PEDOPHILIA
NUDE PHOTO'S OF CHILDREN AND SEXUAL ATTIRE, SHOULD ALSO BE INCLUDED. ' RUMORS ' SHOULD BE LISTENED TOO BY ADULTS AT SCHOOLS.
17-25 YEARS OLDS ( FELON AND SPECIFIC MISDEMEANOR DRUG PROSECUTIONS, THIS MIGHT INCLUDE ME ALSO, I DO NOT THINK THE IBUPROFEN WAS EVER KEPT OR TESTED IN ARIZONA ) WHO ENGAGE IN ILLEGAL DRUG DISTRIBUTION, MUSIC MAKING AND DISTRIBUTION SHOULD BE WATCHED AND ALL THEIR SITES ON THE INTERNET ' TRACKED.' VISITS OR APTS. RENTED IN FAMILY NEIGHBORHOODS, PARKS, BALLPARKS, AND LIBRARIES WHERE YOUNGER PERSONS UNDER AGES OF SIXTEEN ( WHY NOT 17 YEARS OF AGE ) ARE PRESENT.
IT SHOULD ALSO INCLUDE SCHOOLS AND DOG RUN PARKS. ALSO, ' CELEBRITIES ' HOMES AND ALLEYWAYS AND ALL OBSTRUCTIONS OF SIDEWALKS THAT MIGHT LEAD DIRECTLY TO THE CELEBRATIE' HOME ' OFFERING ' SEXUAL CHILD ABUSE ' UNDER ' ENTICEMENT,' AS THE CHILD THROUGH THE ACT OF NO MAINTENANCE BY THE HOMEOWNER, THEN CITY, IS ONLY UNDER THE INTERNETS ' GUIDANCE ' AND ' PARENTAGE ' TO AND BACK FROM SCHOOL AND WEEKENDS.
- Child protection bills roll through New Mexico Legislature
Like
|
54,269 people like this. Sign Up to see what your friends like. |
PUBLISHED: Wednesday, February 25, 2015 at 7:41 am
SANTA FE, N.M. — The hot-button issues of abortion, right-to-work and driver’s licenses for people suspected of being in the country illegally have led to a string of largely party-line votes during the first half of what has been a rancorous legislative session.
But Republicans and Democrats in New Mexico have been able to find common ground on at least one key issue: keeping children safe and cracking down on those who hurt them.
Their unity is driven in part by a series of recent high-profile child abuse cases and a desire to overcome New Mexico’s position on the wrong end of the rankings when it comes to child well-being.
Federal data shows New Mexico had one of the steepest increases in child victims between 2009 and 2013, putting the state in the top five nationally. The number of registered sex offenders reported by the state in 2014 was nearly 6,700, with a per capita figure of 325 that places New Mexico among the top 12 in the US, according to the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children.
The bills tackling crimes against children are “non-partisan issues and from our perspective it’s part and parcel of making kids’ lives a little bit more secure,” said House Minority Leader Brian Egolf, D-Santa Fe, whose bill to clarify a law requiring the reporting of suspected child abuse and neglect to authorities has cleared the House.
Republican Gov. Susana Martinez and a bipartisan coalition of lawmakers have been pushing for clarification of the reporting law since an appellate court ruled in 2013 to narrow the list of people who had a duty to report abuse.
“Every single person in our state should be required to protect our children and report child abuse if they know or suspect it to be occurring,” Martinez said in a statement.
The spotlight on child abuse and neglect continued with the case of Omaree Varela, a 9-year-old Albuquerque boy who police say was kicked to death by his mother in December 2013.
Bills were introduced “in response to widespread outrage over things that were happening to our children,” Egolf said. “It was not just Omaree Varela but hundreds of kids who don’t make it into the news.”
The latest bill to pass the House this week was one by Rep. Sharon Clahchischilliage, R-Kirtland, that aims to crack down on sexual predators attempting to secretly view or record a person’s intimate parts. She said the measure is designed to protect families.
Caleb Kimpel, a writer and researcher with the Phoenix-based child abuse prevention organization Childhelp, said laws are necessary but they have to be backed up with the means needed for enforcement.
“It’s important to add personnel and resources to respond to more victims in need,” he said.
Both the governor’s office and the Legislative Finance Committee have made child welfare a priority in proposed spending plans for the state for the next fiscal year. This includes funding for more social workers and programs that would encourage law enforcement agencies to work with advocates to keep abuse cases from falling through the cracks.
Other child protection measures cruising through the Legislature would:
–make it mandatory for parents or guardians to receive court-ordered family services when there is strong evidence of child neglect or abuse, even when the victim is not taken into state custody.
