Tag Archives: Socialist

Department of the Internet

Posted on by

Net Neutrality GraphicThe US Department of the Internet is here, in all its chewy, buttery, governmental goodness.  And you can bet the DOI will be jam-gepacked with all the efficiency, thrift, cheer, good will and responsiveness as your local DMV.  Or, uh, any other federal government function.

Like Congress.

Net Neutrality BootFrom APNews.com:

Regulators OK ‘net neutrality’ rules for Internet providers

by Anne Flaherty

WASHINGTON (AP) — Internet service providers like Comcast, Verizon, AT&T, Sprint and T-Mobile now must act in the “public interest” when providing a mobile connection to your home or phone, under rules approved Thursday by a divided Federal Communications Commission.

The plan, which puts the Internet in the same regulatory camp as the telephone and bans business practices that are “unjust or unreasonable,” represents the biggest regulatory shakeup to the industry in almost two decades. The goal is to prevent providers from slowing or blocking web traffic, or creating paid fast lanes on the Internet, said FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler.

The 3-2 vote was expected to trigger industry lawsuits that could take several years to resolve. Still, consumer advocates cheered the regulations as a victory for smaller Internet-based companies which feared they would have to pay “tolls” to move their content.

On its face, hey, “net neutrality,” what’s not to love about “neutrality,” right?

After all, it’s about “fairness.”  Air quotes.  “Fair” – “ness.”

But then there’s this:

Opponents, including many congressional Republicans, said the FCC plan constitutes dangerous government overreach that would eventually drive up consumer costs and discourage industry investment.

Initially, one can rest assured there will in fact be a new department created by the federal government (why not the Department of the Internet?), with its concomitant bloated bureaucracy, profligate spending, unfettered reach and brain-glazing indifference.

And as I wrote earlier, if the internet wasn’t broken, why the stultifying alacrity to allegedly “repair” it?

But here’s the real truth to the situation, and what these rules will have wrought:

Michael Powell, a former Republican FCC chairman who now runs the National Cable and Telecommunications Association, warned that consumers would almost immediately “bear the burden of new taxes and increased costs, and they will likely wait longer for faster and more innovative networks since investment will slow in the face of bureaucratic oversight.”

It’s not true that consumers would see new taxes right away. The Internet Tax Freedom Act bans taxes on Internet access, although that bill expires in October. While Congress is expected to renew that legislation, it’s conceivable that states could eventually push Congress for the ability to tax Internet service now that it has been deemed a vital public utility.

And why wouldn’t states do this, when they are actively seeking new cash sources for in-state Free Cheese programs?

Bottom line?

“Read my lips. More Internet taxes are coming. It’s just a matter of when,” Commissioner Pai said.

O joyous day.  A more regulated and less responsive internet, uninterested and unmotivated in technological innovation, for which we’ll all be paying more money.

Run by the same people who brought you ObamaCare and the healthcare.gov website that was the epitome of productivity, coherence and budgetary frugality.

BZ

 

 Share

332 pages of regulations — why can’t we see them?

Posted on by

Internet - Keep It FreeUsing Europe as a model, we can see that throttling the internet via “net neutrality” results in fewer innovations and fewer choices.  All in the interest of “fairness,” you see.

“Net neutrality distorts competition to benefit one group and disadvantage another—the very definition of crony capitalism.” ~ JeffEisenach

Demorats haven’t seen the rules for the FCC’s “net neutrality” proposal — all 332 pages of them — but they’re applauding the rules anyway.  In just the fashion they did with ObamaKare, passed in the dead of night, unilaterally, and unable to see the bill itself — just like the FCC.

Essentially, the US controls the internet.  We could cede power of course, but why would we?  Oh right.  It’s not “fair” for the US to actually have power, according to Mr Barack Hussein Obama.  Again, it is all about his background, his raising and education.  You need to read this to understand Mr Obama.

332 pages of regulations — why can’t we see them?

