On 1/29/2013 7:43 AM, William Allen Simpson wrote:
The graft and corruption was in *private* industry, not the Federal government, due to lack of regulation and oversight.
I never said there wasn't graft and corruption in private industry... but that is anecdotal... "hit and miss". In contrast, graft and corruption in the Federal Government is widespread and rampant. Finding one example of graft and corruption in private industry is a silly way to try to disprove my point.
(B) In the US, we have this thing called the 4th amendment.... which ensures a certain level of freedom and civil liberties and privacy. Unfortunately, 4th amendment rights essentially disappear if the US Federal government owns and operates broadband access. [...]
No, this isn't true either. The 4th Amendment applies to the US government. What happened is the end-around allowing *private* industry to collect personal data and infringe civil liberties.
That should not happen with direct US government ownership. It could be a boon to civil liberties.
(A) If XYZ ISP gets frisky with my data, I can vote with my wallet to another ISP. (B) Furthermore, the Federal Government DOES make an excellent "watchdog" for policing privacy violations by ISPs... that is, IF they are on the field as "referee", and NOT as "another player". Plus, them NOT being "another player" helps them maintain impartiality as their role as "referee". (there are ALREADY examples of their role as "referee" being "compromised" in the auto industry.. where Government Motors got a break on a certain law, but Honda was slammed hard over the SAME law!) Also, if the Federal Government owns/operates broadband, then there is a high likelihood that their operation is subsidized to a point where it becomes extremely difficult for a private business to compete against them--as happens in area areas where the Federal Government stepped out into the field as "player". "gravity" then "pulls" the Federal Government into a monopoly position... then, after that happens, if THEY get frisky with my data, the ISPs I would have voted for with my wallet... no longer exist. (C) The fact that the Internet is a series of PRIVATE networks... NOT owned/operated by the Feds... is a large reason why the 4th amendment provides such protections... it becomes somewhat of a "firewall" of protection against Federal gov't trampling of civil liberties... but if they own the network, then that opens up many doors for them. (D) Finally, the potential damage/intrusion/civil-liberties-violations that can happen from the Feds owning/operating broadband vastly surpasses what generally occurs in the worst-case-instances of private ISPs going too far in selling data to make a buck. There is no comparison. Last I checked, my ISP doesn't have the authority to throw me in jail... or audit my taxes... doesn't control the FBI or ATF, etc. The Federal government has the police state powers to throw me in jail. An ISP cannot. Not that I'm a lawbreaker with things to fear... but there is this really smart guy who wrote a book called "Three Felonies A Day: How the Feds Target the Innocent"... it basically details how there are so many ridiculous laws on the books that nobody follow (or even know about)... that if the Feds want to make an example out of someone or some business, they can ALWAYS find SOMETHING. Even in fortune 500 companies... if one of them decides to get real serious and follow ALL such laws "to a T"... then they go out of business because their overhead costs soar beyond their direct competitors, who are then able to sell more products/services at a higher profit. My sister used to work for GE... and she said they had this phrase there called "substantial compliance" with Federal Laws. They couldn't be totally compliant or they'd go out of business.
Ummm, none of these were on the FCC. Some were on the "stacked" Republican F*E*C. And nobody trusts Spakovsky, the architect of voter caging, purges, and suppression -- who was (as we now know) illegally recess appointed to the FEC, and whose nomination was withdrawn after disclosure of conflict of interest and the resignation of half the Justice Department voter section staff!
I think you've gone off topic here. The bottom line is that the FCC of the past few years has TRIED to make a crusade out of supposedly protecting us against those meany ISPs' allegedly unfair bandwidth allocation practices... with their proposed solution of "net neutrality"... but, in reality, "net neutrality" is really just a Federal Government power grab where they can then trample the 4th amendment. Why would they do that? Because the current administration is crawling with statist thugs, that is why. They can't help themselves. it is in their blood. (notice that I'm NOT defending the Republican administration FCC, nor do I care to. Your example is besides the point and not relevant to this conversation. But the attempted "net neutrality" power grab is relevant. Notice ALSO that neither do I defend all practices of ISPs' bandwidth allocations. But, again, their customers do have the option to "vote with their wallets". Such options are lost with a Federal Gov't monopoly.)
Finally, while I've witnessed incompetence amongst certain unnamed baby bells, there ARE... MANY... bright spots in Internet connectivity. Frankly, we're spoiled by our successes. And the worst of the baby bells, like all baby bells, do NOT have a monopoly. [...]
You seem to be living in an alternate universe. Those of us who actually owned an ISP know the ILEC oligopolies well.
Nope. I've seen it where I live... where I routinely notice some of the most incompetent behavior/service from our baby bell... yet I've often seen very excellent and competent service from Cox Communications. -- Rob McEwen http://dnsbl.invaluement.com/ rob@invaluement.com +1 (478) 475-9032