@Drago China has benefited from introducing market reforms, not from socialism. When the government was completely socialist, you had millions of Chinese dying.
@Kirril You're right, this is not at all socialism. It's fascism. Regardless of your position on net neutrality (neutral for whom, I wonder?), it's not good to have a regulatory agency that can decide willy nilly what it does and does not regulate. Can they simply reclassify cell phones as broadcast devices and tell us when we can and can't talk? (I know that's hyperbole, but when it comes to government, all slopes are slippery.)
You need it. You may not like government stepping in but the world we live in doesn't function well without at least some measures of control/refereeing; especially when it comes to telecommunications/internet.
Plenty of countries outside the US have internet/telco regulated by a government body. And believe it or not, we have better services (by law) than we can get in the US; adoption is higher, speeds are faster and rates are more competitive. Yet, the only country where the internet is "restricted" is China or some dictatorial countries. The rest of the world, we're pretty much free to do what we want, how we want.
@ounkeo I certainly did not suggest we needed no regulation at all. What I said was the regulatory agency should not be able to expand its own power without the consent of the regulated (that would be the people). Everyone wants to say, "Oh, we'll force the evil companies to behave," but these companies are people, run by people, owned by people, and made up of people. You're talking about telling citizens what they can and can't do, and an agency that can expand its own powers in that regard is a bad thing any way you cut it.
Corporations are certainly not citizens. That logic fails big time.
As for Telco's specifically, their networks were either directly built with federal subsidies or paid for by profits guaranteed by regulated barriers to entry. In addition their networks reside on public land. Don't be fooled. The networks are ALREADY HIGHLY regulated. Arguing that they shouldn't be regulated in a way that prevents wireline owners from restricting information unless they're paid because you don't want regulation is disingenuous at best.
The N9 has arrived. What we can say from our first experience is that we're in the presence of a fantastically designed device with a gorgeous AMOLED screen and some highly responsive performance.
The most commented posts on Engadget over the past 24 hours.
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
Socialism suuuuucks
@Shalabi I has worked for China though.
@Shalabi
lol at you thinking this is even remotely socialism.
@Drago China has benefited from introducing market reforms, not from socialism. When the government was completely socialist, you had millions of Chinese dying.
@Drago
I haz worked for Chinese cheezeberger.
@Shalabi American Socialism sucks, because you hosers don't know how to do it.
You should take some notes from the Great White North eh!
@Matt l
You didn't read my post did you? I said: "I has".
@Kirril You're right, this is not at all socialism. It's fascism. Regardless of your position on net neutrality (neutral for whom, I wonder?), it's not good to have a regulatory agency that can decide willy nilly what it does and does not regulate. Can they simply reclassify cell phones as broadcast devices and tell us when we can and can't talk? (I know that's hyperbole, but when it comes to government, all slopes are slippery.)
@Drago Oops responded to wrong post, my bad.
@JaylanPHNX
You need it. You may not like government stepping in but the world we live in doesn't function well without at least some measures of control/refereeing; especially when it comes to telecommunications/internet.
Plenty of countries outside the US have internet/telco regulated by a government body. And believe it or not, we have better services (by law) than we can get in the US; adoption is higher, speeds are faster and rates are more competitive. Yet, the only country where the internet is "restricted" is China or some dictatorial countries. The rest of the world, we're pretty much free to do what we want, how we want.
@ounkeo I certainly did not suggest we needed no regulation at all. What I said was the regulatory agency should not be able to expand its own power without the consent of the regulated (that would be the people). Everyone wants to say, "Oh, we'll force the evil companies to behave," but these companies are people, run by people, owned by people, and made up of people. You're talking about telling citizens what they can and can't do, and an agency that can expand its own powers in that regard is a bad thing any way you cut it.
@JaylanPHNX
Corporations are certainly not citizens. That logic fails big time.
As for Telco's specifically, their networks were either directly built with federal subsidies or paid for by profits guaranteed by regulated barriers to entry. In addition their networks reside on public land. Don't be fooled. The networks are ALREADY HIGHLY regulated. Arguing that they shouldn't be regulated in a way that prevents wireline owners from restricting information unless they're paid because you don't want regulation is disingenuous at best.