From the NationalReview.com:

FCC Chair Refuses to Testify before Congress ahead of Net Neutrality Vote

by Andrew Johnson

Two prominent House committee chairs are “deeply disappointed” in Federal Communications Commission chairman Tom Wheeler for refusing to testify before Congress as “the future of the Internet is at stake.”

Wheeler’s refusal to go before the House Oversight Committee on Wednesday comes on the eve of the FCC’s vote on new Internet regulations pertaining to net neutrality. The committee’s chairman, Representative Jason Chaffetz (R., Utah), and Energy and Commerce Committee chairman Fred Upton (R., Mich.) criticized Wheeler and the administration for lacking transparency on the issue.

“So long as the chairman continues to insist on secrecy, we will continue calling for more transparency and accountability at the commission,” Chaffetz and Upton said in a statement. “Chairman Wheeler and the FCC are not above Congress.”

If that isn’t bad enough, does anyone consider what I term “logical extensions” — ?

Who physically controls the internet?  Who controls the tap, the faucet, the “shut-off” if you will?  And how can this power be transferred?

Check your six, I always say.

From the NationalJournal.com:

Republicans Fear Net Neutrality Plan Could Lead to UN Internet Powers

by Brendan Sasso

The U.S. government’s plan to enact strong net neutrality regulations could embolden authoritarian regimes like China and Russia to seize more power over the Internet through the United Nations, a key Senate Republican warned Wednesday.

Senate Commerce Committee Chairman John Thune of South Dakota argued that by claiming more authority over Internet access for net neutrality, the Federal Communications Commission will undermine the ability of the U.S. to push back against international plots to control the Internet and censor content.

Countries like Russia already have made it clear that they want the International Telecommunications Union or another United Nations body to have more power over the Internet, Thune said.

“It seems like reclassifying broadband, as the administration is doing, is losing a valuable argument,” Thune said at his panel’s hearing on Internet governance. “How do you prevent ITU involvement when you’re pushing to reclassify the Internet under Title II of the Communications Act, and is everyone aware of that inherent contradiction?”

Excellent questions but won’t be answered.

I have but one logical question:

If these regulations are so wonderful, so beneficent, then why the complete opacity?  Why the stonewalling?  Why the refusal to embrace transparency upon which, after all, Mr Barack Hussein Obama said his entire administration is based?

Easy answer: the FCC and Mr Obama want no pushback and NO, the regulations will NOT be beneficial for Americans.

Finally: the internet is NOT broken.  Why are you insistent upon “fixing” it?

Simple as that.

BZ

Net Neutrality Graphic

 Share

What Socialism does for you:

Posted on by

Francois Hollande SocialistIt makes you vote with your feet.

From the UKIndependent.com:

French say au revoir to France: Over two million French people now live abroad, and most are crossing the channel and heading to London

by Ann Penketh

The land of 400 cheeses, the birthplace of Molière and Coco Chanel, is facing an unprecedented exodus. Up to 2.5 million French people now live abroad, and more are bidding “au revoir” each year.

A French parliamentary commission of inquiry is due to publish its report on emigration on Tuesday, but Le Figaro reported yesterday that because of a political dispute among its members over the reasons for the exodus, a “counter-report” by the opposition right-wing is to be released as an annex.

Centre-right deputies are convinced that the people who are the “lifeblood” of France are leaving because of “the impression that it’s impossible to succeed”, said Luc Chatel, secretary general of the UMP, who chaired the commission.

“Impossible to succeed”?  How odd; I thought that Francois Hollande, as an avowed Socialist and a longtime leader of the Socialist Party, was going to solve everything through Socialism?

There is “an anti-work mentality, absurd fiscal pressure, a lack of promotion prospects, and the burden of debt hanging over future generations,” he told Le Figaro. However, the report’s author Yann Galut, a Socialist deputy, said the UMP was unhappy because it had been unable to prove that a “massive exile” had taken place since the election of President François Hollande in 2012.

