PaulSpoerry.com

Social Media, technology, and geeky stuff for your brain.

You are here: Home / Google+ Posts / Republicans seek fast-track repeal of net neutrality

Republicans seek fast-track repeal of net neutrality

by 138 Comments

 

Republicans in Congress yesterday unveiled a new plan to fast track repeal of the Federal Communications Commission's net neutrality rules.

Introduced by Rep. Doug Collins (R-Ga.) and 14 Republican co-sponsors, the "Resolution of Disapproval" would use Congress' fast track powers under the Congressional Review Act to cancel the FCC's new rules.

Moar: http://arstechnica.com/business/2015/04/republicans-seek-fast-track-repeal-of-net-neutrality/

Check this out on Google+

Comments

  2. This clearly validates the claim that republicans are more corrupt than the democrats. Nobody but ISP's benefit from overturning this, NOBODY. The republicans are being offered money, and they are overtly accepting it. Bad move, republicans…

  7. +Paul Spoerry The FCC has intervened and taken the FTC job..Look how FTC has managed the internet ..They have done a good Job..No one is saying no regulation..The FTC has some of the most power tool of all the regulators…I do not like the job the FCC has done with the TV and radio…
    I do not like media owned by 6 corporations…

  9. +Sherry Winter ISPs have charged consumers increasingly more for ever diminishing service, and they got away with it. Now they want to pick which businesses are allowed to succeed online. The Senate will not match this bill, the President will not sign it, and the GOP will not get a supermajority. ISPs went too far screwing us all, and now they're going to have to play fair. Cry us a river.

  12. I will gladly take a small tax over the @ss raping that I'm getting from at&t for them to throttle my already third-world connection for no reason.

  13. +Jeremy P. Harford The FTC could have done some thing but The FCC has been meddling and blocking..Go figure the FCC people are bought by lobbyist ..The FTC can break up monopolies but FCC is structured to regulate monopolies like ma bell…This sucks…

  14. +Sherry Winter How many times has ATT gone bankrupt now? Ma Bell can't be broken up. She's like a liquid terminator. She'll just recompose herself after a little time, in a different form. Politicians are bribed to the point where competition isn't possible, and tax funds are funneled away to ISPs that accept them on false premises. America is being robbed by telecoms. The least we could get in return is what we pay for as consumers.

  15. +Jeremy P. Harford That is not what we will get..We are going to foot the bill for a federal internet and a complete monopoly.Total censorship…They the FTC could divest any company..ATT is not a terminator our regulators are bought..just look at the money and FCC..

  16. +Sherry Winter That looks like hyperbole to me. ATT is the terminator. Remember when they were AT&T? Remember how that changed? Old news articles may get scrubbed from the web, but not every US citizen has a one week memory. I remember.

    Antitrust efforts are a total failure where ATT is concerned. The FTC has failed, absolutely and totally. The best it can do is give them a time out. See the link below.
    http://money.cnn.com/infographic/technology/att-merger-history/

    Telecoms asking for the FTC or Congress to handle this is just like Brair Rabbit being asked to get thrown into the brier patch.

  17. +Jeremy P. Harford so you are ok with monopolies? You are ok with the federal government regulating information on the net..How will that make anything better..They have no price regulating language in the net neutrality law..What do we get out of it?..I see what the big corporations get, gold plated contracts with government..The government get total control of the net and the tax payer as usual get the bill and screwed..

  18. +Trevor Brown ~ the GOP benefit from it too.

    By rejecting a model in which everybody gets equal freedom of speech on the internet, and replacing it with one in which those with the most money can buy the most bandwidth and hence shout the loudest, they are enabling Foxification of the internet.

    I they can stop net neutrality, then they can use the power of corporate donations to drown out the opposition and ensure the GOP message dominates the internet. It is, in effect, an attempt to turn the internet into a GOP propaganda tool.

  19. +Sherry Winter Why are you pretending it's one way or the other? I say, make sure consumers actually get what we pay for and also break up monopolies. It's the FCC's responsibility to regulate communications. I don't trust the FTC's antitrust efforts to resolve consumer problems because they can't even even solve monopoly problems. You're arguing that a little league baseball team should play in the Super Bowl. It makes no sense.

    But by attempting to speak for me, you've shown that you don't actually have any strong arguments. So, is this where you start insulting me or where you'll start making up your own version of history? Sorry, but that's usually the progression when people siding with the GOP are called on their poor arguments. How about you call your senator and ask them to do something that benefits the people of this country for a change?

  20. +Jeremy P. Harford First I am in no way speaking for you.You know that ..Very weak tactic…I am pointing out the fact The FCC regulate monopolies..The FTC breaks them up….I am pointing out lobbyist are literately in bed with the regulators ..The chairman was a former lobbyist…I outlined what was going to happen…I have been watching this stuff for months…
    You countered non of what I said..you attempted to re-frame the issues..Talking around the issues will not help you..I do not stoop to name calling…I block people who call names…
    All in the name of national security right that is why the government need the internet..I voted Obama in hopes he would be the same Constitutionalism he was a senator..Do you remember what he said.." they would not have to make it secret if they were not doing something wrong…"Do not call me a GOP person but the democrat's are not getting my vote this time…I want a none of the above box..

  21. +Sherry Winter When you said, "so you are ok with monopolies? You are ok with the federal government regulating information on the net," you were speaking for me even if you disguised the first half of it with a question mark. If I knew otherwise, I wouldn't have mentioned it.

    My pointing out that efforts to break up telecom monopolies have utterly and totally failed in the past is not meant to come across as support for monopolies. It's meant to point out that breaking up ISPs into smaller companies that equally screw us over still leaves us screwed over, so your proposal doesn't actually solve any of the problems that led to this discussion. It's also meant to point out that trusting the FTC to succeed in a task it has consistently failed at isn't helpful either.

    If you're convinced that lobbyists have made puppets of our legislators, and you don't like that, then why are you arguing to support the lobbyists' agenda? In fact, much like a telecom lobbyist, everything you argue seems designed to let ISPs get away with screwing over consumers and seizing control of the Internet. Your baseless fearmongering abotu the FCC regulating information on the Internet doubles as a red herring.

    Do you really think people are that stupid?

    By the way, the "none of the above" box is a GOP argument as well. It's meant to stop democrats from voting because the only way the GOP will win in 2016 is if the election is rigged or democrats don't vote. And the GOP knows that. You can say that you don't support them while you argue their policies and promote their social media tactics if you like, but then you offer the best lack of support that GOP money can buy.

