Sunday, August 31, 2014
Just What Exactly Is Net Neutrality? And Why You Should Be Worried About It.
◼ As always, the problem can be traced back to a Obama administration bureaucracy... - RedState
...the ultimate irony of the FCC’s discriminatory approach to net neutrality. It has been sold as a means of protecting Internet startups when its real purpose is to protect existing or emerging non-ISP monopolies in mobile operating systems, search engines, online advertising, and online video distribution. In addition to stifling competition with their direct rivals, these monopolies could become so powerful that they stifle competition among mobile ISPs as well. The end result wouldn’t protect the ‘open Internet’ — it would merely shift net neutrality advocates’ concerns over gatekeeper control upstream from ISPs to other participants in the Internet ecosystem.
If the FCC wishes to preserve competition in the mobile Internet segment, its best bet is too maintain a light regulatory touch that maximizes opportunities for market negotiation. If the FCC won’t do that, then it should apply whatever net neutrality rules it adopts to all mobile Internet gatekeepers, ISP and non-ISP alike.
Reinstating the FCC’s ISP-only approach to Internet regulation is by far the worst option for regulating the mobile Internet. We already know where that market distorting road leads: To new monopolies in the middle.
...the ultimate irony of the FCC’s discriminatory approach to net neutrality. It has been sold as a means of protecting Internet startups when its real purpose is to protect existing or emerging non-ISP monopolies in mobile operating systems, search engines, online advertising, and online video distribution. In addition to stifling competition with their direct rivals, these monopolies could become so powerful that they stifle competition among mobile ISPs as well. The end result wouldn’t protect the ‘open Internet’ — it would merely shift net neutrality advocates’ concerns over gatekeeper control upstream from ISPs to other participants in the Internet ecosystem.
If the FCC wishes to preserve competition in the mobile Internet segment, its best bet is too maintain a light regulatory touch that maximizes opportunities for market negotiation. If the FCC won’t do that, then it should apply whatever net neutrality rules it adopts to all mobile Internet gatekeepers, ISP and non-ISP alike.
Reinstating the FCC’s ISP-only approach to Internet regulation is by far the worst option for regulating the mobile Internet. We already know where that market distorting road leads: To new monopolies in the middle.
Labels:
Bureaucracy,
FCC,
Internet,
Monopolies,
Net Neutrality,
Regulation,
Technology
Libyan Islamist militia storm U.S. embassy compound in Tripoli, Libya
Al Arabiya reports Libyan Islamist militia storm U.S. embassy compound in Tripoli. Embassy evacuated month ago. #Libya
— Jon Williams (@WilliamsJon) August 31, 2014Saturday, August 30, 2014
"Sickening"
◼ Rotherham: The perils of tolerating intolerance - Michael Barone/Washington Examiner @michaelbarone
Sickening. That’s the word that comes to mind when I contemplate the story from Britain of how local authorities in Rotherham failed to protect 1,400 young girls were raped, abused and consigned to prostitution by Pakistani and Kashmiri — Muslim — men. The reason: their goal was to promote “community cohesion” — multiculturalism — and so they systematically ignored abundant evidence of multiple vicious crimes. I won’t describe all the horrifying details: For the full horror, check out on the Telegraph website ◼ Allison Pearson’s account, and commentary by Conservative member of the European Parliament ◼ Daniel Hannan and Labour supporter (and son of Labour MP Glenda Jackson) ◼ Dan Hodges. At ◼ Breitbart, Milo Yiannopoulos has another excellent article.
The central problem faced by tolerant societies is how far to tolerate intolerance. Intolerance particularly in the form of criminal jihadism and criminal misogyny by Muslim immigrants and their offspring. Not all Muslims, of course, but an uncomfortably large percentage of them. Fans of multiculturalism and “community cohesion” desperately want to avoid facing the problem. They tend to see their own societies as bigoted and intolerant, when in fact the level of bigotry and intolerance in nations like the United States and the United Kingdom is very low indeed, enormously low when seen fairly in historic perspective. And they tend to believe that our societies have oppressed others — people of color, those from the Third World — and that they have the moral high ground. So you have the absurd spectacle of the supporters of feminism and gay rights looking with sympathy on those Muslims who believe it is right or at least acceptable to rape women and kill gays.
Rotherham exposes this foolishness. How far should a tolerant society tolerate intolerance?