–require cellphone and pager companies to issue Amber Alerts about missing children to their customers.
–make it a crime to send naked pictures of people to anyone under 16.
–revise penalties for sexual exploitation of children by prostitution.
Friday, October 24, 2014
CAN ANYONE BE ' RE-BUILT ' TO BE A TERRORIST?
OR
THE SHADOW GOVERNMENT AND ' WHITE LILIES '
ONE NOTE ON MAJOR ED DANES, THERE WERE SEVERAL OCCURRENCES WHERE I SAW THE EYE'S ON ANDY WARHOL, A TV DOCUMENTARY, O.K. HARRIS AND HIS FRIEND A GALLERY OWNER, AN OLD LADY FRIEND IN INTIMATE MOMENTS, AND WHAT CAN ONLY BE DESCRIBED AS ' DEMONIC ' BLACK EYES. NOT JUST BLACK BUT SOMETHING ELSE. AND A ' DIALOG ' IN REAL TIME AS IF, IN EXPLANATION. THIS IS SCARY SHIT. WHEN YOU SEE A ' VAPOR,' TRANSLUCENT THING, MOVE FROM ONE BEING TO ANOTHER. IT, JUST BARELY THERE, AND THE REACTION WHEN IT TAKES THE PLACE, OCCUPIES, MOVES INTO, THE PERSON AND THE EFFECT IT HAS ON THAT PERSON; SOMEHOW ' DARKER,' MORE EVIL TOO, THE DARKENING OF THEIR EYES, SOMEHOW PUPILS THE EXPANSE OF THE IRIS. REMOTE VIEWING IS REALLY NOT WHAT MOST PEOPLE THINK; A GROUPING OF PEOPLE THAT YOU HAVE NEVER MET AND MANY ARE SOCIOPATHS AND MUCH WORST.
THERE ARE PEOPLE IN THIS WORLD WHO ARE GIVEN CHECKS, SELF LOCKED INTO ROOMS, ' SHUT-INS ' AND WHO YOU WILL NEVER SEE THEIR FACES WITH THE MOST DISGUSTING ' MINDS ' THAT CAN NOT BE EXPLAINED; A USE IN THE FIELD OF THIS SKILL.
AND I HAVE MET A FEW ' WANT A BE'S ' WHO ARE OBSESSIVE COMPULSIVE SADOMASOCHISTIC SONS OF BITCHES THAT HAVE NO ' REAL ' FEELINGS OR EMOTIONS WHEN YOU LOOK CLOSELY TO THE GAPS IN THE INTERWEAVING OF ' LEARNT ' PERSONALITIES OF THEIR PAST CHILDHOOD'S IDENTITY'S GROWTH.
THE EXAMPLES OF WHY SOME PEOPLES HAVE BEEN TARGETED BASED ON THEIR HERITAGE AND THE CURRENT ' FAD ' OF WHO'S THE ECONOMIC ENEMY TODAY, I HAVE LEARNT IN MY TRAVELS IN AND ABOUT THE SOUTHWEST. I HAVE MET ALOT OF PEOPLE AND KNOWN MANY IN NEW MEXICO. I REMEMBER THE ARABS FROM MANY COUNTRIES AND HAVE RENTED TO THEM AND EASTERN INDIANS AND CHINESE PEOPLES AND AFRICAN AMERICANS AND NATIVE AMERICANS, ALONG WITH A VARIETY OF WHITE PEOPLE FROM A VAST DIFFERENCE OF HERITAGES.
I HAVE MET AND HAVE KNOWN MANY BAPTIST, CATHOLICS, ANGLICAN AND BUDDHISTS, MUSLIMS AND JEWS; PAGAN, NATIVE AMERICANS AND JUST EARTH LOVERS. MANY HAVE GOING BACK ONE OR TWO GENERATIONS, MIDDLE EASTERN ROOTS, MOSTLY ARAB MIXES. MANY DO NOT KNOW. SHOULD THEY? WILL TECHNOLOGY CHANGE WHO THEY ARE?
I ONCE HEARD THAT TERRORISM WOULD NOT EXIST ANYWHERE NEAR THE EXTENT THAT IT DOES IF THE INTERNET DID NOT EXIST, THIS FROM AN ART BELL PROGRAM; MAYBE JOHN BLOOM OR JOHN LASH. PERHAPS NOT. HOWEVER WHEN A GROUP OF HIGHLY SKILLED ' MINDS ' ENGAGE IN TARGETING INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE JUST ' LOUD ' IN OPINION WITHOUT ANY REGARD AS TO HOW THEY THEMSELVES ARE IN ' REAL ' LIFE AND THE RECIPIENT OF THE ATTACKS OUT MASTERED ONLY IN SKILL OF THE HERD, IS A RECIPE FOR DISASTER. AND THAT IS JUST THE FIRST TIME.
