As the political debates rage on both sides of the 45th parallel, it might be timely as well as interesting viewing:
The Truth About Big Government (part 1 of 2)
The Truth About Big Government (part 2 of 2)
Recent Comments
RSS feed
‘Tax cut’ vs. ‘tax rebate’
September 15, 2008 — xanthippaWhat exactly is the difference between a ‘tax cut’ and a ‘tax rebate’? There are several very fundamental differences.
First, let us look at ‘taxes’:
Taxes are the money we pay to our government. This money is supposed to be used for something people need to get together for in order to achieve, such as ‘policing’ and ‘national defence’. Other ‘common goods’, such as education, road construction, and so on, are among the things we contract our governments to do. Paying taxes is the way we ‘pool our pennies’ to do this.
We pay taxes in many ways. It can be through income taxes, where an employer has to take a part of a worker’s earnings and send it to the government – only the remnant goes to the worker. Or, it can be through consumption taxes, where part of the price of each product or service is raised by some amount which is then paid (remitted) by the merchant or service provider to the government. There is more, but – you get the picture.
The government has lots of wonderful, highly trained (and higly paid) civil servants who keep meticulous records of every penny that comes in: whom it comes from and where it is going. They also keep meticulous records making sure everybody has paid what they are supposed to.
Tax Cut
In a tax cut, the amount of money the government asks for is reduced. Fewer pennies are coming into the government coffers, so more of them stay in your pocket – either because less of your wages gets sent to the government so that more can go to you, or because the price you pay for something is closer to its cost, since the price is less artificially raised by taxes.
It also means that fewer pennies are entering the government coffers. And (in an ideal world) fewer pennies coming in means fewer people who need to keep meticulous records of the pennies. As in, fewer highly skilled, well paid professionals whose salaries are paid from all these pennies coming in.
Tax Rebate
A tax rebate works very differently. The government is asking for the same amount of money to be sent into the government coffers, so the same amount of money is taken from a worker’s paycheque as before and sent to the government. Buying ‘stuff’ is still expensive, because the price of everything still includes the same amount of of taxes – which are sent to the government coffers.
The legions of highly trained (and highly paid) civil servants still keep meticulous track of all of this. Then, at the end of the year, after the civil servants have done all the figuring out and balancing of things, they decide how much more you have paid than you should have. So, they issue a cheque for this amount and send it to you.
All this time, these pennies were in the government coffers, not in your pockets – so it was much harder to make the ends meet during the whole year….but now, you get a little bit back.
These are the ‘mechanics’, if you will, of the difference between a ‘tax cut’ and a ‘tax rebate’. But there is another very important difference between these two – a difference I have not really heard people discussing.
It is the difference in who is dominant in the government-taxpayer relationship.
When we pay taxes to our government, we are, in effect, contracting the government to act on our behalf in certain areas. We, the taxpayers, are the boss. Yes, the government has means to coerce us to pay, but the psychological and philosophical principle holds for how the relationship is set up. The individual is the one who is employing the government, the individual is the empowering partner in the relationship.
When the government sends us rebates, it is the government who is the decisionmaker and the dominant partner in the relationship. The taxpayer is reduced to the grateful recipient while the government is the power which decides who deserves to get money, and how much.
To make it easier to understand the relationship, let’s reduce the scale to the level of a family. One partner works and earns a paycheque, the other looks after the household.
If the earner controls the money, then the earner decides how much to hand over to the one who looks after the household and how much to keep. The house-keeper may ask for extra when needed, but it is the earner who is in control. If, on the other hand, the earner hands over the full paycheque to the house-keeper, and perhaps gets a little allowance for personal expenses, it is the house-keeper who is in control… as in the first minute or so of the clip below:
To sum up, the idea behind a tax rebate in Oscar’s words: ‘Holy hell! The government has us on an allowance!’
Another person could be jailed for telling jokes!
September 12, 2008 — xanthippaThis time, in Italy:
The Christian world may have been dismayed, even outraged, at the Muslim reaction in 2005 to Danish cartoons satirising the Prophet Muhammed, but Italian law enforcement appears to have had its own sense of humour failure. Giovanni Ferrara, the Rome prosecutor, is invoking the 1929 Lateran Treaty between Italy and the Vatican, which stipulates that an insult to the Pope carries the same penalty as an insult to the Italian President.
