Rob Pegoraro - Fast Forward: FCC Takes Sides in Net-Neutrality Debate - washingtonpost.com

On Monday, the new chairman of the Federal Communications Commission said the agency would write rules requiring Internet providers to do something many of them already say they do: deliver online content without discrimination. So why were there so many long faces in telecom afterward?

I think I've posted about a thousand comments on this in various places, here is simply the latest, and maybe most succinct:

Several points:

You mention that new Federal monitoring would invite corruption down the road.

No, I'd say it pretty much guarantees it. And at considerable expense, only to prevent what is commonly accepted as a vendor infringement that has rarely taken place. Also consider that in the cases where it has taken place, existing laws have handled the situation.

You mentioned that you, as a consumer, would rather have usage caps than have a particular application you use stop working.

But what about ME, as a consumer? I hate usage caps and have stuck with DSL over Cable for my Internet primarily for that distinction. If I use any of the applications you refer to then I guess I've never noticed the difference. Now that's subject to change, as are usage caps. Suppose after such new legislation all carriers either established low caps, or cut their existing caps in half or quarter as a defensive measure? Would "network neutrality" be worth it still?

I resent the continued implication that all these still potential problems we face are the result of free enterprise and all we need is yet another government agency to make it all better. There is very little about cable, telephone or cell phone service that resembles free enterprise as all are heavily taxed, and government granted monopoly based.

If we all had a dozen high speed Internet providers to chose from I have little doubt that some would offer plans that satisfy my needs, and others would offer plans that satisfy yours. I'd rather see our legislatures try and figure out how to spur the existence of that many alternatives.

Let's just confess right now that the only way to have a single plan that satisfies everyone is for men from Mars for come down and offer us free unlimited Internet service. Any other option, whether government based or not will have to either limit choice (pleasing one customer but not another) or run at a loss that will have to be paid for unequally by the consumer base.

Not surprisingly this same solution set applies to many other things in our lives and ultimately the decisions we make will determine whether the first two hundred years of our country's history were a waste of time or not.

Does Flickr Censor User Content Over Blatantly Fake DMCA Notices? | Thomas Hawk Digital Connection

Many bloggers and news outlets accused Flickr of censorship and political bias in the removal of what was seen by many as a clear fair use parody image critical of the President. The case made the national press and with an EFF attorney adding that Alkhateeb indeed had a very strong fair use defense. After a substantial amount of critical press over the image, Flickr Community Manager Heather Champ finally came out defending Flickr over the issue saying that Alkhateeb’s image had been removed from Flickr due to a “a complete Notice of Infringement as outlined by the DMCA (Digitial Millenium Copyright Act)” In the same breath Champ accused the press and blogosphere of being “makey uppey.” Shortly afterwards, the thread where Flickr users were complaining about this image deletion was shut down by Flickr staff.

People need to read 1984 and Brave New World again (along with a history of the Soviet Union in the late 20th century).

A state does not need to be all-powerful in order to be oppressive. They simply need to convince enough people to act as spies and censors on their behalf so as to intimidate or throttle dissent.

Knowing Yahoo's history as I do (as a former customer) I am quite willing to chalk this one up to incompetence, coupled with a good dose of political bias. Don't expect the Yahoo's to fess up to either. Their efforts to reinforce the illusion that they have done no wrong, and can do no wrong only adds to my contempt for the company. Eventually everyone will figure out that their ability to deliver falls far short of their promises. My only regret is that the primary beneficiary of Yahoo's demise will likely be Microsoft.

FOXNews.com - Lawmaker Accused of Fannie Mae Conflict of Interest - Politics | Republican Party | Democratic Party | Political Spectrum

Although Frank now blames Republicans for the failure of Fannie and Freddie, he spent years blocking GOP lawmakers from imposing tougher regulations on the mortgage giants. In 1991, the year Moses was hired by Fannie, the Boston Globe reported that Frank pushed the agency to loosen regulations on mortgages for two- and three-family homes, even though they were defaulting at twice and five times the rate of single homes, respectively.

Three years later, President Clinton’s Department of Housing and Urban Development tried to impose a new regulation on Fannie, but was thwarted by Frank. Clinton now blames such Democrats for planting the seeds of today’s economic crisis.

"I think the responsibility that the Democrats have may rest more in resisting any efforts by Republicans in the Congress or by me when I was president, to put some standards and tighten up a little on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac," Clinton said recently.

EXCLUSIVE: No. 3 at Justice OK'd Panther reversal - Washington Times

Associate Attorney General Thomas J. Perrelli, the No. 3 official in the Obama Justice Department, was consulted and ultimately approved a decision in May to reverse course and drop a civil complaint accusing three members of the New Black Panther Party of intimidating voters in Philadelphia during November's election, according to interviews.