PEOPLE DO NOT HAVE TO ' SEE ' THINGS AS ' YOU.' NOR SHOULD THEY. WHY?
BUT WHEN IN THE ' ETHER ' A COMPARATIVE AND ONGOING THOUGHT IN CONVERSATION, ENDLESS IN LOOP, DERIVED OF THE JAPANESE WHO WERE PLACED IN CAMPS AND AS TO WHY THE SAME WAS NOT ' REDEEMED ' IN ' JUSTICE ' FOR THE AFRICAN AMERICANS, BUT SOUGHT FOR A SELF DESCRIBED GROUPING OF EX-CONS, ' NIGGERS ' IN BOTH CONVERSATION AND MUSIC AS A BASSES FOR ALL THEIR PROBLEM'S IN A STRUCTURED SOCIETY AND THE NEED FOR IT'S FALL, WITHIN THE ' EAR ' AND COMPANY OF ARAB IMMIGRANTS, MAKES ONE WONDER.
IT'S NOT FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE AFRICAN AMERICANS, ONLY THOSE OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES, BOTH IN TERMS OF MONIES FOR CONQUEST; DRUGS AND WEAPONS AND THE FURTHER PROMOTION OF A ' CAUSE ' THAT IS NEITHER HERE BUT OVER THERE.
I ' HEARD ' ALL OF THIS IN THE TIME BEFORE THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION. SOMETIMES THE ' STATIC ' GAVE ALMOST A FACE. THIS IS NOT THE ' PROCESS ' MUCH LIKE A TEE-SHIRT ' BLOODIED WITH ' KENT STATE,' UPON IT. FOR THE BENEFIT OF WHOM? NOT THE STUDENTS.
WHY CREATE ANOTHER ATMOSPHERE OF THE SIXTIES, SO MUCH PAIN, DEATHS, OD'S, JAIL, BEATINGS, AND THE REAL BIRTH OF AN ILLEGAL DRUG INDUSTRY THAT RIVALED ANY SMALL NATION, AND THE RISE OF BOYHOOD GANGS THAT WERE HEADED IN GENERAL, BY VETS, AMERICAN VETERANS FOR PROFIT ONLY, DESPITE ALL THAT LIVED.
A POSTER THAT I REMEMBER STATED " ARE WE THE PEOPLE THAT OUR CHILDREN WARNED US ABOUT." A WOMAN, MALE AND CHILD IN THE FAMILY GROUP NUDE.
WE CAN'T EVEN GIVE ADEQUATE HOUSING TO THE HOMELESS WHO ARE WITHOUT ANY REAL CRIME HISTORY, CLEAN AND SOBER MUCH LESS THE COMMUNITIES NEEDED FOR THOSE WHO RE ENTERED SOCIETY FROM OUR JAILS. YET WE HAVE ALL THE VIOLENCE MANUFACTURED AT HOME READY FOR DISTRIBUTION IN ANY MARKET, INCLUDING CHILDREN ( BASED ON GHETTO'S AS HERO ), AND WE DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW 9/11 COULD OF EVER OF HAPPENED?
THE UNITED STATES TAKES THE RIGHT TO DEFEND ONES SELF BASED ON THE PRACTICES OF THE PRIOR GENERATIONS FATHERS WHO EITHER DID NOT GO TO THE DRAFT BOARDS TO JOIN AND THOSE WHO DID NOT PARTICIPATE IN THE PEACE MARCHES THEM SELVES AND ALL THEY DO IS PROFIT AND TEACH OTHERS HOW TO BENEFIT FROM CRIME, AND THAT IS PRETTY MUCH WHAT I HAVE LEARNED FROM THE BOTTOM LOOKING UP. AND IF YOU DON'T AGREE WITH THE ' BOUGHT ' CROWD THEN YOU ARE DISARMED, THROWN ON THE STREETS, AND TAKE ANYTHING THAT YOU CAN GET ( IF VET, SORRY VIETNAM VETS HAVE THE WHOLE HOMELESS SITUATION. TIED UP IN THE UNDERWORLD MAFIA ) AND YOU ARE PLACED IN WITH THOSE WHO ONLY KNOW CRIME AS LIFE.
