Jeff Bezos and All He Owns Must Be Destroyed

There is a basic premise behind reporting .vs. editorializing — one is allegedly unbiased, although we all have our personal prejudices while the other is labeled opinion (it’s found on the opinion page and is disclosed as such.)
Jeff Bezos bought the Washington Post, it is now clear, in order to effect a public lobbying strategy much larger than that which Hastings “organized” and led to a five times increase in his firm’s stock price revolving around net neutrality.
That latter event occurred after ISPs, properly recognizing that he was effectively driving semi trucks over the roads built for cars and refusing to pay higher fuel taxes and license plate fees for same, or, if you prefer, opening up a 2″ water connection to a 6″ main and demanding not to be charged by the gallon, resulting in you having no water pressure, started pushing back and demanding that Netflix cover the outsized costs being imposed on said ISPs to prevent service-quality collapses to everyone, including those who didn’t want his service.
In response Hastings got a bunch of left-aligned media to whip the public into a froth and Obama’s FCC obliged by handing him tens of billions of dollars of money literally forced out of non-subscriber’s wallets.
Amazon engages in cross-subsidization of its product sales (on which he makes no profit, particularly when fulfillment along with G&A are included) with other sales, particularly in AWS, where he does. This now includes government sales of AWS which means you’re being forced to subsidize Jeff Bezos’ destruction of retailers all across the United States at literal gunpoint, along with all the jobs that go when those retailers are forced out of business.

This post was published at Market-Ticker on 2017-11-24.

Net Neutrality Strengthens Monopolies, Invites Corruption

When it imposed its net neutrality rules on the telecom industry, the FCC was fixing a problem that didn’t exist.
While proponents of Net Neutrality have long claimed that the regulations are necessary to impose fairness for internet usage, access to the internet has only become more widespread and service today is far faster for users – including ‘ordinary’ people – than it was twenty years ago.
Nevertheless, when the FCC in recent months – now under pressure from the Trump Administration – announced that it may step back from net neutrality, supporters immediately began claiming that net neutrality was necessary to keep internet access affordable and “fair.”
In truth, net neutrality has never fostered fairness or better access for consumers, and has instead created conditions that will encourage less competition and more monopolistic power for large firms within the industry.
Instead of relying on the market place to allocate goods, net neutrality ensures that politics will determine who gets what, instead. This is hardly a recipe for fairness or neutrality.
In the marketplace, goods and services tend to be allocated according to those who demand the goods the most. Where demand is highest, prices are highest.

This post was published at Ludwig von Mises Institute on July 18, 2017.

FBI Had 12-Page File On George Carlin Because He Made Jokes About Government

Comedian George Carlin is known as one of the most controversial and outspoken entertainers of his time, and as far as the government is concerned, he could have possibly been a terrorist.
Carlin was not a violent or criminal person in any way, but he said things during his routines that struck at the root of the problems in our society. He went into great detail about corruption in government and business.
During the 1978 Supreme Court case, FCC v Pacifica Foundation, the government cited Carlin’s work as an example of profanity. They used his ‘Seven Dirty Words’ segment to show the type of language that was being used in records and broadcasts. However, the government’s interest in his work did not stop there.
Just after his 1969 appearance on the Jackie Gleason show, Carlin caught the attention of the FBI because he made jokes about then-FBI chief J. Edgar Hoover. According to the government, Carlin had ‘referred to the Bureau and the Director in a satirical vein.’

This post was published at The Daily Sheeple on August 20th, 2015.

