The Hostile Takeover Of The Internet by Obama — More Taxes, More Regulation, More Control of Freedom of Speech, More Government Intervention into Business — Abolish The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) — Do Not Mess With The Internet — Videos

Posted on February 22, 2015. Filed under: American History, Blogroll, Business, College, Comedy, Communications, Computers, Computers, Constitution, Crisis, Data, Economics, Education, External Hard Drives, Family, Federal Communications Commission, Federal Government, Federal Government Budget, Fiscal Policy, Freedom, government, government spending, history, Inflation, Investments, Law, liberty, Life, Links, media, Mobile Phones, Philosophy, Photos, Politics, Press, Radio, Radio, Rants, Raves, Strategy, Talk Radio, Tax Policy, Taxes, Technology, Video, Wealth, Welfare, Wisdom, Writing | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |


The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts

Pronk Pops Show 421: February 20, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 420: February 19, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 419: February 18, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 418: February 16, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 417: February 13, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 416: February 12, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 415: February 11, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 414: February 10, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 413: February 9, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 412: February 6, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 411: February 5, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 410: February 4, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 409: February 3, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 408: February 2, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 407: January 30, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 406: January 29, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 405: January 28, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 404: January 27, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 403: January 26, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 402: January 23, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 401: January 22, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 400: January 21, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 399: January 16, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 398: January 15, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 397: January 14, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 396: January 13, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 395: January 12, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 394: January 7, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 393: January 5, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 392: December 19, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 391: December 18, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 390: December 17, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 389: December 16, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 388: December 15, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 387: December 12, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 386: December 11, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 385: December 9, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 384: December 8, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 383: December 5, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 382: December 4, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 381: December 3, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 380: December 1, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 379: November 26, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 378: November 25, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 377: November 24, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 376: November 21, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 375: November 20, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 374: November 19, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 373: November 18, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 372: November 17, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 371: November 14, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 370: November 13, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 369: November 12, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 368: November 11, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 367: November 10, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 366: November 7, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 365: November 6, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 364: November 5, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 363: November 4, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 362: November 3, 2014

Story 3: The Hostile Takeover Of The Internet by Obama — More Taxes, More Regulation, More Control of Freedom of Speech, More Government Intervention into Business — Abolish The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) — Do Not Mess With The Internet — Videos

Sen Ted Cruz (RTX) Warns Of “Obamacare For The Internet” – Net Neutrality – America’s Newsroom

Coming Soon: The Department of the Internet

The Negative Consequences of Net Neutrality Explained in 2 Minutes

Net Neutrality Neuters the Internet

The Truth About Net Neutrality

Advocates say that Net Neutrality means guaranteeing free speech on the Internet. Without it, big telecoms could control what you see and how you see it. But what is the truth about Net Neutrality?

2:00 – Brief Technical Introduction
9:20 – Major Concerns
14:53 – Monopoly History
35:57 – ISP Foul Play
48:05 – Event Timeline
1:02:08 – FCC Corruption
1:09:36 – Conclusions



Blackburn to Continue Fight Against FCC Net Neutrality in 114th Congress

Last Week Tonight with John Oliver: Net Neutrality (HBO)

Judge Napolitano: Orwellian ‘Net Neutrality’ Anything But Neutral

Mark Cuban: ‘Net Neutrality Is Dumbest Stuff Ever’ | CNBC

Net Neutrality: What’s the Libertarian Position?

[236] Henderson: ‘Net Neutrality won’t work’; Ebeling: ‘The Fed distorts resource allocation’

Obama’s Net Neutrality Plan: Techno Control Grid

What is Net Neutrality In 60 seconds

Net Neutrality as Fast As Possible

Net Neutrality – A Slow but Sure Assault to Takeover the Internet

Net Neutrality: Is the Internet a Public Utility? | Idea Channel | PBS Digital Studios

Will Net Neutrality Save the Internet?

NET NEUTRALITY: Blackburn Discusses on Glenn Beck Program

The Fallacy of Net Neutrality: Thomas Hazlett on the FCC & Consumer Protection

“I’m very confident a hundred years from now we won’t have an FCC,” says Thomas Hazlett, Reason contributor and George Mason economics professor.

Internet service providers are coming under scrutiny from both the FCC and net neutrality supporters who want to ensure unrestricted consumer access to the Web. However, Hazlett points out that the fear over ISPs limiting Web content is unfounded and government “has no idea what the optimal business model is” to effectively regulate.

Hazlett sat down with Reason TV’s Nick Gillespie to discuss net neutrality, the Internet, and and his Encounters Broadside book “The Fallacy of Net Neutrality.”

Hank vs. Hank: The Net Neutrality Debate in 3 Minutes

On Net Neutrality, Time to Regulate the Regulators


The Federal Communications Commission’s decision to effectively convert broadband Internet providers into regulated utility companies, stifling both technological innovation and consumer choice, is the latest example of the footrace dynamic that will dominate national domestic politics from now until January 2016: The Obama administration — or one of its purportedly independent enablers in the FCC and other federal agencies — announces sweeping and unilateral regulatory change, and the Republican-controlled legislative branch hustles to outmaneuver it. Given the respective timelines involved in executive fiat and lawmaking, the administration will almost always have a head start — but that should not stop Congress from catching up as quickly as possible.

At issue here is the question of “net neutrality,” an increasingly elastic term describing how an Internet service provider (ISP) treats any given packet of data moving through its network. On one side of the ideological divide, partisans of “neutrality” insist that every packet be treated in precisely the same way as every other packet, that none be given priority. On the other side is reality, in which the bandwidth demands of sending an e-mail from a home computer are different from those of streaming live video to a wireless device. That Netflix, for example, should be permitted to pay an Internet service provider to fast-lane its videos is, for the ideological neutralists, the first step toward another one of those science-fiction corporate dystopias that the anti-capitalists keep promising us, in this case one in which every Internet service provider becomes a “walled garden” in which consumers are hostage to the self-interested caprices of their ISPs, and therefore customers of an ISP that has an arrangement with Facebook might be relegated to pokey service when trying to use Instagram — or be blocked entirely from accessing certain Facebook competitors.

Internet users will notice that that hasn’t happened, and hasn’t shown any likelihood of happening, despite the absence of FCC regulations forbidding it. Even in the settings that most resemble “walled gardens” — for example, in-flight Internet services that do allow providers to enjoy absolute monopoly, for the duration of the flight at least — the trend has been in the opposite direction: When consumers made it clear that they were annoyed by Gogo’s unwillingness to support YouTube and streaming-video services, new products (notably services provided by the airlines themselves) came into the market to meet consumers’ demand for being able to while away that ORD–JFK segment watching funny cat videos.

The FCC’s move, then, is a typical federal regulatory enterprise: a non-solution to a non-problem.

While mainly motivated by a naïve ideological enthusiasm, net-neutrality activists fear, not without some reason, that the dominant operating model for ISPs will be something like that of cable-television providers. (Indeed, many cable-television providers are ISPs.) Specifically, they fear that ISPs will come to resemble cable companies circa 2010. The irony there is that it is the Internet itself — without any enabling regulation from the FCC — that has provided the beginnings of a solution to the problem of the general awfulness of the American cable company, with gleeful “cord-cutters” replacing their cable services with AppleTV, Hulu, and the like.

Neutrality as an operating principle has largely prevailed among ISPs in the absence of a federal mandate largely because consumers like it that way. But consumers may not always like it that way: For example, those who want faster service for downloading movies at the moment are largely restricted to paying for faster service across the board rather than paying for faster service when they want faster service — imagine the FAA’s insisting that if customers want to fly first-class on one trip, they have to fly first-class all the time. The FCC’s new rules are not aimed at preserving the effective neutrality that prevails today — they are ideologically informed measures aimed at preventing innovations in the marketplace that consumers might prefer to the current model.

To accomplish this, the FCC is reclassifying broadband providers as “telecommunication services” under Title II of the Communications Act . . . of 1934. The FCC’s recourse to a law passed during the administration of Franklin D. Roosevelt should give us all an idea about the sort of cutting-edge thinking that is at work here.

There is much that is unnecessary in these rules. For example, the regulation against blocking access to lawful websites addresses a situation that is largely unknown. (Some providers that serve customers of businesses open to the public do block pornographic sites, which does not seem unreasonable.) Likewise, the call for greater transparency in protocols speaks to a desirable end, though one that is hardly crying out for federal intervention.

On the other hand, the ban on creating “fast lanes” for services that would benefit from them forecloses what might be a fruitful avenue of innovation. More worrisome still is the vast, open-ended powers that federal regulators have granted themselves: The FCC has — with no congressional mandate — just given itself a mandate to forbid anything that it believes to be other than “reasonable,” or anything it judges will “harm consumers or edge providers.” (“Edge providers” essentially means those who create or distribute content.) And, of course, there is cronyism: As Philip Elmer-DeWitt of Fortune reports, Internet-based pay-television services of the sort being contemplated by Sony (and possibly by Apple) would be specifically exempt from the fast-lane rules.

As an Internet-based concern, National Review Online has a strong preference for an open, rambling, largely unregulated Internet. We believe that intense FCC oversight is as likely to undermine those freewheeling ways and “permissionless innovation” as to preserve them — look at any other industry in which the FCC stands athwart commerce. There are measures that can and should be taken to increase competition among ISPs, and, as Julian Sanchez of Cato points out, in the event of truly cumbrous and destructive collusions between ISPs and content providers, then the prudent response would be case-by-case intervention carried out by the Federal Trade Commission rather than preemptive blanket regulation by the FCC. It takes a certain kind of crackedness to believe that “free and open” and “under heavy federal regulation” are synonymous.

Congress has the authority to legally limit the FCC’s ambitions in this matter, and it should do so, even though such efforts would probably run into an Obama veto. That’s a fight worth having. It is high time to regulate the regulators and remind the bureaucrats who in this republic is in fact empowered to make law. Likewise, Jason Chaffetz’s initiation of an Oversight Committee investigation into whether the White House improperly colluded with the FCC in formulating these new rules is to be encouraged — if only for the potential amusement in learning whether improper collusion was instrumental in this crusade against improper collusion.

Far from being dysfunctional, the Internet is one of the critical aspects of life in these United States, one that is brilliantly functional and wonderfully innovative in no small part because of the laissez-faire approach that government has historically taken toward it. Why anybody would want to make it more like a utility company is a mystery — unless one appreciates that, for those suffering from a certain progressive inclination, federal regulation is thought to be desirable in and of itself, and that the freewheeling ways of the Internet are a standing rebuke to those who would regiment and regulate practically every aspect of life.

Republican lawmakers investigate White House net neutrality push

Congressional Republicans are demanding to know how much the White House influenced the Federal Communications Commission while the agency crafted net neutrality rules.
The FCC has until Monday afternoon to produce unredacted email messages, focused on net neutrality rules, between FCC staff and officials with the Obama administration, U.S. Rep. Jason Chaffetz said in a letter to the FCC Friday. The Utah Republican is chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.

Chaffetz’s committee is “investigating the potential involvement of the White House” in the creation of proposed net neutrality rules that the FCC is scheduled to vote on next Thursday, he said in the letter. FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler will propose regulations that would reclassify broadband as a regulated telecommunications service instead of a lightly regulated information service.

An FCC spokeswoman didn’t immediately respond to a request for a comment on Chaffetz’s letter.

Several congressional Republicans have accused the White House of improperly influencing the FCC net-neutrality rule-making process, after Obama called on the agency to reclassify broadband as a regulated public utility in November. Wheeler appeared to change his position and embrace that idea after the president urged the independent agency to do so, critics have said.
But U.S. presidential administrations have repeatedly weighed in on FCC proceedings during the past 30-plus years, net neutrality advocate Public Knowledge has noted.

Chaffetz’s letter to the FCC came just two days after Republican leaders of the House Energy and Commerce Committee told Wheeler they were expanding an investigation into agency rule-making processes.

The Energy and Commerce Committee’s probe covers a wide range of FCC process concerns beyond net neutrality, but new reports detailing White House contact with the FCC on net neutrality raise “additional concerns about whether the commission is managing its affairs with the independence and openness required by its mandate,” committee leaders said in a Wednesday letter to Wheeler.

Republican concerns about Obama administration influence over the FCC were fueled by a Feb. 4 Wall Street Journal report saying the White House last year had set up a “parallel version of the FCC” to push for regulation of broadband providers.

Chaffetz’s letter asks for specific email messages sent by Obama administration officials to the FCC in April. On Friday, published an exchange between administration officials and FCC staff that the website obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request.


GOP, tech industry mostly out of step over net neutrality issue

By NOAH BIERMAN AND EVAN HALPER contact the reporters Politics and Government U.S. Congress Federal Communications Commission John Thune Ted Cruz Rand Paul

  • Silicon Valley executives and activists are increasingly irritated by the feeling the GOP is not on their side
  • GOP lawmakers argue that FCC net neutrality proposal amounts to a government takeover of the Web
  • GOP lawmakers in Congress are unified in opposition to the administration approach on net neutrality

Thee intensifying debate over how to keep the Internet open and ripe for innovation has heightened tensions between Republican congressional leaders and tech entrepreneurs they have been trying to woo.

As tech firms and cable companies prepare for a fight that each says will shape the future of the Internet, Silicon Valley executives and activists are growing increasingly irritated by the feeling that the GOP is not on their side.

Republican leaders have struggled to explain to their nascent allies in the Bay Area why they are working so hard to undermine a plan endorsed by the Obama administration to keep a level playing field in Internet innovation, enforcing what the administration and its allies call “net neutrality.”

FCC chief seeks to treat Web as public utility in net neutrality fight
Arguments from the GOP that the plan amounts to a government takeover of the Web — “Obamacare for the Internet,” as Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) called it — are falling flat with many tech innovators.

“This is one of the most prominent moments in Internet freedom,” said Julie Samuels, executive director of Engine, a nonpartisan advocacy group that brings policymakers together with tech start-ups. “I don’t think any party can afford to be on the wrong side of this conversation.”

But Republicans, she said, are on the wrong side.

