The Net Neutrality Myth Finally Debunked & Rejected

The FCC’s Christmas Gift to Internet Users

The wireless future you were hoping for would not be possible under Title II regulation.

By 

Holman W. Jenkins, Jr.

Wall Street Journal

Dec. 22, 2017 5:53 p.m. ET

*

No doubt your Christmas would be troubled and anxiety ridden if not for this column assuring you that the Trump administration decision last week to “repeal net neutrality” does no such thing.

*

Net neutrality long ago became the expectation of broadband customers. It was an expectation that internet service providers routinely met during the two decades before the Obama rules were enacted. It’s an expectation they will continue to meet after the Obama rules have been withdrawn.

Net neutrality means unfiltered, unhindered access to what the web offers. Net neutrality is the business that broadband suppliers are in.

What is being repealed is a decision to recategorize broadband from a Title I to a Title II service under the 1934 Communications Act. This decision had little to do with net neutrality but meant that lobbyists and petitioners and courts would be able to pressure Washington steadily in the direction of regulating the internet the way it did the railroads in the early 1900s.

Title II is what many groups militating in the name of net neutrality really wanted. They conflated net neutrality with Title II regulation because they thought it politically expedient to do so.

Does this mean you should run screaming to the nearest cliff and throw yourself off because now the internet will be taken over by “fast lanes”?

I, for one, will pass. The whole idea of fast lanes reflects a faulty, obsolete metaphor for how the internet works. The internet is more like a giant computer providing a diverse array of services to a billion-plus users simultaneously.

It delivers you a webpage, me a video. In the future, it will help your driverless car navigate traffic, a doctor examine and treat an injury remotely. It will make sure your refrigerator is full of beer.

The businesses supplying each of these services care only that their own customers are happy. Their customers care only that their own service is satisfactory. They won’t care or even notice that the computer is constantly optimizing its performance so its diverse users are all kept simultaneously happy.

The whole “fast lane” nonsense is even more nonsensical when we realize how much it’s the efforts of so-called edge providers that determine service quality. If a static webpage doesn’t load as quickly as you might wish, today it’s because of slow servers among the dozens that nowadays contribute pieces of a webpage. Not to blame usually is the last-mile carrier, who’s moving these elements to you as fast as content suppliers make them available.

Or take Netflix: It spends millions to place servers containing its shows inside the systems of last-mile providers to improve delivery and reduce transport costs.

Laws against fraud and anticompetitive behavior apply to broadband suppliers as they do to other companies in the economy. If a supermarket sells you a can of dirt labeled “peas,” it would not long stay in business. But, wait, aren’t we in a uniquely bad position because so many of us have only one or two choices for broadband at home?

All businesses would like to charge an infinitely high price for infinitely chintzy service, but not even Comcast can get away with this, even when competition is inadequate, because customers have voices and politicians and regulators listen to those voices. And competition can only improve matters.

Ironically, what consistently outrages the net-neut freaks is the wireless sector, where competition is fierce, and where rivals dangle offers of uncapped streaming from certain video services, and even free Netflix or Sling TV. This offends sacred principle, never mind that it increasingly turns wireless into a plausible substitute for the local fixed-line monopolist.

Verizon, AT&T, Sprint and T-Mobile—all have made announcements, and put money behind them, promising that 5G wireless will render the local cable oligopoly a thing of the past. Repealing Title II not only makes such investment attractive. It will enable wireless to support a whole slew of advanced services while keeping customers maximally happy.

Disney last week announced it would spend $52.4 billion to acquire certain Fox assets to replicate Netflix’s business model. Notice that Netflix’s business model is premised entirely on the existence of ubiquitous, affordable, unhindered broadband.

Ajit Pai, chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, is the Santa, not the Grinch, of this holiday season. Repeal of Title II is what will make the future internet possible. It’s just too bad those net-neutrality obsessives piling up lifelessly at the bottom of the nearest cliff won’t be around to enjoy it. 

Rushing to Judgement on the Napolitano Charges

This is the perfect storm of the uber-left to feed the American electorate a poison pill to kill one future conservative Supreme Court candidate from being nominated. In a chess game where the current move now on the board has been to capture the Judge Gorsuch nomination, the next one is for the seat of Judge Ginsberg. Liberals are in a real panic, and for good reason - Napolitano is Conservative!

Fox News has fired Judge Andrew Napolitano (pictured) for exposing UK spy agencies working with Obama, according to his report.

