The information you have posted is very useful. The sites you have referred was good. Thanks for sharing.. Telecommunication service provider

Really? Can you offer a comparative American/Russian timeline of computer telecommunication innovations, or are you just assuming? Be sure to focus on pre '68 era, before American socialism was applied in large part (public funding/monopoly busting).

And for some unknown to you reason China is beating the ever loving pants off America lately....so what's your point? Certainly not that Capitalism always beats socialism, I hope you aren't that deluded. Both have strengths and weaknesses, both ebb and flow. Neither are the sole determining factor for inventiveness, neither has a monopoly on invention.

Russia beat America into space even with their near poverty level economy at the time, and despite the fact that their scientists definitely didn't personally profit from their myriad of inventions required to make it happen.
I'm not arguing which is better, that's like arguing over which color is better....better in what way? I'm arguing against your contention that ONLY personal profit drives invention or innovation. That's clearly a mistaken assumption imo.

Is the War on Drugs an extension of the philosophy of "Supply-Side Economics?"

Deciding if the War on Drugs is a failure depends on how you measure success.

If the intention of the War on Drugs was to increase incarceration rates, strengthen gangs, destabilize society (especially the among the poor) increase fear, and waste tax-payer money, then it has been very successful indeed.

Under the War on Drugs, a large amount of wealth has been concentrated among a few individuals at the top of large gangs and cartels, while the drugs themselves have trickled down to be consumed by masses, and the "war-laws" used to jail the poor.

Under the same period after Supply-Side Reaganomics, we've seen concentration of power not only among organized crime/drug-cartels, but also among other industries as well, including media, banking, telecommunications, and many others.

Dear libertarians,

Please stop using the internet, it is a government conspiracy to make you think that mass telecommunication is only made possible using infrastructure provided by the state.

Thanks.

Go to Viharts videos description on youtube to find links to get involved
http://youtu.be/NAxMyTwmu_M

or the below links stolen from videosift video descriptin Hank vs Hank
http://videosift.com/video/Hank-vs-Hank-The-Net-Neutrality-Debate-in-3-Minutes

Please make a public comment here!
http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/upload/begin
Tell the FCC that they should reclassify broadband internet as a telecommunications (or "Common carrier") service. Right now broadband is regulated like TV or radio, which doesn't make sense.
This is a public comment for the public record...official government stuff... so you'll have to include your actual name and address.
You can also email the FCC directly here: http://dft.ba/-tell_the_FCC
If you want to help some organizations that work their butts off trying to fight the telecoms,
check out:
Save The Internet (from FreePress) http://www.savetheinternet.com/sti-home
Public Knowledge: http://www.publicknowledge.org/
And contact your congress people: http://www.usa.gov/Contact/Elected.shtml

Fluctuations in the magnetosphere are most likely to disrupt telecommunications, not cause mass extinction from cancer. At least, in the past, magnetic minimums have not correlated with mass extinctions, that I know of. I've been watching that for over a decade, it has not failed as quickly as expected, yet.
You lost me in the second paragraph. "Need" is subjective. Do you mean need to live, need to live well, or need to have anything we want? I agree, we should limit the third and try to limit the second, but some of your examples are required to keep the (over) population alive and somewhat productive. There simply isn't enough energy produced without fossil fuels to produce enough food to feed the planet, and not enough farmable land to grow enough naturally to feed everyone at this point. At least that's how it seems from here.

Do enlighten me: How do you think "dominant corporation(s) or collusion thereof [will] strongarm retailers?" That simply won't happen. Rather, there will be fewer barriers to entry for other widget manufacturers to enter the market, either independently or working for competing "dominant" corporations when they discover that it's more profitable to not be "paid off" but to compete in the market instead.

A dominant corporation cannot buy every possible competitor. That's absurd. And there will always multiple "dominant" corporations, and not just one, or one and a number of "start-ups." Where there is Coke, there will be Pepsi. Where there is Apple, there will be Samsung. In a free market, monopolies and cartels cannot exist except in the very short term and at an eventual loss (unless they have the primary monopoly of the government to back them up).