(And according to videos.) The allegations are well supported for anyone with working eyeballs.

This is nothing more than self promotion by the permanent entrenched federal bureaucracy, who know better than to threaten the interests of the big boss, especially a Democrat who sees no harm in ever growing federal power. Same as it ever was. See previous article for legal self-serving combined with technological incompetence.

The Department of Justice should take a hint from the Microsoft suit: Don't go after Google.

Easy to agree with conclusion of this article at Slate, but not the premises...

“The antitrust prosecution against Microsoft was misguided. To be sure, the government had the facts right—in the late 1990s, the software giant looked unbeatable.”

You think they are beatable now? Apple, the only serious commercial competitor switched to Intel processors, and the majority of Apple computers now dual boot to Windows, or run virtualization software that runs Windows in a window. These copies of Windows which must be purchased separately actually make more money for MS than the copies bundled with a new computer. Apple isn't a competitor, it's a partner.

'When Gates learned that Intel was building a chip that would let programmers deploy enhanced graphics within non-Microsoft operating systems, he wrote to Intel CEO Andy Grove, "I don't understand why Intel funds a group that is against Windows 95." Intel stopped developing the chip.'

And what has changed now, other than they have learned to use the telephone rather than e-mail for these communications? Everyone now depends on Intel, for almost all computing where Microsoft has an interest. The exceptions are fringe, and not insurmountable. Yes, if everyone replaced every PC with an iPhone Microsoft would be in trouble, but that's not about to happen. I'm quite sure that everyone at the Department of Justice that has an iPhone (and there are probably quite a few) are using them to connect to machines running copies of Windows and Office that together cost more than the iPhone itself. While there is a huge infrastructure needed to earn Apple what it makes on that iPhone, for Microsoft, all they produce is a tick mark on a spreadsheet somewhere where DoJ keeps track of how many Windows/Office licenses they “need”.

“The theory behind the prosecution was that Microsoft's mobster tactics would raise the price of software and slow down innovation. But that didn't happen.”

How do you measure something that didn't happen? This reminds me of young people who say things like “If it weren't for Microsoft we wouldn't have the PC as it exists today.” Maybe not. Maybe we would have something more reliable, using less power, not prone to spyware or pop-ups, free from spam. There a lot of innovations that simply didn't happen because both Microsoft and Intel sucked all the oxygen out of the room. The threats posed to MS/Intel by either Google or Apple are all future tense and speculative.

“It got beat anyway. Many of Microsoft's assets turned out not to matter, because upstarts like Google and old foes like Apple found ways to innovate around them.”

With MS still holding majority share in all of these areas and making enough profit every year to buy thousands of small businesses, you have a very creative definition of “beat”.

“Windows and Office—that it was blind to opportunities in new markets. Microsoft couldn't make a Web e-mail system like Gmail, because that would have threatened Outlook.”

But that's exactly what they are doing. “Hotmail” as they used to call it is the equivalent of Gmail in almost every respect that matters... only your get a few more features from it if you happen to be using Windows and Internet Explorer. Office Live will give, again, steadfast Microsoft supplicants like the DoJ full online versions of their favorite applications. The advantage of Google products will evaporate overnight. What's the primary difference between the Google way of doing things and Microsoft way? Google doesn't lock you into a single OS or single Office suit. Microsoft does. Advantage Microsoft.

“Yes, the first iPod didn't work on Windows. In time, it would help render Windows irrelevant.”

Get back to us when Slate or the Department of Justice replace all their desktop PCs with iPhones.

“Google has the resources to keep fighting these fights, and eventually it may win. But nothing in Google's history guarantees success.”

Now you're talking sense. Google's market share could evaporate almost over night. Transition from Windows to Android or anything else could take years (ask the Europeans). Google has the resources to fight Microsoft's well entrenched monopoly now. But setbacks in search would see most of these efforts that threaten Microsoft starved of funding.

“Varney has said that antitrust enforcement is a key tool for regulators to keep the economy running smoothly. But in the tech business, antitrust regulators are often too slow, fighting battles long after they've ceased to matter to consumers.”

I don't know about Varney's politics, but her statements about technology smack of cluelessness. If DoJ is like other federal agencies I've worked with, the top several layers of entrenched bureaucrats are clueless about technology as well. It's not clear they understand the law either. As far as the economy goes, this is a bad time to accuse anyone in Washington of understanding it. Remember that unemployment in Washington is hovering around two percent.

U.S. Professor: I told FBI about kidney trafficking 7 years ago - Haaretz - Israel News

The anthropologist says that the man who led her to Rosenbaum says that he initially believed Rosenbaum was a man who saved the lives of people in need. According to Scheper-Hughes, that man told her he had changed his mind after meeting some of Rosenbaum's donors - confused and impoverished people from Eastern Europe.