WHAT I HAVE LEARNED ABOUT AMERICA IS ALWAYS KEEP YOUR MOUTH SHUT, NO MATTER WHAT YOU SEE, AND ALWAYS, ALWAYS LIE.
I CAN'T REALLY EXPLAIN IT COMPLETELY YET.
I HAD A LADY FRIEND WHO TOLD ME THAT SHE DID NOT KNOW WHY SHE SAID CERTAIN THINGS; SHE WAS CRYING AS SHE SAID IT. SHE IS, WAS VERY SMART. ON AN OUTING IN SANTE FE, I TOOK A PICTURE OF HER BUILDING A DOUBLE CROSS, A TOWER OF BLACK AND WHITE BLOCKS; " THIS IS YOU." SHE SAID, WHEN I LOOKED AT THE PICTURES LATER. THE OUTLINE OF THE TOWER WAS A PYRAMID. WHEN I THINK OF MAJOR ED DANES, I THINK OF MY LADY FRIEND'S FRIEND, AN OLD CHILDREN'S ART THERAPIST; ALL THE OLD PHOTO'S OF ED DANES, MIGHT AS WELL BE INGO, GOOD THAT YOU COMB YOUR HAIR BACK NOW. HAVE A GOOD LIFE ( I MET YOU IN A DREAM ONCE, BUT THEN AGAIN, I USED TO KNOW A PERSON WHO MET YOU; HE DOEST STUDY RV ANYMORE).
THE UNITED STATES IS UNDER ATTACK OF IT'S OWN MAKING, KNOWINGLY, CONTRIVED AND CREATED BY IT'S COOPERATE WORLD FOR PROFIT ONLY IN TOTAL DISREGARD LEARNT OF AND FROM THE VERY RELIGION THAT HAS GROWN TO ' STAND AGAINST IT ' EVEN CHILD MOLESTATION, THE HOLY ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH, THAT NOW FINDS ITSELF IN TROUBLE FROM A VERY SMALL PERCENTAGE OF THE WORLD'S POPULATION THAT IS ONLY MIRROR; MEMORY WITHOUT THOUGHT, GIVEN ' ROOM ' FOR ONLY TERRORISM FROM ABROAD AND THAT PLANED IN PLAIN SIGHT FROM ' WITHIN,' UNDER THE SKIRTS OF LAW; MOSTLY MEN AFTER ' BOYS.'
I HAVE ' SEEN ' MORE THAN YOU WILL EVER KNOW. I AM RIGHT. WHY RAISE ' WHORES ' FOR THE DESIRES OF OTHER'S WARING APPETITES?
THERE IS A LOT MORE THAT I COULD PROBABLY EXPLAIN AND HOW IT WORKS FOR ME, BUT I DO NOT THINK THAT IT IS WISE. ONE OR TWO OF THESE PAGES ' EXAMPLE ' THE IDEA THAT I WAS BEING ' FORCED WITH IDEAS ( FOR YEARS ) ' AND THAT IS THE IDEA THAT I WAS OR AM THE NEXT ' COMING.' THIS BLASPHEME IS AND ALWAYS WILL BE A VERY BAD IDEA, THAT ' WILL' AND IS BEING WEAKENED IN LIGHT OF ALL THE OOOH'S AND AAAH'S OF TECHNOLOGY AND ' WALKING THE GRID.' ENHANCED FOCUS. WHO WOULD EVEN WISH A RAPTURE IN LIGHT OF IGNORANCE AS TO WHAT ' REALITY ' REALLY IS? THESE ' CHILDREN ' WERE VERY NEAR RAISED BY ' MACHINES.' CORPORATION'S AND CONGRESS MADE CERTAIN THAT THEY MIGHT NEVER BE RAISED AND DISCIPLINED BY THEIR PARENTS; OTHERS, JUST SLAVES.
WHAT WILL BE MADE BY MAN AS G_D IN THE FUTURE WILL NOT BE G_D. NO MATTER WHAT COUNTRY IT IS FROM, OR THEY; FROM ANYWHERE.
GOVERNOR MARTINEZ
IN THE END OF ALL THIS, THE ONLY POLICE OFFICER THAT I REMEMBER FROM CASA MORENA AND DAN'S PLACE WAS KILLED BY A STREET SWEEPER IN ALBQ.,NM.
THE STREET SWEEPER CHANGED DIRECTION ' SUDDENLY,' THEN CORRECTED HIMSELF ( ? ), I WAS GIVEN A THE TAPE OF THE BARBER SHOP QUARTET THAT HE AND OTHERS MADE; IT WAS GOING TO BE THROWN OUT, SO I ASKED DAN FOR IT INSTEAD. " FOR A COP, HE WAS ALRIGHT." DAN SAID.
