Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Dunedan
Umm, actually...
[/b]
See that part about "prevent Internet access providers from discriminating against particular Internet content or applications"?
That's exactly what it says, right there in green and gray.
|
The key word there is access. Most ISPs also provide hosts, but a host is not necessarily an ISP and is regulated differently. Net neutrality does not mandate any server to host anything. EDIT: see martian's post.
Quote:
Really? This despite the fact that the owner paid for, maintains, and operates the thing? Private property isn't really private, but instead subject to Gov't dictats backed by the threat of lethal violence?! In AMERICA?! Whoda thunk it?!
You mean that, although the ISP owns all the hardware, performs all the maintainence, paid for all this shit to begin with...because the cables are sometimes on public land the Gov't should be allowed to tell the owners/shareholders what they can/should do with it? Sounds rather like my neighbors trying to tell me what to do with my tractor or hay-baler because I sometimes have to take them on a road we all share.
|
the cables aren't "sometimes" in public land, they are mostly on public land. And the government is not telling what they can do with it. They are telling what they canNOT do with it.
Quote:
|
They certainly can, they simply chose not to because it would be bad for their business. Ask folks who bought the I-Phone when it first came out.
|
no, they can't. Telephone companies are common carriers, as defined by the communications act, and as such cannot deny access to numbers in another network. Im not aware that the iphone prevented anyone from calling out of network, so you will have to expand on that.
Quote:
|
They can but, again, they don't. If it was a privately-held Toll Road, they would be 100% legal to do so. However, since these roads are operated by the Gov't with everyone's stolen money, they currently deign to allow everyone onto them, in order to continue making money and avoid the appearance of impropriety and favoritism.
|
No, they can't.
Quote:
|
They are able, and should remain so. "Their roof, their rules" as it were. However, I wouldn't recommend such a course of action; bad for business.
|
actually for most of history they couldnt, and soon wont be able to again.
Quote:
|
Because it's THEIRS. They paid for it, they keep it running, and they provide the service. They should be able to allow or disallow whatever content they like. However, I and other consumers should be (and largely are, except when dealing with the Gov't) able to "vote with my wallet" by taking my business elsewhere.
|
The fact that you don't know what a common carrier is and that you continually ignore that they use public property is telling of how little you know of this issue (as is the fact that you don't know the different between internet access and hosting services). A communications system that is entirely internal to a private property, be them roads, telephone, computer network, doesn't have to follow any of these regulations. I think its only fair that they abide by them when they want public access, and if they dont like it, guess what, they can go ahead and buy all the land and property required to run all the cables.
It is hypocritical, to say the least, to use public lands and airwaves and then try to use the "but its my property" argument.
---------- Post added at 06:07 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:02 PM ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aladdin Sane
The fact that you must provide this elementary lesson on the concept of private property rights goes to show just how warped our idea of individual liberty has become.
I hope you'll keep hammering away in these forums. Your voice is sorely needed.
|
The fact that you cannot grasp the simple concept of public property shows how warped your view of the world is. These business only become regulated once they use public land, and if they don't want to use public land they dont have to. Again, it is hypocritical, to say the least, to spout off about private property while demanding access to public land and airwaves.