One out of every five adult males in some of Moldova's poorest villages has had his kidney removed, according to Scheper-Hughes. But a 2004 State Department report stated that "it would be impossible to conceal a clandestine organ trafficking ring."

Well, maybe they should have said impossible to conceal for more than 7 years!

What's the deal with the White House press corps? - wtop.com

"I don't fault the President for trying to control the press. But I ask you, why does the press go along? There is not one moment of spontaneity. The questioners are tipped off, in advance, by the White House and they behave accordingly.

No. Not one questions about Iraq. Not one questions about Afghanistan, where American troops have had the worst month of fatalities in eight years. These guys, and women, are not journalists. They're enablers."

Michael Savage: Pack your bags for England!

While we are on incompetents (and incompetence) in office, I was shocked at this article:

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=104396

No, not the turnaround on banning Michael Savage... which was more of a circus event, but this statement from the stepped down Home Secretary:

Last week, Jacqui Smith admitted she was not up to being home secretary, saying she should have been given some training for the job before being named.

"When I became home secretary I'd never run a major organization," she told Total Politics magazine. "I hope I did a good job but if I did it was more by luck than by any kind of development of skills. I think we should have been better trained. I think there should have been more induction."

Last month, Smith resigned her position in the wake of scandal over personal use of taxpayer funds and her controversial ban of Savage.

If only the imbeciles in high office over here would have the humility to make such a statement I might be a little less antagonistic at them lining their own retirement portfolios at the expense of mine, all in the name of "helping the disadvantaged" (which it won't).

Billboard cartel says no to questioning Obama

"These people have a very strange sense of what is political and what is not," said Farah. "Apparently, support for Obama is not political, but questioning is – and it's also, by definition, misleading. It's scary that people like this are actually working as media professionals. They have no sense of standards at all. And they have no clue about the proper role and responsibility of the media in a free and open society."

Farah points out the OAAA claims to "advocate the use of outdoor advertising for political, editorial, public service and other noncommercial messages." Yet, he says, "If that message is one they disagree with, all bets are off. If that message is one that might potentially compromise their ability to seek favors from government, all bets are off. If that message is one that is not 'politically correct,' then all bets are off."

Google's Whitehouse.gov Privacy Policy Explained | Peter Kafka | MediaMemo | AllThingsD

Long version: After I wrote my story, I got a note from Daniel Brandt, who runs Scroogle.org, a nonprofit that tries to foil Google’s attempts to track its users’ online behavior. He contended that that Google was still tracking YouTube views on the White House site. “I just clicked on a video at whitehouse.gov…and the YouTube Flash code phoned home to Google about two seconds into the video,” he wrote. “Nothing has changed. What is Google/YouTube talking about?”

Facebook Taps Privacy Hawk as Lobbyist - washingtonpost.com

Do we need proof that lawyers are about making money, not causes. Even high minded liberty liberal ones.

George F. Will - New Bill, More of the Same: Protecting Big Tobacco - washingtonpost.com

Ironies abound. The February expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Program is supposed to be financed by increased tobacco taxes, so this health care depends on an ample and renewable supply of smokers. State governments, increasingly addicted to tobacco tax revenue, face delicate price calculations: They want to raise their regressive tobacco taxes (smokers are disproportionately low income and poorly educated) to just below where smokers are driven to quit.

Governments cannot loot tobacco companies that do not flourish. In a 1998 settlement, 46 states conspired to seize $206 billion from companies selling legal tobacco products made from a commodity subsidized by the governments that subsidize treatment of tobacco-related illnesses. The dubious premise of the settlement was that smoking costs governments substantial sums. Actually, tobacco is the most heavily taxed consumer good (Rhode Island's tax is $3.46 per pack) and the accurate actuarial assumptions of public and private pension plans are that premature deaths of smokers will save billions in payments.

Fired IG Calls White House Explanation 'Baseless,' Says He's Being Targeted - Political News - FOXNews.com

Facing bipartisan criticism for the firing, Obama sought to allay congressional concerns with a letter to Senate leaders Tuesday evening explaining his decision. In the letter, White House Special Counsel Norman Eisen wrote that Walpin was "confused" and "disoriented" at a May board meeting, was "unduly disruptive," and exhibited a "lack of candor" in providing information to decision makers.

"That's a total lie," Walpin said of the latter charge. And he said the accusation that he was dazed and confused at one meeting out of many was not only false, but poor rationale for his ouster.

We're getting used to being lied to without any protests by the MSM.