OTHER THAN THAT, IN THE RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS, ON ALICE, THEY ONLY SEEMED TO COME FOR THE DRUGGIE'S CALLS OR THEIR ' LOOKOUTS.' MC CARTY'S KIM ( TENANT ) ON THE CORNER OF ALICE ST. AND LA VETTA ST. MC CARTY, THE LANDLORD AND OWNER OF THE LAST TWO HOUSES ACROSS THE STREET FROM ME ( 5417 ALICE ST ), AT THAT TIME WAS KIM'S LANDLORD AND WHAT SHE SAID WAS, " WELL, WHEN I HEAR A GUN SHOT, I CALL THE POLICE." THAT'S FINE, BUT THE NIGHT BEFORE THERE WAS NO GUNSHOT, JUST ' PEEPING TOMS," WE'RE GONNA GET YOU!" SOMEONE SAID, ABOUT EIGHT PM. KIM LIED ( NOT PKW'S KIM, GIRLFRIEND ). AND THE DUMB ASS REMARKS OF THE POLICE WHO SHOWED UP AT MY HOUSE.
THIS WAS A VERY BAD NIGHT, IN RELATION TO HOW I ENTERED THE STRIKE FORCE OFFICE AND NO ONE WAS THERE,THIS AFTER ALL MY TIRES WERE CUT WITH A KNIFE. I DID REPORT IT TO POLICE. HOWEVER ONE OF THE LAWYERS, CAME UP FRONT RUBBING HIS NOSE, WHITE CRAP. I EVENTUALLY WAS DIRECTED TO ELISEA AND TOLD OF WHAT HAD HAPPENED AND THAT I WANTED THESE CREEPS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD TO BE FOUND, AND THEN AGREED TO SUPPLY ALL I KNEW ABOUT THE DRUGGIES IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. BUT SOMETHING HAPPENED THAT NIGHT AND THE FOLLOWING NIGHTS, ' I GAVE ACCOUNTING OF FIRST ENTRY AND THEN UNEXPECTEDLY ' EXAMINED WHOLE FLOOR AND NEXT, BELOW, AND ASKED, ' WHO DO YOU THINK/SOMEONE IN OFFICE,' AT SAME TIME, WHILE IN THE STRIKE FORCE OFFICE, ' QUESTION ' WAS DIFFERENT IN ' TONE ' TO MIMIC OF MY INNER VOICE, THAT OF WHICH I HAD HARDLY ' HEARD ' BECAUSE I HAD ALWAYS KNOWN WHAT TO DO. IN THE END I WAS PROVEN RIGHT AND THE DRUGGIES STRUCK FIRST, I NEVER MADE IT TO THE TUESDAY MEETING AT CITY HALL. I WAS AT T.J.'S ( FEB,14, 2006 ) , AND STAYED FOR ONE WEEK. THEN DROPPED BY NEWSLAND AND TRYED TO SEE JOHN CASTILLIE, NOT HOME, BUT SAW THE RED NYLON CASE WITH SAME COLOR STRAP THAT I SAW THAT MORNING OF THE 14TH OF FEBRUARY, AND THAT NIGHT THE ' NIGHTMARES ' OF INTENSE INTERROGATIONS AS IF I WAS A ' POW ' BEGAN. CITY'S PROBLEM SOLVED.
NOTE:
SOMETHING HAPPENED IN EL PASO LIBRARY THAT I MIGHT NOT OF WROTE ABOUT AS TO DATE, HOWEVER REMEMBER; ABOUT TWO WEEKS AGO. THE MAN WAS LARGE, TATTOOED, ANGLO, AND HAD A QUAD DRIVE COMPUTER, HE TRYED ' PENETRATION RV METHOD ' ENHANCED WITH ELECTRONICS'S ( COMPUTER ) MUCH LIKE MANY AT SRO, MISSOURI STREET RESIDENCE, AND I BROKE THE ' SPELL ' AFTER COMMANDING MYSELF NOT TO PUT A KNIFE THROUGH THE TOP OF HIS HEAD, AND WALKED OUTSIDE INSTEAD. CHEWED TOBACCO FOR A FEW MOMENTS, THEN RETURNED, HE WAS ' WRAPPING UP ' AND STATED " SO YOUR LEAVING TOWN." I ANSWERED, THEN " GOOD." I RECOGNIZED THE TATTO ON HIS FOREARM, RIGHT, AND TOUCHED IT, " I REMEMBER THAT," " BUT IT DOESN'T LOOK LIKE A MOUSE UP CLOSE." HE DIDN'T GIVE MUCH INFO ON THE TATTOO, JUST A CHUCKLE, " I'VE HAD IT A LONG TIME."