  22. +Jeremy P. Harford I think the democrats are going to be very surprised this election..Just like they were in congress..They are going the way of the wiggs..lol..
    Despite what well paid media people do the rest of us want a real choice..We are tired of the wall street 2 party crap trap…To give you a idea …I voted Obama because I did not like Hillary and hate the bushes..Mitt was no better..If I had to choose from the 2 parties Rand is getting my vote..Personally I like Jessie Ventura…

  23. Yeah, that's about what I thought. Well, I guess killing Social Security and the VA are right in line when your previous topic's theme of screwing over the people to benefit gigantic businesses. It's funny that you bring up the Whigs, since the current GOP has a modernized version of their platform.

    I just don't see how you justify unnecessary war, an apocalyptic cult bent on our extinction, nor new "separate but equal laws" aimed at the LGBT community — because those are all part of the GOP too.

    Aside from that, double talk, misdirection, false dilemmas, red herrings, fallacies, inaccurate appeals to history, overconfidence… All check. You must be a supervisor. You're one of the best shills I've ever encountered. It has been a pleasure. I mean that.

    p.s. What does 2016 have in common with 1836?

  25. +Jeremy P. Harford I am for SSI being saved..
    Privatizing SSi is a very bad idea..As for the VA thing those contractors are ripping off our vets..They belong in prison and we need claw back measures to get the money they wasted back for fraud..
    .Yes lol than you see the humor of the Democrat's going the way of the wiggs..If the democrat's did three things they could win…Support the Constitution ( like obama did) , drop their gun control stance, and got rid of Hillary…They would win..People like me could vote for a democrat with out guilt..I am financial conservative but a social liberal… …Transparency and accountability of government is what matters..It keeps them honest..

  29. For those that don't know. The internet in the US is some of the slowest and most expensive
    US based ISPs are disgusting compared to the rest of the world.

  32. +Gus Perez Here is the preamble. Can you point to where it says, screw the people for your BFF? Campaign contributions come before the people?
    We should nationalize this industry so we can catch up to the third world countries in connectivity, Only in America would folks shill for a company that stole their technology.

    We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

  34. Rather then repealing Net Neutrality rules – which are utterly fantastic for competition online. Why not pass a bill that blocks all the fears of government control and censorship? If that's the real reason for not wanting it – block that directly. Hell, that would be expanding NN, by saying the government cant throttled either.

  35. +Gus Perez As have I. No where in it does it say to sell off the public trust to two companies for the good of their investors.

    The same constitution they laid down their lives to establish our country and establish fair trade, and to destroy entities like the East India Trading company.

    Why don't you try reading the endless writings of our founding fathers, warning us repeatedly to never let the corporate whores take control of our process.

    And since when did America turn against fair market and free market. They are not giving this away to dozens of companies they are making sure no one can compete with two of them. So much for Ronnie and his "free market" solutions.

  36. +Thomas Wrobel
    Because it would make it past the Presidents desk.
    Republicans have been pointing out this whole time that underneath the fluff of fair competition, which is good, is very clear language that gives control over Internet content to the government if they ask nicely. And it isn't allowed to be publicized either when they do.

  38. The US has the worst service. Although there are some cities that have blazing fast service, why Google gives it away which will in time give it away to everyone so eveyone clicks their ads. Its simple, it will be free soon.

    On another note I have a home 26 miles south of DC and I can not get service. Hughes is it and its slow and I can only get 20GB a month without it slowing down to a crawl or buy 2GB at a time, BS and Verizon connection is 1/4 mile from at the end of my driveway but will not hook me up.

  45. Let's see how many of them will put this on their reelection campaign, right next to the usual bullet points:

    (1) Pro war
    (2) Anti Obama
    (3) Anti Woman/Races/Gay
    (4) Smaller Gov't
    (5) Bigger Army
    (6) Anti net neutrality

    Anyone else still think that a two party system was a good way to go in our country? I'm thinking we should have four or more, something more akin to a parliamentary democracy like Germany. If nothing else, it quickly marginalizes stupid ideas and crazy politicians.

  49. +Gopi Mattel The people will win if the FCC losses and the FTC takes back over and has no more issues for the FCC..I do not like lobbyist, this was a dream come true from them..I do not want to pay private companies inventory cost through government contract with my taxes…This was BS..you have to pass it see it shit again..They cannot take public opinion when cannot see it prior to them doing it..

  50. Republicans are bought and paid for by the big cable and phone companies who want to keep their control of what you see and hear.

  51. "Republicans are bought and paid for"

    hilarious

    "want to keep their control of what you see and hear"

    …because the mainstream media is so righty.

    the rot goes deep

  53. +Sherry Winter, you mean like Chipotle where she got her burrito? chuckle

    nope. in general, Democrats are incapable of introspection. and the luddites think that "Net Neutrality" is actually helping the little guy.

  55. +Kevin Quinn No it is not helping the little guy…It is helping big business …Fact they did not need 300+ pages to say do not throttling ..
    The tax payer will be on the hook for a national internet upgrade, that the fed will control …Big business thanks us…I hate when people do not know the FTC has been regulating the internet until the FCC took over…I do not want a ma bell ..I hope they lose in court…

  57. +Andrew Whitehead You wrote, "By rejecting a model in which everybody gets equal freedom of speech on the internet, and replacing it with one in which those with the most money can buy the most bandwidth and hence shout the loudest, they are enabling Foxification of the internet."

    It truly is incredibly amazing just how delusional the rhetoric of so-called "net neutrality" propagandists really is.

  58. Good for them.

    Unfortunately, it'll probably be vetoed. So this is mroe grandstanding than anything.

    When the next president is a Republican, and Republicans control congress as well, this will be annihilated. As it should be.

  61. +Adam Hensley I agree…They can data discriminate just not for the standard fed rules of race gender etc…I do not know anyone who the internet companies say your a woman no internet for you or throttles you…It does make the potential to spy, control, censor and make money for a FCC budget…Just saying

  66. +Steve Greene The one where the architects of the Internet recognized that it requires Net Neutrality, and one where consumers want what they pay for. Maybe I live on a planet where our national security depends upon net neutrality or one where nobody wants ISPs to decide every business that succeeds or fails. Perhaps it's one where free expression and discourse is important. Maybe without all of those things, we'd have an ISP's private corporate intranet and no Internet at all. Maybe part of being a member of a global community is that you recognize that you can't define it for everybody. I live on a world where the actual experts unanimously agree with my previous statement. The ISPs get their way with this, the Internet ends and this becomes Cable Part II. *NOBODY* wants that. What world do YOU live on? FOX News Alpha, orbiting the star Bullshit Prime?

