Daily Archives: May 16, 2014

FCC moves forward on net negativity plan: What now?

PC World has the article which is actually titled FCC moves forward on net neutrality plan: What now?. I would hardly call their plan neutral, so I used a more appropriate word for the side that the FCC has come down on.

One of the services of the PC World article is in the following excerpt:

Where can I comment?

An easy way to comment is to go to the FCC’s comment page, which(sic) a link to the proposal officially titled, “protecting and promoting the open Internet.” Clicking on the proceeding number, 14-28, takes you to a Web form where you can leave a comment.

The FCC’s email box for the proceeding is also still working. It’s at openinternet@fcc.gov. The FCC’s phone number is 1-888-225-5322, although the agency in recent days has encouraged people to send comments electronically instead of calling.

While anonymous comments are allowed on the FCC website, comments may be taken more seriously if you leave your name.

When it becomes available to can see my comment that I made to the FCC at http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/comment/confirm?confirmation=2014516324964

If you are satisfied to see the unofficial version, this is what I said.

Clearly, the internet is a means of communication that rivals the telephone in its importance to our society and democracy. Thus, it would make sense to rule that ISPs are utilities. Why not officially categorize them as such and regulate them as such?

Once a user has placed something on the internet through an ISP, then that item needs to be routed in the same manner as any other item on the internet. If you allow the the ISP to charge a fee for special handling, then you encourage that ISP to invest in the performance of this special handling route rather than investing in technology that helps all customers equally. This vital US infrastructure cannot be allowed to fall further behind the rest of the world.

Perhaps even worse, the ISP can just prioritize the packets of the higher paying customers rather than treating every packet on a first come first serve basis.

Market forces of competition might normally keep ISPs in check to prevent them from abusing their customers. However, the trend that the government anti-monopoly regulators seem to be allowing is more unreasonable corporate concentration. You need to take this reality of the political environment into consideration when you consider how your ruling may interact with existing conditions.

You cannot use the deregulation of the telecommunications industry as a guideline without also taking into account the monopolistic breakup of A T & T that occurred at the same time.

So don’t just sit there and complain to those within earshot or internet shot, send your comment to the FCC where it might do some good.

Stephen Colbert looks at Rove’s smear against Hillary

The Daily Kos has the article Stephen Colbert looks at Rove’s smear against Hillary.

Thanks for The Daily Kos clearing up what Colbert said about copro-encephalopathy. I thought Colbert just said that Rove had it in his brains.

It’s called copro-encephalopathy, or in layman’s terms, shit for brains.

How would we ever know what Comedy Central bleeped out if we didn’t have The Daily Kos to straighten things out?

They’re lying about Ukraine, again: Primitive prejudice, stupidity and the reflexive compliance of the New York Times

Salon has the article They’re lying about Ukraine, again: Primitive prejudice, stupidity and the reflexive compliance of the New York Times by Patrick L. Smith.

My concern is with what the Ukraine crisis has unexpectedly exposed: the bankruptcy of the story, the hollowness of the pose. To be revealed is the great collection of presuppositions, prejudices, presumptions, myths, representations and ideological beliefs that were the ink with which the American century narrative was written.

Good for Ukrainians, all of them in the end, that Washington’s effort to install a crew of neoliberal puppets in Kiev has been disrupted. Good for everyone, including Americans, that the Ukraine crisis exposes so many of the defects in the prevalent American worldview. I may judge the moment too optimistically, but there seems no going back from this.

This seems to be an explanation of why the propaganda is so deeply embedded in the reporting from prominent newspapers such as The New York Times.

To be charitable to the reporter that Leonid Goldgeisser mentioned in my previous post NPR Mistranslates Interviews With Russian Speaking Ukrainians, the reporter just could not believe what the interviewee was saying on the surface.  Perhaps the reporter was trying to read what the interviewee was saying between the lines, and that is how she came up with the complete reversal of what was actually said.  It would be interesting to know the chain of events that led from the interviewee’s Russian speech to the reporter’s English translation.  Was their an intermediate translator, or was the reporter fluent enough in Russian to attempt her own translation.  Was she thinking, “I hear the words, but I am going to do my listeners a favor by explaining what the interviewee is really saying.  After all, no westerner could understand how convoluted a former Soviet Union citizen has to speak to sneak their actual message past the censors.”