◼ Rotherham: In the face of such evil, who is the racist now? - Allison Pearson/Telegraph [UK]
Men of Pakistani heritage treated white girls like toilet paper. They picked children up from schools and care homes and trafficked them across northern cities for other men to join in the fun. They doused a 15-year-old in petrol and threatened to set her alight should she dare to report them. They menaced entire families and made young girls watch as they raped other children....All but one of the perpetrators were Muslims of Pakistani heritage...
One 11-year-old known as Child H told police that she and another girl had been sexually assaulted by grown men. Nothing was done. When she was 12, Child H was found in the back of a taxi with a man who had indecent pictures of her on his phone. Despite the full co-operation of her father, who insisted his daughter was being abused, police failed to act. Four months later, Child H was found in a house alone with a group of Pakistani men. What did the police do? They arrested the child for being drunk and disorderly and ignored her abusers....
◼ Rotherham child sex scandal: these children were victims of 'anti-racism' - Daniel Hannan/Telegraph [UK]
Sickening. That’s the word that comes to mind when I contemplate the story from Britain of how local authorities in Rotherham failed to protect 1,400 young girls were raped, abused and consigned to prostitution by Pakistani and Kashmiri — Muslim — men. The reason: their goal was to promote “community cohesion” — multiculturalism — and so they systematically ignored abundant evidence of multiple vicious crimes. I won’t describe all the horrifying details: For the full horror, check out on the Telegraph website ◼ Allison Pearson’s account, and commentary by Conservative member of the European Parliament ◼ Daniel Hannan and Labour supporter (and son of Labour MP Glenda Jackson) ◼ Dan Hodges. At ◼ Breitbart, Milo Yiannopoulos has another excellent article.
The central problem faced by tolerant societies is how far to tolerate intolerance. Intolerance particularly in the form of criminal jihadism and criminal misogyny by Muslim immigrants and their offspring. Not all Muslims, of course, but an uncomfortably large percentage of them. Fans of multiculturalism and “community cohesion” desperately want to avoid facing the problem. They tend to see their own societies as bigoted and intolerant, when in fact the level of bigotry and intolerance in nations like the United States and the United Kingdom is very low indeed, enormously low when seen fairly in historic perspective. And they tend to believe that our societies have oppressed others — people of color, those from the Third World — and that they have the moral high ground. So you have the absurd spectacle of the supporters of feminism and gay rights looking with sympathy on those Muslims who believe it is right or at least acceptable to rape women and kill gays.
Rotherham exposes this foolishness. How far should a tolerant society tolerate intolerance?
◼ Rotherham: In the face of such evil, who is the racist now? - Allison Pearson/Telegraph [UK]
Men of Pakistani heritage treated white girls like toilet paper. They picked children up from schools and care homes and trafficked them across northern cities for other men to join in the fun. They doused a 15-year-old in petrol and threatened to set her alight should she dare to report them. They menaced entire families and made young girls watch as they raped other children....All but one of the perpetrators were Muslims of Pakistani heritage...
One 11-year-old known as Child H told police that she and another girl had been sexually assaulted by grown men. Nothing was done. When she was 12, Child H was found in the back of a taxi with a man who had indecent pictures of her on his phone. Despite the full co-operation of her father, who insisted his daughter was being abused, police failed to act. Four months later, Child H was found in a house alone with a group of Pakistani men. What did the police do? They arrested the child for being drunk and disorderly and ignored her abusers....
◼ Rotherham child sex scandal: these children were victims of 'anti-racism' - Daniel Hannan/Telegraph [UK]
Do You Want to Know Why There’s No ISIS Strategy?
◼ If you want to get some idea about why President Obama has not formulated a strategy for defeating ISIS, take a look at . . . Thursday. - Keith Koffler/White House Dossier
Yes, Thursday.
...The White House, where the president rolls into work mid-morning, where everything starts late, and where schedules are sort just suggestions, is a disorganized mess.
And that’s why there’s no ISIS policy, even though the administration claims to have been aware of the threat for a year.
Yes, Thursday.
...The White House, where the president rolls into work mid-morning, where everything starts late, and where schedules are sort just suggestions, is a disorganized mess.
And that’s why there’s no ISIS policy, even though the administration claims to have been aware of the threat for a year.
Labels:
disaster,
Foreign Policy,
Incompetence,
ISIS,
President/Candidate Obama
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)