The Federal Communications Commission is expected to vote this month to adopt the net neutrality plan proposed last week by the panel’s chairman, Tom Wheeler. The plan would regulate Internet service providers, such as Comcast Corp. and AT&T Inc., as public utilities and would ban them from offering high-speed lanes to companies that pay more.

Republicans have promised to push legislation to overturn any such move, but most high-tech companies support it.

The fight comes at a time when Republicans had been making gains in Silicon Valley, a constituency of well-heeled donors and coveted millennial-generation voters who have generally been loyal to Democrats.

Prominent Republicans, including House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Bakersfield), have taken members of Congress on listening tours of tech companies. Tech money has begun flowing into GOP campaign accounts. Presidential hopefuls, including Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), have made an aggressive case that the GOP better understands the values of privacy and freedom in the digital world.

GOP leaders had hoped to build on those gains at an event in Washington called Reboot Congress, which started Wednesday evening, where top Republican lawmakers plan to join Silicon Valley business leaders to discuss the future of the Internet.

Republicans have hoped to seize on recent Democratic policy moves that riled tech companies, including a push for strict anti-piracy rules and the Obama administration’s continued backing of National Security Agency surveillance of Internet users.
The FCC makes a breakthrough on net neutrality–but the battle isn’t over
But the hot issue in Silicon Valley now is net neutrality. And on that issue, the GOP and the tech industry are mostly out of step.

Republicans argue that intervention by a big government agency is the wrong approach to leveling the playing field for companies that depend on the Internet. That’s especially true now, as conservatives accuse Obama of a broad pattern of regulatory overreach in healthcare, the environment and immigration.

“As is often the case in Washington, those who want more power create the specter of a false threat that is not occurring in the marketplace today,” Cruz said in an interview in which he warned that new regulations could lead to new taxes and put a chill on innovation. “The power of regulation is like a camel’s nose under the tent,” he said.

In Congress, GOP lawmakers are unified in opposition to the administration approach.

That includes tech-savvy California Republicans such as Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Vista), who warns that the administration approach “will result in over-regulation and years of fruitless litigation.” McCarthy joined his House leadership colleagues in warning regulators that imposing net neutrality rules would “deter investment and stifle one of the brightest spots in our economy.”

Many Internet entrepreneurs disagree.

“The argument is a red herring,” said Corynne McSherry, intellectual property director at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, which fights alongside GOP lawmakers on privacy and surveillance issues but is helping lead the attack against them on net neutrality.

“Nobody is talking about wanting the Federal Communications Commission to regulate the Internet. That would be terrible,” McSherry said. “All they would be doing is putting in rules of the road for broadband providers.”

Republicans, she said, are essentially helping big corporations squeeze out innovation. “Politically, this is a real mistake,” she said.

It is unclear to what extent the issue will overshadow other Silicon Valley priorities. But it is certainly making the GOP a tougher sell.

“It is close to a litmus test,” said Paul Sieminski, a Republican who is the general counsel to Automattic, the company that operates Web-making tool

“It’s such a fundamental issue for the Internet,” said Sieminski, who has been active in fighting for net neutrality. “I guess it is a proxy on where a candidate may stand on a lot of issues related to the Internet.”

The fight goes beyond wealthy entrepreneurs making or seeking their fortunes in start-up companies. Silicon Valley is adept at mobilizing consumers eager to protect what they see as a core value of the digital age.

The FCC received nearly 4 million comments on the net neutrality rules — most urging them to enforce stricter regulations — before Wheeler announced his proposal last week.

Groups such as Fight for the Future, whose donors include technology companies, said they have helped initiate tens of thousands of calls from their members to regulators and lawmakers using technology that bypasses switchboards.

Polls also showed overwhelming support for the concept that big carriers such as Verizon Communications Inc. and Comcast should not be allowed to charge more to companies that want a fast lane.

That may have propelled a shift among some Republicans, who once questioned the need for any new regulations.

Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.) is proposing a bill that would let Congress, rather than regulators, set the terms for net neutrality. In establishing the concept, however, the measure also would take away the FCC’s authority to make any new regulations in the fast-changing broadband marketplace.

Thune and others frame their disagreement with Obama and federal regulators as one over process, asserting that Congress would better protect openness on the Internet yet avoid burdensome regulations.

“I worry that online innovators will be subject to the Mother-may-I system in which startups have to hire regulatory lawyers before they hire engineers,” Thune said Wednesday night as the Reboot conference began at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce headquarters in Washington.

Silicon Valley activists are unimpressed. They don’t trust the GOP-controlled Congress on this issue.

“They’re cynical attempts,” Evan Greer, campaign manager for Fight for the Future, said of the legislative proposals, “last-ditch efforts by cable lobbyists who know they’ve been beat in the court of public opinion.”


Net neutrality

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Net neutrality (also network neutrality, Internet neutrality, or net equality) is the principle that Internet service providersand governments should treat all data on the Internet equally, not discriminating or charging differentially by user, content, site, platform, application, type of attached equipment, or mode of communication. The term was coined by Columbia University media law professor Tim Wu in 2003 as an extension of the longstanding concept of a common carrier.[1][2][3][4]

There has been extensive debate about whether net neutrality should be required by law, particularly in the United States. Debate over the issue of net neutrality predates the coining of the term. Advocates of net neutrality such as Lawrence Lessighave raised concerns about the ability of broadband providers to use their last mile infrastructure to block Internet applications and content (e.g. websites, services, and protocols), and even to block out competitors[5]

Neutrality proponents claim that telecom companies seek to impose a tiered service model in order to control the pipeline and thereby remove competition, create artificial scarcity, and oblige subscribers to buy their otherwise uncompetitive services[citation needed]. Many believe net neutrality to be primarily important as a preservation of current freedoms.[6] Prominent supporters of net neutrality include Vinton Cerf, co-inventor of the Internet Protocol, and Tim Berners-Lee, creator of the Web.[7][8]

Examples of net neutrality violations include when the internet service provider Comcast intentionally slowed peer-to-peercommunications.[9] In 2007, one other company was using deep packet inspection to discriminate against peer-to-peer, file transfer protocol, and online games, instituting a cell-phone style billing system of overages, free-to-telecom value added services, and bundling.[10] Critics of net neutrality argue that data discrimination is desirable for reasons like guaranteeingquality of service. Bob Kahn, co-inventor of the Internet Protocol, called the term net neutrality a slogan and opposes establishing it, but he admits that he is against the fragmentation of the net whenever this becomes excluding to other participants.[11] On 31 January 2015, AP News reported the FCC will present the notion of applying (“with some caveats”) Title II (common carrier) of the Communications Act of 1934 to the internet in a vote expected on 26 February 2015.[12][13][14][15][16]Adoption of this notion would reclassify internet service from one of information to one of telecommunications[17] and, according to Tom Wheeler, chairman of the FCC, ensure net neutrality.[18][19] The Obama administration said that it would not let the public see its 332 page net neutrality plan until after the FCC voted on its implementation.[20]

Definition and related principle

Net neutrality

Network neutrality is the principle that all Internet traffic should be treated equally.[21] According to Columbia Law School professor Tim Wu, the best way to explain network neutrality is as a principle to be used when designing a network: that a public information network will end up being most useful if all content, sites, and platforms are treated equally.[22] A more detailed proposed definition of technical and service network neutrality suggests that service network neutrality is the adherence to the paradigm that operation of a service at a certain layer is not influenced by any data other than the data interpreted at that layer, and in accordance with the protocol specification for that layer.[23]

Open Internet

The idea of an open Internet is the idea that the full resources of the Internet and means to operate on it are easily accessible to all individuals and companies. This often includes ideas such as net neutrality, open standards, transparency, lack of Internet censorship, and low barriers to entry. The concept of the open Internet is sometimes expressed as an expectation of decentralized technological power, and is seen by some as closely related to open-source software.[24]

Proponents often see net neutrality as an important component of an open internet, where policies such as equal treatment of data and open web standards allow those on the Internet to easily communicate and conduct business without interference from a third party.[25] A closed Internet refers to the opposite situation, in which established corporations or governments favor certain uses. A closed Internet may have restricted access to necessary web standards, artificially degradesome services, or explicitly filter out content.

Dumb pipe

Main article: Dumb pipe

The concept of a dumb network made up of dumb pipes has been around since at least the early 1990s. The idea of a dumb network is that the endpoints of a network are generally where the intelligence lies, and that the network itself generally leaves the management and operation of communication to the end users. In 2013 the software company MetroTech Net, Inc. (MTN) coined the term Dumb Wave which is the modern application of the Dumb Pipe concept to the ubiquitous wireless network. If wireless carriers do not provide unique and value added services, they will be relegated to the dumb pipe category where they can’t charge a premium or retain customers.

End-to-end principle

Main article: End-to-end principle

The end-to-end principle is a principle of network design, first laid out explicitly in the 1981 conference paper End-to-end arguments in system design by Jerome H. Saltzer, David P. Reed, and David D. Clark. The principle states that, whenever possible, communications protocol operations should be defined to occur at the end-points of a communications system, or as close as possible to the resource being controlled. According to the end-to-end principle, protocol features are only justified in the lower layers of a system if they are a performance optimization, hence, TCP retransmission for reliability is still justified, but efforts to improve TCP reliability should stop after peak performance has been reached. They argued that reliable systems tend to require end-to-end processing to operate correctly, in addition to any processing in the intermediate system. They pointed out that most features in the lowest level of a communications system have costs for all higher-layer clients, even if those clients do not need the features, and are redundant if the clients have to re-implement the features on an end-to-end basis. This leads to the model of a minimal dumb network with smart terminals, a completely different model from the previous paradigm of the smart network with dumb terminals. Because the end-to-end principle is one of the central design principles of the Internet, and because the practical means for implementing data discrimination violate the end-to-end principle, the principle often enters discussions about net neutrality. The end-to-end principle is closely related, and sometimes seen as a direct precursor to the principle of net neutrality.[26]

Traffic shaping

Main article: Traffic shaping

Traffic shaping is the control of computer network traffic in order to optimize or guarantee performance, improve latency, and/or increase usable bandwidth by delaying packets that meet certain criteria.[27] More specifically, traffic shaping is any action on a set of packets (often called a stream or a flow) which imposes additional delay on those packets such that they conform to some predetermined constraint (a contract or traffic profile).[28] Traffic shaping provides a means to control the volume of traffic being sent into a network in a specified period (bandwidth throttling), or the maximum rate at which the traffic is sent (rate limiting), or more complex criteria such as GCRA.


If the core of a network has more bandwidth than is permitted to enter at the edges, then good QoS can be obtained without policing. For example the telephone network employs admission control to limit user demand on the network core by refusing to create a circuit for the requested connection. Over-provisioning is a form of statistical multiplexing that makes liberal estimates of peak user demand. Over-provisioning is used in private networks such as WebEx and the Internet 2 Abilene Network, an American university network. David Isenberg believes that continued over-provisioning will always provide more capacity for less expense than QoS and deep packet inspection technologies.[29][30]

By issue

Discrimination by protocol

Favoring or blocking information based on the communications protocol that the computers are using to communicate.

On 1 August 2008, the FCC formally voted 3-to-2 to uphold a complaint against Comcast, the largest cable company in the United States, ruling that it had illegally inhibited users of its high-speed Internet service from using file-sharing software. FCC chairman Kevin J. Martin said that the order was meant to set a precedent that Internet providers, and indeed all communications companies, could not prevent customers from using their networks the way they see fit unless there is a good reason. In an interview, Martin said, “We are preserving the open character of the Internet”. The legal complaint against Comcast related to BitTorrent, a transfer protocol that is especially apt at distributing large files such as video, music, and software on the Internet.[31] Comcast admitted no wrongdoing[32] in its proposed settlement of up to US$16 dollars per share in December 2009.[33]

Discrimination by IP address

During the early decades of the Internet, creating a non-neutral Internet was technically infeasible.[34] Originally developed to filter malware, the Internet security company NetScreen Technologies released network firewalls in 2003 with so called deep packet inspection. Deep inspection helped make real-time discrimination between different kinds of data possible,[35] and is often used for internet censorship.

In a practice called zero-rating, companies will reimburse data use from certain addresses, favoring use of those services. Examples include Facebook Zero[36] and Google Free Zone, and are especially common in the developing world.[37]

Sometimes ISPs will charge some companies, but not others, for the traffic they cause on the ISP’s network. French telecoms operator Orange, complaining that traffic from YouTube and other Google sites consists of roughly 50% of total traffic on the Orange network, reached a deal with Google, in which they charge Google for the traffic incurred on the Orange network.[38] Some also thought that Orange’s rival ISP Free throttled YouTube traffic. However, an investigation done by the French telecommunications regulatory body revealed that the network was simply congested during peak hours.[39]

Favoring private networks

Favoring communications sent over the private networks run by individual organizations over information sent over the general Internet Protocol. Examples include Comcast’s deal with Xbox.[40]

Peering discrimination

See also: Peering

There is some disagreement about whether peering is a net neutrality issue.[41]

In the first quarter of 2014, streaming website Netflix reached an arrangement with ISP Comcast to improve the quality of its service to Netflix clients.[42] This arrangement was made in response to increasingly slow connection speeds through Comcast over the course of the 2013, where average speeds dropped by over 25% of their values a year before to an all time low. After the deal was struck in January 2014, the Netflix speed index recorded a 66% increase in connection.

Netflix agreed to a similar deal with Verizon in 2014 after Verizon DSL customers connection speed dropped to less than 1 Mbit/s early in the year. Netflix spoke out against this deal with a controversial statement delivered to all Verizon customers experiencing low connection speeds using the Netflix client.[43] This sparked an internal debate between the two companies that led to Verizon obtaining a cease and desist order on June 5, 2014 that forced Netflix to stop displaying this message.

Legal aspects

Main article: Net neutrality law

Legal enforcement of net neutrality principles takes a variety of forms, from provisions that outlaw anti-competitive blocking and throttling of Internet services, all the way to legal enforcement that prevents companies from subsidizing Internet use on particular sites.

