Government ownership of the road system is still a good idea but tolls should be used to collect maintenance revenue as it is the only way to accurately charge people for use and it balances with the need for maintenance.
Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
Toll roads is absolutely a great idea. It does not need to be a privately owned road. With camera system based toll collection there is no need to have expensive toll plazas and you do not need to impede traffic to collect.
As someone in the middle class, I can tell you I do not get nearly the number of services I pay for.
they could pull an Apple and issue bonds in the EU to raise money that can be repatriated to the US without taxation and then repay those bonds in Euros held over seas.
My ring finger sits nicely on the side of the mouse. I have an LG gaming mouse though so maybe that is why it is comfortable.
That is the lamest excuse I have ever heard. I guess Adam Smith was wrong, competition is not good.
Why roll out fiber to the curb when 5G will deal with high speed internet.
You are an idiot that does not understand why Ma Bell was not innovative or what the court actually told the FCC when it over-turned the rules...you certainly do not understand the crap political game the ISPs have been playing with the FCC regarding when they do and do not want to be considered a common carrier.
EOs are completely legal and have been used since the creation of the union. Reagan used then, Bush I used them, Clinton used them, Bush II used them....name a president that did not use an Executive Order please.
It has not cleared it's orbit of debris and Eris is in the same boat yet LARGER than Pluto.... how is Pluto a planet then?
Or maybe just an agency under the supervision of a department....but both would require an act of congress. It is the only way to get authority under a CIO position that can affect the entire government through policy...Frankly it should be done from a security aspect alone.
The fact that consumer ISPs are access providers means they will never meet the definition for free peering agreements. They are all consumption services. Asshats can't seem to get it that these companies are just trying to set up a two-sided market and that is the only reason any of this is an issue.
No...Neither wanted a free peering agreement. BOTH were willing to PAY for the install of the hardware and the maintinance of that hardware in the Comcast Colo. Comcast said no. That is the fact.
I think your comprehension of the issue is the problem. Not my reading comprehension.
Comcast has their cable monopoly that allows them to use the poles as part of the contact with the cities they are in. They use this as a means to prevent competition through graft and exclusive contracts...Title II would prevent cities from blocking right of way access to competition like Google.