TIMESTAMP: 2004-2005. IN A MEDITATION OF MY OWN, AND ' REMOTE ' REMOTE VIEWING, THAT LASTED ABOUT THE LENGHT OF A COMPRESSED SECOND, BEFORE IT UNRAVELS.
SOMETHING STRANGE THOUGH, ANOTHER LAWYER AT T. J.' S MED CENTER SAID, " YOU KNOW, YOU HAVE FOUR YEARS TO SUE IN THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO." I NEVER KNEW WHAT HE MEANT. ANOTHER LAWYER TOLD ME THE SAME, JUST COULDN'T PUT IT TOGETHER. IT'S FUNNY LOOKING BACK, THE ' VOICE ' AT THE WINDOW, EVEN THROUGH THAT ' STATIC,' " THAT'S THE MAN WHO YOU SHOULD ' BE ' KILL ANGRY." THEN THE SHADOW, MASS OF THE MAN PASSED THE WINDOW AGAIN, AND I TOOK AIM, MORE OR LESS AGAIN, AND THE FUCKIN MAGAZINES SLIPPED AND THE BULLET DIDN'T PENETRATE THE GLASS OF THE WINDOW. " SHIT/MISFIRE." MISFIRE IS WHAT I SAID OUT LOUD. TO THE LEFT, IMMEDIATELY, ' THAT BETTER NOT OF BEEN ONE OF OURS.' THEN SOMETHING WAS SAID FROM THE WINDOW, BUT I WASN'T PAYING ATTENTION. IT HAS ALWAYS BOTHERED ME WHY THE LACK OF CONCERN FOR THE ' OTHER,' IF ' THEY ' WERE REALLY POLICE. DIRECTLY BELOW THE WINDOW, TO THE SIDE OF THE TV WAS ONE OF THE SPEAKERS FOR THE HOME THEATER SYSTEM. THE LAST, I THINK, LETTER TO THE PRESIDENT, WHICH INCLUDED A CDV, I DO NOT THINK EVER REACHED THE WHITE HOUSE, THEN PRESIDENT BUSH. THAT MONTH, MAYBE ABOUT TEN TO FIFTEEN HOURS SLEEP TOTAL.
NOTE:
MY FATHER TOLD ME THAT HE HAD AN EIGHTY PAGE LETTER THAT WOULD PROVE MY MENTAL STATUS. I NOW KNOW WHO ' OBTAINED ' ( ? ) THE SECOND LETTER TO THE WHITE HOUSE; HOW HE GOT IT, I'LL NEVER REALLY KNOW. BUT I MADE A SCULPTURE WITH A POSTAL SYMBOL IN IT THAT REFLECTED WHAT I WAS ' SEEING IN THE FUTURE ' COURTESY OF TED KONNING BEFORE HE DIED AND MY OWN ' VIEWINGS.' HE WAS DEALING WITH NEW FAMILY MEMBERS WHO WERE HOMOSEXUAL AND AN EX-HUSBAND OF HIS NEW WIFE WHO HAD MENTAL CHALLENGES AND WAS A VETERAN. NOT TO MENTION MR. PRINCE'S ' INTRUSIONS.'
HOW MY FATHER GOT AHOLD OF IT, I GUESS ONLY THE ' POLICE,' IN BOTH STATES, NEW MEXICO AND TEXAS, REALLY KNOW. THE LETTER ALSO CONTAINED A CDR AND NAMES OF VICTIMS AND INFO OF WHAT WAS GOING ON ALICE ST. WHY? ' COMMANDER AND CHIEF,' AND HIS MEN.
SO WHEN THE PROTECTION OF CONSCIENCE BY PRUDENCE, A SCULPTURE, WAS FINALLY ACCEPTED INTO THE NEW MEXICO STATE FAIR, BECAUSE I COULD ' HEAR ' THE POSTAL WORKER, I MADE ABOUT THREE TO FIVE HUNDRED FLIERS AND CARDS AND ' CONVINCED ' SOME OF THE SECURITY AT THE FAIR TO ALLOW ME TO PASS THEM OUT. ABOUT HALF DID, THE OTHERS WERE LEFT IF ANYONE WANTED THEM……I HOPE THE PUBLIC GOT THEM.