YouTube - Beck & Byron York on the Firing of Inspector General, Gerald Walpin

THE BONDHOLDERS - Who they are, what they lost

Ousted AmeriCorps watchdog defends waste probe - Yahoo! News

"Obama's move follows an investigation by Walpin finding misuse of federal grants by a nonprofit education group led by Sacramento Mayor Kevin Johnson, who is an Obama supporter and former NBA basketball star. Johnson and a nonprofit education academy he founded ultimately agree to repay half of $847,000 in grants it had received from AmeriCorps."

Whitacre Vows to ‘Learn About Cars’ as Chairman of New GM Board - Bloomberg.com

June 10 (Bloomberg) -- Edward E. Whitacre Jr. built AT&T Inc. into the biggest U.S. provider of telephone service over a 43-year-career. By his own admission, he becomes chairman of General Motors Corp. knowing nothing about the auto industry.

Not to criticize his selection (I don't know enough one way or the other), but if you look at the history of AT&T you will see that it was for most of it's history a monopoly until roughly 1984 when it was busted up into several smaller regional monopolies providing local phone service. AT&T then proceeded to flounder around either merging with other companies or spinning off parts of itself in a desperate struggle to survive as a non-monopoly company.

The regional bells, continuing to rake in unearned profits wisely sought to diversify themselves, going into publishing, cable TV, cellular, and even the furniture business. It would be at least very difficult to catalogue where all the monopoly money ended up, except to say that some of it, if not most of it, ended up wasted on dead-end products and projects. In the process all the baby-bells as they cam to be called went on wild rebranding sprees yielding meaningless names such as Verizon, Qwest and SBC (which might have stood for Southwest Bell Corporation at one time but just stands for SBC (nothing ) now).

I certainly don't know what Whitacre's real resume would look like, but he was at least NOT with AT&T during most of this time, but when AT&T re-merged with SBC in 2005 (AT&T as the company being acquired) he was head of SBC, not AT&T.

Someone else can figure out to what extent he was responsible for the success of what was still a mini-monopoly, I'm more interested in the principle than the individual.

The principle being, as someone put it recently, that most of these companies are not too big to fail, they are in fact too big to exist. I personally think that busting the AT&T monopoly was a good thing, particularly as it wasn't just a big company it was almost an extension of the government in its monopoly powers.

Now, in saving GM (and some banking and investment businesses), we are moving in the opposite direction, that of combining more and more businesses into government run monopolies (including offloading of Chrystler to the Italians so that we at Government Motors only have one remaining private company, Ford, to deal with). Of course we are told that all of this is only temporary. Problem with that is that temporary can turn into a very long time.

The two most likely outcomes are that GM will succeed, at the expense of the only other large American car company, ending real choice, or that through gross mismanagement, it will fail, leaving taxpayers with a big bill to pay and also leaving Americans with only one company to chose from.

Very little that is good can come from this, but our die has been cast, and I will not let those around me forget who (which voters that is) are the responsible parties. Before anyone protests, no, the Obama administration didn't cause it all, they have just provided the "punch line" that shifts our course from heading toward simple socialism to something much much more sinister.

For the real punch in the gut, we should all remember that none of these recent course changes can be corrected during most of our lifetimes, assuming we start correcting them in 2010, which is still doubtful considering new high school graduates know almost nothing about this country's history or how its government was designed to work. Congratulations to all of you who "won".

Pelosi Still Receives CIA Briefings, But Won't Say If They're Truthful - HUMAN EVENTS

Pelosi was pressed by reporters on whether she continued to receive briefings and admitted that she is still receiving the CIA presentatoins. She refused to answer when this humble correspondent asked whether or not she believes intelligence professionals are still lying to her.

Major Bill Clinton Ally In Kazakhstan Uranium Scandal

"So... The former President takes an unknown mining executive to Kazakhstan, the guy gets a huge deal, and then just a few months later donates $31.3 million to the Clinton foundation. Maybe that's not so bad. After all, if the former President (who is a private citizen -- although his wife is secretary of state) helped hook us up on a sweet uranium mining deal, we'd probably show him several million worth of gratitude too.

But if the deal was illegal -- not just based on Clinton's connections, but on actually breaking the laws of Kazakhstan -- then it's another story for both Clinton and Mr. Giustra (and now, by extension, publicly traded Uranium One). Especially if the guy who sold the mines did so because he was hoping to get some political favors in return."

Barney Frank, Car Czar - WSJ.com

The latest self-appointed car czar is Massachusetts's own Barney Frank, who intervened this week to save a GM distribution center in Norton, Mass. The warehouse, which employs some 90 people, was slated for closure by the end of the year under GM's restructuring plan. But Mr. Frank put in a call to GM CEO Fritz Henderson and secured a new lease on life for the facility.