If there are patents, there's no free market. A free market, by definition, must exclude all patent, trademark, copyright, and other such IP law. So, you may have picked the worst example.

Free markets without patents is not a problem at all. Not for the market and not for consumers. Companies may just be more careful about spies. They certainly wouldn't be incentivized (like they are now) to spend $millions just to hold patents on products that are never produced, only to corner the market and "strongarm" competitors (like they do now).

Companies like Bed, Bath & Beyond have been trying to price upstarts out of the market for years, decades even! And they're still not able to get rid of competitors! Same can be said about Walmart. Many stores other than Walmart sell TVs, even at higher prices, and remain competitive. Other stores sell linens besides BB&B. So, you have a distorted view of how markets actually work. No one corporation can monopolize the sale of any goods or services. That's just incorrect (unless the government helps them to do so). It just doesn't happen.

There's no such thing as a "natural monopoly." Name one. In Texas, for example, there are competing utility providers, and people can choose which energy service to use. This is in contrast to CA, where most of us are forced to "choose" PG&E over zero other alternatives.

"Restriction of information/prevention of rational, informed consumers"

I'm sorry, but anyone who has been involved in business knows this is complete horseshit. If you have a better product/service (the only way to outdo the competition), you will let the customers/market know right away.

And there's no scale at which markets collapse. The same forces of the market apply to big, small, and medium businesses. There is no arbitrary size for which these forces do not apply. And keep in mind that without government granted privileges, corporations would be much smaller than they are now, because competition would make it easier for competitors to participate, thereby forcing a re-allocation of resources to accommodate the market's demands.

So, yes you most certainly "overstated" your case. All markets can be free, regardless of size. Whether it's a small farmer's market or Whole Foods. The same market forces apply. They all have to court voluntary customers through service, price, quality, etc. Again, anyone who has had to work with marketing will know this.

BTW, things like "price dumping" are circumvented all the time. Does Rolls Royce care that Hyundai sells cheaper cars? Does Mercedes care that a Prius is less expensive?

Target makes money because Walmart is cheaper, not in spite of it!
And everything Walmart sells, you'll find many other stores selling it, even though Walmart might sell it cheaper.
The local natural food store in my neighborhood sells, more or less, the same things as Whole Foods. None of your objections pose any real problems in the real world.

I don't see Walmart buying every other TV seller, or even trying to do this. Microsoft tried but, so what? They failed, because they could not buy every single competitor in the software world, could they?

Even in Somalia, to use @enoch's example, in the telecommunications industry (to pick one that saw growth), no one even remotely managed to do any of the things you say could happen. In 20 years, no corporation did any of these things. Why not?

Because they couldn't.

And did "dominant" corporations take over all small retailers and sellers? No way, not even close! They couldn't. Only regulations can really kill all small retailers (and they do it all the time). Your outrage is gravely misplaced. Do the countless bazaars and sellers of Turkey, India, or Thailand get taken over by "dominant" corporations?

Hint: No.

Only when government meddles, do the big corporations wipe out the little ones, and sometimes each other.

In any case, Coke will not eliminate Pepsi (or Sprite, or Dr. Pepper, or A&W), government or no government.

Snowden handed another set of slides over to the largest newspaper in Germany as well as a public broadcasting service. These slides include the names of telecoms that were involved in GCHQ's dragnet program.

The crème de la crème:
Verizon Business, Codename: Dacron, British Telecommunications ("Remedy"), Vodafone Cable ("Gerontic"), Global Crossing ("Pinnage"), Level 3 ("Little"), Viatel ("Vitreous"), Interoute ("Streetcar").

Many of these are customers of DE-CIX, the world's largest IXP, whose operators were adamant in their claim that no foreign service has access to their infrastructure -- no word about their corporate lackeys, understandably so.

And you gotta love how brazen they are in their admission that GCHQ's work is in the best interest of Britain's economy -- yes, economy.