THE ' POSTAL WORKER ' WAS HOMOSEXUAL, ALTHOUGH THE FLIERS AND CARDS SAID NOTHING OF HOMOSEXUALITY, ONLY STRONGER LAWS TO PROTECT CHILDREN AND WOMEN.
SOMETIME AFTER ALL OF THIS, I AWOKE TO A KNOCKING ON THE DOOR AND " FBI," BEING REPEATED, THEN AFTER CHECKING MY CAMERA'S AND EVEN GOING OUTSIDE, NO ONE WAS THERE. I LAYED DOWN AGAIN, DESPERATELY IN NEED OF SLEEP, AND ANOTHER " FBI " KNOCK, AND NO ONE AGAIN. I STAYED AWAKE AND DID SOMETHING ELSE.
NOTE:
TODAY ( 2-23-2015 ), WHILE TALKING WITH MANAGEMENT ABOUT JULIO GUTIERREZ'S RETURN CALL REGARDING MY STAY HERE, A MEMORY WAS TRIGGERED AFTER LUNCH IN RELATION TO WHAT I HAD ALREADY SAID BEFORE KRISTINA HAD LEFT FOR LUNCH. THE SECOND TO LAST OR LAST HOUR OF THE RUSH LIMBAUGH'S SHOW AND THE REPLAY OF WHAT SOMEONE HAD SAID ABOUT PRESIDENT OBAMA IN OBSERVATION TO THE PRESIDENT'S RELATIONSHIP WITH THE LEADERSHIP OF IRAN; THE DESCRIPTIVE WORD THAT PERSON MADE OF PRESIDENT OBAMA " MORON." THIS LINKED TO HENRY STREET ASKING ME TWO TIMES " AREN'T YOU A WARD OF THE STATE? " I SAID NO, THEN ASKED WHAT THAT WAS. " IT MEANS YOU GET A CHECK FROM THE STATE," " ARE YOU SURE? " THE LOOK ON THE MANS FACE WAS VERY DISTANT AND I KNOW IT SOUNDS STRANGE, LIKE AN ECHO, ' MORON, MORON,MORON.' HIS AND SOMEONE ELSES VOICE AND THE ' SCRIPT RUNING WITH THE FILM,' A DARKNESS OF A VERY BAD WAR, A MAN ALL IN WHITE, THAT'S ENOUGH FOR NOW, THE WAR IS NOT ' HERE.'
THEN LATER, A FEMALE " I'VE HAD ENOUGH OF THIS," THEN THE TRAIL AND THE ' TERRORIST WON BECAUSE OF THE PROSECUTOR'S ' DEAL,' BEHIND THE SCENES. FIVE ' SHADOWS ' LEFT ME, FOUR RETURNED, THE LAST BROKE UP, DISINTEGRATED RIGHT IN FRONT OF ME.
THEN FLASHED BACK TO 2001-2002 AND PHOTO'S THAT I HAVE OF THE FAMILY WHO OWNED A WINERY AND OF A STEP SON WHO HAD ' INTERVENED ' DURING A LIVE SHOOT OF A ' VERY BAD FILMING ' OF WOMEN, TAKEN BY A MOTORCYCLE GANG. THE KID, A LATE TWENTIES AT THAT TIME TOLD ME OF THE EVENT. IN THE ' BACKGROUND,' AFTERWARDS, ' BACKGROUND ' MEANING THE ' GLOBAL FUTURE ' OF EVENTS THAT ' HAD ' ( ? ) ALREADY OCCURRED, SEEMED ' UNCHANGEABLE.' *
THIS IS NOT SO, ' BRAINWASHING OF A ' DESIGNED PUBLIC,' LENDS A VERY STRONG EAR TO THIS NONE SENSE. YET ABOUT 90 PLUS PERCENT OF THE PEOPLE WILL NEVER BELIEVE ANYTHING OTHER THAN WHAT ' THE ALL OF ALL MEDIA ' STATES, INTERLINKED BY COMPUTERS IN THE WAY OF HOW ' ALL ' IS DONE, FOR ANYTHING TO CHANGE. BRAINWASHING. THIS IS THE ADVANTAGE THAT ' HOMOSEXUALS ' SOUGHT, NOT NECESSARILY ' FOUND,' AND ARE NEGOTIATING A CONTROLLED ' ARMAGEDDON.' OUR ARMY IS EVEN NOW, GIVING ONE OF THE TRAITORS HORMONE TREATMENTS TO SATISFY ' HIS ' DREAM OF ' WOMANHOOD.' THIS IS ALSO WHAT IS WRONG WITH THE VA, BUT NO ONE OUTSIDE OF THE VA WILL BREAK THE ' GRIP ' OF WHAT THE MAFIA AND ' NEW AGE ' SHRINKS HAVE DONE OTHER THAN ' BREAK DOWN ' THE WARRIOR WITHIN OUR SOLDIERS TO ' ACCOMMODATE ' THE MEDIA'S ' IDEOLOGY ' OF SOCIETAL NEEDS THAT SUSTAINS THE ' ALL OF MEDIA. WHEN THE NEEDS AND WANTS OF THE VERY FEW ARE GIVEN PRIVILEGE OVER THE REAL NEEDS OF THE ' DESIGNED ' MASSES AS SLAVE WITHOUT ANY REAL' VOICE.' THIS IS WHAT MAKES US A ' WHORE NATION.'