…
Even certain sections of the Church are unimpressed. Father Bartolomeo Sorge, a Jesuit scholar, told La Repubblica the move to prosecute Ms Guzzanzi was incomprehensible. “We Christians put up with many insults, it is part of being a Christian, as is forgiveness. I feel sure the Pope has already forgiven those who insulted him on Piazza Navona.”
So, let’s recap this:
- Ms. Guzzani told rude jokes about the Pope
- She is charged under a law that limits free speech and dates back to fascist times and could face 5 years in jail
- the Church does not think she did anything for which she ought to be charged (as in, no victim)
- Secular laws are used to persecute her ANYWAY
Does this sound familiar?
Why are there segments of our society which think that people who are not hurt, are not offended, still need legislation to protect their feelings? Do they REALLY care about the ‘victim’ who claims NOT to be a victim?
Or is this a pretext to manipulate the populace, to exercise power over us and censor any opinions that do not advance the censor’s power?
How much clearer could this be?
(Thanks to FiveFeetOfFury for the tip)
Email I got about ‘carbon tax’
September 9, 2008 — xanthippaWith the election call up here in Canada, we have been just bombarded with opinion polls, telling us what we think. Do we really think what the pollsters tell us we think?
I was rather surprised that today, my very ‘I’ll have nothing to do with politics – don’t tell me about it – I cant’ hear you -la-la-la-la’ mom actually sent me a political email! It is one of them that are circulating about…
Since I don’t know the ultimate source, I do not know if it is correct, I don’t even know if the alleged author is a real person – it seems to me there are at least two authors here: that is not really my point. My point is more about the very fact that apolitical Canadians, those ‘sit-back-and-tax-me-I-won’t-complain’ Canadians, are actually passing around this (and similar) emails and believing them.
As in, this may or may not be ‘right’, but it is what many ‘apolitical Canadians’ are thinking…
Carbon Tax
The author of this, John Coates, lives in Nova Scotia. He would be even more disgusted if he lived here in BC where we already have a Carbon Tax .
The Liberals Carbon Tax
Politicians have, in the past, used that old bullshit phrase of ‘cutting taxes’ to get you to vote for them.
Now, Stéphane Dion, has come up with a new wrinkle on that old lie :
- Tax your heating oil and anything else you burn to move your food and everything else that you have always had in your life… but, he’ll lower your income taxes.
CONSIDER THIS from one person who has bothered to do the homework:
When a politician’s lips move, I know he’s probably lying. Mr. Dion says his carbon tax will be revenue neutral. So, I went online and found a carbon calculator and keyed in the annual energy consumption for our household and learned we produce 17 tons of greenhouse gas. Fully 60% of this usage is for electricity which we use to heat our home.
I have already improved insulation in my walls and replaced my windows and doors; use the new ‘twirley’ lights and ensured that my appliances are all Energy Star products. In the past 20 years, these measures reduced my electricity usage from 24,000 Kw Hrs per year to 16,000 Kw Hrs per year last year.
What is my reward for this improved efficiency?
- My power bill is unchanged from what it was 20 years ago.
- But, my power bill would attract a carbon tax of $104 in year one of Mr. Dion’s plan
- and $ 416 in year four.
- My power bill would rise from $166 per month to $210 per month in year four.
Since I live on a fixed income consisting of CPP and Old Age Security, my income tax bill runs at less than $200 per year. So, for my household, Mr. Dion’s ‘revenue neutral’ carbon tax will cost me $416 per year less income tax reductions of about $10 per year.
Revenue neutral? In a pig’s eye! This is a tax on seniors living on fixed incomes.
Well, Mr. Dion, you haven’t got a snowball’s chance in hell of ever getting my vote. I hope everyone else takes five minutes to run the same calculations I did and vote to send this joker to the political boneyard.
SIGNED: Jon C. Coates – 70 Ridgevalley Rd. – Halifax, N.S. – B3P 2J9
Factual data substantiating this:
- 16.96 tons
- 60% of this is for electricity or 10.4 tons/year
- @ $10/ton in year 1 = $104 or $9/mo
- @ $20/ton in year 2 = $208 or $18/mo
- @ $30/ton in year 3 = $312 or $27/mo
- @ $40/ton in year 4 = $416 or $40/mo
- Income tax paid is $110/yr.
DON’T BUY INTO THE CARBON TAX !