  67. +Jeremy P. Harford Your reply demonstrates exactly what I'm talking about. There's Earth, and reality, on the one hand, and then there is this bizarro fantasy world where net neutrality propagandists just make up whatever they feel like making up regardless of economics and regardless of history and regardless of the facts. Do keep proving my point.

  69. +Jeremy P. Harford "where consumers want what they pay for"

    Like what we have now.

    But I will grant you that there is actually a kernel of a point to this remark, in that we should expand the opportunities for competition in the marketplace – which is exactly what the so-called "net neutrality" government takeover does not do.

  70. +Jeremy P. Harford You wrote, "Maybe I live on a planet where our national security depends upon net neutrality…"

    Because Edward Snowden doesn't exist and never said anything.

    Like I said, your remarks are simply out of touch with reality.

  72. +Steve Greene It does exist now, but it wouldn't if a small sampling of businesses could control everything. If you have nothing to contribute other than antagonizing me with a vapid question, then I'll just block you. I have no desire to interact with a run of the mill Google+ troll.

  73. If a company spends millions to run copper they should be allowed to do what ever they choose with it. If I open a grocery store I should be able to charge anything I want for my food. Even if im the only grocery store around for 100 miles. Were becomming a strange country that wants government to force everone to act the way we think they should.

  75. +Steve Greene ~ it is also truly incredibly amazing how wingnuts like you can never get past the immature "Wah wah your wrong!" without giving a single reason why.

    Grow up FFS, instead of thinking your stream of petty little smart-ass comments makes you look intelligent.

  76. Oh how quickly people (ie, +Jeremy P. Harford​​) forget such recent history as mere months ago, demonstrated by 10 to 15 years of broadband Internet sans net neutrality regulation, where his bizzaro fantasy world simply does. Not. Exist.

  78. +Ronnie Sandifer Watch this video on net neutrality and make your own decision:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Z_nBhfpmk4

    Or even better read a book called: Economics In One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt.

    These leftist arguments grow more absurd by the SECOND. First you say we need more government to control the corporations – then you say the corporations are bad because the GOVERNMENT gave them millions of our tax dollars – then you say we need more government, because the only reason government is bad is due to it being owned by corporations – then you say we need more government so corporations can't buy the government.

    You people are either idiots or complete sell outs. The only solution is LESS government intervention. More voluntary market transactions and more competition. It is literally impossible for a monopoly to exist without government legislation.

  80. +robert capazzi The GOP? The GOP is bull!@#$. People who have the slightest understanding of economics are siding AGAINST government legislation and government guns used to hijack private business and keep us firmly planted on the tracks to complete socialism.

    What could be worse than removing the people's free choice to do as they see fit and replacing it with government restrictions that prevent people from voting with their money?

    Monopolies are created by government and you leftists are the pawns in their game.

  83. +Jeremy P. Harford No company minds getting billions in handouts. No citizen does either. Just look at the mass of unfunded liabilities the government has today (owed to the people)!

    Did you not take notice of the mega-corporations that jumped up to lobby for Net Neutrality? They wanted something too, didn't they?

    They wanted to be able to get services that cost other people money provided to them at a lesser rate. But SOMEONE has to pay for everything. Instead of ISPs raising rates on companies like Netflix and Google they will raise rates on their consumers and even their smaller customers – you know the ones trying to start their own video streaming services (the little guy).

    Should Google and Netflix be able to get as much bandwidth as they want while paying the same price as the little guy?

    You are the same type of people that believe Walmart is against minimum wage when in fact they are the ones LOBBYING FOR it. It prevents smaller companies from competing with them. Companies that can't afford to pay higher salaries are defeated by legislation and not by competitive market.

  84. +Adam Hensley Somebody has to pay for what? ISPs were throttling existing infrastructure. There is no bandwidth shortage! And if I'm wrong about that then two things immediately follow.

    1. They're keeping it secret when they could prove it. Not claim it. Prove it.

    2. They have been misappropriating their subsidies, and it's high time some ISP CEOs go to prison.

    Google and Netflix don't pay the same price as the little guy. They already pay for more bandwidth. What these ISPs want to do is take that payment for greater bandwidth and prioritize their services and their friends' services over the service they've been paid to provide.

    ISPs seem to have trouble comprehending a simple premise of commerce. If you accept funds to provide something in return, and you do not provide that something, then you have committed fraud. You're just arguing that not only should they get taxpayer handouts, but their customers' bill payments should be regarded as handouts.

    Don't tell me what type of "people" I am. I'll tell you. I'm the type of person who doesn't think that Time Warner, ATT, and Comcast should have sole authority to decide which businesses succeed and immunity to good will commerce and implied warranty. I don't think we should be paying them to get nothing in return just so they can hijack the greatest resource for discourse, education, and commerce that humanity has ever created and run it into the ground like traditional cable.

  85. +Jeremy P. Harford You're the first person I've heard state that there is no bandwidth shortage. No one is contesting that there isn't a bandwidth shortage. Not only is there not a shortage, but companies must constantly prepare to increase bandwidth year after year.

    I take it you are not a network engineer, but this isn't your simple telephone system we're talking about. There are massive, astronomical numbers involved in purchasing equipment and having it installed and configured appropriately.

    But what you seem to fail to understand is that businesses are not taking guns and pointing them at us and forcing us to buy their products. Only the government can do that. Businesses voluntarily trade with us so they can get money and we can get what we want from the business.

    If one business is a sham then we can all switch to the provider that is not a sham. That provider will then take all of the resources and for anyone to compete they will have to give us a better deal or better service.

    Secondly, it is already illegal to commit fraud. I don't think any company has filed a lawsuit for fraud yet. If there is one then they plaintiff will win and the practice will be ended. Why do we need more regulation to govern fraud? That makes no sense.

    What you are asking for is that we put the government in charge and the highest bidder buys his "approval to commit fraud" from the government. You can't repeatedly commit fraud against people in a voluntary transaction and survive as a business.

  86. +Adam Hensley And our tax funds pay for that increase in bandwidth year after year.

    ISPs bribe state and municipal politicians for regulations intended to prevent competition and throw a national media tantrum any time they face the prospect of competition. So, sure, guns aren't pointed at our heads. We just have two options: no Internet service or feed the oligopoly.