Arguments for net neutrality

Proponents of net neutrality include consumer advocates, human rights organizations such as Article 19,[44] online companies and some technology companies.[45]Many major Internet application companies are advocates of neutrality. Yahoo!, Vonage,[46] eBay, Amazon,[47] IAC/InterActiveCorp. Microsoft, along with many other companies, have also taken a stance in support of neutrality regulation.[48] Cogent Communications, an international Internet service provider, has made an announcement in favor of certain net neutrality policies.[49] In 2008, Google published a statement speaking out against letting broadband providers abuse their market power to affect access to competing applications or content. They further equated the situation to that of the telephony market, where telephone companies are not allowed to control who their customers call or what those customers are allowed to say.[4] However, Google’s support of net neutrality has recently been called into question.[50]

Individuals who support net neutrality include Tim Berners-Lee,[51] Vinton Cerf,[52][53] Lawrence Lessig, Robert W. McChesney,[6] Steve Wozniak, Susan P. Crawford, Ben Scott, David Reed,[54] and U.S. President Barack Obama.[55][56] On November 10, 2014, President Obama recommended the FCC reclassify broadband Internet service as a telecommunications service in order to preserve net neutrality.[57][58][59] On November 12, 2014, AT&T stopped build-out of their fiber network until it has “solid net neutrality rules to follow”.[60] On 31 January 2015, AP News reported the FCC will present the notion of applying (“with some caveats”) Title II (common carrier) of the Communications Act of 1934 to the internet in a vote expected on 26 February 2015.[12][13][14][15][16]

Control of data

Supporters of network neutrality want to designate cable companies as common carriers, which would require them to allow Internet service providers (ISPs) free access to cable lines, the model used for dial-up Internet. They want to ensure that cable companies cannot screen, interrupt or filter Internet content without court order.[61] Common carrier status would give the FCC the power to enforce net neutrality rules.[62] accuses cable and telecommunications companies of wanting the role of gatekeepers, being able to control which websites load quickly, load slowly, or don’t load at all. According to these companies want to charge content providers who require guaranteed speedy data delivery…to create advantages for their own search engines, Internet phone services, and streaming video services – and slowing access or blocking access to those of competitors.[63] Vinton Cerf, a co-inventor of the Internet Protocol and current vice president of Google argues that the Internet was designed without any authorities controlling access to new content or new services.[64] He concludes that the principles responsible for making the Internet such a success would be fundamentally undermined were broadband carriers given the ability to affect what people see and do online.[52]

Digital rights and freedoms

Lawrence Lessig and Robert W. McChesney argue that net neutrality ensures that the Internet remains a free and open technology, fostering democratic communication. Lessig and McChesney go on to argue that the monopolization of the Internet would stifle the diversity of independent news sources and the generation of innovative and novel web content.[6]

User intolerance for slow-loading sites

Users with faster Internet connectivity (e.g., fiber) abandon a slow-loading video at a faster rate than users with slower Internet connectivity (e.g., cable or mobile).[65] A “fast lane” in the Internet can irrevocably decrease the user’s tolerance to the relative slowness of the “slow lane”.

Proponents of net neutrality invoke the human psychological process of adaptation where when people get used to something better, they would not ever want to go back to something worse. In the context of the Internet, the proponents argue that a user who gets used to the “fast lane” on the Internet would find the “slow lane” intolerable in comparison, greatly disadvantaging any provider who is unable to pay for the “fast lane”. Video providers Netflix[66] and Vimeo[67] in their comments to FCC in favor of net neutrality use the research[65] of S.S. Krishnan and Ramesh Sitaraman that provides the first quantitative evidence of adaptation to speed among online video users. Their research studied the patience level of millions of Internet video users who waited for a slow-loading video to start playing. Users who had a faster Internet connectivity, such as fiber-to-the-home, demonstrated less patience and abandoned their videos sooner than similar users with slower Internet connectivity. The results demonstrate how users can get used to faster Internet connectivity, leading to higher expectation of Internet speed, and lower tolerance for any delay that occurs. Author Nicholas Carr[68] and other social commentators[69][70] have written about the habituation phenomenon by stating that a faster flow of information on the Internet can make people less patient.

Competition and innovation

Net neutrality advocates argue that allowing cable companies the right to demand a toll to guarantee quality or premium delivery would create an exploitative business model based on the ISPs position as gatekeepers.[71] Advocates warn that by charging websites for access, network owners may be able to block competitor Web sites and services, as well as refuse access to those unable to pay.[6] According to Tim Wu, cable companies plan to reserve bandwidth for their own television services, and charge companies a toll for priority service.[72]

Proponents of net neutrality argue that allowing for preferential treatment of Internet traffic, or tiered service, would put newer online companies at a disadvantage and slow innovation in online services.[45] Tim Wu argues that, without network neutrality, the Internet will undergo a transformation from a market ruled by innovation to one ruled by deal-making.[72] argues that net neutrality puts everyone on equal terms, which helps drive innovation. They claim it is a preservation of the way the internet has always operated, where the quality of websites and services determined whether they succeeded or failed, rather than deals with ISPs.[63] Lawrence Lessig and Robert W. McChesney argue that eliminating net neutrality would lead to the Internet resembling the world of cable TV, so that access to and distribution of content would be managed by a handful of massive companies. These companies would then control what is seen as well as how much it costs to see it. Speedy and secure Internet use for such industries as health care, finance, retailing, and gambling could be subject to large fees charged by these companies. They further explain that a majority of the great innovators in the history of the Internet started with little capital in their garages, inspired by great ideas. This was possible because the protections of net neutrality ensured limited control by owners of the networks, maximal competition in this space, and permitted innovators from outside access to the network. Internet content was guaranteed a free and highly competitive space by the existence of net neutrality.[6]

Preserving Internet standards

Network neutrality advocates have sponsored legislation claiming that authorizing incumbent network providers to override transport and application layer separation on the Internet would signal the decline of fundamental Internet standards and international consensus authority. Further, the legislation asserts that bit-shaping the transport of application data will undermine the transport layer’s designed flexibility.[73]

Preventing pseudo-services

Alok Bhardwaj argues that any violations to network neutrality, realistically speaking, will not involve genuine investment but rather payoffs for unnecessary and dubious services. He believes that it is unlikely that new investment will be made to lay special networks for particular websites to reach end-users faster. Rather, he believes that non-net neutrality will involve leveraging quality of service to extract remuneration from websites that want to avoid being slowed down.[74]

End-to-end principle

Main article: End-to-end principle

Some advocates say network neutrality is needed in order to maintain the end-to-end principle. According to Lawrence Lessig and Robert W. McChesney, all content must be treated the same and must move at the same speed in order for net neutrality to be true. They say that it is this simple but brilliant end-to-end aspect that has allowed the Internet to act as a powerful force for economic and social good.[6] Under this principle, a neutral network is a dumb network, merely passing packets regardless of the applications they support. This point of view was expressed by David S. Isenberg in his paper, “The Rise of the Stupid Network”. He states that the vision of an intelligent network is being replaced by a new network philosophy and architecture in which the network is designed for always-on use, not intermittence and scarcity. Rather than intelligence being designed into the network itself, the intelligence would be pushed out to the end-user’s device; and the network would be designed simply to deliver bits without fancy network routing or smart number translation. The data would be in control, telling the network where it should be sent. End-user devices would then be allowed to behave flexibly, as bits would essentially be free and there would be no assumption that the data is of a single data rate or data type.[75]

Contrary to this idea, the research paper titled End-to-end arguments in system design by Saltzer, Reed, and Clark[76] argues that network intelligence doesn’t relieve end systems of the requirement to check inbound data for errors and to rate-limit the sender, nor for a wholesale removal of intelligence from the network core.

Arguments against net neutrality

Opposition includes the Cato Institute, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, the Goldwater Institute, Americans for Tax Reform, and the Ayn Rand Institute. Opponents of net neutrality include hardware companies and members of the cable and telecommunications industries, including major telecommunications providers, such as Comcast and AT&T.[77]

A number of these opponents created a website called Hands Off The Internet[78] (which no longer exists) to promote their arguments against net neutrality. Principal financial support for the website came from AT&T, and members included technology firms and pro-market advocacy group Citizens Against Government Waste.[79][80][81][82]

Network neutrality regulations are opposed by Internet engineers such as professor David Farber[83] and TCP inventor and Qualcomm Director[84] Bob Kahn.[11]Robert Pepper is senior managing director, global advanced technology policy, at Cisco Systems, and is the former FCC chief of policy development. He says: “The supporters of net neutrality regulation believe that more rules are necessary. In their view, without greater regulation, service providers might parcel out bandwidth or services, creating a bifurcated world in which the wealthy enjoy first-class Internet access, while everyone else is left with slow connections and degraded content. That scenario, however, is a false paradigm. Such an all-or-nothing world doesn’t exist today, nor will it exist in the future. Without additional regulation, service providers are likely to continue doing what they are doing. They will continue to offer a variety of broadband service plans at a variety of price points to suit every type of consumer”.[85] Bob Kahn, another computer scientist and Director at Qualcomm,[84] has said net neutrality is a slogan that would freeze innovation in the core of the Internet.[11]

Farber has written and spoken strongly in favor of continued research and development on core Internet protocols. He joined academic colleagues Michael Katz,Christopher Yoo, and Gerald Faulhaber in an op-ed for the Washington Post strongly critical of network neutrality, essentially stating that while the Internet is in need of remodeling, congressional action aimed at protecting the best parts of the current Internet could interfere with efforts to build a replacement.[86]

Financing infrastructure improvements

Some opponents of net neutrality argue that prioritization of bandwidth is necessary for future innovation on the Internet.[77] Telecommunications providers such as telephone and cable companies, and some technology companies that supply networking gear, argue telecom providers should have the ability to provide preferential treatment in the form of tiered services, for example by giving online companies willing to pay the ability to transfer their data packets faster than other Internet traffic. The added revenue from such services could be used to pay for the building of increased broadband access to more consumers.[45]

Conversely, opponents say that net neutrality regulation would make it more difficult for Internet service providers (ISPs) and other network operators to recoup their investments in broadband networks.[87] John Thorne, senior vice president and deputy general counsel of Verizon, a broadband and telecommunications company, has argued that they will have no incentive to make large investments to develop advanced fibre-optic networks if they are prohibited from charging higher preferred access fees to companies that wish to take advantage of the expanded capabilities of such networks. Thorne and other ISPs have accused Google and Skype of freeloading or free riding for using a network of lines and cables the phone company spent billions of dollars to build.[77][88][89]

Counterweight to server-side non-neutrality

Those in favor of forms of non-neutral tiered Internet access argue that the Internet is already not a level playing field: large companies achieve a performance advantage over smaller competitors by replicating servers and buying high-bandwidth services. Should prices drop for lower levels of access, or access to only certain protocols, for instance, a change of this type would make Internet usage more neutral, with respect to the needs of those individuals and corporations specifically seeking differentiated tiers of service. Network expert[citation needed] Richard Bennett has written, “A richly funded Web site, which delivers data faster than its competitors to the front porches of the Internet service providers, wants it delivered the rest of the way on an equal basis. This system, which Google calls broadband neutrality, actually preserves a more fundamental inequality.”[90]

Tim Wu, though a proponent of network neutrality, claims that the current Internet is not neutral, because its implementation of best effort generally favors file transfer and other non-time sensitive traffic over real-time communications.[91]

Prevent overuse of bandwidth

Since the early 1990s, Internet traffic has increased steadily. The arrival of picture-rich websites and MP3s led to a sharp increase in the mid-1990s followed by a subsequent sharp increase since 2003 as video streaming and Peer-to-peer file sharing became more common.[92][93] In reaction to companies including YouTube, as well as smaller companies starting to offer free video content, using substantial amounts of bandwidth, at least one Internet service provider (ISP), SBC Communications (now AT&T Inc.), has suggested that it should have the right to charge these companies for making their content available over the provider’s network.[94]

Bret Swanson of the Wall Street Journal wrote in 2007 that the popular websites of that time, including YouTube, MySpace, and blogs, were put at risk by net neutrality. He noted that, at the time, YouTube streamed as much data in three months as the world’s radio, cable and broadcast television channels did in one year, 75 petabytes. He argued that networks were not remotely prepared to handle the amount of data required to run these sites. He also argued that net neutrality would prevent broadband networks from being built, which would limit available bandwidth and thus endanger innovation.[95]

One example of these concerns was the series of tubes analogy, which was presented by US senator Ted Stevens on the floor of the US senate in 2006.

Related issues

Data discrimination

Main article: Data discrimination

Tim Wu, though a proponent of network neutrality, claims that the current Internet is not neutral as its implementation of best effort generally favors file transfer and other non-time-sensitive traffic over real-time communications.[96] Generally, a network which blocks some nodes or services for the customers of the network would normally be expected to be less useful to the customers than one that did not. Therefore, for a network to remain significantly non-neutral requires either that the customers not be concerned about the particular non-neutralities or the customers not have any meaningful choice of providers, otherwise they would presumably switch to another provider with fewer restrictions.[citation needed]

While the network neutrality debate continues, network providers often enter into peering arrangements among themselves. These agreements often stipulate how certain information flows should be treated. In addition, network providers often implement various policies such as blocking of port 25 to prevent insecure systems from serving as spam relays, or other ports commonly used by decentralized music search applications implementing peer-to-peer networking models. They also present terms of service that often include rules about the use of certain applications as part of their contracts with users.[citation needed]

Most consumer Internet providers implement policies like these. The MIT Mantid Port Blocking Measurement Project is a measurement effort to characterize Internet port blocking and potentially discriminatory practices. However, the effect of peering arrangements among network providers are only local to the peers that enter into the arrangements, and cannot affect traffic flow outside their scope.[citation needed]

Jon Peha from Carnegie Mellon University believes it is important to create policies that protect users from harmful traffic discrimination, while allowing beneficial discrimination. Peha discusses the technologies that enable traffic discrimination, examples of different types of discrimination, and potential impacts of regulation.[97]

Quality of service

Main article: Quality of service

Internet routers forward packets according to the diverse peering and transport agreements that exist between network operators. Many networks using Internet protocols now employ quality of service (QoS), and Network Service Providers frequently enter into Service Level Agreements with each other embracing some sort of QoS.

