Yesterday the FCC Commissioner said this...

Posts: 448 · Posted: Wed Mar 02, 2005 11:42 am Post subject:

reebok wrote:

that's what everyone said in the late 1700's right? accept the tea tax, the stamp tax, and everything else for that matter...that's why we have such a great country today.

Hah... you beat me to the punch, reebok.... snuck that post in while I was banging out a response. Cheers!

Posts: 40 · Full Forum Member Joined: Feb 21, 2005 Posts: 40

rebus wrote:

Those who got on the boat were the ones who embraced independent thought, freedom of choice, and most importantly, accepted responsibility (and the consequences) for their actions.

(again with the hostility)

it is ironic that you mention responsibility and consequences for ones actions. i hope you see that in your choices.

take a deep breath. its not the end of the world that we disagree. and certainly nothing to be hostile about!

i will be waiting in the wings when you feel like having a civil discussion, and remaining on topic versus spewing out anti-government diatribes and whether or not people got on the boat or not.

Posts: 206 · Posted: Wed Mar 02, 2005 11:58 am Post subject:

iskyfly wrote:

Martlet wrote:

I didn't even have a home phone until I got Voip. Should they force me to in case I needed to dial 911?

Let it be my decision.

Having 911 service available to you isnt just for you.
It is for anyone that comes near your property. (guests, neighbors, delivery people, garbage collector, etc etc). You put people other than yourself at risk by not having 911 service.

So? How on God's green earth can you justify forcing someone to have 911? As I said before. I didn't even have a home phone until I got Voip. Should we force everyone who doesn't have a phone to get one? If it's "not just for me", shouldn't we force everyone to have a cell phone, also?

Either you have government regulated Voip, and you pay those prices, or you leave Voip alone and allow people who want POTS benefits to stick with POTS and those of us that don't care to use Voip.

Posts: 40 · Full Forum Member Joined: Feb 21, 2005 Posts: 40

Quote:

So?

what does that mean exactly? does that mean you disagree?

Posts: 206 · Posted: Wed Mar 02, 2005 12:08 pm Post subject:

iskyfly wrote:

Quote:

So?

what does that mean exactly? does that mean you disagree?

Yes. Didn't you read anything past those first 3 characters?

Posts: 448 · Posted: Wed Mar 02, 2005 12:11 pm Post subject:

iskyfly wrote:

reebok wrote:

911 can be used for others, but my phone is not "for" them, and no one should expect anyone else to have it, or to be able to use it when they need it.

which is what 911 is meant for- to be able to used when needed by anyone. there are numerous scenarios where you could be incapacitated and somebody who is not aware that you do not have 911 tries to call using your phone. what happens? every second counts....

That is a choice reebok makes for himself. If he made the conscious decision not to active 911, and then at some later time becomes incapacitated, then he lives with (or dies by) the consequences of his decision. It is not my place, or your place, or anyone else's place, to tell reebok he must purchase 911 for his own safety.

Posts: 40 · Full Forum Member Joined: Feb 21, 2005 Posts: 40

Martlet wrote:

iskyfly wrote:

Quote:

So?

what does that mean exactly? does that mean you disagree?

Yes. Didn't you read anything past those first 3 characters?

of course i did, but it didnt answer my question.

do you disagree that 911 is not only for you?

Posts: 40 · Full Forum Member Joined: Feb 21, 2005 Posts: 40

rebus wrote:

That is a choice reebok makes for himself.

a choice that could affect others. in his own words, "responsibility (and the consequences)"

Posts: 482 · Posted: Wed Mar 02, 2005 12:21 pm Post subject:

Rather than an "it has to be my way only" attitude, it would be healthier to look at this as a debate of give-and-take. Maybe I learn something from you, maybe you learn something from me...at least, that's how I look at it.

Now, I'd be willing to bet I'm as conservative/libertarian as anyone else here. But there is a legitimate role for goverment, we can all agree on that. The only question is where do you draw the line. You can't drive as fast as you want, not only because it endangers other people but because it also endangers you. The civil libertarian in me says it's not the government's job to protect me from myself...I despise seat belt laws...yet I recognize that driving a car is not a right but a priviledge. In fact, much of what we loosely term to be "rights" are not guaranteed by the Constitution.

No, I don't like the government telling me what to do, but strictly speaking, any law or regulation is a restriction of freedom in the purest sense of the word. Yet there is a common-sense level at which we all consider this acceptable, because it is what seperates democracy from anarchy. In a democracy, the people govern themselves...which is another way of saying that the people agree to be governed and restricted by a common set of laws and regulations. In America, those are established by our elected representatives, and if we don't like the law or we want it changed, we control the vehicle of change by electing different representatives.

So unless you are an anarchist in the strictest sense of the word, you, like all of us, submit yourself to the laws and regulations which "we the people" establish for ourselves, and you effect change by engaging in public debate, lobbying your elected officials, or working to elect officials more worthy of your support.

As strongly as you feel, have you written your elected officials or the FCC? I have. I urged them to get involved in the 911/VoIP issue, because it's clear that free market forces alone are not getting the job done. I used to be a big believer in the "free" market, but watching the way big business treats America and doesn't give a crap for supporting American jobs (and by extension, the economy and future generations), I am finding more room in my worldview these days for government to take a more active role in encouraging employers to invest in America first.

Even at the founding of our country, when some seem to believe we revolted against off all taxes and regulations, the government took an active role in such matters. Remember the Whiskey Rebellion? George Washington ordered federal troops to confront a group of citizens angry about the whiskey tax, and authorized them to use lethal force...which they did. And throughout our nation's history, we've employes tarrifs, taxes, regulations and the like to encourage things that benefit America or discourage things which are detrimental our well-being.

Anyway, to get back on topic...at least I recognize that those who feel 911 should be an optional service have taken a valid position. Hopefully you would agree that those of us who believe 911 is important enough to make it a federally regulated (and possibly mandated) service also make a legitimate case.

Posts: 448 · Posted: Wed Mar 02, 2005 12:24 pm Post subject:

iskyfly wrote:

rebus wrote:

That is a choice reebok makes for himself.

a choice that could affect others. in his own words, "responsibility (and the consequences)"

Then don't go to reebok's house.... or for that matter, anywhere else which does not have 911 service immediately available, such as driving down the Interstate, flying in an airplane, boating on the lake, hiking through the woods, sitting under a shade tree a thousand feet from the house, at a camp site up in the mountains, or anywhere else there isn't a landline within arm's reach.