DON’T BELIEVE ANY POLITICIAN FROM ANY PARTY!
PASS THIS ON TO EVERYONE IN YOUR ADDRESS BOOK IN CANADA.
At first I thought this was funny…then I realized the awful truth of it.
Be sure to read all the way to the end
The Tax Poem
Tax his land, Tax his bed,
Tax the table, At which he’s fed.
Tax his tractor, Tax his mule,
Teach him taxes, Are the rule.
Tax his work, Tax his pay,
He works for peanuts, Anyway!
Tax his cow, Tax his goat,
Tax his pants, Tax his coat.
Tax his ties, Tax his shirt,
Tax his work, Tax his dirt.
Tax his tobacco, Tax his drink,
Tax him if he tries to think.
Tax his cigars, Tax his beers,
If he cries, Tax his tears.
Tax his car, Tax his gas,
Find other ways to tax his ass.
Tax all he has, Then let him know,
That you won’t be done, Till he has no dough.
When he screams and hollers, then tax him more,
Tax him till he’s good and sore.
Then tax his coffin, Tax his grave,
Tax the sod in which he’s laid.
Put these words, Upon his tomb,
‘Taxes drove me to my doom…’
When he’s gone, Do not relax,
Its time to apply…..
The Inheritance Tax
Accounts Receivable Tax
Airline Surcharge tax
Airline Fuel Tax
Airport Maintenance Tax
Building Permit Tax
Cigarette Tax
Corporate Income Tax
Death Tax
Dog License Tax
Driving Permit Tax
Employee Tax
Excise Taxes
Federal Income Tax
Federal Unemployment (UI)
Fishing License Tax
Food License Tax
Gasoline Tax ( too much per litre)
Gross Receipts Tax
Health Tax
Hunting License Tax
Hydro Tax
Inheritance Tax
Interest Tax
Liquor Tax
Luxury Taxes
Marriage License Tax
Medicare Tax
Mortgage Tax
Personal Income Tax
Poverty Tax
Prescription Drug Tax
Property Tax
Provincial Income Tax
Real Estate Tax
Recreational Vehicle Tax
Retail Sales Tax
Service Charge Tax
School Tax
Telephone Federal Tax
Telephone Federal, Provincial and Local Surcharge Taxes
Telephone Minimum Usage Surcharge Tax
Vehicle License Registration Tax
Vehicle Sales Tax
Water Tax
Watercraft Registration Tax
Well Permit Tax
Workers Compensation Tax …..
STILL THINK THIS IS FUNNY?
- Not one of these taxes existed 100 years ago,
- our nation was one of the most prosperous in the world.
- We had absolutely no national debt,
- had a large middle class,
- and Mom stayed home to raise the kids.
What in the hell happened????
Can you spell ‘politicians’????
I hope this goes around CANADA at least 100 times!!!!!
YOU can help it get there!!!!
GO AHEAD – – – be a CANADIAN !!!!!!!!!!
SEND IT AROUND TO EVERYONE AND CHANGE IT !!!!
So, have we, Canadians, finally been taxed out of our complacency?
Journalists and elites
September 8, 2008 — xanthippaSocieties change. That is natural and to be expected. And as they do, who makes up the ‘elites’ also changes. While I think that observing the patterns in societal changes may be interesting all on its own, it may also help us predict the future patterns of change.
A while ago, the ruling class was determined by family affiliation: in order to raise an army to conquer a country with, a person had to belong to a royal or, at least, an aristocratic family. Same for succession. Well, usually!
This has changed. The patterns of how and why are complex and more suited to a book than a simple blog post. Let it suffice to say that looking at today’s elites, it appears that most of their members do not have pretentions to royal bloodlines.
So, whom are todays elites made up from?
Aside from the celbrities (why they are ‘famous elite’ is a whole different post), today’s elites can be (very roughly) divided into two general groups: ‘rich elites’ and ‘intellectual elites’. (Looking at the infinite nuances of their sub-casts would take another book…so let’s stick with the ‘big’ differentiation.)