There is no single, uniform method of interconnecting networks using IP, and not all networks that use IP are part of the Internet. IPTV networks are isolated from the Internet, and are therefore not covered by network neutrality agreements.

The IP datagram includes a 3-bit wide Precedence field and a larger DiffServ Code Point that are used to request a level of service, consistent with the notion that protocols in a layered architecture offer services through Service Access Points. This field is sometimes ignored, especially if it requests a level of service outside the originating network’s contract with the receiving network. It is commonly used in private networks, especially those including Wi-Fi networks where priority is enforced. While there are several ways of communicating service levels across Internet connections, such as SIP, RSVP, IEEE 802.11e, and MPLS, the most common scheme combines SIP and DSCP. Router manufacturers now sell routers that have logic enabling them to route traffic for various Classes of Service at “wire-speed”.

With the emergence of multimedia, VoIP, IPTV, and other applications that benefit from low latency, various attempts to address the inability of some private networks to limit latency have arisen, including the proposition of offering tiered service levels that would shape Internet transmissions at the network layer based on application type. These efforts are ongoing, and are starting to yield results as wholesale Internet transport providers begin to amend service agreements to include service levels.[98]

Advocates of net neutrality have proposed several methods to implement a net neutral Internet that includes a notion of quality-of-service:

  • An approach offered by Tim Berners-Lee allows discrimination between different tiers, while enforcing strict neutrality of data sent at each tier: “If I pay to connect to the Net with a given quality of service, and you pay to connect to the net with the same or higher quality of service, then you and I can communicate across the net, with that quality and quantity of service”.[3] “[We] each pay to connect to the Net, but no one can pay for exclusive access to me.”[99]
  • United States lawmakers have introduced bills that would now allow quality of service discrimination for certain services as long as no special fee is charged for higher-quality service.[100]

Alok Bhardwaj has argued that net neutrality preservation through legislation is consistent with implementing quality of service protocols. He argues legislation should ban the charging of fees for any quality of service, which would both allow networks to implement quality of service as well as remove any incentive to abuse net neutrality ideas. He argues that since implementing quality of service doesn’t require any additional costs versus a non-QoS network, there’s no reason implementing quality of service should entail any additional fees.[74] However, the core network hardware needed (with large number of queues, etc.) and the cost of designing and maintaining a QoS network are both much higher than for a non-QoS network.[citation needed]

Pricing models

Broadband Internet access has most often been sold to users based on Excess Information Rate or maximum available bandwidth. If Internet service providers(ISPs) can provide varying levels of service to websites at various prices, this may be a way to manage the costs of unused capacity by selling surplus bandwidth (or “leverage price discrimination to recoup costs of ‘consumer surplus‘”). However, purchasers of connectivity on the basis of Committed Information Rate or guaranteed bandwidth capacity must expect the capacity they purchase in order to meet their communications requirements.

Various studies have sought to provide network providers the necessary formulas for adequately pricing such a tiered service for their customer base. But while network neutrality is primarily focused on protocol based provisioning, most of the pricing models are based on bandwidth restrictions.[101]

Privacy concerns

Some opponents of net neutrality legislation point to concerns of privacy rights that could come about as a result, how those infringements of privacy can be exploited. While some believe it is hyperbole to suggest that ISPs will just transparently monitor transmitted content, or that ISPs will have to alter their content, there is the concern that ISPs may have profit motives to analyze what their subscribers are viewing, and be able to use such information to their financial advantage. For example, an ISP may be able to essentially replicate the “targeting” that has already been employed by companies like Google. To critics such as David Clark, a senior research scientist at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the proper question is “who has the right to observe everything you do”?[102]

Framing of debate

Former Washington Post columnist, and Fox News commentator, Jeffrey Birnbaum, who currently works for the BGR Group (a lobbying firm which is employed byComcast[103]) has called the debate “vague and misleading.”[104]

See also


  1. Jump up^ Tim Wu (2003). “Network Neutrality, Broadband Discrimination”. Journal on telecom and high tech law. Retrieved 23 Apr 2014.
  2. Jump up^ Krämer, J; Wiewiorra, L. & Weinhardt,C. (2013): “Net Neutrality: A progress report”. Telecommunications Policy 37(9), 794–813.
  3. ^ Jump up to:a b Berners-Lee, Tim (21 June 2006). “Net Neutrality: This is serious”. timbl’s blog. Retrieved 26 December 2008.
  4. ^ Jump up to:a b Staff. “A Guide to Net Neutrality for Google Users”. Google. Archived fromthe original on 1 September 2008. Retrieved 7 December 2008.
  5. Jump up^ Lessig, L. 1999. Cyberspace’s Architectural Constitution, draft 1.1, Text of lecture given at www9, Amsterdam, Netherlands
  6. ^ Jump up to:a b c d e f Lawrence Lessig and Robert W. McChesney (8 June 2006). “No Tolls on The Internet”. Columns.
  7. Jump up^ Davidson, Alan (8 November 2005). “Vint Cerf speaks out on net neutrality”. Retrieved 25 January 2013.
  8. Jump up^ “”. 21 June 2006. Retrieved 23 June 2011.
  9. Jump up^ Peter Svensson (19 October 2007). “Comcast Blocks some Subscriber Internet Traffic, AP Testing shows”. Associated Press. Retrieved 25 October 2009.
  10. Jump up^ Anderson, Nate (25 July 2007). “Deep packet inspection meets ‘Net neutrality, CALEA”. Ars Technica. Retrieved 23 June 2011.
  11. ^ Jump up to:a b c Robert Kahn and Ed Feigenbaum (9 January 2007). An Evening with Robert Kahn (WMV). Computer History Museum. Retrieved 26 December 2008. Partial transcript:[dead link]
  12. ^ Jump up to:a b Lohr, Steve (2 February 2015). “In Net Neutrality Push, F.C.C. Is Expected to Propose Regulating Internet Service as a Utility”. New York Times. Retrieved2 February 2015.
  13. ^ Jump up to:a b Lohr, Steve (2 February 2015). “F.C.C. Chief Wants to Override State Laws Curbing Community Net Services”. New York Times. Retrieved 2 February 2015.
  14. ^ Jump up to:a b Flaherty, Anne (31 January 2015). “Just whose Internet is it? New federal rules may answer that”. AP News. Retrieved 31 January 2015.
  15. ^ Jump up to:a b Fung, Brian (2 January 2015). “Get ready: The FCC says it will vote on net neutrality in February”. Washington Post. Retrieved 2 January 2015.
  16. ^ Jump up to:a b Staff (2 January 2015). “FCC to vote next month on net neutrality rules”. AP News. Retrieved 2 January 2015.
  17. Jump up^ Lohr, Steve (4 February 2015). “F.C.C. Plans Strong Hand to Regulate the Internet”. New York Times. Retrieved 5 February 2015.
  18. Jump up^ Wheeler, Tom (4 February 2015). “FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler: This Is How We Will Ensure Net Neutrality”. Wired (magazine). Retrieved 5 February 2015.
  19. Jump up^ The Editorial Board (6 February 2015). “Courage and Good Sense at the F.C.C. – Net Neutrality’s Wise New Rules”. New York Times. Retrieved 6 February 2015.
  20. Jump up^ FCC’s Pai: Net-neutrality proposal is secret Internet regulation plan, Los Angelese Times, February 10, 2015
  21. Jump up^ Honan, Matthew (12 February 2008). “Inside Net Neutrality: Is your ISP filtering content?”. MacWorld. Retrieved 26 December 2008.
  22. Jump up^ Wu, Tim. “Network Neutrality FAQ”. Retrieved 26 December 2008.
  23. Jump up^ Hagai Bar-El (19 Aug 2014). “Protecting Network Neutrality: Both Important and Hard”. Retrieved 19 Aug 2014.
  24. Jump up^ Mathew Ingram (23 Mar 2012). “Open vs. closed: What kind of internet do we want?”. GigaOm. Retrieved 8 Jun 2014.
  25. Jump up^ “About the Open Internet”. European Commission. Retrieved 23 Apr 2014.
  26. Jump up^ Alexis C. Madrigal and Adrienne LaFrance (25 Apr 2014). “Net Neutrality: A Guide to (and History of) a Contested Idea”. The Atlantic. Retrieved 5 Jun 2014.This idea of net neutrality…[Lawrence Lessig] used to call the principle e2e, for end to end
  27. Jump up^ IETF RFC 2475 “An Architecture for Differentiated Services” section – definition of “Shaper”
  28. Jump up^ tsbmail. “ITU-T I.371 : Traffic control and congestion control in B-ISDN”. Retrieved 14 September 2014.
  29. Jump up^ Isenberg, David (2 July 2007). “Research on Costs of Net Neutrality”. Retrieved26 December 2008.
  30. Jump up^ Anderson, Nate (25 July 2007). “Deep packet inspection meets ‘Net neutrality, CALEA”. Ars Technica. Retrieved 26 December 2008.
  31. Jump up^ Hansell, Saul (2 August 2008). “F.C.C. Vote Sets Precedent on Unfettered Web Usage”. The New York Times.
  32. Jump up^ Duncan, Geoff (23 December 2009). “Comcast to Pay $16 Million for Blocking P2P Applications”. Digital Trends. Retrieved 23 December 2009.
  33. Jump up^ Cheng, Jacqui (22 December 2009). “Comcast settles P2P throttling class-action for $16 million”. Ars Technica (Condé Nast). Retrieved 23 December 2009.
  34. Jump up^ M. Chris Riley and Ben Scott, Free Press (Mar 2009). “Deep Packet Inspection: The end of the Internet as we know it?”. Center for Internet and Society. Retrieved 29 May 2014.
  35. Jump up^ Paul Roberts, IDG News Service (20 Oct 2003). “NetScreen announces deep inspection firewall”. Network World. Retrieved 29 May 2014.
  36. Jump up^ Ben Gilbert (23 Dec 2013). “T-Mobile prepaid offering free data… but only to access Facebook”. Engadget. Retrieved 18 Nov 2014.
  37. Jump up^ Lily Hay Newman (21 Jan 2014). “Net Neutrality Is Already in Trouble in the Developing World”. Slate. Retrieved 18 Nov 2014.
  38. Jump up^ Robertson, Adi (2013-01-19). “French ISP Orange says it’s making Google pay to send traffic over its network”. The Verge. Retrieved 14 January 2014.
  39. Jump up^ “ARCEP closes the administrative inquiry involving several companies, including Free and Google, on the technical and financial terms governing IP traffic routing.”. 19 July 2013. Retrieved 18 January 2014.
  40. Jump up^ Brendan Greeley (21 Jun 2012). “Comcast ‘Invents’ Its Own Private Internet”. Bloomberg. Retrieved 18 Nov 2014.
  41. Jump up^ Joshua Brustein (24 Feb 2014). “Netflix’s Deal With Comcast Isn’t About Net Neutrality—Except That It Is”. Bloomberg. Retrieved 18 Nov 2014.
  42. Jump up^ Waniata, Ryan. “Comcast Jumps up in Netflix Speed Rankings after Payola-style Agreement.” Digital Trends. N.p., 14 Apr. 2014. Web. 15 Aug. 2014.
  43. Jump up^ Waniata, Ryan. “Netflix Calls Verizon out on the Big Red Screen [Update: Netflix Backs Off].” Digital Trends. N.p., 9 June 2014. Web. 15 Aug. 2014.
  44. Jump up^ “Four tenors: Call for Internet Speech Rights”. ARTICLE 19. Retrieved31 August 2012.
  45. ^ Jump up to:a b c Meza, Philip E. (20 March 2007). Coming Attractions?. Stanford University Press. p. 158. ISBN 9780804756600.
  46. Jump up^ Plunkett, Jack W. (2008). Plunkett’s Telecommunications Industry Almanac 2009. Plunkett Research. p. 208. ISBN 9781593921415.
  47. Jump up^ “Defeat for net neutrality backers”. BBC News. 9 June 2006. Retrieved26 December 2008.
  48. Jump up^ “Open letter to the Committee on Energy and Commerce” (PDF). 1 March 2006. Retrieved 26 December 2008.
  49. Jump up^ Cogent Communications, Inc. “Net Neutrality Policy Statement”. Retrieved21 April 2009.
  50. Jump up^ “Google’s Sordid History of Net Neutrality Hypocrisy”. Gizmodo. Retrieved14 September 2014.
  51. Jump up^ Tim Berners-Lee (18 November 2006). Humanity Lobotomy – what will the Internet look like in 10 years?. Retrieved 26 December 2008.
  52. ^ Jump up to:a b Cerf, Vinton (7 February 2006). “The Testimony of Mr. Vinton Cerf, Vice President and Chief Internet Evangelist, Google” (PDF). p. 1. Retrieved5 November 2012.
  53. Jump up^ Cerf, Vinton (July 2009). “The Open Network. What it is, and why it matters”.Telecommunications Journal of Australia 59 (2). doi:10.2104/tja09018/issn.1835-4270.
  54. Jump up^ Dynamic Platform Standards Project. “Preserve the Internet Standards for Net Neutrality”. Retrieved 26 December 2008.
  55. Jump up^ Albanesius, Chloe (22 September 2009). “Obama Supports Net Neutrality Plan”. PC Magazine. Retrieved 25 January 2013.
  56. Jump up^ Broache, Anne (29 October 2007). “Obama pledges Net neutrality laws if elected president”. CNET. Retrieved 25 January 2013.
  57. Jump up^ Wyatt, Edward (November 10, 2014). “Obama Asks F.C.C. to Adopt Tough Net Neutrality Rules”. New York Times. Retrieved November 15, 2014.
  58. Jump up^ NYT Editorial Board (November 14, 2014). “Why the F.C.C. Should Heed President Obama on Internet Regulation”. New York Times. RetrievedNovember 15, 2014.
  59. Jump up^ Sepulveda, Ambassador Daniel A. (January 21, 2015). “The World Is Watching Our Net Neutrality Debate, So Let’s Get It Right”. Wired (website). RetrievedJanuary 20, 2015.
  60. Jump up^ Hardawar, Devindra (12 November 2014). “AT&T halts fiber build-out until net neutrality rules are sorted”. (Reuters). Retrieved12 November 2014.
  61. Jump up^ Phillips, Peter (2006). Censored 2007. Seven Stories Press. p. 34.ISBN 9781583227381.
  62. Jump up^ Robertson, Adi. “Federal court strikes down FCC net neutrality rules”. The Verge. Retrieved 14 January 2014.
  63. ^ Jump up to:a b “Frequently Asked Questions”. Archived from the original on 11 December 2008. Retrieved 7 December 2008.
  64. Jump up^ Davidson, Alan (8 November 2005). “Vint Cerf speaks out on net neutrality”.The Official Google Blog. Google.
  65. ^ Jump up to:a b “Video Stream Quality Impacts Viewer Behavior, by Krishnan and Sitaraman, ACM Internet Measurement Conference, Nov 2012.”.
  66. Jump up^ “NetFlix comments to FCC, page 17, Sept 16th 2014”.
  67. Jump up^ “Vimeo Open Letter to FCC, page 11, July 15th 2014”.
  68. Jump up^ “Patience is a Network Effect, by Nicholas Carr, Nov 2012”.
  69. Jump up^ “NPR Morning Edition: In Video-Streaming Rat Race, Fast is Never Fast Enough, October 2012”. Retrieved 2014-07-03.
  70. Jump up^ “Boston Globe: Instant gratification is making us perpetually impatient, Feb 2013”. Retrieved 2014-07-03.
  71. Jump up^ “What Is Net Neutrality? 10 Aug 2010”.
  72. ^ Jump up to:a b Wu, Timothy (1 May 2006). “Why You Should Care About Network Neutrality”. Slate.
  73. Jump up^ Dynamic Platform Standards Project. “Internet Platform for Innovation Act”. Sec. 2.11. Retrieved 26 December 2008.
  74. ^ Jump up to:a b “Against Fee-Based and other Pernicious Net Prejudice: An Explanation and Examination of the Net Neutrality Debate”. 27 November 2007. Retrieved 23 June 2011.
  75. Jump up^ Isenberg, David (1 August 1996). “The Rise of the Stupid Network”. Retrieved19 August 2006.
  76. Jump up^ J. H. Saltzer; D. P. Reed; D. D. Clark (November 1984). “End-to-end arguments in system design”. ACM Transactions on Computer Systems 2 (4): 277–288.doi:10.1145/357401.357402.
  77. ^ Jump up to:a b c Hart, Jonathan D. (2007). Internet Law. BNA Books. p. 750.ISBN 9781570186837.
  78. Jump up^ “Hands off the Internet”. Archived from the original on 5 January 2009. Retrieved 26 December 2008.
  79. Jump up^ Jeffrey H. Birnbaum, “No Neutral Ground in This Internet Battle”, The Washington Post, 26 July 2006.
  80. Jump up^ “Hands Off the Internet, “Member Organizations,””. Archived from the original on 5 January 2009. Retrieved 4 August 2006.
  81. Jump up^ Anne Veigle, “Groups Spent $42 Million on Net Neutrality Ads, Study Finds”, Communications Daily, 20 July 2006.
  82. Jump up^, “One Million Americans Urge Senate to Save the Internet”, at (last visited 4 August 2006).
  83. Jump up^ Farber, David (2 June 2006). “Common sense about network neutrality”.Interesting-People (Mailing list). Retrieved 26 December 2008.
  84. ^ Jump up to:a b “Robert Kahn, Forbes”. Retrieved 11 November 2011.
  85. Jump up^ Pepper, Robert (14 March 2007). “Network Neutrality: Avoiding a Net Loss”.TechNewsWorld. Retrieved 26 December 2008.
  86. Jump up^ David Farber; Michael Katz (19 January 2007). “Hold Off On Net Neutrality”.The Washington Post. Retrieved 26 December 2008.
  87. Jump up^ “FTC to Host Workshop on Broadband Connectivity Competition Policy”. Federal trade Commission. December 2006.
  88. Jump up^ Mohammed, Arshad (February 2007). “Verizon Executive Calls for End to Google’s ‘Free Lunch'”. The Washington Post.
  89. Jump up^ Crowcroft, Jon (2007). Net Neutrality: The Technical Side of the Debate: A White Paper (PDF). University of Cambridge. p. 5. Retrieved 23 June 2009.
  90. Jump up^ “Google’s political Head-fake”. SFGate. 9 July 2008. Retrieved 14 September2014.
  91. Jump up^ “Network neutrality, broadband discrimination by Tim Wu” (PDF). Retrieved23 June 2011.
  92. Jump up^ “Google and cable firms warn of risks from Web TV”. USA Today. 2 July 2007. Retrieved 20 May 2010.
  93. Jump up^ Kelly, Spencer (15 June 2007). “Warning of ‘Internet overload'”. BBC Click.
  94. Jump up^ Banks, Theodore L. (24 May 2002). Corporate Legal Compliance Handbook. Aspen Publishers Online. p. 70. ISBN 9780735533424.
  95. Jump up^ Swanson, Bret (20 January 2007). “The Coming Exaflood”. The Wall Street Journal.
  96. Jump up^ Wu, Tim (2003). “Network Neutrality, Broadband Discrimination”. Journal of Telecommunications and High Technology Law 2: 141. doi:10.2139/ssrn.388863.SSRN 388863.
  97. Jump up^ Jon Peha. “The Benefits and Risks of Mandating Network Neutrality, and the Quest for a Balanced Policy”. Retrieved 1 January 2007.
  98. Jump up^ Sullivan, Mark (14 August 2006). “Carriers Seek IP QOS Peers”. Light Reading. Retrieved 26 December 2008.
  99. Jump up^ Berners-Lee, Tim (2 May 2006). “Neutrality of the Net”. timbl’s blog. Retrieved26 December 2008.
  100. Jump up^ A bill to amend the Communications Act of 1934 to ensure net neutrality, S. 215
  101. Jump up^ “” (PDF). Retrieved 23 June 2011.
  102. Jump up^ Joch, Alan (October 2009). “Debating Net Neutrality”. Communications of the ACM 52 (10): 14–15. doi:10.1145/1562764.1562773.
  103. Jump up^ Washington Post, Lobbyists find mixed reception running for office, but a few have won elections, By Holly Yeager, Published: 19 May,
  104. Jump up^ Bimbaum, Jeffrey (26 June 2006). “No Neutral Ground In This Battle”. The Washington Post. Retrieved 15 December 2006.