    Your using free market arguments in defense of ISPs is laughable.

    Don't tell me what I'm suggesting. I can speak for myself. If you want to debate yourself, you can do it without involving me. What I'm suggesting is exactly what I've said and exactly what the new FCC regulations impose: ISPs do not get to commandeer the Internet, and they have to provide what they are paid to provide.

    As for lawsuits for fraud, after the FCC regulations are tried by lawsuit and cemented by the failure of those suits, expect class action lawsuits when ISPs do not end bandwidth caps and overages nor throttling.

    Apparently you haven't ever worked for a telecom outside of social media. Fraud is a way of life for them. And this isn't by any means the first set of regulations meant to stop their fraud. The only thing different about ISPs where fraud is concerned is that they have more money than God, so it takes new laws every time their arms have to be twisted into not ripping people off.

  89. +Sherry Winter Campaign finance rules and lobby ethics laws always have loopholes built into them. Legislators never write themselves out of a pay day; they merely give the occasional impression that they do so. We're supposed to call it something new every time the loophole changes, but I think that's baloney. Regulatory capture occurs via bribery, one way or another.

  90. +Jeremy P. Harford The laws should be read out loud and memorized …If they cannot do that they have not made them simple enough..Simple is not easy..They should be look at for constitutional issues ..We also need a separation of corporations and state..Just like religion except for the government is supposed to regulate them not partner with them..

  91. +Sherry Winter We're in total agreement there. We're told businesses are people, yet they can contribute more than human people. You or I can only donate a little more than $2700 to any political cause in a year. Businesses can donate unlimited funds. So, in the United States today, our speech is limited and theirs isn't. Am I out of line for saying that's bullshit, and it will tear this nation apart?

    The fact that Republicans don't agree with us about this is evidence that all their talk about socialism, small government, and free market is a load of bull. This issue is what first led to my leaving the Republican party. And since then, the GOP has only been in a downward spiral.

  92. +Jeremy P. Harford Me too>;-) republicans and democrat's are bought by wall street…I am tired of the wall street 2 party crap trap…I like Jessie Ventura he could be commander in chief…
    Than we have to deal with congress..They are the ones who make laws not the executive branch… Money can buy trouble…I wish the SEC and the FTC would stop this crazy stuff in politics..

  93. +Sherry Winter Please start a third party. People who agree with this line of reasoning often engage me in debate for supporting a candidate or effort from one of the big parties. Thing is, so long as all that happens is people complain online, the only thing that can be accomplished is that people are discouraged from voting. That's no good.

    The SEC and FTC are totally different animals, but it's kind of interesting that you oppose SEC regulation while also opposing Wall Street regulatory capture.

  94. +Jeremy P. Harford I want a none of the above box on all ballots…I do not oppose SEC regulation…They need to do more…The FTC with contracts for GMO and other trade could show what they are doing and divest the companies if they found issues..Both are extremely powerful regulatory bodies..
    Transparency and accountability makes politicians honest..

  95. +Jeremy P. Harford You wrote, " It does exist now, but it wouldn't if a small sampling of businesses could control everything."

    You keep right on proving that you don't comprehend reality. The fact of the matter is that the vast majority of business cease to exist after only being around for less than 10 years. Because businesses depend so strongly on the whims of their customers. It's like you don't even have a clue how economics really works. "Control" – yeah, like businesses force you to give them money. This is precisely why I brought up the point regarding competition. The role of government is to (1) stay out of the way to let competition flourish (which the government is not doing now in many areas) and (2) promote competition by making sure that the legal framework imposed by the government itself is one that generates a "level playing field" for competition, instead of giving special privileges to the politically selected few and making it more difficult for innovators/entrepreneurs to enter the market – which the so-called "net neutrality" not only does not do, but hinders.

    Half of the advocacy of so-called "net neutrality" is based on a bunch of whiners saying they don't like some particular aspects of the way things are, because they have some kind of economically-oblivious utopian fantasy about "how things should be" and want to use government power to impose them. It's the socialist fallacy impulse all over again. Yet the way to actually, genuinely promote continuing innovation and continuing increase in services and continuing choices for the same or lower costs is due precisely to a healthy competitive market of business vying for available customers. Businesses do not control customers. Customers control businesses. Have you ever heard of Alta Vista? Gone. Have you ever heard of Excite? Gone. Have you ever heard of Netscape? (Maybe you've heard of that one.) Gone. Why? Because they lost to the competition. Because customers chose someone else, and they couldn't compete. That's how much control businesses have.

    Increasing government control only means that you expand political and bureaucratic control at the expense of consumer control, and it's the fact that you not only don't seem to even comprehend this nature of the economics but argue as if it doesn't even exist that let's me know you're on some other planet.

  98. Then you elect representatives that won't give away you tax dollars where
    they shouldn't. Who received a check from the federal government? I'd like
    to know so might find out how it happened. Government helping some
    companies and not others is another big prob. Let businesses succeed or
    fail on there own and let tax payers keep more of there money

  100. +Steve Greene Did you just use Netscape as an example of the free market working well? Microsoft was sued under antitrust laws over Netscape because unchecked they used their monopoly power to choke out a competitor. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Corp.

    Three-quarters of households in the U.S. have the choice of only one broadband provider while only a quarter have at least two to choose from… and that's when you use the old, slow definition of broadband. Typically, when you have the choice of two it's between cable (local monopoly) or DSL (which simply cannot compete with cable in terms of speed and capacity). The notion that the invisible hand of the market will just work things out is as laughable as trickle down economics.

    +Adam Hensley "I take it you are not a network engineer, but this isn't your simple telephone system we're talking about. There are massive, astronomical numbers involved in purchasing equipment and having it installed and configured appropriately." Your fundamental lack of understanding while trying to speak so authoritatively is hilarious. In what world do you think that our phone systems are simple? What you think of as a telephone system would be the PSTN or public switched telephone network. It's not just POTS (plain old telephone service) like you'd like to believe. It's almost entirely digital in its core network and includes mobile and other networks, as well as fixed telephones. It's made up of telephone lines, fiber optic cables, microwave transmission links, cellular networks, communications satellites, and undersea telephone cables, all interconnected by switching centers, thus allowing any telephone in the world to communicate with any other. The intention of PSTN was to carry ALL network traffic . The FCC's Connect America Fund FCC (CAF) Order in 2011, the PSTN is not just phone service or "POTs"; it is all services. (http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-161A1.doc)

    "The public switched telephone network is not a single-use network. Modern network infrastructure can provide access not only to voice services, but also to data, graphics, video, and other services."

