SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 18 submissions in the queue.
SoylentNews
For decades, people in the US have been given a song and dance by the telecoms about how tax cuts, surcharges, and a long list of other expenses are necessary for telecoms to "invest" in infrastructure. The concessions are granted again and again, but the investments are never actually made. In all, US taxpayers have paid $400 Billion in taxes and Internet surcharges for fiber optic upgrades that never happened.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Americans Taxed $400 Billion For Fiber Optic Internet That Doesn’t Exist
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 220 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
The last time I saw him he was walking down Lover's Lane holding his own hand.
-- Fred Allen
(Score: 4, Insightful) by NotSanguine on Monday December 04 2017, @09:54PM (27 children)
And who gave the government that power? We (the collective, over the past ~240 years, we) did.
And we can take it away too. You have no grasp of history, nor do you have an understanding of how our government is supposed to work.
Once again, if you don't like how our system of government operates, work to change it (ooh! ooh! please try to do so violently and die in the street like dog you are) or go somewhere else. I hear tell that things may be pretty much like you want in the South Pacific, thanks to these guys [seasteading.org]. Why don't you head over there now.
You certainly won't be missed here.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 04 2017, @10:06PM (1 child)
The Founders of America tried to create a restricted government; the whole point of the Constitution was not to create or grant rights to The People, but rather to restrict the government.
Nowadays, what is there that the Government doesn't stick its tendrils in?
They promised Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness, but you cannot even grow a single certain plant in your own home, or eat part of it in a brownie after a long day at work.
Your government is a fraud; your government is a bait and switch.
If you're going to give the Men-with-Guns a mandate, it better be very well defined, very restricted, and easy to monitor; their mandate should be only to ensure that The People are able to interact on voluntary terms, according to well defined, well negotiated agreements in advance of their interaction—not during their interaction, and definitely not after their interaction.
Disputes can be adjudicated in court, and such case law can be refined by legislation; the only time "legislators" should be doing anything should be when there is a matter of interaction between individuals that cannot be solved by existing rules. Thus, this precludes the right of the government to allocate resources—the government should not be allowed to allocate resources, other than to the Men-with-Guns for the sole purpose of implementing their role as referees.
And guess what?
The market can handle that role, too; the best Separation of Powers is competition within the market—that's why there never has been and their never will be One World Government.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 04 2017, @10:41PM
Trollee troll troll troll troll troll troll, trolllololol lolol lol lol.
I wish you a trolly christmas I wish you a trolly christmas, may you die in a guuuuuutter when the doctor says "but no insurance"
For we are in a free market, we are in a freeee maaarket, we ARE IN A FREEEEE MARKET so suck it and dieeeee.
(Score: 1, Troll) by khallow on Monday December 04 2017, @10:40PM (8 children)
Don't you like the people who in one breath proclaim one thing and then in another breath says something completely different [soylentnews.org]?
Looks like you're among the FUD spreaders. A rational person with the latter viewpoint would be saying, "I want to change things too maybe we can join forces", not slapping down dissenters because they aren't goodthink. Bonus internet points for mocking people for naivety while playing a childish game of "heads I win, tails you lose".
You know, if you don't like how our system of government operates, then maybe you ought to work to change it rather than mocking others for wanting nearly the same things you want.
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Monday December 04 2017, @11:36PM (7 children)
You're right. I should have said that. Oh, wait. I did [soylentnews.org]:
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 0, Troll) by khallow on Monday December 04 2017, @11:56PM (6 children)
Perhaps you'll join us in that effort someday, right?
(Score: 3, Touché) by NotSanguine on Tuesday December 05 2017, @12:19AM (5 children)
I'm just devastated by your disapproval, Khallow. Once I've had a chance to stop sobbing, I'll write an apology to the Internet.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday December 05 2017, @03:42PM (3 children)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 05 2017, @06:53PM (2 children)
When dealing with people suggesting a move into a dystopian post-apocalypse type world then yeah, you'll get a lot of irritation and short tempers. The world evolved out from under the thumb of the warlords that gained power when there was relative anarchy and the strongest group could dominate.