External links

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts Portfolio

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 414-421

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 408-413

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 400-407

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 391-399

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 383-390

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 376-382

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 369-375

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 360-368

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 354-359

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 346-353

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 338-345

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 328-337

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 319-327

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 307-318

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 296-306

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 287-295

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 277-286

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 264-276

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 250-263

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 236-249

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 222-235

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 211-221

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 202-210

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 194-201

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 184-193

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 174-183

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 165-173

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 158-164

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 151-157

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 143-150

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 135-142

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 131-134

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 124-130

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 121-123

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 118-120

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 113 -117

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 112

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 108-111

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 106-108

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 104-105

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 101-103

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 98-100

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 94-97

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 93

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 92

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 91

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 88-90

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 84-87

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 79-83

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 74-78

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 71-73

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 68-70

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 65-67

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 62-64

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 58-61

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 55-57

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 52-54

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 49-51

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 45-48

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 41-44

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 38-40

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 34-37

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 30-33

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 27-29

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 17-26

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 16-22

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 10-15

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 01-09

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Carbon Dioxide is Not A Pollutant and Does Not Cause Temperature Changes — The EPA Plan To Limit Carbon Dioxide Emissions Is A Massive Tax Increase Based on The Junk Science of Global Computer Climate Model Predictions That Do Not Agree With Reality — Videos

Posted on June 7, 2014. Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |



The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts

Pronk Pops Show 272: June 4, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 271: June 2, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 270: May 30, 2014 

Pronk Pops Show 269: May 29, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 268: May 28, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 267: May 27, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 266: May 23, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 265: May 22, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 264: May 21, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 263: May 20, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 262: May 16, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 261: May 15, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 260: May 14, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 259: May 13, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 258: May 9, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 257: May 8, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 256: May 5, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 255: May 2, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 254: May 1, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 253: April 30, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 252: April 29, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 251: April 28, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 250: April 25, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 249: April 24, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 248: April 22, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 247: April 21, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 246: April 17, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 245: April 16, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 244: April 15, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 243: April 14, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 242: April 11, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 241: April 10, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 240: April 9, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 239: April 8, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 238: April 7, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 237: April 4, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 236: April 3, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 235: March 31, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 234: March 28, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 233: March 27, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 232: March 26, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 231: March 25, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 230: March 24, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 229: March 21, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 228: March 20, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 227: March 19, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 226: March 18, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 225: March 17, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 224: March 7, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 223: March 6, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 222: March 3, 2014

The Pronk Pops Show 272, June 4, 2014, Story 1: Carbon Dioxide is Not A Pollutant and Does Not Cause Temperature Changes — The EPA Plan To Limit Carbon Dioxide Emissions Is A Massive Tax Increase Based on The Junk Science of Global Computer Climate Model Predictions That Do Not Agree With Reality — Videos



Englander 420 kyr graph CO2-T-SL



Geocarb III-Mine-03








Failure of Climate Models

The Problems with Computer Models – from The Great Global Warming Swindle

Freeman Dyson on Global Warming 1 of 2 Bogus Climate Models

Freeman Dyson on Global Warming 2 of 2 Stratospheric Cooling

Experts Debate Climate Change Science, Policy

Climate Science Debate : Global Warming Alarmist VS. Global Warming Skeptic

CO2-Pollutant or Miracle Gas?

The Global Warming Hoax Explained for Dummies

Climate Change in 12 Minutes – The Skeptic’s Case

CO2 is not a pollutant. Global Warming and Green House Gas – The Environment Part 3

Obama Administration Sets New EPA Rules

EPA Seeks to Cut Carbon Dioxide Emissions by 30 Percent

New EPA Plan to Cut CO2 Emissions I Kentucky Tonight I KET

The Carbon Cycle,Carbon Dioxide -Cycle ( CO2 )

Obama’s Pitch to Cut Power Plant Pollution

Quick Look: The EPA’s Clean Power Plan

Obama’s plan to cut coal and gas emissions

Obama: My Plan Makes Electricity Rates Skyrocket

Obama to announce new pollution targets for power plants

Is CO2 a pollutant?

Cap and Trade Insanity

EPA Proposes New Plan to Reduce Carbon Emissions

Griffith Discusses EPA Power Plant Regs with Stuart Varney

Douglas Holtz-Eakin Discusses the New EPA Emissions Rule on Fox Business

Krauthammer EPA co2 rules


What does a coal plant scrubber look like?

How do you make electricity from coal – animated video

Electricity and Power Plants

Global Warming or Global Governance? (Full Length)

The Great Global Warming Swindle Full Movie

COOL IT – Saving Polar Bears

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts Portfolio

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 264-272

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 250-263

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 236-249

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 222-235

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 211-221

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or DownloadShow 202-210

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 194-201

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 184-193

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 174-183

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 165-173

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 158-164

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 151-157

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 143-150

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 135-142

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 131-134

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 124-130

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 121-123

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 118-120

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 113 -117

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 112

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 108-111

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 106-108

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 104-105

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 101-103

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 98-100

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 94-97

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 93

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 92

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 91

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 88-90

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 84-87

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 79-83

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 74-78

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 71-73

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 68-70

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 65-67

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 62-64

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 58-61

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 55-57

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 52-54

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 49-51

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 45-48

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 41-44

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 38-40

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 34-37

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 30-33

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 27-29

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 17-26

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 16-22

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 10-15

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 01-09


Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Excessive Speculation, Intercontinental Exchange and Government Regulation

Posted on December 29, 2012. Filed under: American History, Blogroll, Communications, Demographics, Diasters, Economics, Education, Energy, Federal Government, Fiscal Policy, Foreign Policy, government, government spending, history, Inflation, Investments, Language, Law, liberty, Life, Links, Macroeconomics, media, Oil, People, Philosophy, Politics, Programming, Rants, Resources, Video, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |


Gas Prices Explained

Mike Masters on Regulating Commodities Speculation

Michael W. Masters (Better Markets & Masters Capital Management)

Court Strikes Down CFTC Regulation to Limit Excessive Speculation

Michael Greenberger on Crude Oil Speculation

5th OPEC International Seminar – Michael Masters

Michael Masters Chairman, Better Markets Inc Michael W Masters is the founder and Managing Member of Masters Capital Management, an investment management firm. He is also a Partner in Masters Capital Nanotechnology, a venture capital fund. Mr Masters, an expert on the topic of commodities speculation and financial reform, has testified before many Congressional committees and government agencies, including the House Energy Subcommittee, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) and the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission. Recently, he participated in joint SEC-CFTC roundtable discussions on a variety of security-based swaps issues. Speaking out about the far-reaching harmful effects of unregulated commodities speculation and the need for financial reform, Mr Masters has made numerous appearances in media outlets around the world. He has also addressed consumer and corporate groups, and has served as an expert panellist before international and investor groups. He is the founder of Better Markets, a Washington, DC-based non-profit, non-partisan organization established to promote transparency and accountability in the financial markets for the public interest. He was the 2004 winner of the “Open Your Heart” award from Hedge Funds Care and is a 1989 graduate of the University of Tennessee.
The OPEC International Seminar is now regarded as one of the premier events on the world energy calendar, bringing together Ministers from OPEC Member Countries and other oil-producing countries, heads of intergovernmental organizations, chief executives of national and international oil companies, other industry leaders, renowned academics, analysts and media.
The 5th OPEC International Seminar, held in Vienna’s historic Hofburg Palace on 13–14 June 2012, focussing on the theme ‘Petroleum: Fuelling Prosperity, Supporting Sustainability’. The latest in the series of Seminars, which began in 2001, provided fresh impetus to key industry issues and developed existing and new avenues of dialogue and cooperation.