    These same network providers were given tons of money to build out their networks but then… didn't. Because why would they with a lack of competition?

  101. +Steve Greene ~ it is you that has an economically-oblivious fantasy, specifically about what a free-market economy actually is. Instead of learning basic economics, you toe the GOP party-line and repeat the ignorant, low-information nonsense that a free-market means 'the government gets out of the way'. That is 100% wrong.

    In economic terms, free of silly ideological rhetoric, a free-market economy is one that has enough providers competing to ensure that prices are set by the market, not by the providers. In short, the providers must be price takers, not price makers. This entails that providers who start to win the competition and dominate the market must be removed from the market to maintain the competition – the direct opposite of the uninformed Republican rhetoric of allowing the winners to take all.

    A free market also requires excludability, meaning that there are many areas of an advanced economy that simply cannot be handled by a free market. Specifically, areas of public good.

    The answer to both of these shortfalls of free-market economies is government intervention. Usually this takes the form of anti-monopoly regulations and state control of areas of public good, the most visible being state military.

    The reality, though you will refuse to admit it, is that a free market cannot be sustained without the government. If the government really did follow GOP nonsense and get out of the way, a free market would self-destruct into un-competitive monopolies who make prices.

  102. +Paul Spoerry You wrote, "Microsoft was sued under antitrust laws over Netscape because unchecked they used their monopoly power to choke out a competitor."

    Sure, sure. And that's why we're still using Netscape, because the government said so. Netscape lost to the competition, because in the marketplace as the years go by it is customers (in the amalgam) who control the market. It is special interest groups (whether particular businesses, or other kinds of special interest groups) who use government politics in order to employ government power to make things go in their particular way the way they think they should be contrary to how things are as has evolved in the market.

    "Three-quarters of households in the U.S. have the choice of only one broadband provider while only a quarter have at least two to choose from"

    Which means you're not paying attention to what I've been pointing out all along. The so-called "net neutrality" does not even address this one actual problem, which is where local government jurisdictions have granted special anti-competitive privileges to already existing businesses. I've only stated – how many times already? – that the one thing that actually should have been done – remove government obstacles to entry into the market by competitors – is the one thing the so-called "net neutrality" doesn't do.

    "The notion that the invisible hand of the market will just work things out is as laughable as trickle down economics."

    Because the "invisible hand of the market" (actually it has been quite visible) that has actually worked things out incredibly well so far, and so much better and faster and more efficiently than any government bureaucracy could ever dictate, doesn't exist. Yeah, again with the delusional rhetoric. I'm old enough so that I still remember the old days when the generation of routers at the time went from being so slow you could read faster than the letters flowed onto the screen to being a little bit faster than you could read. I remember dial-up, when if you chose to load an actual picture on the page then it was time to go get a coffee or maybe go to lunch and come back later to see if it was loaded, and here you are trying to pretend the marketplace doesn't do and hasn't done anything. Plus, currently I happen to be living out in the country, over 13 miles from the nearest town of any decent size, and I had a substantial step down from the data rate I had available to me when I lived in the city – so this is certainly a dissatisfaction on my part but the mere idea that "we'll just pass a law and conjure it into existence" is so much magical/religious thinking, since the matter is controlled by economics and technological development. Some people in rural areas don't even have access to DSL (and only have satellite access available – with its inherently high latencies – if they want to pay for it). And – go figure – these technologies and infrastructure developments – really, actually do cost money and must be paid for, and if customers don't want to pay for it then it doesn't get done. The "invisible hand of the market" includes customers and what customers are willing to pay for in relation to the costs involved in making it and providing it and maintaining it. But, yeah, these pesky economic realities are what the propagandists of the so-called "net neutrality" seem intent on obliviously ignoring.

    It is true that evolution takes time. It is true that technology develops over time. It is true that technological innovations take time to spread (and I'm not even counting all the research that we don't see because it doesn't happen to work out). It is true that as the market evolves according to what entrepreneurs develop and businesses expand according to what customers want within the constraints of economics that there are always some aspects of it that some customers would prefer to be different. (And there is always utopia.) But not a single one of these facts makes a good argument for government control or bureaucratic dictates.

  103. I've said it before, and I'll say it again. In the GOP, "free market" is code for anarchy. They want a return to the feudal era, with modern tools. Somehow if we all must swear fealty to the lord of the land, that means freedom in their world.

    Look at +Steve Greene rhetoric. Thinly veiled insults, half-truths, total untruths, misdirection, false dilemmas, false dichotomy, appeals to authority, and demands for respect rather than effort to earn it. He's a well-spoken salesman of GOP rhetoric, yet the same pattern of non-debate prevails.

    If the ISP market were actually free — if the oligopoly didn't exist — then the last thing ISPs would argue for is an end to net neutrality because then it would threaten their capacity to do business. It's easy to burn half the fields when you know you can sit in your castle and let the serfs feed you anyway.

    This is why I say that the GOP is just the Whig Party reborn. They're picking up where 19th Century business left off, and they're trying to reverse a century of development and innovation. Considering that the Whigs themselves wanted to establish a system under which the gentry would birth new nobility, it's clear that the GOP's economic model is treasonous.

    If the GOP's economics were the American way, then my family would still own a little more than half of Maryland. Look up Henry Harford. These red idealogues don't even know who they argue with.

  104. +Jeremy P. Harford You have no clue about the GOP or free markets. For one, the GOP doesn't believe in free markets anymore than you and I believe in Santa Claus. The GOP doesn't want free markets anymore than the DNC. Both corrupt political groups want total control so they can use their political powers to sell markets to the highest bidder.

    Second, there is always competition in free markets. If there is room for profitability there will be a competitor. Without any government intervention what-so-ever there is plenty of room for profitability in the internet and technology sectors. As a matter of FACT they have both been extremely prosperous and progressive WITHOUT government intervention. A benefit to the industry and the consumers.

    Government in fact prevents competition. The driving force of lower prices and better service. The only people to prevent companies from competing is the Government. Do you know how easy it is to set up a wireless ISP? Technologically it is easy and high bandwidth can be achieved without running expensive fiber optical or copper lines. But our government and all of its rules and regulations punish small competitors by making it almost impossible to meet requirements just to play.