News Credit: Judge Napolitano

One of the most popular faces on news-based TV, Judge Andrew Napolitano, is being let go by Fox News. This is happening “after disavowing his on-air claim that British intelligence officials had helped former President Barack Obama spy on Donald Trump,” according to Yahoo News. A person with knowledge of the situation who chose not to be named has said that the Judge will not be with the network any longer nor will he be in any Fox segments.

It all started last week on “Fox and Friends.” He said he had three different sources showing that Obama traveled “outside the chain of command” to spy and watch President Donald Trump. The United Kingdom called the accusation “nonsense” following White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer making a reference to the report during a briefing. This all goes back to Trump uncovering that he was spied on by Barack Obama before (and perhaps after) he was elected to office.

Judge Napolitano was at the White House advising about Judge Gorsuch and was rumored to be on a short list for the Supreme Court.

In what seems to be a rather common theme in James Comey’s left leaning F.B.I, it was declared by the agency that there is no proof that Trump was spied upon or wiretapped by Obama. This is the same director that when Wikileaks exposed all of the proof about Clinton, and didn’t need much research to move ahead with her prosecution, claimed that more time was needed. Now for something that DOES need to be researched in depth, it seems that Comey can reach a conclusion in no time at all.

The President has flirted with the wise idea of appointing Napolitano to the Supreme Court before. However, he has said regarding the matter, “all we did was quote a certain very talented legal mind who was the one responsible for saying that on television. I didn’t make an opinion on it. You shouldn’t be talking to me. You should be talking to Fox.” This does not mean that “America’s Judge” is forbidden from being appointed to the highest court in the land. Clearly, he is free from other contractual obligations now. The problem is that he may be seen as tarnished, and might face huge opposition to his nomination if it were to happen. Now that he has been fired from Fox, those that oppose him on the left will call this matter in to question as a way to say that he is not honest.

“America’s Judge” has been on the side of the true meaning of the Constitution for a very long time.

Shepard Smith at Fox News all but fell over himself trying to run from the comments. He said, “Fox News knows of no evidence of any kind that the now-president of the United States was surveilled at any time, in any way.” This is the kind of statement by both Fox and Smith that could really come back to haunt them should the Judge’s words prove true. Napolitano is not a man who has a reputation for being wrong nor dishonest in any way. For this reason, if he was right, many viewers will see Fox just as they do CNN, which is fake news. They also will not easily forgive the besmirching of Napolitano or Trump, if vindicated.

This is more than likely to happen too, considering that he had served on the New Jersey Superior Court from 1987 to 1995, and has more than a bit of experience gathered from the post to know facts when he hears them. It is not very probable that Napolitano made up the three sources, either. One source could be any crackpot, two sources would be common, but three? For him to pick three as his number, he must have really had the sources. Unfortunately for “America’s Judge,” unless the three prove brave enough to stand up for him, he could be in real trouble trying to prove this. It can not be imagined that he would ask them to out themselves.

While Judge Gorsuch will likely fill the Scalia vacancy, Napolitano was on a short list to replace Ginsburg or any of the elder Supreme Court members in the future.

He has been with Fox as a senior judicial analyst since 1998, so it is odd that the network would not have a bit more faith and trust placed in him by now. There is simply no feasible way that he would openly sacrifice his career and quite possibly his future on the American Supreme Court just to flirt with a lie. His motive could be to secure a place of security in Trump’s future plans for the Supreme Court, but he has already been consulted for Judge Gorsuch. His name is ALREADY on the short list for any openings. As such, he has no motive whatsoever to have stretched the truth in this report.

It is far more likely that the Judge has stood by his morals and his ethics. He was most likely fired for refusing to expose who told him. He could do that, but then he would have to look into the mirror when done. Considering that so many people are murdered for bravely telling the truth, Napolitano could, in theory, be signing someone’s death sentence with such a disclosure. Beyond that, if they worked for a UK spying agency as said, these three heroes could lose their jobs, pensions and perhaps even be sent to prison for treason. If England uses the firing squad, that too could be an option since we are talking about spying agencies at the very top.

President Trump is irate over hacking and wiretapping that he says is coming from the left.

Rather than send these sources to a life of exile as Snowden’s Russian neighbor, Napolitano can be expected to simply take the blow no matter how damaging. If he never gets to wear the black robe as he sits on the Supreme Court because of his report, he will accept it. If his future shot at that is lost then it was lost for the truth (at least the truth as he believed it to be when he said it). That is something a just judge can live with.

Such a man is not driven by power or greed, so he would be (and still is) a remarkable choice for such a post. That will depend on two things, however. First, it depends on how much time passes before his name comes up when a justice retires or dies, and secondly, if Trump would still appoint him. If so, the president will see many political arrows from the Obama left flying for his head if, or when, he does.