And while we're at it: public broadcast journalists dug out a list of 207 US companies that are involved in intelligence gathering on German soil. Best comment was by the CEO of DE-CIX: these providers (re: Level 3) work in accordance with US law, even in Frankfurt. Not German law, US law.

Maybe we can still beat Puerto Rico in the race to become your 51st state.

I wouldn't say it's completely overlooked. Heck, we still have the paperwork of our former national telecommunication/postal company that detailed the construction of special rooms at the IXPs and other nodes for just this purpose. I suppose it's just one or more ports these days, like the Dutch government has at AMS-IX.

Wouldn't a better course of action than the above proposed alternatives include kidnapping family members of large mining concerns, telecommunications executives and maybe a few senator's kids?? It might simply get everyone's service pro-VIDED a lot quicker and what not??

(You'll notice that the sarcasm box remains unchecked??)

Many mobile phone service providers are generally corrupt and greedy. This came out of Canada this week:

"Canadians have been misled by the carriers into thinking the access fee — typically between $6.95 and $8.95 a month — was a tax by the government or the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, when in fact it was simply extra revenue for cellphone companies.

The suit was filed on behalf of more than 14 million monthly cellphone subscribers, or nearly half the country's population."

This is a $19-billion class-action lawsuit.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2012/06/28/cellphone-class-action-lawsuit.html

Below is a copy of the email I sent to Vic Toews, the sponsor of this terrible legislation. I again suggest that all thoughtful Canadians contact their Member of Parliament to voice their concerns.

MP's email addresses and other contact information can be found here: http://www.parl.gc.ca/MembersOfParliament/MainMPsCompleteList.aspx?TimePeriod=Current&Language=E

Dear Mr. Toews;

Thanks for taking the time to send an automated response to the automated email I had previously sent to you. In contrast to our previous correspondenced, this email represents my considered position and thoughts as a citizen of Canada, and not those of a robo-responder, nor of a political staff.

In response to the "Myths and Facts" listed below your correspondence, I respectfully submit that I don't buy a word of it. There's a common expression used to describe information which is not representative of the truth, which I'm sure that, coming as you do from an agricultural area like Provencher, you are quite familiar with. It's commonly used to fertilize pasture-land.

Bill C-30 is a poorly written, overly broad and dangerous piece of legislation. One thing which has been demonstrated over and over again is that when delegated powers that intrude on privacy, those in authority inevitably will abuse them. I have no doubt that the power resulting from C-30 will likewise be abused, and that it will, contrary to your statements, be used for non-criminal purposes. This legislation is fatally flawed and should be abandoned forthwith.

I'd also like to point out that though I vehemently oppose this legislation, I am certainly not "...with the child pornographers". I find your characterization of myself and other thoughtful Canadians to be offensive in the extreme. You remain unrepentant for this despicable comment, instead denying making it though one finds it readilly available in video and in Hansard. I would hope that at some time you might offer an apology to myself and those Canadians who might not agree with you. I suggest to you that it is un-Canadian to use such extremist rhetoric.


Paul Blank
Vancouver, Canada


From: vic.toews.c1@parl.gc.ca
To: xxxx
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2012 10:47:02 -0400
Subject: RE: Stop Online Spying

Thank you for contacting my office regarding Bill C-30, the Protecting Children from Internet Predators Act.

Canada's laws currently do not adequately protect Canadians from online exploitation and we think there is widespread agreement that this is a problem.

We want to update our laws while striking the right balance between combating crime and protecting privacy.

Let me be very clear: the police will not be able to read emails or view web activity unless they obtain a warrant issued by a judge and we have constructed safeguards to protect the privacy of Canadians, including audits by privacy commissioners.

What's needed most is an open discussion about how to better protect Canadians from online crime. We will therefore send this legislation directly to Parliamentary Committee for a full examination of the best ways to protect Canadians while respecting their privacy.

For your information, I have included some myths and facts below regarding Bill C-30 in its current state.