The rich elites are often marked by the pretentions of past nobility: ‘familly money’ individuals often look down on the ‘nuveau-riche’ as ‘upstarts’. But, especially in the US, where personal achievement is not yet regarded as a bad thing, the rich can all be lumped together under the general label of ‘rich elites’. Especially by the second generation…
The intellectual elites are a lot more interesting: these people have no pretentions to being able to actually do something. Instead, they see themselves as the ‘thinkers’ of society. It is not sufficient to be highly educated and very intelligent in order to be part of the ‘intellectual elite’ – scientists, for example, would satisfy these criteria, yet they are most certainly not politically influential. They get patted on their heads, warmly welcome (for a little while) if they can be temporarily useful, but then they get locked back in their labs. So, what is that quality?
Unsurprisingly enough, to be a member of the ‘intellectual elite’, one has to appear to fit in comfortably with the ‘rich elite’. This ‘fitting in’ could be an ostentatiously overdone ‘poor look’ (like the ‘bohemians’ that many University Professors used to affect while it was fashionable), but underneath, one must be able to act rich, rich, rich!
This immediatelly rules out those who are unpretentious – keeping up fake appearances is simply not attractive to unpretentious people. Now, since our Universities and Colleges have, to a great degree, been staffed by professors who typically hold radically socialist views, it is not surprising that those who wished to be admitted to these ‘intellectual elites’ had to affect similar manners and assimilate these very political views.
So, the group which emerges as being most politically influential (other than the ‘old rich elites’ – as in, old-money families) is made up of pretentious, radical socialists! In Canada and the US, we easily recognize them as our ‘Liberals’ and ‘Democrats’…
But, where do the journalists fit in? They, most certainly, are not even now rich enough to be admitted to either of the ‘elites’ of today! Yet, in Journalism schools, they were subjected to radical socialist teachings. And, now, they are sent to cover the lives and actions of the two elites. Is is surprising, then, that getting to know these people as individuals during the course of their work, the journalists (who, like all of us, wish to be ‘special’ and ‘extraordinary’) have come to identify themselves with one of these two elites?
Unless born or married into a rich family, a journalist cannot hope to fit in with the ‘rich elite’. That is just a simple economic fact – even the best newspapers do not pay that well. However, many of them can and do fit in comfortably with the ‘intellectual elites’. Well, sort of. At least, they are much closer – close enough that from the point of view of the journalists, they feel like they fit in.
And while there may be some crossover, at least in the USA, the ‘rich elite’ is traditionally associated with the pro-business Republicans while the ‘intellectual elite’ tends to be associated with the socialist Democrats. The rest of us mortals fall into one or the other camp, based on what we think is a better way to organize a society: based on individual achievement or on group-rule. (In Canada, the ‘rich elite’ is almost non-existant, so the ‘Conservative’ party only retains the image of ‘old money’, rather than embodies it – but despite the facts, the image remains. The ‘intellectual elite’ in Canada is split between the ‘Liberal’ and ‘New Democratic’ parties).
Is it surprising, then, that when covering ‘their own’ elite, the journalists of the MainStream Media find themselves ‘cheering’, and while when covering ‘the other elite’, they are incessantlly booing?
All right, so I don’t have a revelation here, or much of a real point of any kind. But, watching this particular pattern is interesting, is it not?
MSMs approval ratings sink lower that Bush’s
September 5, 2008 — xanthippaWe have all heard the cries that the Main-Stream Media (MSM) has a pro-liberal, anti-conservative bias. Members of the MSM dispute this, righteous indignation inflaming their passions. I am convinced that they truly are unable to see any bias in their coverage – from daily events to political commentary. Yet, I am equally convince that the bias exists – and that it is very, very pronounced.
‘Bias’ is such a difficult thing to prove – yet it is easy to spot. It might not be ‘what’ is written, but ‘how’. It may not be the words a newsanchor speaks, but how they tilt their head, square or slump their shoulders, how steadily they hold their gaze.
I notice these things quite a bit – being an Aspie, I do not understand body-language and facial expressions naturally. Therefore, I have had to learn the nuances of their meanings – and am accustomed to ‘search and interpret’ them. Where others might get a ‘feeling’ or simply be swayed, I have to actually go through the conscious process of interpreting the manner, affect and body language. So, yes, I do see it – and it drives me crazy when people deny it is there!
NewsBusters had an article recently, which confirmed what I have been thinking: it is not a ‘conspiracy’ among media members, nor are they bribed, or anything ‘fun’ like that. The righteous indignation most members of the MSM feel does not ring false. Something else is going on. Here is a part of the conversation between two journalists, quoted in that article:
HARWOOD: Well, some of – I get what you’re saying, and look, I think that people who talk about bias in the mainstream press, left of center bias, are not imagining things.
