As for Comcast and all other entities overcharging people for faster internet service; hold on to that money and/or to your horses for the next big class action lawsuit that will inevitably force you to return that money to it's rightful owners. Because whatever the federal government is allowing now will eventually be OVERTURNED by the judiciary once it is realized that slowing online activities for tho$e who cannot afford it doe$ not allow fair competition for all individual$.
I am fully aware there are dumb suckers out there with too much money who are willing to pay too much for things simply because they can; and I am also fully aware that there are whole industries designed around selling overpriced shit to these vulnerable rich folks. But this is not a good enough reason to milk all of those dumb rich suckers even more -- or the poor folks who are being affected by this as well.
I am fully aware there are dumb suckers out there with too much money who are willing to pay too much for things simply because they can; and I am also fully aware that there are whole industries designed around selling overpriced shit to these vulnerable rich folks. But this is not a good enough reason to milk all of those dumb rich suckers even more -- or the poor folks who are being affected by this as well.
The bottom line is: I have lived in the silicon valley for 50+ years now; so going back to dial up speed is entirely UNACCEPTABLE AND WILL NOT STAND. It's not fair for business; and it's not fair for individuals and/or consumers either. We all end up broke and dead in the end so therefore it is high time to stop this folly -- once and literally FOR ALL...
Paying more for faster internet service is not "the future of awesome" and does not necessarily "make America great again"; and this is also certainly not what Albert Einstein meant when when he said that time is relative. It is quite simply a form of class-based discrimination to charge people for faster internet service; as civil rights statutes apply to all races and/or classes. The financially prohibitive nature of the justice system in the United States has created a "class-based financial discrimination" which in effect disallows participation by those who cannot afford decent legal representation; therefore violating the civil rights of countless low income individuals in the process -- and the exact same concept applies to net neutrality as well.
GO TO: CIVIL RIGHTS: AN OVERVIEW @
http://addendumblog1.blogspot.com/2015/01/civil-rights-overview.html + CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION / ARTICLE 1 – DECLARATION OF RIGHTS @ http://ag.ca.gov/victimservices/pdf/CaConstArtI28.pdf + CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION ARTICLE 1 – DECLARATION OF RIGHTS @ http://addendumblog2.blogspot.com/2016/12/california-constitution-article-1.html
I used to have a sort of naive and romantic view of the Silicon Valley that I grew up in; but that has drastically changed as of late. 1) Not only did corporatization initially steal money by making individuals pay more for apartment rents (during the 1990s your average apartment went from $700 to $1500; and it's now about $2500 for the exact same apartment; causing pension plans to be slowly siphoned and/or stolen); 2) but now these same corporations are actively involved in mass rights violations with online censorship on social media sites etc -- spreading censorship around the world -- even though the First Amendment to the United States Constitution was argued for 14 YEARS and should be seen as an international standard for free speech.
Adding to this mess; the California Constitution disallows privacy violations -- and this is something Silicon Valley corporations (etc) are being allowed to do by the NSA in an unfettered fashion. Not only for supposed "national security" reasons; but also mainly for financial advantage as they mine YOUR data (as opposed to their data) and use this information to try and sell us products and services etc. Individuals should own their data; not the corporations that are trusted to protect that information.
3) Facilitating the theft of copyrighted materials online (MP3; DVD etc) is also a pervasive problem for Silicon Valley corporations like Google etc; with no real solution at this point in time. Many recording artists have simply stopped creating new music due to online theft. The F.B.I and/or the private sector etc obviously has some work to do on this issue.
 |
| https://www.fbi.gov/investigate/white-collar-crime/piracy-ip-theft/fbi-anti-piracy-warning-seal |
Corporations based in California should either abide by California privacy law;
or perhaps leave the state and do business elsewhere...
ARTICLE 1 DECLARATION OF RIGHTS / SECTION 1. All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy. > GO TO: http://law.justia.com/constitution/california/article_1.html
A glaring example of privacy invasion was about a decade ago when John met a date through Match.com who lived in Seaside. John drove out to his dates' house; and the next day out of the blue the San Jose Mercury News ran an article about Sand City; which is right next to Seaside. This was not a coincidence and was obviously based upon Johns' cell phone GPS location. Sand City is about 100 miles away from Sunnyvale; and has nothing to do with news in San Jose.
Furthermore; Individuals and/or consumers should not only be able to have more easy access to their data than government and/or corporations -- but they should also be able to use this data to not only exonerate themselves in the court of law (if needed) but also to profit from it as well. Consumers should have the option of selling their data to corporations mainly for the financial advantage of the consumer; not the corporations. Corporations should be allowed to take no more than 10 percent of profits (handling fee) garnered from selling consumers' their own data.