Let’s see; what’s the French “work week” again?  Oh, that’s right: 35 hours.  And what is the vacation policy?  That’s right:

5 weeks (30 days with Saturdays, but not Sundays counted as holidays) plus up to 22 days of RTT (Réduction du Temps de Travail, English: Reduction of Working Time) for the employees that choose to work more than 35 hours per week – the “limit” is 39 per week, further additional hours are compensated in almost all the cases by money and not by additional leave hours. Bonus days off are given to people who take a part of their annual leave outside summer (3 days grant 1 bonus day off, 6 days grant 2 bonus days off). Combining all these rules, in a few public offices and in a few companies like Orange, the resulting total, for certain employees, might be of 9.5 paid vacation weeks (5 weeks of vacation + 4 weeks of RTT + 0.5 week of bonus days off). Furthermore, there are 11 public holidays (that, though, in many companies are not paid days off, with the exception of the 1st of May, for which a remuneration is compulsory).[8][12][14]

Even with that, Hollande thought it too constrictive.

What is certain is the steady rise in the number of emigrants across all sections of society, from young people looking for jobs to entrepreneurs to pensioners.

According to a French Foreign Ministry report published at the end of last month, the top five destinations are the UK, Switzerland, the US, Belgium and Germany. The French consulate in London has estimated that up to 400,000 French nationals live in the capital, a number equal to the population of France’s sixth largest city.

You mean that persons in France don’t care for nightly hot-and-cold running carbeques?

The Crux of the Biscuit:

“Young people feel stuck, and they want interesting jobs. Businessmen say the labour code is complex and they’re taxed even before they start working. Pensioners can also pay less tax abroad,” she says.

It is also almost impossible to fire an employee in France.  But why work when Hollande’s State will take care of you? — at great taxpayer expense, I should care to add.

Further: There are around 1.4 million companies in France without employees. Why is that?

But again, the French government is throwing the word “patriotic” around like the current Obola government, as in: it’s “patriotic” to pay more taxes and abide by more regulations.

Frankly, Hollande and Obola don’t know the meaning of the word “patriotic.”

BZ

 

 Share

Last day to weigh in on “Net Neutrality” — i.e., government-controlled communications

Posted on by

Laptop ExplodingToday is the last day the FCC will allow you to express your opinion on so-called “net neutrality.”  You can go to the FCC website here.

A nice phrase, except that “net neutrality” isn’t.  Neutral, that is.

It is a ways and a means for the government to control and regulate something that doesn’t require controlling and regulating — all it requires is what it currently has: a free market.

When “net neutrality” exists, two things primarily occur: 1) rates go up and 2) innovation plummets.

The bulk of Western Europe has a version of NN and those precise things have occurred: rate hikes and a lack of entrepreneurship and cutting-edge technology.  Not to mention general overall lower internet connectivity speeds.

For the obvious reason that, in order to get anything accomplished, a new idea or upgrade has to be proposed to an entirely new and large bureaucracy that will do its best to sit on and table said idea or upgrade, simply to exhibit its power and “prove” its worth.

Public utilities are regulated because everyone needs water and power.  Those things aren’t merely “suggestions.”  They are mandatory for survival.  The internet, however, is not “mandatory” for survival.  It’s a “nice” thing to have but you won’t die due to its removal from your life.

So-called “net neutrality” is a specious solution for a problem that doesn’t even exist.  It gets our government into an area where it doesn’t belong.  And I go back to some of my foundational Libertarian bents here, which occasionally get the best of me:

When the government, any government, intrudes into the primary source of communications today — the internet — it can shut you down when you proffer speech that IT doesn’t care for.  Which is what Socialist and Communist countries do, and nations run by dictators.

Signing off on “net neutrality” will not only allow the government to have its hands upon the spigot, but will allow it to silence you and potentially prosecute you as well.  For speech that it does not approve — on the Left or on the Right.

Leftists in the government are already working to revamp the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights but, specifically, the First and Second Amendments.  Facts in evidence.

Note to self: continue to look around.

BZ

P.S.

What does Free Speech protect?  It assures the worst of speech; it assures the most challenging of speech.  It does not exist for milktoast speech.  It embraces truth and emotion and change and shocking speech.  Sometimes older speech can be the most shocking, the most challenging, and the most warranted.

 

 Share