Lets use a car analogy. Is your local used car salesman engaging in censorship (or the automotive equivalent thereof) when he refuses to sell vehicles with more than 150,000 miles on them? What about if he refuses to sell Kias? He has the right to sell any car he chooses to, as well as to NOT sell cars that he thinks are inferior or morally unacceptable.
The key thing everyone seems to be missing is that what Amazon is doing is PASSIVE. They are NOT selling a book.
They're not actively engaging in censorship, which would mean they'd be reaching out to publishers or other book stores to try and get others to not carry the book either. At worse, they're guilty of not supporting things which may potentially appear to support pedophilia/incest.
The power to
requir[e] that providers offer their services in an equal way to all who want them
is the power to tell the telco's what to do. If they can tell them to do things we like, they could also tell them to do thing we don't like, like censor, exclude, or politically filter traffic.
The problem with giving the FCC power to do this is that the FCC has the potential to become more tyrannical than Comcast does. Comcast can only impose its will on Comcast subscribers; the FCC can impose its will on all Americans.
Now get back to running the clock down on your last day before a three day scotch melee
Thats the best description of today's work I've ever heard.
Yes, they simply don't care. In most of their markets, they are the only serious provider. For example, here in Houston, you can get DSL (from about 6 different companies) or you can get cable (only Comcast provides cable). Thats like 6 million people in this market alone!. What does customer satisfaction have to do with anything if the customers can't leave you (w/o going from 80mbit to 4mbit)?
Personally, I opted for the 4mbit DSL over having to put up with Comcast's shit. I was first getting my connection set up after moving to Houston, I wanted Comcast, so I called their customer service number. That was the day that the FCC censured Comcast for the whole throttling incident. The CS rep was like "We have never filtered anyone's traffic." I couldn't resist reading her some of the juicier bits of the FCC's statements. She was still like "We have never filtered anyone's traffic".
In order to "provide healtcare to those that can't afford it", you have to have money. That money is taken from the wealthy. Taking money from the rich and giving it to the poor (in this case in the form of health insurance) = wealth redistribution.
Wealth redistribution is "always considered a bad thing" because our constitution guarantees security of property. Remember the 4th amendment?
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated
Wealth redistribution requires the seizure of property (in the form of money) from people in a disproportionate way.
Those who reproduce the most are the unintelligent, poor and uneducated. They get the double or triple amount of children on average than those who actually have the resources to take good care of their kids.
Seriously, I've seen statistics from the 2000 census that says otherwise. I realize you're stating the "communal wisdom" but I don't think reality supports you.
/* Halley */ (Halley's comment.)