    More of the same Government won't fix anything. I am still baffled at how many people can blame companies for "buying out crooked politicians" and turn around in the same sentence and say we "need more control by crooked politicians". Let's get rid of the politicians and allow our money to do the talking.

  105. +Adam Hensley In your first sentence, you insult me and put yourself on a pedestal, so I'm not reading the rest of your post. When you begin your argument by just assuming that your conclusion is true while trying to magically use your imagined psychic powers to guess what I know, all I really want to do is tell you to fuck off. You demand respect, but you speak like a child.

    Try learning how to write without alienating your audience right off the bat. Follow that up by learning how to argue because you have no debate skills whatsoever. Your first sentence shows me that the rest of your post would be a waste of time because you can't convince me of anything.

    By the way, last I checked, a free market requires competition. The ISP market has no competition. So, again, right off the bat you are dictionary definition wrong.

  106. +Steve Greene Um no we're not using Netscape Navigator because Microsoft squashed them with their monopoly…. hence the government getting involved.

    "The so-called "net neutrality" does not even address this one actual problem, which is where local government jurisdictions have granted special anti-competitive privileges to already existing businesses."

    I agree and wish they had gone after that harder. That said, the FCC stated they'll review things like municipal broadband being blocked by state level laws and those types of things on a case-by-case basis. Additionally, net neutrality wasn't just about that… so just because it lacked one thing doesn't mean that it was pointless.

    +Adam Hensley "… there is plenty of room for profitability in the internet and technology sectors. As a matter of FACT they have both been extremely prosperous and progressive WITHOUT government intervention. "

    Um what? Why then was Time Warner Cable stuck in the stone ages until Google Fiber rolled in and then they suddenly could provide 6 times the speed for the same price? (http://arstechnica.com/business/2015/04/google-fiber-plans-expansion-then-twc-makes-speeds-six-times-faster/). It wasn't progressive, it was stagnant.

    "Do you know how easy it is to set up a wireless ISP? Technologically it is easy and high bandwidth can be achieved without running expensive fiber optical or copper lines. But our government and all of its rules and regulations punish small competitors by making it almost impossible to meet requirements just to play."

    HAHAHAHAHAHA… dude we have spectrum auctions (via the government) specifically so that not just anybody can throw up wireless-anything-they-want. If we allowed that all wireless service would be shit because of interference.

  107. I have to say I wish I could find it hilarious that you two continue to make my point for me and then contradict yourself, but I find it quite depressing. Every single post you make flips back and forth.

    +Paul Spoerry You said, "Um what? Why then was Time Warner Cable stuck in the stone ages until Google Fiber rolled in and then they suddenly could provide 6 times the speed for the same price?"

    You start off by admitting that private corporations generate competition that increases the quality of service while decreasing prices. The government didn't mandate Google roll out any services here. This was an example of free markets doing what they do best.

    Then you said, "HAHAHAHAHAHA… dude we have spectrum auctions (via the government) specifically so that not just anybody can throw up wireless-anything-they-want."

    You next admit that government only allows businesses to compete by jumping through flaming hoops. You can't possibly believe there are not enough channels in the wireless spectrum to allow a few ISPs to operate. I know someone personally who operates a small wireless ISP and larger competitors wield government regulation to the detriment of his business. Giving massive corporations a bigger sword to wield solves nothing.

    +Jeremy P. Harford You said, "Try learning how to write without alienating your audience right off the bat."

    You have demonstrated perfectly how I can do that with your last post.

    Try not spitting in the faces of people who see the benefits of free markets by repeatedly labeling us as "GOP". People who believe in free markets want nothing to do with the GOP and its bullshit. Your demagoguery is eye level with that of main stream media and I may not know "how to argue", but at least I can make a valid point based on reason and not some ideology I picked up from the Obama campaign while continually beating the straw man without making an actual reasonable point.

    'Business is bad because they buy votes and take our tax dollars!! We need more government to stop bad business!' It makes no !@#$ing sense and never will.

  108. +Adam Hensley Try letting it sink in that your using the phrase "free market" while arguing for exactly the opposite doesn't make sense. You seem to have your model of the world, and nobody can tell you where you glued on the details incorrectly. You use GOP-style rhetoric to push the GOP's agenda, with the GOP's toxic debate style. Maybe that's why you're being labelled with the letters "GOP".

    Let's make this simple:

    Net Neutrality: For or Against?
    Competition: For or Against?

  110. +Paul Spoerry You wrote, "Um no we're not using Netscape Navigator because Microsoft squashed them with their monopoly…. hence the government getting involved."

    Thank you for again demonstrating how the advocates of the so-called "net neutrality" (1) don't know what they're talking about, and (2) are employing rhetoric that is not connected to reality.

    I appreciate it.

  111. +Steve Greene So, you say the history lesson is wrong without correcting it. You would be wrong even if you were right. "No, the South didn't win the Civil War because you guys are poopieheads." How insightful of you.

    But you're not right.

    The history lesson is completely correct, even if it's not convenient for you. And the remains of Netscape became non-profit Mozilla. That's why we have Firefox. It's also why we have Dolphin Browser and a number of other projects built on the defunct Netscape that was killed by Microsoft's monopolistic business strategy that they absolutely were sued for.

    I sat in the difac at Aberdeen Proving Grounds in 2000 watching the congressional hearing for the antitrust suit you don't know happened. I can still taste the chili mac. You, sir, don't know what the hell you're talking about.

    That or you just want to disrupt discussion.

  112. +Paul Spoerry I should have mentioned – I was there. I used Netscape. Religiously. I was a huge advocate. IE was crappy. But then Microsoft produced a version that (for the time) was actually not only decent but was significantly better than Netscape. I waited several months for a better version of Netscape (in fact, I think it was over a year) – and that just never happened. So I made the switch. And millions of other people did too. (These days I'm using Chrome almost exclusively, though I occasionally have need to use Firefox or IE. And the IE of today is nothing at all like the IE of back then, it's so way beyond that. There is also a superior version of IE in the wings, that is superior precisely because it ditches all the legacy compatibility. I don't know if it has been released yet, but if not it's coming soon.)