We do know that in all of these years of loyal judicial and analytical service, Judge Andrew Napolitano has been nothing but consistently correct. That means that either he suddenly decided to soil his reputation by lying about three sources in a spy story that otherwise would have passed the news cycle, or he was telling the truth. Where there is smoke, one often finds a fire. Hopefully, that burning smell is the aroma of the Judge happily torching his contract and looking onward.

News source: https://conservativedailypost.com/breaking-fox-news-fires-judge-napolitano-after-he-proved-obama-treason-live-on-the-air/ 

Election News Email Dump Twist

 Integrity in Journalism - Is There any Truth?

Close Relationship of Hillary & Huma 

Is a story about a lesbian first lady ever true?

They read at first blush like the plaints of a lovelorn schoolgirl. “Oh dear one,” begins a letter dated 1933. “It is all the little things, tones in your voice, the feel of your hair, gestures, these are the things I think about and long for.”

Goes another when the two were apart: “Hick darling. Oh I want to put my arms around you. I ache to hold you close. Your ring is a great comfort. I look at it and think, she does love me, or I wouldn’t be wearing it.”

These newly released billets-doux were, in fact, written on White House stationery by Eleanor Roosevelt. They have suddenly ignited a sizzling scholarly debate about their author’s relationship with the woman they were addressed to: a salty, cigar-smoking, stoutly built reporter named Lorena Hickok.

As author Doris Faber reveals in her 1979 book, The Life of Lorena Hickok, the journalist and the President’s lady were an odd couple but a close one. They exchanged 3,360 letters in a correspondence that began in 1932 and ended with Eleanor’s death three decades later. Large numbers sound familiar? - like 3,360 Roosevelt letters verses 600,000 Clinton emails? Of course, there are  Hillary-Huma private emails expected in that mix too.

Forty years have passed since Doris Faber uncovered, to her frank dismay, incontrovertible evidence at the F.D.R. - Roosevelt Library that Eleanor Roosevelt had once been in love with another woman, a crackerjack Associated Press reporter named Lorena Hickok. The two women had exchanged more than 3,300 letters that survive—we’ll never know how many more Hickok destroyed due to their explicit nature.

Like much of the early scholarship surrounding the Roosevelt-Hickok relationship, “The Life of Lorena Hickok” (1980), the book that resulted from Ms. Faber’s discovery, suffered from a did-they-or-didn’t-they prurience in keeping with Reagan-era squeamishness about AIDS and gay issues generally. It fell to Blanche Wiesen Cook to dispel Victorian prudery and sensationalism alike. Ms. Cook’s game-changing work is rightfully acknowledged by Susan Quinn in “Eleanor and Hick,” her poignant account of a love affair doomed by circumstance and conflicting needs. Combining exhaustive research with emotional nuance, Ms. Quinn dives deep to convey the differing characters of president and first lady. Confronted with the pending divorce of their daughter, Anna, Eleanor encourages the younger woman to escape an unhappy marriage. FDR, by contrast, urges caution, reminding her that many couples “got on very well in the end without love.”

By her own admission, Eleanor Roosevelt fought a lifelong battle against fear, the fear of being unloved most of all. It was a vulnerability she was quick to recognize in others. Enter Lorena Hickok, Hick to her friends and colleagues. Raised in rural South Dakota, she survived a nightmarish childhood with an abusive father who, not content to beat his animal-loving daughter, dashed a favorite kitten’s brains against the barn. Taught “never to expect love or affection from anyone,” Hick was 13 when her mother died. Within a year she was sent packing by the dead woman’s replacement. Taking refuge in books and music, she found work, at age 19, as a cub reporter on a Battle Creek, Mich., newspaper. There she impressed editors with her versatility, humor and sensitivity toward outcasts of every stripe. In Minneapolis and Milwaukee she covered sports as authoritatively as a society ball. By 1932 the sole woman reporter on Franklin Roosevelt’s presidential campaign train, Hick concluded of the candidate’s wife: “That woman is unhappy about something.”

Her journalist’s intuition served her better than her journalist’s detachment. Before Election Day, Hickok had been given a privileged glimpse into the unorthodox Roosevelt marriage—into Eleanor’s “special friendship” with a handsome New York state trooper named Earl Miller; and Franklin’s intimate attachment to his longtime personal secretary Missy LeHand. All this Hick kept secret, along with FDR’s long-ago betrayal of his marital vows—and her own growing attachment to the tall, vulnerable woman who trusted her discretion.

