Here Comes "Net Neutrality"...and my comment

Because we have socialists and communists running the Presidency and the Senate, the attempt to shut down the FCCs rules for so-called net neutrality failed and the 30-day comment period on the burden the new rules might place on ISPs (conforming to the Paperwork Reducation Act, or PRA) has begun. So, I set about to register my extreme dissatisfaction. I can only pray that legal experts will mount an all-out attack in the courts once the rules become law 60 days later. Below was the email I submitted to the Office of Management & Budget:

Regarding: OMB Control Number:3060-XXXX; Title:Disclosure of Network Management Practices, Preserving the Open Internet and Broadband Industry Practices, Report and Order, GN Docket No. 09-191 and WC Docket No. 07-52.

I want to lodge my complaint against the FCC and its ill-informed, socialistic and misguided effort to stifle business in the form of Internet Service Providers (ISPs) via the “Disclosure of Network Management Practices” rules submitted for implementation. I am a consumer. I am a consumer who primarily uses wired internet services for personal use but I do have a business-class service because part of the time I do use it for business purposes. I also use wireless internet services through AT&T. My complaint is that the rules you are proposing to put into place provide NO BENEFIT TO THE CONSUMER and, at the same time, INFLICT ADDITIONAL AND UNEQUAL BURDEN upon businesses that provide internet services. As a taxpayer, as a consumer, THIS IS UNACCEPTABLE and I demand you rescind your proposal. Once again, you are exhibiting an example of gross and negligent misuse of the “commerce clause” of our Constitution.

Contrary to the clearly liberal-leaning attitudes the FCC and our federal government demonstrates, internet service is NOT a public right. It is a commodity. PERIOD, end of that line of discussion. It does not matter how much you think our economy, our society “depend upon” it. It is still a service provided at a cost by companies that must make profit to continue to be an ongoing concern. You are interfering with that right of businesses to conduct their affairs, and you are doing so unfairly with no real justification for your actions. I remain convinced that you are NOT acting in the best interests of the consumer but, rather, are acting in the best interests of certain, well-paying lobbyists. Market forces are the best determinant of whether a business—of any type—is providing value to the customer. If you wish to create a “public utility” version of the internet, then I suggest you try to get taxes or bonds passed to create a separate internet that operates that way. Ultimately, every single premise you are basing the so-called “net neutrality” rules and philosophy on are false, and are firmly rootedin a socialist/communist mindset. This, too, is unacceptable.

We already have many rules in place—burdensome enough to business operations—that provide for a fair degree of transparency. Aside from that, consumers don’t take long to determine if an ISP (or any business, for that matter) is providing the service they expected for the price they paid. As a result, consumer choice and Voice Of the Customer (VOC) is spread and said business lives or dies by what customer perceptions are. You are creating a burden through the reporting rules and related that achieve no value to ME, and force ISPs to incur even more expense just to operate and satisfy your ignorant and misplaced sense of service to the public. As for prohibiting blocking, again, you create an unequal and unfair difference, between fixed-line ISPs and wireless carriers. Even if I agreed with the premise of no-blocking, your implementation is unethical and unacceptable. As it is, you insist on treating the internet and, more specifically, ISPs as if they are a right. They are NOT. Each company must manage its resources as it best sees fit. If they have certain limitations, implemented as a network management philosophy, in order to continue to provide service to the most profitable consumer base while still provided a level of service the consumer is satisfied with, then you do not have the right to interfere. Finally, regarding the idea of unreasonable discrimination, I refer you to market forces being the preferred method again. I was just as disgusted when satellite service companies were forced to carry so-called “local television stations”. This was unethical. Value is NOT determined by the government. It is determined by ME. I do not wish to pay for local TV stations. In fact, in my case, there ARE no local TV stations, and the stations the sat providers were forced to carry --- and me to pay for --- were for a city 150 miles away. And every last one of those stations were stations you could not PAY ME to carry, yet I’m forced to pay for them. So, if and ISP determines that it’s reasonable to discriminate against certain applications, etc., and the consumer disagrees, then it won’t be long before consumer choose to spend their money elsewhere. When an ISP has to make network access and bandwidth decisions in order to maintain a certain level of service, discrimination is a matter of course. Until someone comes up with a new paradigm in communications, we will always run into some degree of limitations within which companies must engage management philosophies that balance their ability to provide the service, make a profit, and keep consumers happy. It is NOT your place to interfere.

With all that said, these rules add insult to injury by placing unnecessary addition burden and cost upon ISPs and, therefore, transfer it to me, the consumer. This is unacceptable. I demand you rescind these rules. I am the Voice Of the Customer.

I guess let's see what happens. If nothing else, I am exercising my duty as a citizen to stop the oppression of an ever-overbearing federal government. So, what have YOU done lately?

Casey Anthony: The Good Mother?

Sean Hannity is an idiot. There, I said it. He can't understand why many of us are "beating up the jury". I can't believe he watched the same trial. He actually said the closing comments by the defense were masterful. I couldn't disagree more vehemently. What angers and frustrates me is that he and all those who think the jury got it right just don't get the concept of circumstantial evidence. When you can't produce witnesses, when you have a body so horribly decomposed and otherwise destroyed by the environment it was disposed of in, you must resort to building a circumstantial case. There are levels of certainty that simply cannot be reached with circumstantial evidence compared to a case with eyewitnesses and typical physical evidence.

Sean---and the rest of you---it's not enough to feel that Casey's behavior was "deplorable". That doesn't serve justice. Juror number 3 claimed that they couldn't prove that Cayley was even murdered. As I said, when you don't have enough physical evidence all you have left is evidence that weighs heavily on the circumstance. The probability that the circumstances could point to anything other than a murder is so miniscule that I'm convinced that the jurors were all mentally deficient. Or morally bankrupt.

Sean Hannity lamely argued that some new types of forensics, non-peer-reviewed area of study were easily discounted. The problem with this is that every new type of evidence gets used for the first time somewhere. Sean---and the rest of you---you are a foolish, ignorant person.

What disgusts me more about this is what Casey Anthony has demonstrated is how anyone can get away with the perfect murder. It's a simple recipe. Murder the victim with any method that will not leave evidence on the bones; dispose of the body in a swamp-like area where there is plenty of heat & moisture and wildlife to decompose and consume the body down to the bones; lie with sufficient believability to allow several months to pass.

Finally, the most horrible aspect is that Casey is going completely free and will profit considerably from this. Why? Because she's a sociopath and because there are so many people and businesses who will be morally bereft enough to offer her money. As for me, I will attack and boycott anyone who does offer her money for anything. I am disgusted with every one of those jurors, and I'm disgusted with Baez and the entire defense team.

But what about the continued contention that Casey was a good mother? Clearly she is evil and has not a shred of morality. Anyone like that can pretend for the cameras...and they frequently do. Casey clearly craved attention, of any type. When the cameras roll she puts on the show. When she has an audience--family or not--the facade is brought out. But the bottom line for Casey is that she is shallow and selfish. And we will see more evidence of that in the coming months, mark my words. Nobody who is a good mother goes out partying all the time when they have a child. Nobody who is a good mother chooses not to contact authorities immediately if an alleged accident happens. Nobody who is a good mother goes out and parties with abandon knowing their child is dead.

I hope I never meet any of you who actually think that Casey was a loving mother. And I shudder that you might have children. I will pray for them.