    This is controlled by customers. There is another classic example of this. It's called "Lotus 1-2-3", which not only "owned the market" but completely dominated the spreadsheet market. And then Windows (on DOS) started coming along (bear in mind I'm old enough that I used one of the first Apple Macintoshes that came off the assembly line – this was after being an Apple II user). People were starting to use the new Excel (I worked in a finance department of a major corporation at that time), and I still remember what the head of Lotus at that time said – they weren't going to support Windows by putting much work into their GUI version of Lotus 1-2-3. Now, this totally mystified me because I was not only a Lotus 1-2-3 (DOS) guru, but I had already installed the GUI version of Lotus 1-2-3 that they had already made (alongside my installation of Excel), because I was trying them both out, and in fact the Lotus 1-2-3 GUI version was an excellent product. But, sure enough, Microsoft put out a new version of Excel, and Lotus – as the CEO said they were going to do – did not prioritize their GUI version development, and Excel took over the market within one year, I believe it was – because customers chose the superior product.

    So I'm pointing out to you that I was there. I'm not saying this out of historical leftist or rightist propaganda but as an actual user who has used all of these products, and I have personally observed the development of the Internet and then the World Wide Web and the technologies and the services (ISP's, search engines, what have you), and it has been an absolutely fantastic ride. Things today are light-years beyond what they were thirty years ago – and it has absolutely nothing to do with government/political/bureaucratic controls and dictates, and not only that but it's been a wonderfully free range precisely because government has by-and-large stayed out of it.

  113. +Jeremy P. Harford "You would be wrong even if you were right."

    Thank you for demonstrating the religious nature of leftist ideology.

    I again appreciate it.

    And I also do appreciate how you just keep right on proving how you not only don't know the history, but how the advocacy rhetoric for the so-called "net neutrality" (which is an Orwellian newspeak term in its usage) is based on fantasy.

  114. +Steve Greene Seeing as how you're insulting people without actually saying anything, I think we're done here. It's funny that you're calling "leftists" (whatever FOX News idea you mean by that) religious in ideology while you declare that you must be correct because you declare that you must be correct. All hail the new God, Steve Greene, retroactive author of history!

    Typical GOP tactic when you don't have a leg to stand on.

  116. +Jeremy P. Harford Oh, yeah, you've got the whole 'You're pushing GOP rhetoric', 'You're pushing FOX News' things going. Except for one thing. I'm not a fan of Fox News, and I'm certainly not a Republican. You can never get your facts straight.

    But I do want to thank you very much for not trying to comically pretend I'm just some "industry shill", which so many other propagandists for the so-called "net neutrality" government control takeover whom I've criticized have accused me of. Which is patently ridiculous, since I don't and never have worked for any ISP, or search engine, or communications infrastructure corporation in any way, shape, or form. (I only mention this because I have noticed how this "industry shill" denigration has apparently become standard attack terminology among "net neutrality" propagandists, and I appreciate you not employing that particular piece of idiocy.)

    But in regard to the "not actually saying anything", that's been all you, my friend. Not actually saying anything is exactly what the advocacy rhetoric for the so-called "net neutrality" has been built on. As I've only mentioned a number of times now, there is indeed a role for government in the Internet market, which I've already mentioned briefly, but FCC Title II takeover is not it. It does nothing to improve the Internet, it gets in the way of the continuing progressive evolution of the Internet, and it's politics-as-usual using government to dictate things by politics and oh-by-the-way imposing additional costs-and-fees-not-called-taxes to give more money to the government. And people who don't see how obvious this is are just oblivious – as they keep demonstrating by their own words.

  117. +Steve Greene I've never seen somebody use so many words to say nothing. Let me see if I got this right:

    1. You have no solutions.
    2. You don't know what the problems are.
    3. You don't even know relevant history.
    4. All you know is you oppose something.
    5. You don't even know why.

    Thanks for playing!

  122. +Adam Hensley Ohh I totally agree with you. Sadly we live in a country where people believe things that are "awsome" are the same things as "rights". Let people that own any type of buisness do what they want to do with that buisness.

  123. "Let people that own any type of buisness do what they want to do with that buisness."

    Id like my cars passing safety standards.
    (easy disproof by counter example, I know, but I think these statements pass far too easily without the slightest thought).

    In order to even have a market place, you need restrictions. Its not economys, business's and even countries work. Its what created the modern world – learning the correct restrictions to apply.

    Net Neutrality is simply a very,very basic restriction to enable free competition online.

    Every startup online should have a chance to compete with the old guard. Thats the whole point of any free market. The best ideas should win.
    But when one group can arbitrarily make another look bad – or hide their existence completely – new ideas cant beat old ones anymore.

    Net Neutrality has worked fantastic for the whole of the internets life. Its got us this far, and it makes sense to protect it now there is a strong market force that pushes against it.

    The free market is a powerful tool, but it always takes the path of least resistance — and sometimes that means surprising the competition rather then trying to do better.

  125. +Adam Hensley I can, right off the top of my head. The very first regulation restricting business in the United States stopped bread makers from filling out their dough with sawdust. This restriction was put in place because the resulting bread was killing people.

    That regulation followed a similar one in Britain that was passed in the 1860's. You can read about that history at the following link:

    http://www.rsc.org/education/eic/issues/2005Mar/Thefightagainstfoodadulteration.asp

    Of course, from that very first regulation, there have been people who shriek about government interference without paying any mind to why the government interferes. Want some bread?

    Perhaps the most vital of government interference in business predates even that, and exemplifies the contrast between civilization and your worldview. Following the fall of the Roman Empire, roads that were once safe became plagued by violent criminals. The Western world became so violent and dangerous, in fact, that feudalism was born. People settled down in protected lands to keep safe, and the Western world remained unsafe until the advent of Divine Right by the Catholic Church gave rise to Western nations.

    Of course, in those times, feudal lords interfered with the honest murderers stalking the road. They fed their people in exchange for labor. Funny that the very era that your type wishes to regress us toward marked the very beginning of government regulation.

    And it's not different today. The FCC regulations that I'm guessing you haven't even read because you haven't cited even one sentence therein are intended to protect consumers from the brigands at ISPs.

    I'm probably wasting my time though. Aside from your capacity to do a quick Google search, I'm willing to bet that you know nothing at all about history.

  127. +Jeremy P. Harford That isn't something that calls for extra restriction. That is straight up fraud. When you put sawdust in bread and sell it as bread then you are committing fraud. You don't need a new !@#$ing law passed. You just need to get the guy putting sawdust in the @#$%ing bread!

    Where was the government when the fraud was being committed? I'll tell you where they were: holding the citizens hostage over some bull!@#$ legislation instead of acting on what was already criminal!