“Remember,” Eleanor told Hick shortly after becoming first lady, “no one is just what you are to me.” By then Hick had quit the AP, trading her career for a fantasy life to be shared exclusively with her new love. For her part, ER plotted ways to escape the White House, traveling—more or less—incognito with Hick through Canada and on the West Coast. When, inevitably, their identities were uncovered, Hick’s former colleagues were not kind in their descriptions of her girth, appetite or bruising manner. Sufficient hints were dropped to feed suspicions about the first lady’s unconventional attachments.

Eventually, Eleanor’s ardor cooled. Needing to be needed, she couldn’t bear the thought of being possessed. “You have a feeling for me which I may not return in kind,” she told Hick in 1935. Deeply wounded, Hickok took to the road as a semiofficial diarist of the Great Depression. 

The True November 2016 Surprise is Here Now!

Don't believe what the mainstream press is printing and putting out as facts, they hide the unknown knowns!

 

...Say hello to enormous Obamacare premium hikes! To be announced on November 1st,  seven days BEFORE the November 8th Presidential election, Obama is feverishly trying to delay the announcement until after the elections! ...Now, where are all of those "rich" people Hillary says that need to pay their "fair share" for the people?  ..Guess not anymore after the election, but we people all still owe by IRS law to be paying for it anyway, right now! ...Say, huh?

Quote of Whatever

"Reports that say that something hasn't happened are always interesting to me, because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns—the ones we don't know we don't know. And if one looks throughout the history of our country and other free countries, it is the latter category that tend to be the difficult ones."

—Donald Rumsfeld

The Real Truth About SNOPES.COM

Don't Ever Doubt Again this Ultra-Left Wing Site is Honest!

This quite enlightening article will put to bed any doubt that the uber-liberal "Snopes.com" that everyone goes to is just plain full of shit.  Don't take my word, read from an ABC News article written in September, 2016 about what the founder says in his own words on Snopes.com while commenting on a featured political news story!

David Mikkelson, founder of Snopes.com, a website known for its biased opinions and inaccurate articles they write about stories on the internet in order to generate advertising revenue, told ABC News that he approves of what a story like this is accomplishing.

“You have to understand that when a story like this goes viral, and we spend a minute or two debunking it, we make lots of money. Stories like this have helped put my children through college, buy a new car, a home and even get the sex reassignment surgery my wife Barbara always wanted since she was a little boy,” Mikkleson said. “We claim ‘to provide evidence for such debunkings and confirmation as well‘, but that’s just ridiculous. Do you know how much time that would take? Instead, we just copy and paste parts of the original article into ours, write a couple sentences, and that’s it. I just want to be clear, our website does zero journalism or anything creative, and I’m only telling you this for legal reasons.” Mikkleson continues, “A typical story of ours makes wild claims, using grammatical errors, misspellings and words like ‘umimumimaginative’, ‘recycled’, ‘hoax’, saying that a story ‘illegally appropriates the trademarks of legitimate news organizations’, but we list no links or sources of information, they are all just wild claims by us. And that story will get 50,000 shares or more on Facebook, that’s a lot of ad revenue for only writing a couple sentences.” Mikkelson further explains, “It is common for us to rewrite a story we’re debunking if we don’t like it. In one recent story of ours, we actually removed a person’s name from the original article and then called him a liar, it’s so funny! We also like to post fake, un-funny, juvenile disclaimers supposedly from the site in question and it is our authors, such as Jeff Zarronandia who are responsible for those gems. We tell our readers that the disclaimer is from the story we are debunking, but a simple google search will show that our disclaimer is 100% fabricated. Sometimes I think that someone should start a company that debunks our debunkings, they could probably make a lot of money,” Mikkelson laughs. “And lots of people complain about ourauthors attacking websites and their owners for reasons that are 100% proven false, but since we block archive.org it just becomes their word versus ours. Our writers like Zarronandia go as far as to say that the story originated from ‘a clickbait fake news site that infringes the trademark-protected visual elements and domain names of legitimate news outlets in order to generate traffic and drive advertising revenues by creating and spreading entirely false “news” stories‘. But we don’t list ONE factual piece of evidence to back up our claims; It’s just more of our hack, unethical journalism, and as I said before, I only tell you this for legal reasons. I think it is business as usual for us to accuse the story we are debunking of spreading malware and viruses, but we never say what website it actually is. I think warning people about a site that could potentially destroy their computer is probably a good idea, and I hope one day to do that kind of ethical journalism, but people will click our ads regardless, bottom line; so why do the extra work?”