Sincerely,



Vic Toews

Member of Parliament for Provencher

Myth: Lawful Access legislation infringes on the privacy of Canadians.
Fact: Our Government puts a high priority on protecting the privacy of law-abiding Canadians. Current practices of accessing the actual content of communications with a legal authorization will not change.

Myth: Having access to basic subscriber information means that authorities can monitor personal communications and activities.
Fact: This has nothing to do with monitoring emails or web browsing. Basic subscriber information would be limited to a customer’s name, address, telephone number, email address, Internet Protocol (IP) address, and the name of the telecommunications service provider. It absolutely does not include the content of emails, phones calls or online activities.

Myth: This legislation does not benefit average Canadians and only gives authorities more power.
Fact: As a result of technological innovations, criminals and terrorists have found ways to hide their illegal activities. This legislation will keep Canadians safer by putting police on the same footing as those who seek to harm us.



Myth: Basic subscriber information is way beyond “phone book information”.
Fact: The basic subscriber information described in the proposed legislation is the modern day equivalent of information that is in the phone book. Individuals frequently freely share this information online and in many cases it is searchable and quite public.

Myth: Police and telecommunications service providers will now be required to maintain databases with information collected on Canadians.
Fact: This proposed legislation will not require either police or telecommunications service providers to create databases with information collected on Canadians.

Myth: “Warrantless access” to customer information will give police and government unregulated access to our personal information.
Fact: Federal legislation already allows telecommunications service providers to voluntarily release basic subscriber information to authorities without a warrant. This Bill acts as a counterbalance by adding a number of checks and balances which do not exist today, and clearly lists which basic subscriber identifiers authorities can access.

Actually Air Force Space Command (AFSPC) has all your base!
They deal with ICMB prevention, space superiority, and cyberspace/telecommunication kill-switches. That's where the money goes these days, not to NASA.

>> ^vaire2ube:

no ordinance just slugs at such high velocity they destroy targets
lasers that can destroy flying objects
mechanical exoskeletons from Alien to help move cargo
the navy has all your base.

@GeeSussFreeK "free speech" is a philosophical concept, not to be confused with the 1st Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

I also think you're getting tripped up with this whole libertarian mumbo jumbo about property being the only rights that actually exist. You're saying Youtube subscribers should have absolutely zero legal rights to free speech, beyond what Google decides to grant.

I don't think that's right, even if it probably is the status quo under the law.

And not to retread old ground, but this is the positive vs. negative liberty thing again. I think a "right to free speech" should mean something more than "the government can't pass laws criminalizing political speech," it should mean you actually have an inalienable right to free speech.

It should mean that you actually have the right to express yourself using modern communications networks without being censored by the network providers. It means content publishing services should have limits on what they're allowed to refuse to publish.

Google chooses to provide a publishing service to the public "for free" (though they make money off the content people are "giving" them "for free"). That shouldn't endow them with the unlimited right to censor content that's published on their service, anymore than "free speech" means there can be no limits on speech whatsoever.

The goal here is to have an open society where ideas aren't censored by either the government, or by the para-governmental corporations that own most of the telecommunication networks that our modern society relies on...

We had to go through a similar video at DirecTV.

IT was an Anti telecommunication workers of america union video where it talked about how evil unions were.

Then we had to sign a paper when hired promising we'd never join a union, and that if we did it would be grounds for immediate termination. And we had also signed over our rights for any lawsuits due to signing the Mediation clause most employers are now carrying.

those mediation clauses suck, the most famous mediation clause went before congress of a young girl went to Iraq for extra pay for Haliburton and was gang raped, then detained in a box for days she tried to sue but was never able to and courts/police/fbi all ignored her.

Senator Franken brought the matter before a judiciary committee trying to BAN mediation clauses for employers. Dunno where it went after that, but yea.

I worked there for 3 weeks at directv, we had solicitations to join the unions when we'd go to lunch people would walk up to us, eventually a bunch of us couldn't handle the stress and quit. Cause you never knew if it was directv employees testing you, cause even if you took pamphlets they'd fire you.

it was a mess....