Netflix Flip-Flops On Net-Neut

From the “I’m rolling on the floor” file comes this:
The company’s chief financial officer, David Wells, told an investor conference Wednesday that Netflix isn’t “pleased” about the Federal Communications Commission’s recent vote on net neutrality, which slapped strong new rules on Internet providers.
It’s a shocking admission for a company that led the charge on aggressive regulations for Comcast, Verizon and other broadband companies. Last week, the FCC handed Web companies a big victory when it decided to regulate Internet providers under Title II of the Communications Act – just like legacy telephone companies.
Given how vocally Netflix was advocating for Title II, it’s surprising to see Wells suddenly throwing the regulations under the bus, as Variety is reporting.
That’s because what Netflix wanted was a way to continue ramming their costs down other people’s throats — particularly but not exclusively Verizon’s and Comcast’s.
They thought they could get that through their lobbying effort and getting their customers to advocate based on lies, but what they got is going to utterly derail the company down the road — and they’ve just woken up to that.
Here’s the problem, analytically: If, as an ISP, I cannot charge you for the costs you force me to incur when you place outsized loads on my network that I have not engineered for because your “new paradigm” presents loads that are radically beyond the design criteria of my network I have two options: I can either (1) charge every customer more money in order to effectively subsidize your operations or (2) I can move to a usage-sensitive billing model for the customer so the customers who place that demand on me get to pay (a lot) more for the privilege and those who do not pay less.

This post was published at Market-Ticker on 2015-03-07.

FCC Votes In Favor of New Net Neutrality Regime, But How ‘Neutral’ Will It Be?

21st Century Wire says…
These last few weeks saw a vicious partisan battle take place in the United States over new government policies regarding Net Neutrality.
Today, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) voted to implement strict new ‘Net Neutrality’ rules designed to make sure Internet service providers treat all ‘legal’ content equally.
It got really ugly in the week preceding today’s FCC ruling. Democrats and other liberal pundits have said that losing Net Neutrality would allow mega corporations to dictate who has access to the fast lane, and who does not. Republicans and their media outlets are claiming that this was all about ‘Obama wanting to takeover the internet’ by determining what content we are allowed to post online.
In the end, both sides of this debate called vigorously for the preservation of an ‘Open Internet’, making it a choice between two paradigns – big government, or ‘the free market’ (big cable operators in this case). So in the end, poor partisan America is left with a classic Hobson’s choice: do you go with the Federal Government or Big Business? Daunting isn’t it? .
One rule of thumb here is that whatever big business is attempting to change regarding the status quo – which is a ‘neutral internet’ aka Net Neutrality – is most likely a change designed to favor their narrow interests and may also be seen as a monopolistic urge to buy-up all the valuable bandwidth we call broadband, effectively shutting out weaker competition aka ‘the little man’. Judging by history, it’s almost 100% certain that any intense lobbying by mega corporations will be in order to tilt the playing field in their favor, and in favor of locking up markets for themselves. That is not a premature concern, it is a clear and present danger.

This post was published at 21st Century Wire on FEBRUARY 26, 2015.

FCC Vote In Favor of New Net Neutrality Regime, But How ‘Neutral’ Will It Be?

21st Century Wire says…
These last few weeks saw a vicious partisan battle take place in the United States over new government policies regarding Net Neutrality.
Today, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) voted to implement strict new ‘Net Neutrality’ rules designed to make sure Internet service providers treat all ‘legal’ content equally.
It got really ugly in the week preceding today’s FCC ruling. Democrats and other liberal pundits have said that losing Net Neutrality would allow mega corporations to dictate who has access to the fast lane, and who does not. Republicans and their media outlets are claiming that this was all about ‘Obama wanting to takeover the internet’ by determining what content we are allowed to post online.
In the end, both sides of this debate called vigorously for the preservation of an ‘Open Internet’, making it a choice between two paradigns – big government, or ‘the free market’ (big cable operators in this case). So in the end, poor partisan America is left with a classic Hobson’s choice: do you go with the Federal Government or Big Business? Daunting isn’t it? .
One rule of thumb here is that whatever big business is attempting to change regarding the status quo – which is a ‘neutral internet’ aka Net Neutrality – is most likely a change designed to favor their narrow interests and may also be seen as a monopolistic urge to buy-up all the valuable bandwidth we call broadband, effectively shutting out weaker competition aka ‘the little man’. Judging by history, it’s almost 100% certain that any intense lobbying by mega corporations will be in order to tilt the playing field in their favor, and in favor of locking up markets for themselves. That is not a premature concern, it is a clear and present danger.

This post was published at 21st Century Wire on FEBRUARY 26, 2015.