Or the camel’s nose under the tent

"Freedom is slavery" G. Orwell,1984

“Freedom is slavery” G. Orwell,1984

Hillary supports the new regulatory scheme for the internet: “It’s a foot in the door.”

The whole idea of subjecting the internet to “demonstrated public need” regulatory review is that now politicians can demand bribes from entrepreneurs. Duh.


Filed under Uncategorized

16 responses to “Or the camel’s nose under the tent

  1. Cos Cobber

    These people ruin everything sooner or later.

  2. Call It Like I See It

    Verizon uses typewriter font to lambast net-neutrality rules

    WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) — Verizon Communications is so mad at new net-neutrality rules, they’re throwing the whole typewriter at it.

    In a press release issued after the Federal Communications Commission narrowly passed new rules prohibiting broadband providers from throttling legal content or charging for fast lanes, Verizon used a 1930s-style typewriter font to complain about it.


  3. Walt

    Dude –
    Captain Spock died!! So it is a very sad day indeed. LIVE LONG AND PROSPER!! Did you spank off to Ohura or Spock? I always took Barbara Eden to the spank bank before I watched Star Trek, so I never had to decide.
    Anyhows, with that out of the way, it is not Camel Nose. It is Camels TOE:

    Your Pal,

    • AJ

      Your taste, as in tasty, in music videos is improving. Good find.

    • For some reason I can’t post on the Greenwich Town IT thread, so I’ll try it here.

      Walt, I was not yanking or pulling anything. They wanted $20 with the resume and it had to be mailed in, another interesting anachronism when recruiting for an IT person. All of the barriers they put in place made it obvious that they already knew who they were going to hire but had to go through the motions of recruiting someone.

      Based on the process the new guy is probably no better than the old one. And having read the article about the data loss, it could have happened the way he said it did but he still should have been replicating the data at night, over the town’s network to another storage system at the backup site. Anything that can fail will fail. This is what happens when you hire amateurs and political cronies who know just enough about IT to be dangerous.

    • Call It Like I See It

      Walt, you are incorrigible.

  4. AJ

    “Yet again, the government wants to fix a problem that doesn’t exist. According to the Obama administration and the FCC, it is necessary to regulate internet service providers so that they don’t interfere with people’s access to the web. The claim immediately prompts one to ask: Who is being denied access to the web?

    In the past twenty years, access to the internet has only become more widespread and service today is far faster for many people — including “ordinary” people — than it was twenty years ago, or even ten years ago. Today, broadband in Europe, where the internet is more tightly regulated, has less reach than it has in the United States.

    The administration’s plan is rather innocuously called “net neutrality,” but in fact it has nothing at all to do with neutrality and is just a scheme to vastly increase the federal government’s control over the internet.
    . . .
    The administration insists these measures are necessary because — even though there is no evidence that this has actually happened — it is possible that at some point in the future, internet service providers could restrict some content and apps on the internet. Thus, we are told, control of content should be handed over to the federal government to ensure that internet service providers are “neutral” when it comes to deciding what is on the internet and what is not.
    . . .
    All goods need not be allocated in response to the human-choice-driven price mechanism of the marketplace. Goods and services can also be allocated by political means. That is, states, employing coercive means can seize goods and services and allocate them according to certain political goals and the goals of people in positions of political power. There is nothing “neutral” about this method of allocating resources.

    In the net neutrality debate, it’s almost risible that some are suggesting that the FCC will somehow necessarily work in the “public” interest. First of all, we can already see how the FCC regards the public with its refusal to make its own proposals public. Second, who will define who the “public” is? And finally, after identifying who the “public” is, how will the governing bodies of the FCC determine what the “public” wants?
    . . .
    The natural outcome will be more “regulatory capture,” in which the institutions with the most at stake in a regulatory agency’s decisions end up controlling the agencies themselves. We see this all the time in the revolving door between legislators, regulators, and lobbyists. And you can also be sure that once this happens, the industry will close itself off to new innovative firms seeking to enter the marketplace. The regulatory agencies will ensure the health of the status quo providers at the cost of new entrepreneurs and new competitors. . . .”


  5. Babylon Sister

    When leftists use “freedom” in information contexts, often it’s a clever euphemism for censoring viewpoints other than their own.

    • Libertarian Advocate

      NO. Leftists are pathological liars. Whenever they use a term such as Freedom or Liberty or Equality or Fairness or Peace or Stability, they actually mean the precise opposite of the word they’re using.

  6. AJ

    The Big Ø — may the shit of a camel be on his head. So it is written, let it be so.

  7. anonymous

    hillary=or the camel’s toes under the tent. am i right or am i right?

  8. Peg

    And here I thought the purpose was to protect us from the EEEEVIL bad stuff that might be on the ‘net!

    You know; like conservative websites, libertarian opinion pieces, hard data, etc.

    After all, look at how well this plan worked when the IRS took it on!

  9. Greenwich Gal

    I’m for net neutrality – most people are. But I really don’t want to get into a screaming match with everyone. I simply believe that the internet should not be beholden to the few. A free and open democracy depends on it.

    • AJ

      Since when is the internet beholden to the few? Free and open? A government agency just claims to have seized control without anyone being allowed to see what they were up to, without anyone getting to vote on it — more transparency from the most transparent administration in the history . . . Neutrality? As in you can’t pay more for faster service. Good model; why not apply it to housing — everybody gets to live in the same housing, as in you get to move to Wilbur Peck, or why not apply it to transportation, as in everyone gets to drive a 1970 Dodge Dart.

    • AJ

      Or what if we were to apply the free and open, neutrality model to private equity?

      ‘The Private Equity Boom, Easy Money, and Crony Capitalism’

      “Amongst the big winners from the Obama Fed’s Great Monetary Experiment has been the private equity industry. Indeed this went through a near-death experience in the Great Panic (2008) before its savior — Fed quantitative easing — propelled it forward into new riches. There is no surprise therefore that its barons who join the political stage (think of the last Republican presidential candidate) have no interest in monetary reform. And the same attitude is common amongst leading politicians who hope private equity will provide them high-paid jobs when they quit Washington.

      The ex-politicians are expected by their new bosses to join the intense lobbying effort aimed at preserving the industry’s unique tax advantages, especially with respect to deductibility of interest and carry income. They are also expected to do this while establishing the links with regulators and governments (state and federal) that help generate business opportunities for the private equity groups themselves. The special ability of these political actors to take advantage of the monetarily induced frenzy in high-yield debt markets — and secure spectacularly cheap funds — means they become leading agents of malinvestment in various key sectors of the economy. . . .”