RELATED LINKS: TITLE 18 U.S.C., SECTION 1831 / NSA SPYING FACILITATES CORPORATE-SPONSORED PROPRIETARY INFORMATION THEFT @ http://addendumblog2.blogspot.com/2016/04/nsa-spying-facilitates-corporate.html + NSA/CIA/FBI ETC SURVEILLANCE ABUSE? @ http://addendumblog2.blogspot.com/2017/03/nsaciafbi-etc-surveillance-abuse.html + NSA SURVEILLANCE HARASSMENT? ETC @ http://addendumblog2.blogspot.com/2016/09/nsa-surveillance-harassment-etc.html + NSA SURVEILLANCE MALFEASANCE + 18 U.S. CODE § 245 - FEDERALLY PROTECTED ACTIVITIES + 18 U.S. CODE § 1512 - TAMPERING WITH A WITNESS; VICTIM OR INFORMANT ETC? @ http://addendumblog2.blogspot.com/2016/08/nsa-surveillance-malfeasance-18-us-code.html + SECRET FBI RECORDINGS @ http://addendumblog2.blogspot.com/2016/08/secret-fbi-recordings-etc.html + YOUTUBE.COM: PRIVATE BUSINESS OF PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION + THE SUNNYVALE POLICE ATTEMPT TO CHANGE A REPORTERS' STORY? @ http://addendumblog2.blogspot.com/2016/07/youtubecom-private-business-of-public.html + THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE AND/OR THE FEDERAL CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964 AND/OR THE FIFTEENTH AMENDMENT ETC @ http://addendumblog2.blogspot.com/2016/05/the-equal-protection-clause-andor.html + FACEBOOK PRIVACY; MARK ZUCKERBERG AND THE CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION ETC @ http://addendumblog1.blogspot.com/2015/07/facebook-privacy-and-mark-zuckerberg-etc.html + THE FIRST AMENDMENT OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION = FREEDOM OF SPEECH @ http://addendumblog2.blogspot.com/2016/09/the-first-amendment-of-united-states.html + NEXTDOOR.COM: PRIVATE BUSINESS OF PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION / DISCRIMINATION ETC @ http://addendumblog2.blogspot.com/2016/07/nextdoorcom-private-business-of-public.html
"Competition law is a law that promotes or seeks to maintain market competition by regulating anti-competitive conduct by companies. Competition law is implemented through public and private enforcement. In the European Union, it is referred to as both antitrust and competition law. > go to: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Competition_law
"United States antitrust law is a collection of federal and state government laws that regulates the conduct and organization of business corporations, generally to promote fair competition for the benefit of consumers. (The concept is called competition law in other English-speaking countries.) The main statutes are the Sherman Act 1890, the Clayton Act 1914 and the Federal Trade Commission Act 1914. These Acts, first, restrict the formation of cartels and prohibit other collusive practices regarded as being in restraint of trade. Second, they restrict the mergers and acquisitions of organizations that could substantially lessen competition. Third, they prohibit the creation of a monopoly and the abuse of monopoly power.
The Federal Trade Commission, the U.S. Department of Justice, state governments and private parties who are sufficiently affected may all bring actions in the courts to enforce the antitrust laws. The scope of antitrust laws, and the degree to which they should interfere in an enterprise's freedom to conduct business, or to protect smaller businesses, communities and consumers, are strongly debated. One view, mostly closely associated with the "Chicago School of economics" suggests that antitrust laws should focus solely on the benefits to consumers and overall efficiency, while a broad range of legal and economic theory sees the role of antitrust laws as also controlling economic power in the public interest..." > go to: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_antitrust_law
And don't forget about the Fourteenth Amendment: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the
jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State
wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;
nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property,
without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its
jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws..." > go to: https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxiv
NOTE: An early example' was enacted during the Roman Republic around 50 B.C. To protect the grain trade, heavy fines were imposed on anyone directly, deliberately, and insidiously stopping supply ships. Under Diocletian in 301 A.D., an edict imposed the death penalty for anyone violating a tariff system, for example by buying up, concealing, or contriving the scarcity of everyday goods. More legislation came under the constitution of Zeno of 483 A.D., which can be traced into Florentine Municipal laws of 1322 and 1325. This provided for confiscation of property and banishment for any trade combination or joint action of monopolies private or granted by the Emperor. Zeno rescinded all previously granted exclusive rights. Justinian I subsequently introduced legislation to pay officials to manage state monopolies. > go to: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Competition_law