Big Business has successfully implemented a coup on the US government, putting in legislation piece by piece that slowly gave them near total power. We were warned about this, and there are multiple countries with better versions of democracy than the US, but now we have some brain washed leftovers from the Big Biz Propaganda Wars who have taken the "free market" mantra to an insane extreme. This idea of "but we should compromise and extend the olive branch" was something that liberals have been trying to do for a long time. Hard core conservatives have developed the strategy of using this behavior to their advantage by simply being bull headed pigs who force concessions and then bully their way into some more.
I'm done with compromise unless I see value in it. The free market troll that loves to shitpost around here refuses to address the problems with the anarchist model and just says "competition will sort everything out through consumer choice". It is so naive as to be laughable, yet people continually engage the topic since the AC won't log in to a user account. Few people want to see our system completely torn down and rebuilt, there are simply a few big adjustments needed to lose the abusive loopholes.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 06 2017, @05:07AM
That's totalitarianism and/or chaos. Anarchy is the state in which there is no ruler lording it over other people.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday December 06 2017, @06:43AM
Sure, they have. And I bought Bezos's nose for a billion dollars.
(Score: 2) by etherscythe on Tuesday December 05 2017, @07:02PM
You have such an appropriate sig right now
"Fake News: anything reported outside of my own personally chosen echo chamber"
(Score: -1, Redundant) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 04 2017, @10:42PM (6 children)
The Founders of America tried to create a restricted government; the whole point of the Constitution was not to create or grant rights to The People, but rather to restrict the government.
Nowadays, what is there that the Government doesn't stick its tendrils in?
They promised Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness, but you cannot even grow a single certain plant in your own home, or eat part of it in a brownie after a long day at work.
Your government is a fraud; your government is a bait and switch.
If you're going to give the Men-with-Guns a mandate, it better be very well defined, very restricted, and easy to monitor; their mandate should be only to ensure that The People are able to interact on voluntary terms, according to well defined, well negotiated agreements in advance of their interaction—not during their interaction, and definitely not after their interaction.
Disputes can be adjudicated in court, and such case law can be refined by legislation; the only time "legislators" should be doing anything should be when there is a matter of interaction between individuals that cannot be solved by existing rules. Thus, this precludes the right of the government to allocate resources—the government should not be allowed to allocate resources, other than to the Men-with-Guns for the sole purpose of implementing their role as referees.
And guess what?
The market can handle that role, too; the best Separation of Powers is competition within the market—that's why there never has been and their never will be One World Government.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 04 2017, @11:11PM (5 children)
Oh man, it sure sucks being ahead of the curve huh? You must be one of the most autistic people here, incapable of understanding something as basic as human beings making laws against something most don't like.
When you realize there is something wrong with the world it can be very hard to then deal with that reality. We are all idealistic to some degree, and the world will let us down repeatedly. You need to get your shit together if you ever want to be more than an internet troll.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 04 2017, @11:29PM (4 children)
That was a long-winded way to say that you have nothing to say.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 04 2017, @11:29PM (3 children)
Autistic confirmed!
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday December 04 2017, @11:57PM (2 children)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 05 2017, @06:55PM (1 child)
Based on your previous postings and the sheer amount of time you spend defending this AC troll I'm going to guess you ARE the troll. Don't want people to realize how wacko the Khallow person is? Doesn't matter if you aren't the AC anyway, your defense of them puts you in the same position. You need to educate yourself some more, maybe grow up some.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday December 06 2017, @06:41AM
Which AC troll? There have been quite a few so far. And since when does spending, oh a few minutes to catch up on the thread, count as "sheer amount of time"? And if you're going to spin a tale about me, why not give me something like a stunning physique and cake? Not a urinal cake either. Something good like velvet cake.
I'll note that your post has the vice of being longer than saying "I have nothing to say" without saying anything more. That was kind of the point of the last four or so replies.