    Then your next example about government as a boon to society: Feudal lords "protecting the peasantry". Wow, now I understand. You believe yourself to be so dim witted or irresponsible or both that you must have people cut from a finer fabric to guide you through your every decision in life. Ha, I'm done talking to you. You poor, pathetic, idiot of a peasant.

    And we hardly have to read any government bill, standard, procedure or law, because we can assume that we will get the exact opposite of whatever name they give to said action. Net Neutrality = Government Monopoly.

  129. +Thomas Wrobel You wrote, "Net Neutrality is simply a very,very basic restriction to enable free competition online." You also wrote, "Net Neutrality has worked fantastic for the whole of the internets life."

    Which proves you're arguing by mere equivocation, since what the FCC put up recently under the rubric of "net neutrality" cannot have "worked fantastically for the whole of the Internet's life" since in fact it doesn't even exist yet. (It hasn't even been implemented yet.)

  131. +Adam Hensley LOL. You won? Dude you have a single post and 17 followers. You didn't win anything somebody got bored with you.

    How exactly do you think we enforce fraud without a definition of whats transpiring being illegal? That's why we have laws. To provide a legal framework of what is and is not acceptable. While I may disagree with others on this thread, you lack the most basic understanding of how the real world works.

    +Steve Greene I think what +Thomas Wrobel intended was that the Internet was built on the concept of net neutrality from the very beginning. Vint Cerf (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vint_Cerf) is widely recognized as one of the fathers of the modern Internet. He even stated that "a lightweight but enforceable neutrality rule is needed to ensure that the Internet continues to thrive. Telephone companies cannot tell consumers who they can call; network operators should not dictate what people can do online." (http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2005/11/vint-cerf-speaks-out-on-net-neutrality.html)

    I too was there at the beginning. I was on the "Internet" before there was what we now consider the Internet. At the time it was as if it was TWO district things.. there was the Internet as we knew it and this new part of it called the World Wide Web. Of course we now just consider it all the same thing but at the time the web was something totally new. I too used Navigator and yeah… IE was crap (and yes the later versions are better… and yes IE6 was a thorn in most developers side, and yes Project Spartan looks slick). Since I'm a web developer I'm very familiar with the different browser and their capabilities these days (for what it's worth I use Chrome as my primary, have written a few extensions for it, etc).

    That said, your comparison of IE and Lotus in this instance is flawed. IE was forced into users by leveraging monopoly-style powers of being the dominant OS. Lotus failed because at the time people we're focused on creating GUI's that replaced their DOS offerings… so when Win3 hit and MS had graphical offerings they quickly got gobbled up… not because MS used an unfair advantage but because Lotus responded too slowly. Had MS never bundled IE as part of the operating system (and in fact baked it directly INTO the operating system) then the comparison would be fair. Office was and continues to be sold separate from the OS. There was no unfair advantage, consumers had to choose to get the office products…. MS just happened to make the graphical ones and got out ahead of everyone else. In the case of IE however, it wasn't a separate download/purchase and that's the distinction and why MS was ultimately sued.

    I agree that this has been an awesome ride and such a cool time to be alive and witness the fast transformation the world had made because of the Internet. However, "…it's been a wonderfully free range precisely because government has by-and-large stayed out of it." Technically, they didn't "stay out of it" because they invented it (it was called ARPANET then though: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARPANET) but I think I know what you mean. However, until recently we didn't have ISP's attempting to dictate which traffic gets priority and/or charging for prioritized access. This is exactly why this has come up now and why the need for government oversight began to play the role that it is now playing. To ensure that it REMAINS the way it was intended to be all along.

  132. we got this new bill in senate ,in Australia , where gov't of any weird persuasion , can collect , Metadata, on all Australians , force ISP's to hold data ,,for two years , they just got fulla shit like gov't departments do , an dumped it off to ,ISP's to collect ,

  135. +Paul Spoerry You wrote, "your comparison of IE and Lotus in this instance is flawed. IE was forced into users by leveraging monopoly-style powers of being the dominant OS. Lotus failed because at the time people we're focused on creating GUI's that replaced their DOS offerings… so when Win3 hit and MS had graphical offerings they quickly got gobbled up… not because MS used an unfair advantage but because Lotus responded too slowly."

    Not IE. Excel.

    You are not contradicting me. That's what I said. I used Lotus 1-2-3G (IIRC, I think that's what it was called) and it was a very good product, but the company deemphasized its development and marketing for political reasons – and that's why they failed. This is not to denigrate Excel either, because in that time what it was then was also very good. So no matter what it was going to be a toss-up, except for the fact that Lotus actually had a huge advantage because of its "installed base of existing Lotus 1-2-3 users" (like me) who were ready to go with the GUI version. In that case, it was the company (Lotus) that failed to support its product, and not actually because of intense competition, since they didn't even actually try to compete but just conceded the GUI market to Excel. (I don't know this, haven't looked into it, but I suspect that internally at the time the company was choosing to focus its resources on other products.) For what it's worth, it made me sad, because I did like their GUI spreadsheet program.

    The old WordStar is another example, I think, of this kind of thing. I had used WordStar on the Apple II (this was before the Mac), and then years later had got ahold of a GUI WordStar program for Windows, which was a word processor program and publishing layout program together in one program. It was a very nice program, and I enjoyed working with it. It was ahead of its time. And then for some strange reason that I couldn't fathom (and never looked into), it just went defunct. That made me sad too.

  136. +Steve Greene I meant the comparison of Netscape vs IE & Lotus vs Excel. Netscape vs IE was anti-competitive/monopoly powers in place and a very valid reason for the government to step in and have to be involved (even if too late). Whereas Lotus, as you've pointed out as well, through missteps and of their own doing were beaten out by a competitor (free market in action without the need for government intervention).

  137. +Paul Spoerry you said, "How exactly do you think we enforce fraud without a definition of whats transpiring being illegal? That's why we have laws. To provide a legal framework of what is and is not acceptable. While I may disagree with others on this thread, you lack the most basic understanding of how the real world works."

    Fraud is determined by a failure to follow through with a contractual agreement. How is that difficult to define? No other law is required. The only people who need another law are the ones that lack the most basic understanding of what they are paying for. And that appears to be you.

  138. +Adam Hensley "When you put sawdust in bread and sell it as bread then you are committing fraud."…. "Fraud is determined by a failure to follow through with a contractual agreement."….

    So you believe that bread makers had legal contracts with consumers and that all consumers were ""competent persons" having legal capacity who exchange "consideration" to create "mutuality of obligation."" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contract

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.