because it is actually a pretty common practice with politicians including many in both parties.
If he believe she violated the law, then charge her with a crime.
She didn't lie or cheat, at least not based on the emails.
you means the ones she let us see. being that we have no way of knowing what is missing, we cannot be sure.
While that may be true, one is presumed, under the law, to be innocent until proven guilty, Personal emails are not subject to archiving, nor are emails deemed to be of a sensitive nature. As has been done by her predecessors, it is up to the Secretary of State to determine which emails are to be sent for archiving and which are to be exempted. So unless there is evidence to the contrary, she is in the clear.
It should be noted that this is no different than in the pre-internet age, when correspondence was on paper. The various officials determined what to send for archival or not. There is no archival police.
Wasn't her's a possible violation of state law? Is Alaska's law the same as the Feds?
Well, if anybody else in government did this, they'd get fired, lose their pension, and possibly face criminal charges.
Well, Condolezza Rice did it and nobody seems upset about that. According to the WSJ, Kerry is the first Sec of State to use a government email account.
AND remember the liberal democrat cries about Sarah Palin's alleged use of private email for public use (until it was hacked and nothing was found) ??
Yeah, the same people who were screaming lunatic mad about that, are the same ones suddenly silent here. Those people need to be "named and shamed".
Actually, this is probably what this is all about. As with Palin, nothing illegal has transpired here. It's just political rhetoric.
So yes, she knew exactly what she was doing and why she was doing it.
If she is so smart, then how come she got caught?
She didn't get caught. What "triggered" this story was when she submitted the emails from her personal email account to the government, as required by law. The same as most other federal officials.
Nobody is talking about Republicans, their crimes or what they will do. Let's not project on Republicans what the Democrats do daily with their own special version of vitriol and rancor. Let's face it, besides Fox News and Al Jazera, you can't tune into a news program that isn't controlled by the left wing. So no reason to even try and deflect here. Hillary is a liar and a cheat and a good one at that. I thought she made a good Secretary of State, just for the record.
She didn't lie or cheat, at least not based on the emails. Until the current secretary of state, they all used their personal emails and phones for work. They all, including Hillary, then turned over the non-classified emails as required by law. There is no law that says she or any other government official must use a government supplied phone or email address. There is a law that prohibits them from using a government phone or email for non-government purposes. As such, most use their own phone and turn over the records, as required by law.
... that what Hillary did is against virtually every US government agency policy and directive. You are NEVER to conduct official government business on public systems due to security, archiving and many other reasons. The Clintons are the prototypical scofflaw Democrats.
Actually, if that were true, then the Federal Records Act wouldn't need a section dealing with archiving personal emails and the like. What about using personal stationary and your own stamps, is that forbidden, too?
No, the Federal Records Act simply states that the communications need to be archived and submitted, which she actually did. This is nothing more than trying to make a scandal where none exists. Even Condoleezza Rice used her own cell phone while SOS. SOS Kerry is the first to use a government issued phone and email account.
When the Secretary of State does something this fishy, that's a big deal.
According to the news this morning, Secretary Kerry is the first Secretary of State to use a government issued email account for correspondence. If it is fishy and there is to be an investigation, then is seems like Hillary and all of her predecessors are going to be in trouble.
The fact is that the law does not require her or anybody else to use a government email account. It does require emails that are not sensitive or classified to be turned over, which she did. Of course, that was after the fact, and one could argue that was a problem, but she still complied with the law. Unless you want government officials to carry two cell phones, computers, tablets, etc., this is the compromise. After all, they can't use the government supplied equipment for personal use, particularly political activity.
I wonder if she used her own stamps and stationary instead of government ones if people would be as upset?
Richard Nixon proposed and drove the creation of the EPA.
He expanded Medicare coverage to include long-term disabled under 65.
He created the Federal disability insurance (SSDI).
He proposed a national health care plan, with federal subsidies (something more "socialized" than Obamacare).
Advocating any of these things today would make it impossible for any Republican to get the Presidential nomination.
Hell, even Reagan is a liberal by today's standards!