(Score: -1, Redundant) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 04 2017, @11:38PM
The Founders of America tried to create a restricted government; the whole point of the Constitution was not to create or grant rights to The People, but rather to restrict the government.
Nowadays, what is there that the Government doesn't stick its tendrils in?
They promised Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness, but you cannot even grow a single certain plant in your own home, or eat part of it in a brownie after a long day at work.
Your government is a fraud; your government is a bait and switch.
If you're going to give the Men-with-Guns a mandate, it better be very well defined, very restricted, and easy to monitor; their mandate should be only to ensure that The People are able to interact on voluntary terms, according to well defined, well negotiated agreements in advance of their interaction—not during their interaction, and definitely not after their interaction.
Disputes can be adjudicated in court, and such case law can be refined by legislation; the only time "legislators" should be doing anything should be when there is a matter of interaction between individuals that cannot be solved by existing rules. Thus, this precludes the right of the government to allocate resources—the government should not be allowed to allocate resources, other than to the Men-with-Guns for the sole purpose of implementing their role as referees.
And guess what?
The market can handle that role, too; the best Separation of Powers is competition within the market—that's why there never has been and their never will be One World Government.
(Score: -1, Redundant) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 05 2017, @12:50AM
The Founders of America tried to create a restricted government; the whole point of the Constitution was not to create or grant rights to The People, but rather to restrict the government.
Nowadays, what is there that the Government doesn't stick its tendrils in?
They promised Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness, but you cannot even grow a single certain plant in your own home, or eat part of it in a brownie after a long day at work.
Your government is a fraud; your government is a bait and switch.
If you're going to give the Men-with-Guns a mandate, it better be very well defined, very restricted, and easy to monitor; their mandate should be only to ensure that The People are able to interact on voluntary terms, according to well defined, well negotiated agreements in advance of their interaction—not during their interaction, and definitely not after their interaction.
Disputes can be adjudicated in court, and such case law can be refined by legislation; the only time "legislators" should be doing anything should be when there is a matter of interaction between individuals that cannot be solved by existing rules. Thus, this precludes the right of the government to allocate resources—the government should not be allowed to allocate resources, other than to the Men-with-Guns for the sole purpose of implementing their role as referees.
And guess what?
The market can handle that role, too; the best Separation of Powers is competition within the market—that's why there never has been and their never will be One World Government.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 05 2017, @01:43AM (6 children)
The Founders of America tried to create a restricted government; the whole point of the Constitution was not to create or grant rights to The People, but rather to restrict the government.
Nowadays, what is there that the Government doesn't stick its tendrils in?
They promised Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness, but you cannot even grow a single certain plant in your own home, or eat part of it in a brownie after a long day at work.
Your government is a fraud; your government is a bait and switch.
If you're going to give the Men-with-Guns a mandate, it better be very well defined, very restricted, and easy to monitor; their mandate should be only to ensure that The People are able to interact on voluntary terms, according to well defined, well negotiated agreements in advance of their interaction—not during their interaction, and definitely not after their interaction.
Disputes can be adjudicated in court, and such case law can be refined by legislation; the only time "legislators" should be doing anything should be when there is a matter of interaction between individuals that cannot be solved by existing rules. Thus, this precludes the right of the government to allocate resources—the government should not be allowed to allocate resources, other than to the Men-with-Guns for the sole purpose of implementing their role as referees.
And guess what?
The market can handle that role, too; the best Separation of Powers is competition within the market—that's why there never has been and there never will be One World Government.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 05 2017, @08:06AM (5 children)
If you earnestly support the position you espouse, then you will serve it best by not spamming the same post over and over.
Rephrase your argument. Listen to the objections of the detractors and address their points using your tested fundamentals.
When you spam, you annoy even those who agree with the content of your spam. (I'm assuming the same person is spamming this, and not a different troll spamming to make the original AC look bad.)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 05 2017, @10:25AM (4 children)
That comment in question was being censored by downmods. So, I reposted it.
The comment in question is perfectly rational and well formulated—even a person who disagrees can see that it adds to the conversation. Yet, people just downmod it, without even responding in the nice fashion that you so desire.