Secret Exemptions Allowed Speculators to Distort Futures Markets

FACTBOX: NYSE enters the ICE Age

Intercontinental Exchange to buy NYSE

IntercontinentalExchange (ICE): Delivering same-day response to regulatory requests

Derivatives still a ticking time bomb! Sept 2011

Jeff Sprecher, Chairman & CEO, IntercontinentalExchange

**MUST SEE** The Real Reason Gas Prices Are High – Best Explanation!

Will CFTC Limit Excessive Speculation?

Gas Prices & Oil Speculation

Oil Market Manipulation, Gas Prices, Energy Exploration, Securities Exchange Commission

How Wall St Speculation Drives Up Gas Prices

Find Out How Gasoline Gets to Your Tank

IntercontinentalExchange, Inc.,

“…IntercontinentalExchange, Inc., known as ICE, is an American financial company that operates Internet-based marketplaces which trade futures and over-the-counter (OTC) energy and commodity contracts as well as derivative financial products. While the company’s original focus was energy products (crude and refined oil, natural gas, power, and emissions), recent acquisitions have expanded its activity into the “soft” commodities (sugar, cotton and coffee), foreign exchange and equity index futures.

In 2011, ICE and NASDAQ OMX Group joined forces to bid against Deutsche Börse after the latter announced a $9.5 billion deal to merge with NYSE Euronext. The two U.S. bidders and then the German exchange ultimately withdrew after their bids encountered regulatory antitrust resistance. In December 2012 NYSE Euronext agreed to be acquired by ICE pending regulator approval.

ICE is organized into three business lines:

  • ICE Markets — futures, options, and OTC markets. Energy futures are traded via ICE Futures Europe; soft commodity futures/options are handled by ICE Futures U.S.
  • ICE Services — electronic trade confirmations and education.
  • ICE Data — electronic delivery of market data, including real-time trades, historical prices and daily indices.

Contracts sold through ICE Futures U.S. are processed through a subsidiary, ICE Clear U.S. (ICEUS). In May 2008, ICE launched its own Clearing House, ICE Clear, with divisions for Europe, US, Canada & Trust (ICEU).[2]

Headquartered in Atlanta, ICE also has offices in Calgary, Chicago, Houston, London, New York and Singapore, with regional telecommunications hubs in Chicago, New York, London and Singapore.


In the late 1990s, Jeffrey Sprecher, ICE’s founder, chairman, and Chief Executive Officer, acquired Continental Power Exchange, Inc. with the objective of developing an Internet-based platform to provide a more transparent and efficient market structure for OTC energy commodity trading. In May 2000, IntercontinentalExchange (ICE) was established, with its founding shareholders representing some of the world’s largest energy traders. The company’s stated mission was to transform OTC trading by providing an open, accessible, multi-dealer, around-the-clock electronic energy exchange. The new exchange offered the trading community better price transparency, more efficiency, greater liquidity and lower costs than manual trading.

In June 2001, ICE expanded its business into futures trading by acquiring the International Petroleum Exchange (IPE), now ICE Futures Europe, which operated Europe’s leading open-outcry energy futures exchange. Since 2003, ICE has partnered with the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) to host its electronic marketplaces. In April 2005, the entire ICE portfolio of energy futures became fully electronic. In April 2010 ICE bought CCX’s owner Climate Exchange PLC for 395 million pounds ($622 million). Climate Exchange PLC also owns the European Climate Exchange (ECX).[3]

ICE became a publicly traded company on November 16, 2005, and was added to the Russell 1000 Index on June 30, 2006. The company expanded rapidly in 2007, acquiring the New York Board of Trade (NYBOT),[4] ChemConnect (a chemical commodity market), and the Winnipeg Commodity Exchange. In March 2007 ICE made an unsuccessful $9.9 billion bid for the Chicago Board of Trade, which was instead acquired by the Chicago Mercantile Exchange.[5]

In January 2008, ICE partnered with TSX Group’s Natural Gas Exchange, expanding their offering to clearing and settlement services for physical OTC natural gas contracts.[6]

NYSE Euronext

In February 2011, in the wake of an announced merger of NYSE Euronext with Deutsche Borse, speculation developed that ICE and Nasdaq could mount a counter-bid of their own for NYSE Euronext. ICE was thought to be looking to acquire the American exchange’s derivatives business, Nasdaq its cash equities business. As of the time of the speculation, “NYSE Euronext’s market value was $9.75 billion. Nasdaq was valued at $5.78 billion, while ICE was valued at $9.45 billion.”[7] Late in the month, Nasdaq was reported to be considering asking either ICE or the Chicago Merc (CME) to join in what would be probably be an $11-12 billion counterbid for NYSE.[8] On April 1, ICE and Nasdaq made an $11.3 billion offer which was rejected April 10 by NYSE. Another week later, ICE and Nasdaq sweetened their offer, including a $.17 increase per share to $42.67 and a $350 million breakup fee if the deal were to encounter regulatory trouble. The two said the offer was a $2 billion (21%) premium over the Deutsche offer and that they had fully committed financing of $3.8 billion from lenders to finance the deal.[9] The Justice Department, also in April, “initiated an antitrust review of the proposal, which would have brought nearly all U.S. stock listings under a merged Nasdaq-NYSE.” In May, saying it “became clear that we would not be successful in securing regulatory approval,” the Nasdaq and ICE withdrew their bid.[10] The European Commission then blocked the Deutsche merger on 1 February 2012, citing the fact that the merged company would have a near monopoly.[11][12]

In December 2012, ICE announced it would buy NYSE Euronext for $8 billion, pending regulatory approval. Jeffrey Sprecher will retain his position as Chairman and CEO.[13] The boards of directors of both ICE and NYSE Euronext approved the acquisition.[14]

 Key subsidiaries subject to regulation

 ICE Clear Credit LLC

  • see main article ICE Clear Credit LLC
  • Clearing entity for credit default swaps (CDS)
  • Regulated by
    • CFTC – Derivatives Clearing Organization
    • SEC – Registered Securities Clearing Agency

ICE Clear Europe Limited

  • Clearing entity for credit default swaps (CDS)
  • CFTC – Derivatives Clearing Organization
  • Regulated by
    • SEC – Registered Securities Clearing Agency
    • U.K. Financial Services Authority (FSA) – Recognised Clearing House
    • U.K Financial Services Authority (FSA) – Settlement Finality Designation (SFD) under the Financial Markets and Insolvency Regulations 1999
    • Bank of England (U.K.s central bank) – regulated as an Inter-Bank Payment System (Banking Act 2009)

ICE Futures U.S., Inc.

  • Trades futures and options in three main areas
    • Agricultural – e.g. Sugar No. 11, Cotton No. 2
    • Currency – e.g. U.S. Dollar Index, more than 50 currency pairs
    • Equity index – e.g. Russell Indexes
  • Regulated by
    • CFTC – Exchange

ICE Clear U.S., Inc.

  • Clears products traded on ICE Futures U.S., Inc.
  • Regulated by
    • CFTC – Exchange

Commodities traded on the exchange

  • Coal
  • Crude and Refined products
  • Emissions
  • Natural Gas
  • Power
  • Cocoa
  • Coffee C
  • Cotton No. 2
  • FCOJ A
  • Orange juice concentrate
  • Sugar No. 11
  • Russell Indices
  • US Dollar Index
  • Iron Ore Swaps

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Please Mr. Customs Man, Don’t Take My Kinder Surprise Away–No Wonder The National Debt Exceeds $16,900 Billion!–Videos

Posted on April 28, 2011. Filed under: Agriculture, Banking, Blogroll, Business, Communications, Economics, Federal Government, Fiscal Policy, government, government spending, Law, liberty, Life, Links, media, Monetary Policy, Money, People, Philosophy, Politics, Raves, Talk Radio, Taxes, Video, Wealth, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

UPDATED September 9, 2015

Mark Steyn: The TSA Loves Snow Globes, But It Hates Kinder Eggs And Large Penises

Kinder eggs BANNED in US

10 Kinder Surprise Bunny Counting Song 1-10 Ultimate Surprise Easter Egg Toys

Kinder Surprise Eggs USA Prohibition. Kinder Surprise is banned in USA.

Kinder Surprise advert 2010 chocolate factory – music by Vanessa James

It’s a Kinder Magic – Kinder Egg Stop Motion Animation

12 Surprise Eggs Unboxing Kinder Surprise Disney Pixar Toy Story Madagascar 3 Trash-Pack Easter Eggs

Kinder Eggs Are Banned in the US

Kinder Eggs illegal in the U.S.?

Free The Egg

KINDER SURPRISE EGGS!!! Let’s Crack ‘Em Open!

Caught At the Border With… Kinder Egg Surprises??

I Like Candy! – Kinder Surprise Egg

Big Kinder Surprise Egg – Easter Edition and Kinder Joy Egg- Video – Big Surprise

BIGGEST Kinder Surprise Seven Pack Egg – Full of Surprises – Video – Kinder Überraschung

Kinder Surprise Easter Eggs and others surprises

★24 Spongebob & Winx Kinder Surprise Eggs unboxing chocolate Unwrapping Review toys

Kinder egg banned in USA – Canadian woman stopped at border

21 Surprise Eggs, Kinder Surprise Cars 2 Thomas Spongebob Disney Pixar

Mama don’t take my Kinder Surprise away
Mama don’t take my Kinder Surprise away
Mama don’t take my Kinder Surprise away

Mama don’t take my Kinder Surprise
Mama don’t take my Kinder Surprise
Mama don’t take my Kinder Surprise away

Mama don’t take my Kinder Surprise
Leave your boy so far from home Mama don’t take my Kinder Surprise away Mama don’t take my Kinder Surprise

Mama don’t take my Kinder Surprise away

Ms Swan at Customs

50 x Kinder Überraschung … [ Unboxing ] [ Star Wars Twistheads Edition ] [Kinder Surprise]

Choc and Awe

By  Mark Steyn

I am looking this bright Easter morn at a Department of Homeland Security “Custody Receipt for Seized Property and Evidence.” Late last night, crossing the Quebec/Vermont border, my children had two boxes of “Kinder Eggs” (“Est. Dom. Value $7.50″) confiscated by Customs & Border Protection.

Don’t worry, it’s for their own safety. I had no idea that the United States is the only nation on the planet (well, okay, excepting North Korea and Saudi Arabia and one or two others) to ban Kinder Eggs. According to the CBP:

Kinder Chocolate Eggs are hollow milk chocolate eggs about the size of a large hen’s egg usually packaged in a colorful foil wrapper. They are a popular treat and collector’s item during holiday periods in various countries around the world, including those in Europe, South America and even Canada. A toy within the egg is contained in an oval-shaped plastic capsule. The toy requires assembly and each egg contains a different toy. Many of the toys that have been tested by the Consumer Product Safety Commission in the past were determined to present a choking hazard for young children.

And yet oddly enough generations of European and Latin American children remain unchoked. Gotta love that “even Canada,” by the way: Is that an implied threat that Kinder Egg consumption is incompatible with participation in NORAD or membership of NAFTA?

The Food and Drug Administration has issued an import alert for Kinder Eggs, because they are a confectionery product with a non-nutritive object imbedded in it. As in years past, CBP, the Food and Drug Administration and CPSC work in close collaboration to ensure the safety of imported goods by examining, sampling and testing products that may present such import safety hazards. Last year, CBP officers discovered more than 25,000 of these banned chocolate eggs. More than 2,000 separate seizures were made of this product.

Let’s see — CBP, FDA, CPSC. I’m impressed it takes a mere three agencies from the vast alphabet soup of federal regulation to keep us safe from the menace of confectionery products with non-nutritive embeds.

As Janet Napolitano would say, the system worked. I hope America’s chocolate soldiers are enjoying their seized eggs this Easter.

Bonus prediction: What’s the betting that the first jihadist to weaponize a Kinder Egg makes it on to the plane?

PS My kids asked the CBP seizure squad if they could eat the chocolate in front of the border guards while the border guards held on to the toys to prevent any choking hazard — and then, having safely consumed the chocolate, take the toys home as a separate item. This request was denied. Could have been worse. Could have been a $300 fine, plus a $250 fee for seized-egg storage.

PPS The real choking hazard is the vise-like grip of government.

Reminder from CBP: Kinder Eggs Banned From Import Into U.S.

“…As the Easter holiday approaches, U.S. Customs and Border Protection would like to remind the traveling public that Kinder Eggs, a popular chocolate treat, is banned from being imported into the U.S.

In fiscal year 2010, CBP seized nearly 25,000 Kinder Eggs in 1,700 separate incidents. While there are some commercial-sized seizures that occur, most Kinder Eggs are seized in personal baggage or at mail and express consignment facilities.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has issued an import alert for Kinder Eggs, because they are a confectionery product with a non-nutritive object imbedded in it. The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission considers the toys within the eggs as presently imported and sold to violate CPSC’s small parts regulation with respect to children under three. ( Import Alert 34-02 )

CBP works in close collaboration with the CPSC and the FDA to ensure the safety of imported goods by examining, sampling and testing products that may present import safety hazards. These partner agencies are now working along-side one another at the Import Safety Commercial Targeting and Analysis Center to streamline and enhance federal efforts to address import safety issues, such as the illegal importation of Kinder Eggs.

CBP’s CTAC combines the resources and manpower from various government agencies to protect the American public from harm caused by unsafe imported products by improving communication and information-sharing and reducing redundant inspection activities. The CTAC reflects the three core principles announced by the President’s Food Safety Working Group: Prevention, Surveillance and Response.

Travelers are encouraged to visit the CBP website for useful information and publications such as Know Before You Go ( Know Before You Go ) …”

U.S. Customs and Border Protection is the unified border agency within the Department of Homeland Security charged with the management, control and protection of our nation’s borders at and between the official ports of entry. CBP is charged with keeping terrorists and terrorist weapons out of the country while enforcing hundreds of U.S. laws.

