If they thought CF was bad for the U.S. they would ban it.
No, non net neutrality is not about silencing sites. -there are no permenant blocks, and those who says that sites would be permenantly blocked miss the issue. -it's not about censorship. it's about money.
Net neutrality is about not stiffling services.
example: the CF forums are based in a place where there are only 2 major providers, we'll call them A and B.
the data centre is connected to A, but we are alll customers of B.
the idea is that A gives the CF forum all the bandwidth it needs because they are paying for it, but since everyone connects through B, provider B says, in order to give traffic a good banbdwidth we require you (A) to pay us for the bandwidth used, if A refuses to pay B, then you start to see QOS applied to A's traffic as it routes over Bs network.
net netrality is about saying that both A and B should accept traffic from A and B equally, without restriction, or different QOS.
the big one here is companies like to throttle bit torrent traffic, or companies throttle services like BBC iplayer saying that it uses high bandwidth and the provider, (rather than the consumer) should have to pay for that.
In reality both candidates claims for and against net neutrality are valid,
if you are a comms provider and have millions/billions invested in your network, then you should expect a profit from it, but at the same time, end customers, and service providers should not have their service degraded because one company asks for money.
Both companies A and B should realise that they will both inevitably route traffic through each others networks, and that's likely to be in fairly equaly measures, each bill their respective customers.
service providers pay for their datacentre link (so company A gets paid for all the bandwidth that they use),
Home users either pay for a capped service just buying a certain bandwidth and data transfer rate, or pay for an unlimited service and thus company B gets their money as well.
Of course, this falls down if I go through 3 networks.
so I pay the first company for my download as I view the site.
providers pay the third company for their upload.
company 2 sits silently in the middle and doesn't get paid by either party, they just hope that their customers are uploading/downloading enough that they can pay for their bandwidth.
if the company in the middle found that they were loosing out they would want to bill company 1, or 2, or both, for the traffic routed through their network...
in reality, it's difficult, if not impossible to log all the traffic and amounts that run through backbones connecting the internet, thus service providers for backbones generally charge a set amount for connections regardless of throughput.
now you're left in the place where a company that uploads very little doesn't want to pay the same as a company uploading a lot.
so the company who is left with paying a little money can't feasibly expect that same service if their bandwith usage suddenly spikes surely?
that's a round about way of saying that in essance, Net neutrality is great, the idea of a free and open network rocks. but networks are not free and open. and they can't be because they are privatly owned.
so you're left with big players able to stiffle traffic from companies who pay very little.
we've all experianced the white screens and timeouts here. this is a small interest site.
imagine if the errors were caused by network problems due to arguments between service providers.
the site owner would be left out of pocket, as their adverts (the sites only income) are not being served, and the consumers (browsers) are left with broken computers because they can't get the help.
-so they go else where, -to a forum hosted by company B where the service is not restricted!
net neutrality doesn't work because service providers cannot see returns on their investment, so they have no reason to invest further and upgrade networks.
non net neutrality doesn't work either, since it degrades services and access to the services based on payments
Why I like Obama:
His tax cuts to the currenty struggling middle class.
His idea to increase the amount of technological jobs.
He also supports net neutrality (McCain doesn't).
His idea to crack down on the mortgage fraud that started our sub-prime lending crisis.
I like his idea to increase aid for veterans.
I like how he wants to devote a lot of resources to freeing the world of nuclear arms.
I like how he will increase our budget by saving $350 billion dollars in taxes by changing laws about offshore tax havens.
I like how he wants to decrease teacher retention.
I like how he aims to fix poverty by raising the minimum wage.
Theres a lot more, but I also like how he will institute pay as you go laws, which require excessive programs to be reduced or new revenue opened up for legislation to be funded.
If you cut tax where will the money coe from for the infrasturcture he promises?
How will he increase tech jobs? the reason companies don't set up on home soils anymore, (western soils at least) is that it's too expensive, land is too expensive and resources are too expensive.
net neutrality doesn't work, -as explained above. -but enither does the alternative.
mortgage fraud should be a matter for courts to decide, and things like an office of fair trading. defrauding someone is, (or should be) a criminal offence, -hardly an issue for a president to deal with, -it's likely that this 1 million homes in forclosure is meant to be a guarenteed 1 million votes from people who think he'll help them out. but in reality, there is not a lot that can be done about those people now. only in the future.
increased aid for veterans? it may surprise you to know that more than half of america are veterans, what with the amount of wars that america has been involved in. -this will be a massive burdon
getting rid of nuclear arms is, stupid.
if everyone has then then nobody uses them.
the one and only time in history that a nuke has been used is at the end of the battle of the pacific, I'm not going to debate whether it should have been dropped, but do you honestly think it would have been dropped if there was a chance that a retaliation would have seen the aniallation of american citizens on a simillar scale the next day?
train your bombs on everyone, and have everyone train their bombs on you. that way nobody would ever be stupid enough to press a trigger.
MAD - Mutually Assured Destruction.
Off shore tax havens! -good policy, no comment
decrease teacher retention? I don't understand. if you retain a teacher surely that would mean keeping them in employment, he wants to decrease the amount of teachers retained? perhaps I've miss understood. but how can that be a good thing?
raising minimum wage only ever ensures to raise maximum wage as well.
lets say you work in a skilled IT job, we'll say that you are second line support for a company.
you have 1st line below you, and 3rd above
you are a valuable technical resource, with some problem solving skills.
-tough obviously not as much as the third line support who would fix things that you couldn't.
we'll say that 1st line get minimum wage say $7 an hour, and you get $14, third line gets $28.
this illustrates that you are worth twice as much as the 1st line team.
so minimum wage gets set at $10 an hour, now your wage needs to be increased as well, because you are still worth twice as much, and the third line guys as well
so now the wages are $10, $20, $40 respectivly.
nobody has really gained, the inequality in technical levels and renumeration are still the same, because the jobs are still the same.
to be able to pay this all that will happen is the company puts their wages up as well!
so that $3 rise, actually just equates to a rise in everything else, you're still poor on minimum wage, just everything costs more as well. your $10, is still only worth $7 before your payrise, because eveerything you need to buy went up as well.
your shopping bill still stretches just as far. there are no net gains.
can you explain the pay as you go laws, you don't say what they'll apply to
How does raising minimum wage cause problems? It's been demonstrated to fix them
Personally I'd love salary caps on people high up in company's, for example a CEO can only earn 5 times what the lowest paid manager earns, and the lowest paid employee earns a minimum of a third of what the highest paid manager earns. This is a complex system and my numbers are just an example, but it works great for Japan.
Their is a reason why people can be criminals, minimum wage just doesn't cut it without working an insane amount of hours. Some unexpected thing comes up (Son severely hurts them self and racks up a huge medical bill), and suddenly your totally screwed for money and can't pay for it. Suddenly robbing that bank becomes a good idea.
I just demonstrated abouve how rising minimum wage pushes inflation.
also capping maximum wages?
going back to the example about that means that your 3rd line guys can never be worth more than a set amount.
so the wage brackets go from $7, $14, $28 to $10, $20, $28...
where is the incentive to work hard to achieve a higher technical skill?
all raising minimum wage does is ensure that companies look for places with lower minimum wages to outsource to.
and I'll finish with a bad taste joke...
Obama has died and is waiting at the pearly gates to talk to St Peter.
St Peter says, "Hello, tell me who you are and what you did in life?"
"I am Mr Obama, the 1st black president of the USA".
"America Elected a black president! when did this happen"
"about five minutes ago".