So, no.
I'll keep reposting people's comments as long as the downmods keep spamming us all with their worthless downmods.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 05 2017, @10:34AM (3 children)
Don't. You're being foolish. Lots of people read at -1 and lots of those have mod points. There is no "censorship".
I modded up your first comment. I did not mod up your copy-pasta. If you keep spamming, I won't mod up any of your spams at all, including the first.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 05 2017, @01:16PM (2 children)
The downmodders don't even have the courtesy to leave the comment's pitiful subject line visible; marking it "-1" means that only "Comment below threshold" shows up for many people. Fuck that noise. And, fuck you.
(Score: 2) by Spook brat on Tuesday December 05 2017, @06:43PM
Your first comment has, at the time I write this, been modded 5 times:
Moderation +1
Troll=1, Redundant=1, Insightful=2, Interesting=1, Total=5
Overall, I think it's been treated quite fairly. I disagree with the redundant mod, since this was the first of the identical posts; when I'm done writing I'll throw on an "under-rated" to balance.
Meanwhile, I believe you and I have discussed the topic of multiple posts before:
https://soylentnews.org/comments.pl?sid=18751&page=1&cid=487278 [soylentnews.org]
https://soylentnews.org/comments.pl?sid=18751&page=1&cid=487295 [soylentnews.org]
Or, perhaps it would be a discussion if you had responded; since you largely corrected the troublesome behavior I assumed you had at least read my posts and gotten the message.
The point I hope you internalize is that here we have a certain culture, which I think matches your definition of that word: [soylentnews.org]
Sure, there are guidelines, [soylentnews.org] but this herd of cats is a pretty individualistic bunch. Our use of moderation is part of that culture, and if the way we use it offends you so much then perhaps this isn't the forum for you. If you're willing to rein in your behavior to stay within our cultural norms I think you'd fit in fine here; your posts are frequently marked as "interesting" or "insightful" (in this case, both!), so don't take the troll mods personally.
Here's a question for you, which you can discuss in a reply or just think about on your own, at your discretion:
What is the appropriate reaction of an individual when they find themselves in a place where the culture disagrees with the individual's preferred lifestyle?
a) act however they want, regardless of cultural norms, and face the consequences, possibly leading a rebellion against the powers-that-be
b) moderate the most divergent of their behaviors and participate as a culturally-acceptable eccentric, possibly trying to change the system from within
c) leave and find someplace more suitable to their tastes
I have my own opinions on this, and consider it a necessary thought exercise for every adolescent who is attempting to integrate into the society they're born in. I'm genuinely interested in your thought on the matter in general, and also as they specifically apply to the question of posting on an internet forum.
Travel the galaxy! Meet fascinating life forms... And kill them [schlockmercenary.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 05 2017, @11:49PM
It's me again, the above AC who posted with a request for you to stop spamming.
It's obvious that you care about both your posts' content AND the consideration of other SN readers/modders. Your posts DO contain solid reasoning and sound logic, and many of my own AC comments mirror yours in substance. You're not some lone voice crying out in the wilderness, and your unique contributions are seen and appreciated (as evidenced by the modding now visible on your first copy of the post you later spammed). Yes, there are ... thuggish crazy people with mod points here at SN; there are also plenty of people who CHANGE THE DEFAULT DISPLAY BEHAVIOR to read at -1, something which is trivial to do if you were to either make an account and set your preferences, or do what I normally do and use the drop-down boxes beneath the freakin' summary.
Your actions illustrate why there is a -1, Spam mod, which is supposed to do Bad Things to people who, you know, post actual spam. Your copy-pasting the same comment over and over again is exactly that: spam. Even as someone who is inclined to be your ideological ally, if you continue your spammy behavior, I'll start dropping -1,Spam mods on your copy-pasted comments in spite of my agreement with their contents. I won't be the only one, either, as evidenced by the PROPER -1,Redundant mods someone else already properly assigned to your above spammy posts.