KERNAN: No.
HARWOOD: It has to do with the kind of people who go into journalism, okay? So I’m not arguing with that general notion. I think those of us in journalism have to do our best to try to present the most objective view we can of what we have –
KERNAN: I agree.
HARWOOD: But everybody brings their own filter into it.
This is an honest admission that most of the people who wish to enter the profession of journalism are, for reasons unknown, more likely to hold left-of-centre views than otherwise. But, surely, once in journalism school, the professors will have taught their young recruits how to recognize their own bias, and how to overcome it?
Well, not in my experience…. I went to a University which was known for excellence in two disciplines: journalism and physics. I studied the latter. Yet, I did have some interactions with the school of journalism…
When one of my Math exams was located in the Journalism buildings, some friends joked I did not have to study for it- it was ‘bound to be cancelled’. Regardless, I went to the exam – only to find the whole building locked up, metal grills blocking all entrances: someone had phoned in a bomb threat. I got upset – a bomb threat?!? That was not a laughing matter! Yet, other students tried to comfort me: “This is the Journalism building – the profs would fail them if they did not phone in one or two bomb threats!”
So, who exactly are these professors of journalism?
Here, demographics play a very important role… The journalism departments are (or, at least, while I was in University, they were) run by baby-boomers and ex-hippies: the same people who fought against the Vietnam war by staging student protests and who learned the wrong lesson about ‘class struggle’: instead of learning (and teaching) to oppose ‘the establishent’, they learned to fight the political views which defined ‘the establishment’ of their youth.
These people are still trying to fight McCathy!
These professors even go so far as to teach that ‘responsible journalism’ is one which provides the information in such a way as to lead their audience to the ‘correct’ opinion! In other words, instead of teaching ‘impartial journalism’ which reports the facts and allows the audience to form its own conclusions, they are teaching young journalists that producing propaganda is ‘responsible journalism’! No wonder most of today’s journalists are unable to discern their own bias, or see manipulative reporting as inappropriate!
This is, by no means, an American phenomenon: it is worldwide… with the added dimension that people outside of the US add a very unmistakable ‘anti-American’ twist. Please, indulge me here for just a little bit: American or not, we are all bombarded by the coverage of the US elections. So, I could not help but notice….
Both Barack Obama’s father, and step-father (who influenced him as he grew up) were employed by oil companies. I do not think there is anything wrong with the fact itself – I am only asking if you think that most people would be left unaware of this fact had this candidate been a Republican?
Which brings me to Mr. Bush – perhaps one of the least liked politicians today. His popularity ratings today are – according to the most recent polls – somewhere between 35% and 30%. So, how do the American people see their media?
Among unaffiliated voters, 49% say reporters are trying to hurt Palin, while 32% say their coverage is unbiased. Only five percent (5%) say reporters are trying to help her.
Only 32% of ‘unaffiliated’ Americans think the media does not have left-wing bias! This, by coincidence, is about the same percentage as approves of Bush as President.
This ought to make them think…
Things that make you go: Hmmmm!
September 3, 2008 — xanthippaVia Five Feet of Fury, I came across an interesting post on Ghost of a Flea:
Tigh/Roslin ’08
The Russians may want to consider their latest imperial adventure. Dick Cheney is on his way to Georgia and Ukraine and given what comes next they might look back fondly upon the current Vice President. They had better pray for an Obama presidency; they do not want Colonel Tigh or President Roslin with their finger on the trigger. So say we all.
“The parallels continue! McCain is a military man who spent time in a Vietnam prison camp, the character of Col. Tigh is a military man who spent time in a Cylon prison camp. Sarah Palin comes from a family of school teachers, the character of Laura Roslin was school teacher before becoming Secretary of Education (and then later President).”
I don’t usually re-print the whole of another blogger’s post, but, well, this one was just too brilliant!
Candidate for …
August 29, 2008 — xanthippaHere, in Canada, we are likely to have an election soon. How do I know?
Yesterday, a nice looking gentleman knocked on my door and introduced himself as a candidate in my riding. Since no election has indeed been called yet, I asked him:
‘A candidate in what?’
He replied: ‘For the Liberal Party’.