ChocoTreasure Easter

Kinder Surprise knockoff: Choco Treasure

“…The theory in my world is: You don’t see KinderSurprise eggs much in America is because American kids don’t realize they’re not supposed to eat the prize. Okay, and some of the you-build-it surprises inside have tiny parts. Wikipedia confirms my suspicion: “Kinder Eggs are sold all over the world excluding the United States, where the 1938 Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act prohibits embedding “non-nutritive items” in confections. … Kinder Egg-like confections are available, but only in a plastic form filled with small candies and/or stickers. There are some stores in the United States that sell genuine Kinder Eggs, often in conjunction with other imported British or other European sweets, although their import is illegal due to the 1938 law and 1997 recall.”

And so this brings us to what’s on the shelf of a major NW supermarket, ChocoTreasure, made in China but distributed by a company in Jersey City, New Jersey. …”

 Kinder Surprise

“…Kinder Surprise, also known as a Kinder Egg or, in the original Italian, Kinder Sorpresa,[1] is a confection manufactured by Italian company Ferrero. Originally intended for children, it has the form of a chocolate egg containing a small toy, often requiring assembly.

Kinder Surprise originated in 1972 in Italy as Kinder Sorpresa. The German word “Kinder” in the name came about because in 1967, Ferrero’s German subsidiary introduced Kinder Chocolate (“Kinderschokolade”) to the German market, and in 1968 that product was introduced to Ferrero’s native Italy, establishing the “Kinder” brand there, prior to the introduction of the Kinder Sorpresa chocolate eggs. Kinder Surprise eggs were introduced to the German market in 1974, and for many years this was the largest market for the product.

The toys are designed by both inside designers and external freelancers (for example the French artist André Roche based in Munich) and manufactured by many companies worldwide, such as Produzioni Editoriali Aprile, a small company based in Turin, Italy, run and founded by two brothers, Ruggero and Valerio Aprile.

Kinder Eggs are sold all over the world excluding the United States, where the 1938 Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act prohibits embedding “non-nutritive items” in confections. Additionally, the Consumer Product Safety Commission issued a recall on the eggs in 1997 (mostly via import shops).

Speculation that this recall was the result of lobbying by Nestlé to eliminate a competitor has been fomented by previous versions of this very Wikipedia article, which stated that the recall was “likely as a consequence of the introduction of the rival Nestlé Wonderball product featuring Disney characters”. However, the New York Times article cited as proof of this discusses only Nestle’s decision to withdraw its own similar product from the market subsequently, and the only lobbying it refers to is that by Nestlé in an attempt to “write new regulations allowing them to sell the product.”.[2] Nestlé’s lobbying at that point, if successful, would have had the effect of legalizing its products as well as the Kinder Egg. Similar confections are presently available, but only in a plastic form filled with small candies and/or stickers. There are some stores in the United States that sell genuine Kinder Eggs, often in conjunction with other imported British or other European sweets, although their import is illegal due to the 1938 law and 1997 recall.[3]

In Europe, their popularity has spread beyond their intended market, and they have become a minor cult phenomenon among adults. There is even a thriving collector’s market for the toys. This is especially true in Germany, where the manufacturer includes higher-quality toys than those available elsewhere (more details below). There are many types of toys available, but some of the most popular with collectors include the ever-changing series of small hand-painted figures (some have to be assembled), which are said to be in every seventh egg (ad slogan: “Jetzt in jedem siebten Ei”); cartoon characters (sometimes called “stick figures”, which is a mistranslation of the German “Steckfiguren”); metal figures and jigsaw puzzles. Seasonal eggs are introduced around the holidays, such as the limited-edition creche collections (featuring such characters as the three kings, baby Jesus, and assorted barnyard animals) found around Christmas, and the huge ones found at Easter (extremely popular in Italy).

A relatively new innovation, triggered by the advent of the Internet, is the introduction of “Internet surprises”. Accompanying the toy is a small slip of paper containing a “Magicode”. This code gives access to games at the Magic Kinder website, some for downloading, some for playing online. …”

U.S National Debt Clock

Background Articles and Videos

Kinder Surprise 2010 Ad

Kinder Surprise commercial – kinderæg

Paul Simon – Kodachrome + lyrics

When I think back
On all the crap I learned in high school
It’s a wonder
I can think at all
And though my lack of edu—cation
Hasn’t hurt me none
I can read the writing on the wall

They give us those nice bright colors
They give us the greens of summers
Makes you think all the world’s a sunny day, Oh yeah
I got a Nikon camera
I love to take a photograph
So mama don’t take my Kodachrome away

If you took all the girls I knew
When I was single
And brought them all together for one night
I know they’d never match
my sweet imagination
everything looks WORSE in black and white

They give us those nice bright colors
They give us the greens of summers
Makes you think all the world’s a sunny day, Oh yeah
I got a Nikon camera
I love to take a photograph
So mama don’t take my Kodachrome away

Mama don’t take my Kodachrome away
Mama don’t take my Kodachrome away
Mama don’t take my Kodachrome away

Mama don’t take my Kodachrome
Mama don’t take my Kodachrome
Mama don’t take my Kodachrome away

Mama don’t take my Kodachrome
Leave your boy so far from home
Mama don’t take my Kodachrome away
Mama don’t take my Kodachrome

Mama don’t take my Kodachrome away

Ms swan at the DMV

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 1 so far )

Cut Government Spending and Regulation And The U.S. Economy Will Boom–The Superhighway To Prosperity!

Posted on December 29, 2010. Filed under: Banking, Blogroll, Communications, Economics, Employment, Energy, Farming, Federal Government, Fiscal Policy, Foreign Policy, government, government spending, Immigration, Investments, Language, Law, liberty, Life, Links, Monetary Policy, Money, People, Philosophy, Raves, Video, Wealth, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , |

Glenn Beck-12/28/10-A

Glenn Beck-12/28/10-B


Glenn Beck-12/28/10-C

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

The Boom & Bust Years–Videos

Posted on October 25, 2010. Filed under: Blogroll, College, Communications, Economics, Education, Federal Government, Fiscal Policy, Foreign Policy, government, government spending, history, Investments, Language, Law, liberty, Life, Links, media, Monetary Policy, People, Philosophy, Politics, Rants, Raves, Regulations, Security, Taxes, Technology, Video, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , |

The Boom & Bust Years P1


The Boom & Bust Years P2


The Boom & Bust Years P3


The Boom & Bust Years P4


The Boom & Bust Years P5


The Boom & Bust Years P6


Related Posts On Pronk Palisades

Gillian Tett–Fool’s Gold–Videos

Frederic Bastiat–The Law–Videos

Walter Block–Videos

Walter Block–Introduction To Libertarianism–Videos

Hunter Lewis–Where Keynes Went Wrong–Videos

Thomas DiLorenzo–The Economic Model of the Fascist State–Videos

Richard Ebeling–America’s New Road to Serfdom and the Continuing Relevance of Austrian Economics –Videos

Milton Friedman–Videos

Milton Friedman–Capitalism and Freedom–Videos

Milton Friedman On Business–Videos

Milton Friedman On Education–Videos

Milton Friedman On Monetary Policy–Videos

Milton Friedman–Debate In Iceland–Videos

Milton Friedman–Free To Choose–On Donahue –Videos

Milton Friedman–Economic Myths–Videos

Paul Edward Gottfried–Fascism, Anti-Fascism, and the Welfare State–Videos

David Gordon–Five Best Books on the Current Crisis–Video

David Gordon–The Confused Literature of Globalization–Videos

Friedrich Hayek–Videos

Henry Hazlitt–Economics In One Lesson–Videos

Robert Higgs–The Complex Path of Ideological Change–Videos

Robert Higgs–The Great Depression and the Current Recession–Videos

Robert Higgs–Why Are Politicians Always Trying to Scare Us?–Videos

Jörg Guido Hülsmann–The Ethics of Money Production–Videos

Jörg Guido Hülsmann–The Life and Work of Ludwig von Mises–Videos

Israel Kirzner–On Entrepreneurship–Vidoes

Paul Krugman–Videos

Hunter Lewis–Where Keynes Went Wrong–Videos

Liberal Fascism–Jonah Goldberg–Videos

Dan Mitchell–Videos

Ludwig von Mises–Videos

Robert P. Murphy–Videos

Robert P. Murphy–Government Stimulus: Repeating the mistakes of the Great Depression–Videos

Gary North–Keynes and His Influence–Take The North Challenge–Videos

The Fountainhead, Atlas Shrugged and The Ideas of Ayn Rand

George Gerald Reisman–Why Nazism Was Socialism and Why Socialism Is Totalitarian–Videos

Paul Craig Roberts–How The Economy Was Lost–The War Of The Worlds–Videos

Paul Craig Roberts–Peak Jobs–Videos

Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr–How Empires Bamboozle the Bourgeoisie–Videos

Murray Rothbard–Videos

Murray Rothbard–The American Economy and the End of Laissez-Faire: 1870 to World War II–Videos

Murray N. Rothbard–Introduction to Economics: A Private Seminar–Videos

Murray Rothbard–Libertarianism–Video

Rothbard On Keynes–Videos

Murray Rothbard– What Has Government Done to Our Money?–Videos

Peter Schiff–Videos

Schiff, Forbers and Bloomberg Nail The Financial Crisis and Recession–Mistakes Were Made–Greed, Arrogance, Stupidity–Three Chinese Curses!

Larry Sechrest–The Anticapitalists: Barbarians at the Gate–Videos

L. William Seidman on The Economic Crisis: Causes and Cures–Videos

Amity Shlaes–Videos

Julian Simon–Videos

Julian Simon–The Ultimate Resource II: People, Materials, and Environment–Videos

Thomas Sowell and Conflict of Visions–Videos

Thomas Sowell On The Housing Boom and Bust–Videos

Econ Talk With Thomas Sowell–Videos

Peter Thiel–Videos

Thomas E. Woods, Jr.–Videos

Thomas E. Woods–The Economic Crisis and The Federal Reserve–Videos

Tom Woods–Lectures On Liberty–Videos

Thomas E. Woods–The Market Economy–Videos

Tom Woods On Personal Rights and Property Ownership

Tom Woods–Smashing Myths and Restoring Sound Money–Videos

Tom Woods–Who Killed The Constitution

Tom Wright On The FairTax–Videos

Banking Cartel’s Public Relations Campaign Continues:Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke On The Record

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Glenn Beck–Nutrition Nanny Nudger–Cass Sustein–Videos

Posted on September 14, 2010. Filed under: Blogroll, College, Communications, Economics, Education, Farming, Federal Government, Fiscal Policy, government spending, Health Care, history, Homes, Investments, Language, Law, liberty, Life, Links, media, People, Philosophy, Politics, Quotations, Rants, Raves, Regulations, Science, Security, Taxes, Technology, Video, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , |

Glenn Beck-09/14/10-A

Glenn Beck-09/14/10-B

Glenn Beck-09/14/10-C

U.S Debt Clock

Background Articles and Videos

Cass Sunstein’s new book Nudge

Michael Savage Attacks Cass Sunstein Obama’s Gun Grabbing Czar – (Aired on September 9, 2009)

Cass Sunstein On Hunting, Animal Slavery & Right To Bear Arms

Alex Jones Tv: Alex Calls Out Harvard law professor Cass Sunstein, Obama’s Future Info Czar

Related Posts On Pronk Palisades

Cass Sunstein–Regulatory Czar–Animal Rights Activist, Body Part Taker, Gun Grabber, Internet Regulator, Nudger–Nuts!

Glenn Beck Crash Course Day 1–Economic Transformation–Videos

Glenn Beck Crash Course Day 2–On Radicals Surrounding Barack Obama–Videos

Glenn Beck Crash Course Day 3–Revisionist American History–Videos

Glenn Beck Crash Course Day 4–Message Control–Videos

Glenn Beck Crash Course Day 5–On Civil Rights and The Rights of Man–Videos

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Glenn Beck On Creating The Government Control Monster–Time To Do The Monster Mash!

Posted on May 27, 2010. Filed under: Blogroll, Communications, Economics, Employment, Federal Government, Fiscal Policy, government, government spending, history, Language, Law, liberty, Life, Monetary Policy, People, Philosophy, Politics, Quotations, Rants, Video, Wisdom | Tags: , , |

 Monster Mash 

Republicans: Financial Reform Bill Must Protect Main Street



Glenn Beck-05/26/10-A

Glenn Beck-05/26/10-B

Glenn Beck-05/26/10-C

Glenn Beck-05/26/10-D

Related Posts On Pronk Palisades

 Glenn Beck On The Truth and Lies and Global Governance

Megyn Kelly and Glenn Beck On SEIU Union Mob Attack Against Bank Of America’s Attorney’s Family Home and Crime Inc.’s Connections

Glenn Beck On The Revivial Of Faith, Hope, Charity and The Gold Standard

Glenn Beck On The Progressive Radical Socialism Poison Pill of Social Justice–Wealth Redistribution Socialism and Subversion of Religion–Videos

Glenn Beck Predictions Coming True vs. Barack Obama’s Delusional Lies–The Obama Depression Road To Socialism and Revolution

Glenn Beck On Crime Inc and Subversion of The United States of America–Videos

G. Edward Griffin–Hidden Agenda–Videos

Glenn Beck On Maurice Strong and The American Power Act–The Cap and Trade Energy Tax Repackaged–A Huge Tax Increase–Skyrocketing Prices!

Yuri Bezmenov On KGB Soviet Propaganda and Subversion–Videos

Maurice Strong–Videos

Glenn Beck–The Obama Con and Crimes Continue–American Citizen Tax Money Bailing Out Greece–Time To Throw The Progressive Radical Socialist Democrats Out Of Office!

The Coming Massive Failure of Progressive/Liberal Democrat State and Local Government Debt Obligations–No Federal Bailouts By American Taxpayers!

Voters Beware: The Radical Rules of Saul Alinsky and Leftist Democrats

Glenn Beck On Crime Inc., The Crime of The Century, and Crushing Capitalism and Consumer Sovereignty!–

Glenn Beck On The Rule of Law Or The Rule of Few By Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations

Glenn Beck Exposes The Crime of The Century By The Progressive Radical Socialist Democratic Party–The Global Warming Investment Fraud, Political Scam and Science Scandal–Extorting and Robbing The American People–Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Case!

