quote:

---

I'm just kidding bmc. But reb has quite the passion for thus topic.

---

bmc knows whats up, you can trust him.

Reb, while I have you on the line, how do I get Google to stop asking for access to my photos on my phone to back them up?

But, Obama.

ONLY 8 pages of regulations? I feel much better now.

quote:

---

Reb, while I have you on the line, how do I get Google to stop asking for access to my photos on my phone to back them up?

---

if you have an android phone, open google+, go to settings, turn off auto-backup.

That's showing as already off.

quote:

---

That's showing as already off.

---

throw it against a wall. solved.

j/k. its asking you on your phone whether you want to back them up, right? not your computer when you plug it in?

Right. It's fugging annoying and asks me many times a day...when I take a pic or get a pic via text.

quote:

---

ONLY 8 pages of regulations? I feel much better now.

---

Here's one page that will establish a complete dictatorship. Hint: this was actually passed, but the names have been changed.

Law to Remedy the Distress of the People and the Country

The House of Representatives has enacted the following law, which is hereby proclaimed with the assent of the Senate, it having been established that the requirements for a constitutional amendment have been fulfilled:

Article 1

In addition to the procedure prescribed by the constitution, laws of the United States may also be enacted by the government of the United States. This includes the laws referred to by Articles 85 Paragraph 2 and Article 87 of the constitution.[3]

Article 2

Laws enacted by the government of the United States may deviate from the constitution as long as they do not affect the institutions of the House of Representatives and the Senate. The rights of the President remain unaffected.

Article 3

Laws enacted by the United States government shall be issued by the President and announced in the Federal Register. They shall take effect on the day following the announcement, unless they prescribe a different date. Articles 68 to 77 of the Constitution do not apply to laws enacted by the United States government.[4]

Article 4

Treaties of the United States with foreign states, which relate to matters of Federal legislation shall for the duration of the validity of these laws not require the consent of the Senate. The United States government shall adopt the necessary legislation to implement these agreements.

Article 5

This law enters into force on the day of its proclamation. It expires on April 1, 2017; it expires furthermore if the present United States government is replaced by another.

quote:

---

I'm just kidding bmc. But reb has quite the passion for thus topic.

---

Few posts up.

Well, it is time I have to explain right of way. Governments provide right of way along public easements for ALL utilities, with equal access for ANY applicant that meets it's regulatory requirements. any telco or company can apply to run fiber or cables on them. The rest of the easements are PRIVATE access easements negotiated and paid for by the company wanting to use it, or provided by the landowner for access to communications services. It is extremely rare, and until a recent SCOTUS decision, not established as legal, for a public entity to use eminent domain to grab property for a specific private entity. So, that argument is specious. Any company that wanted to could buy their own easements or apply to use public easements to build a network any time they wanted...few actually chose to in a given area.

Why?

Simple: facilities based utilities are natural local monopolies/dualopolies. They have a fixed number of customers in an area to share at any one time, but they each have to build their own costly facilities to reach those customers, at similar cost. The more parallel facilities that each competitor builds to a specific area, like a single neighborhood, the fewer customers each is likely to get to cover that cost, or the more risk each takes that they won't get enough customers to cover their fixed costs, which takes years to generate a return even when there is no competitor to divide customers with. They simply do the math and often only the first one or two telecoms to build in an area are the only ones that can calculate a positive ROI in an area in less than a decade, so no additional competitors build their own network there. They MIGHT lease access, but won't build their own.

What is one thing the federal government regulates that works well?

I agree with the concept in some ways, but am afraid of the regulation.

quote:

---

What is one thing the federal government regulates that works well?

---

healthcare

Name one industry that has ever not screwed over customers at one point in their existence?

"No tier-ing of the internet, aka, ISPs cannot say "pay one price for "basic" internet access, oh, you want to access netflix through this internet connection? That will be an additional $15/month. Play online video games? Another $10/month".

No segmenting of the internet, aka, Comcast (owned by NBC/Universal) can't disallow access to a competing content provider, say HBOGo, et. al.

No more bans on local municipalities or co-ops from forming their own last mile networks.

No paid priority for content, aka, telling consumers "Your normal download speed is 10 Mbps, unless you want to download something from Netflix, which is 2 Mbps unless you pay additional fees". Also meaning there is no fast lane or slow lane. All lanes, equal priority."

Why did it take 320pgs to say this? Why wasn't anyone allowed to read it before it was voted on?

quote:

---

Why did it take 320pgs to say this? Why wasn't anyone allowed to read it before it was voted on?

---

From rebcomma's post:

quote:

---

First: It's 8 pages of regulation. Not 300+. So why is the document so long? Because it contains legal justification, the history of broadband, and inclusion of some of the over 4 million public comments that were made.

---

more government waste if you ask me

Wait, so now I'm gonna have all the same problems with my internet that I have with my electricity/gas/TV/sewege/waste/telephone/radio etc etc?


OH NO!!!!!

You did it, GB. You made a thread that is actually worse than a Politics Board thread.

So now that it's a "utility" will the "haves" be required to subsidize it for the "have nots"? You know people who should be more concerned with food and keeping the lights on?