To explain: the sitting Prime Minister (PM) is presiding over a minority Conservative government. That means that he cannot pass legislation unless some of the oposition parties – like the Liberal Party, the New Democratic Party, Block Quebecois or the Green Party. The PM is claiming he might have to ask the Governor General to disolve the Parliament and call an election, because the oposition parties are not willing to talk – and so the legislature is at a stalemate.
The Opposition Leader and head of the Liberal Party, Stephane Dion, is claiming that calling an election now would be prepostrous, that things are working just fine and that no election is necessary. In fact, he claims that calling an election would be just the PMs whim! Nobody, according to Mr. Dion, wants or needs an election now – except Mr. Harper, the PM.
OK, so this is the situation:
- the Liberals claim they don’t want an election and say we don’t need one
- no election had been called
- a Liberal candidate is knocking on my door
Which is why I had asked him ‘A candidate in WHAT’?
….he was equally as swift on the uptake during the rest of our conversation. And, yes, I pick on all political candidates, without regard to party, age, sex, and so on. Most have learned to avoid my door. This guy was new, I guess.
So, why are the Liberal candidates ‘hitting the streets’ if they are all so convinced there is no need for an election?
Can ‘good’ athletes compete in ‘bad’ Olympics?
August 6, 2008 — xanthippaThe Beijing Olympics is about as much about sports as Sexapalooza is about human rights.
No, this is not at all being facetious – it is a very valid comparison. Without ‘human rights’ (specifically, the freedom to exercise them), Sexapalooza would not be able to educate its consumer base on ‘all aspects of sexuality’, its primary goal. Similarly, without ‘sports’, the Beijing Olympics organizers (i.e. Chinese Government) could not educate its consumer base on ‘all aspects of how wonderful their regime is’, their primary goal.
(Why the comparison to sexuality? Because typically, repressing sexuality is among the first goals of an opressive regime. And, you can bet your bippies, there will be no Sexapalooza (or anything even remotely similar) anywhere within smiting distance of the Beijing Olympics.)
When, eariler, there were calls for boycott of the games, ‘people’ said: “But what about the athletes? It is not fair to them!” It seemed that, in many people’s eyes, the ‘right’ of the athletes to compete in the Olympics somehow invalidated any concerns about the message the world is sending by allowing this farce to go on!
By participating, the world is very much condoning the harvesting (yes, HARVESTING – like, as in, ‘reaping’ – by definition) of human organs from political prisoners/innocent citizens – and that is just a tip of the iceberg of opression in China!
But, sending a message that this behaviour is not acceptable and NOT participating in this sham of an Olympics would, somehow, be ‘unfair’ to the athletes… We just don’t understand – they TRAINED for this! It’s their DREAM! And everyone knows that an athlete’s dream is so much more important thant a ‘regular’ Chinese person’s nightmare!
Their ‘right’ to compete is SOOOO much more important than a ‘regular’ Chinese person’s right to keep her liver! (I wonder if Monty Python, in their worst nightmare, ever thought that their ‘can we have your liver’ sketch would come true….ecxept without the ‘asking’ bit!)
So, as we are about to be force-fed a set of Olympic games in a regime so controlling of its people, it dictates how cheering may or may not be done, why is nobody asking:
‘What ABOUT the athletes?’
Who are these people for whose ‘right’ to ‘get a podium’ so many others have to pay for in blood? (And, make no mistake about it – much of the Olympic fanfare HAS been paid by the proceeds from ‘organ harvesting’. Instead of ‘blood diamonds’, these are ‘blood medals’!)
Who are these priveleged few, whose desire for fame is so great, they will – literally – look the other way, amile and say nothing, accept the medals as their dues… while their hosts murder and torture to get them these medals?
I, for one, do not think that any being worthy of being called ‘human’ could possibly choose to elevate themselves this high above others. It is arrogant elitism at its worst. And it is allowing their bodies to be used to promote this corrupt and opressive regime – for a fitting reward, of course!
So, would ‘good athletes’ prostitute themselves to the ‘grim reapers’?
A long tail for your house
August 5, 2008 — xanthippaPlease, consider the options which would open up to you if your house had a really long tail – a fibre optic tail, that is! One belonging to the homeowner, NOT the ISPs! We could take a step away from throttling off net neutrality.
‘The really long tail’ from ‘ars technica’
With more ISPs discussing ‘bundling’ accessible websites the way cable companies offer ‘bundled channel packages’, this would significantly improve consumer choice.
Xanthippa's Chamberpot 