Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:WTF (Score 1) 709

Maybe they don't want to seem insensitive to immigrants. (Don't know why, since immigrants don't vote.) Maybe they want us to forget that we're citizens and actually have the rights & obligations (both from and to this country) that citizenship entails. Maybe they forgot. I think the second case is most likely.

But yeah, it really, bothers me, too. Especially since I'm a minimalist (I haven't purchased anything but food, housing, and utility access in the last 5 years), and it makes me feel left out.

Comment Re:WTF (Score 1) 709

Net Neutrality is the status quo. It's what we've had so far. Currently, many ISPs are considering changing that, and in a preemptive maneuver, the FCC is attempting to codify the way things already are so we don't end up with an internet that's more like cable television.

The bullshit and misinformation that's being slung around this issue should amaze me, but instead I just find it frustrating.

Comment Re:WTF (Score 1) 709

Jeez people, this isn't about the FCC regulating the internet, it's about the FCC regulating telecom companies (which it does have the power to regulate), to prevent them from regulating the internet.

In other words, it's public regulation to prevent private regulation, is all. No one is going to censor the internet on you. And if they tried, well, there are ways around it. Just not very convenient ones.

Comment Re:WTF (Score 1) 709

Or, maybe, this recent financial regulation bill: I have no idea if it's good legislation or not,

It's not as bad as it could have been, but it's not wonderful, either. Instead of simply re-enacting the repealed regulations that would have prevented this last meltdown, it just creates more government oversight (Yay! More government! /sarcasm). It does force financial institutions to behave more responsibly and remain more solvent. But it in no way is ironclad protection against further meltdowns.

Comment Re:WTF (Score 1) 709

Ah, let me amend this by mentioning I was utterly unaware of the existence of a 'news' channel on the cable networks, and that this is what was being discussed. I stopped watching TV a long time ago (don't even have the ability anymore). I was referring to an hour half/hour show which appears over the airwaves locally here, which nonetheless goes by the title "Fox News".

Comment Re:WTF (Score 1) 709

FOX News doesn't use the public airwaves.

Ahh...no, I'm pretty sure Faux News is available over the airwaves. I say this because I've never had cable TV, and I've (inadvertently) seen their shows before. Don't know where you came up with that one - did you hear it on one of their episodes?

Comment Re:WTF (Score 1) 709

YOU DON'T HAVE A RIGHT TO THE INTERNET.

You know, there's been a bit of talk about changing that. Not that I expect that to happen anytime soon (and why the internet? You'd think you'd hear about making electricity a right before net access).

Just throwing that out there.

Comment Re:WTF (Score 1) 709

How on Earth are you going to get citizens to vote up/down on hundreds of thousands of employees?

Don't forget the postal service. They employ nearly a million people all by themselves. Also, Joe might take offense at not getting that mail carrier office and, ahem, go postal on you. (Sorry, I had to say it).

Comment Re:the US vs the rest of the net enabled world (Score 1) 709

Ugh, that was a horror story!

I have DSL through Fairpoint where I'm at, and I've got to say I'm pretty lucky compared to you. While my speeds are modest (~320KB/s down and ~80KB/s up), they're constant (as expected from DSL) - I don't have to worry about peak usage times or any other kind of slowdown. There's never a complaint about using too much bandwidth - I've run my connection at max both ways for entire months before (seriously, 24/7 for a whole month) without issue.

The customer service used to suck, but - and I hate to say this - since they declared bankruptcy in order to dump the union, it's improved considerably. My final complaint - that I couldn't pay my internet provider online - has been resolved, and I'm pretty content with the situation.

The only other ISP in the area is Time Warner, and from what I've heard they're more expensive and less reliable, although you can get faster speeds (if you're online at 3 am).

The whole problem is the private ownership of the infrastructure. Move the infrastructure to public ownership on a state, county, or city/town basis (my preference is for the latter), and lease access to ISPs, and you not only have a new avenue for competition but a means for local communities to collect a little revenue on the side.

Comment Re:And who will protect consumers from comcast &am (Score 1) 709

ROFL! Ahh, what a riot! Yep, that pretty much sums up all the libertarian arguments I've heard on /.

Just as an aside, what ever happened to the real libertarians? You know, the ones that were just to the right of the anarchists, but hated money just as much as government? Where did they go? Did they all die out in the 80's, or something?

Comment Re:How ironic (Score 1) 112

I am a company and I filter internet access for my employees. Is that unfair to the sites I'm filtering?

Yes. But it's your business, you censor free speech all you'd like. Your employees are free to access their favorite sites at home.

I am a company and I have some slight performance issues out to the internet for employees, to speed things along I prioritize traffic to and from business related websites we commonly use. Is that unfair to the sites that aren't being prioritized?

Yes. But it's your business, you censor free speech all you'd like. Your employees are free to access their favorite sites at home.

What if instead of me as the company doing it for my own employees I am an ISP that provides this to business customers. Is that unfair to anybody?

Yes. Only now, you're censoring the free speech of the public, which is a violation of the Constitution, at least in spirit.

What if I sell it to consumers, is that unfair to the sites?

No, not really. What you do or do not charge for your service has no relation to individual websites, so long as it's the same for everyone.

What if this is the only option I provide, is that unfair to the sites?

Yes. You are selectively enabling certain sites while crippling others at your whim. What kind of messed up mind doesn't find this unfair?

Slashdot Top Deals

Mathematics is the only science where one never knows what one is talking about nor whether what is said is true. -- Russell

Working...