These Boots Are Meant To Walk All Over You–Obama and Progressive Radical Socialist Salazar and Gibbs On Federal Government Boot On The Neck/Throat of British Petroleum/BP and American People!

What Kind of Socialist Is Barack Obama? Progressive Radical Socialist–Not Neo-Socialist–With Narcissistic Personality Disorder!

Obama’s Enemies List: Glenn Beck Exposes The Progressive Radical Socialist Attack On American People and Freedom Of Speech–Not Racist, Not Violent, Not Silent Anymore!

Fox News Scares Narcissist Obama–Mirror Mirror Mirror On The Wall Who Is The Fairest Of Them All–Sarah Palin–Obama Attacks Mirror!

Fox’s Glenn Beck Installs Hotline to Narcissist Obama–Beck Continues To Be Obama’s Narcissistic Supplier!

Glenn Beck’s Documentary On The Collectivists: Marxists, Socialists, Progressives, Communists, Fascists, National Socialists–Progressive Radical Socialists of The Democratic and Republican

Cass Sunstein

Cass Sunstein–Regulatory Czar–Animal Rights Activist, Body Part Taker, Gun Grabber, Internet Regulator, Nudger–Nuts!

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

A Common Sense Political Agenda For A New Conservative and Libertarian Party: American Citizens Alliance Party (ACAP)–A CAP On Government Spending, Taxes, Debt and Regulations!

Posted on November 18, 2009. Filed under: Blogroll, Communications, Economics, Education, Employment, Energy, Fiscal Policy, Foreign Policy, government spending, Health Care, Homes, Immigration, Investments, Language, Law, liberty, Life, Links, media, Medicine, Monetary Policy, People, Philosophy, Politics, Programming, Psychology, Quotations, Rants, Raves, Regulations, Resources, Science, Security, Strategy, Taxes, Technology, Video, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

The Federal Reserve’s Chicago Extortion Thug Tactics With Banker Salaries–Wage and Price Controls Next? Time To End The Fed!

Posted on November 4, 2009. Filed under: Blogroll, Communications, Economics, Employment, Fiscal Policy, government spending, Investments, Law, liberty, Life, Links, Monetary Policy, People, Philosophy, Politics, Quotations, Raves, Security, Strategy, Taxes, Technology, Video, Wisdom | Tags: , , |

Fed to Regulate Bank Salaries

Glenn Beck-11-04-09-A

Glenn Beck-11-04-09-B

Glenn Beck-11-04-09-C

Glenn Beck-11-04-09-D

Glenn Beck-11-04-09-E

Glenn Beck-11-04-09-F

Peter Schiff – Tax Credits, Federal Reserve & Interest Rates

The Federal Reserve is acting as a tyrant.

The Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke is acting just like former Fed Chairman Arthur Burns:

Ron Paul: The Big Guns Have Lined Up Against H.R. 1207

This will not stand.

Time to shut the Federal Reserve down.

The progressive radical socialists of both the Democratic and Republican parties are out of control and need to be shown the door!

Knock on their office doors Thursday and give them a piece of your mind.

What’s next? Obama’s New Prosperity–hyperinflation–the big hammer!

USA 53 Trillion In Debt

$78.8 Trillion; United States Debt Obligations exceed world GDP; Monetary Collapse Looming?

Obama imposes a wage-price freeze followed by wage and price controls, just like President Nixon:

Nixon imposes wage-price freeze

Wage & Price Controls

Economic Basics Part 4: Price Controls


Hyperinflation Nation Part 1/3

Hyperinflation Nation Part 2/3

Hyperinflation Nation Part 3/3

Let free markets work.

End the Fed!

The late great economist Milton Friedman was right on the money:

Milton Friedman – Abolish the FED!

On the positive side, it could be worse:

Deep Impact

Background Articles and Videos

Elliott Sees `Serious Risk’ of Banker Flight on Pay Cuts: Video


New World Order – ABC says Federal Reserve is Federal


“…In classical politics, a tyrant is one who has taken power by their own means as opposed to hereditary or constitutional power. This mode of rule is referred to as tyranny.

The word derives from Latin tyrannus, meaning “illegitimate ruler”, and this in turn from the Greek τύραννος, týrannos, meaning “sovereign, master”,[1] although the latter was not pejorative and applicable to both good and bad leaders alike.

In modern usage, the word “tyrant” carries connotations of a harsh and cruel ruler who places his or her own interests or the interests of a small oligarchy over the best interests of the general population, which the tyrant governs or controls. Many individual rulers or government officials are accused of tyranny, with the label almost always a matter of controversy. …”

Bank bonuses are in Fed’s cross hairs

The regulator seeks to limit rewards for risky practices at the 6,000 institutions it oversees

“…Escalating the government’s intervention in corporate pay practices, the Federal Reserve moved Thursday to restrict the ability of thousands of banks to pay bonuses in an effort to curb risky practices widely cited for helping to trigger the global financial crisis.

Under its proposal, the Fed would examine the compensation of any bank employees — including senior executives, securities traders and loan officers — who individually or collectively could significantly increase the amount of risk taken on by their employer. The central bank could order changes to policies that encourage too much risk.

The Fed’s action came as the Obama administration’s “pay czar,” as expected, took the unprecedented step of dictating changes to the pay packages of the highest-paid employees at the seven companies that received the most federal bailout money. …”,0,3190494.story?page=2

The Executive Pay Slippery Slope

“…Neil Cavuto was on O’Reilly’s show to offer the minority opinion. Cavuto had two different problems with this. First, by limiting pay, it also limits the talent at these firms. If we’re to get our money back, we’ll need to have good executives at these companies. Good executives aren’t going to come to GM if they know that Ken Feinberg can cut their pay if he feels like it. Second, Cavuto said that this is a very slippery slope. Once these companies have their pay set, where will it stop? O’Reilly acknowledged the first argument had merit but dismissed the second. Was O’Reilly getting ahead of himself?

Yet today, the Fed and Treasury announced a coordinated effort that will put the central bank at the heart of the rush to regulate pay on Wall Street. The regulations, which will try to align the financial incentives of managers with the longer-term performance of their firms, will give the Federal Reserve direct oversight over the pay of tens of thousands of executives, bankers, and traders.

In fact, whether by design or accident, Feinberg’s move is only the beginning. The Federal Reserve is ready to be significantly more heavy handed than Feinberg is. Whereas Feinberg limited himself to seven firms that still owe the government, the Fed wants to regulate executive pay of every company they regulate. In other words, the Fed is ready to determine that part of their regulatory authority is the ability to regulate executive pay.

That’s how monsters like this can easily start. It starts with an action that has overwhelming support, like Feinberg’s action. Then, that action is followed by something just slightly more sweeping and soon, all financial firms have their executive pay regulated. …”

<a href=”

Milton Friedman – Free to Choose 1990

Related Posts On Pronk Palisades

Federal Reserve System

The Coming Inflation and A New Money Supply Backed By Real Estate?–Free Enterprise To The Rescue?

Richard Fisher–Inflation and Debt: The Interaction of Fiscal and Monetary Policy –Videos

Banking Cartel’s Public Relations Campaign Continues:Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke On The Record


Creature from Jekyll Island: The Federal Reserve System–Videos

The Monopoly Men: The Federal Reserve Bank Cartel–Videos 

M3 Money Meteorite Moves–Deep Impact–The Coming Inflation Tidal Wave–Wage and Price Controls Will Signal Radical Socialist Obama’s Failure!

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Susan P. Crawford–Videos

Posted on October 20, 2009. Filed under: Blogroll, Communications, Demographics, Economics, Employment, Fiscal Policy, government spending, Investments, Language, Law, liberty, Life, Links, media, People, Politics, Programming, Quotations, Rants, Raves, Regulations, Science, Technology, Video | Tags: , , , , , , , |




Susan Crawford, The White House. State of the Mobile Net Conference 2009


susan crawford excerpts from free press summit


One Web Day


Rocketboom Interview: Susan Crawford of


 One Web Day 2008 – Washington Sq Park NYC


One Web Day


One Web Day: The Web’s Benefits


State of Play III Time Capsule – Susan Crawford interviews Ren Reynolds



Background Articles and Videos

FCC Net Neutrality: Arbitrary and Capricious?


FCC Commissioner on Net Neutrality


Internet Regulation – Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights


Lawrence Lessig on Net Neutrality and Google-1/2


Lawrence Lessig on Net Neutrality and Google-2/2


OneWebDay Founder Tapped By Obama

“…Internet law expert Susan Crawford has joined President Barack Obama‘s lineup of tech policy experts at the White House, according to several sources. She will likely hold the title of special assistant to the president for science, technology, and innovation policy, they said. Crawford, who was most recently a visiting professor at the University of Michigan and at Yale Law School, was tapped by Obama’s transition team in November to co-chair its FCC review process with University of Pennsylvania professor Kevin Werbach. Her official administration appointment has not been formally announced. Crawford may be best known for her work with the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, the California-based nonprofit group that manages the Internet address system. She served on ICANN’s board for three years beginning in December 2005. She also founded OneWebDay, a global Earth Day for the Internet that takes place every Sept. 22. Crawford, a Yale graduate, clerked for U.S. District Judge Raymond Dearie before joining Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering where she worked until the end of 2002. …”


Susan P. Crawford

“…Susan P. Crawford (born 1963) is President Barack Obama’s Special Assistant for Science, Technology, and Innovation Policy. She is a former Board Member of ICANN and the founder of OneWebDay.

Wired magazine has referred to her as “the most powerful geek close to the president,” [1] and notes that previous to her work for the Administration, she was a “prolific blogger,” as well as a writer on subjects ranging from Net Neutrality to NASA. …”

“…Crawford holds a B.A. (summa cum laude, Phi Beta Kappa) and J.D. from Yale University. She served as a law clerk for Judge Raymond J. Dearie of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, and was a partner at Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering (Washington, D.C.) until the end of 2002, when she left that firm to become a professor.

After first teaching at Cardozo School of Law in NYC, Crawford became a visiting Professor at the University of Michigan Law School in the fall of 2007. After visiting at Yale Law School in Spring of 2008 she was admitted to the faculty at the University of Michigan Law School.[4]

Internet activism

Crawford served a member of the Board of Directors for ICANN from 2005-2008 [5]. In 2005 she founded OneWebDay – a global celebration of the Internet In the past she has been known as a champion of net neutrality, and she has written on many other current policy issues.


Crawford and Kevin Werbach served on the Federal Communications Commission Review team in the Obama transition.[6][7]. In early 2009 she was appointed the President’s Special Assistant for Science, Technology, and Innovation Policy.[8]



Kevini Werbach

“…Kevin Werbach is a leading expert on the business, policy, and social implications of emerging Internet and communications technologies. Werbach is an Assistant Professor of Legal Studies and Business Ethics at The Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania (since 2004). He is also the organizer of the annual Supernova technology conference and maintains a blog (“werblog”).[1]

On 14 November 2008 it was announced that President-elect Barack Obama has selected Susan Crawford and Werbach to lead the review of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC).[2] The review team “will ensure that senior appointees have the information necessary to complete the confirmation process, lead their departments, and begin implementing signature policy initiatives immediately after they are sworn in.”[3]

Werbach’s areas of interest are emerging internet technologies, telecommunications policy, electronic commerce, wireless communication, and regulation. He advises major information technology and communications companies on strategic business and policy implications of emerging technologies. At The Wharton School Werbach is currently working in the areas of evolving Internet architecture policy implications, regulation of Internet video, next-generation broadband access, and decentralized communications, computing, and media business implications.[4]

Werbach holds a JD from Harvard Law School (1994) and a BA from the University of California at Berkeley (1991).[4]

Werbach was founder of the Supernova Group (2002-Present), editor of Release 1.0 (1998-2002), and Counsel for New Technology Policy at the Federal Communications Commission (1994-1998). Werbach has also served on the Board of Directors of the TPRC Research Conference on Communication, Information and Internet Policy (2003-Present), is a Fellow at the Center for Global Communications (GLOCOM), International University of Japan (2002-Present), and sat on the Advisory Board of Knowledge@Wharton (2005-Present), Public Knowledge (2002-Present) and Socialtext (2003-Present).[4]



New Rules for a New Age: Kevin Werbach Sees Challenges for the FCC



Jay Rockefeller: Internet should have never existed


Obama Wants Control of the Internet


Obama talks about Cyber Security/Cyber Czar PT1


Obama talks about Cyber Security/Cyber Czar PT2


Rush Limbaugh – Bill Would Give President Obama “Emergency Control” of Internet – 8/28/09




Barack Obama: On Net Neutrality


phil kerpen on susan crawford and robert mcchesney



Related Posts On Pronk Palisades

Network Neurtrality–FCC Julius Genachowski–Tim Wu–Free and Open Internet Or Slow and Stupid Internet?

Robert W. McChesney–Videos

Cass Sunstein–Regulatory Czar–Animal Rights Activist, Body Part Taker, Gun Grabber, Internet Regulator, Nudger–Nuts!

Mark Lloyd, FCC Diversity Czar, and Cass Sustein, Regulatory Czar: Progressive Radical Socialist Silencing of Free Speech On Internet Blogs and Talk Radio

Susan P. Crawford–Videos

Tim Wu–Videos

Beck and Hannity Expose Corrupt Ethics Waived Slumlord Valerie Jarrett–Senior Advisor, Olympics Czar and Close Friend of President Barack Obama–Videos

The Battle For The World Economy–Videos

Obama’s Progressive Radical Socialist Democratic Party’s Propaganda War On Freedom of Speech

Anita Dunn–White House Communications Director–Exposed By Beck As Mao Tse-Tung Admirer On Video!

Fox’s Glenn Beck Installs Hotline to Narcissist Obama–Beck Continues To Be Obama’s Narcissistic Supplier!


Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 3 so far )

Liked it here?
Why not try sites on the blogroll...