IN OTHER WORDS, THE THIRD WORLD IS FIRST AND MAKE NO MISTAKE, FIRST OBLIGATED TO THE UNDERWORLD OF THE MOB, THE MAFIA. THIS IS HOW EVERYTHING WENT WRONG AND ALL WENT ' SOUTH,' SO TO SPEAK.
AS FOR MY LIFE, THAT'S WHAT ALL THE YELLOW BASEBALLS AND TENNIS BALLS WERE LEFT AROUND FOR ME TO SEE AT CASA VIDA, THE RESCUE MISSION, MISSOURI STREET RESIDENCE, HAWAII AND AUSTIN, TEXAS. THE METAPHOR IS ' YOU BETTER PLAY BALL.' I HAVE NO IDEA WHO'S IDEA THIS WAS OR WHY A PAINT BRUSH WITH YELLOW PAINT, DRIED, WAS AT MY FATHER'S HOUSE, IN BACK OF HIS ' DIRECTOR'S ' CHAIR. BUT THE NOTION OF ' EXTORTION ' COMES TO MIND AND THE LIVES OF FAMILY MEMBERS, BUT THAT WAS ' HIS ' PLACING OF INTENDED ' UNDERSTANDINGS, ' THAT I WILL NOT TRADE A NATION'S FREEDOMS AS CONGRESS DID UNDER THE ' PATRIOT ACT;' A LIKENESS IN FEAR.
I DON'T PLAY BALL WITH MASONS. I HAPPEN TO LIKE WOMEN. NOT ' BREEDERS,' AS THEY WERE DESCRIBED ALL THOSE YEARS AGO WHEN ' JOBS ' WAS SUPPOSED TO BE ' HOMOSEXUAL ' TOO.
FUNNY THING ABOUT EXTORTION, YOU HAVE NO FREEDOM TO MAKE A RATIONAL DESION. IT'S SURRENDERING TO TERRORISM.
WE ARE NOT ' MEAT ' IN A SLAUGHTER HOUSE OF ' DESIGNED ' PEDOPHILES IN MEDIA AS MEDIUM IN ' MAN'S ' PETRI DISHES, NOT OF G_D.
IN THE ' TELLING ' OF HOW THE SCULPTURE LOOKED LIKE AND ' FELT LIKE ' TO OTHERS, I REALIZED THAT ANGELS WAS SOMETHING ' ELSE.' I ALMOST MADE WINGS FOR THE PIECE OF ART, BUT EVERYONE THOUGHT SHE LOOKED LIKE ' OUR LADY OF GUADALUPE, ' WHICH, NEVER MADE SENSE TO ME THEN.
* " YOUR DEBT - YOU HAVE BEEN TRADED TO THE ANGELS." THIS I THOUGHT I HEARD AT SOME POINT IN FRONT OF MY COMPUTER, LINKED WITH DEATH OF CIA EMPLOYEE ( ? )
hindsight, looking back, even all the socialpaths that i've met, the one who stands out the most,' above his family,' his country, is bart prince. there is no excuse, no lie, no understanding for his silence; a lack of strength even the slightest bit of courage, after his house burnt to the ground in santa fe. ashes to ashes, dust to dust. i pray you live a long life and remember what you never did, you will outlive anything you ever thought to build....as in Iraq.
that palace, you placed above 3,000 plus lives, that palace the us army destroyed.
CNN.COM
Google will ban pornography from being shown publicly on its Blogger site.
In an
announcement that was sent out to bloggers who use the company's blogging website, Google (
GOOGL,
Tech30) said people will no longer be able to "publicly share images and video that are sexually explicit or show graphic nudity" on Blogger as of March 23.
Google said those Blogger sites that continue to host pornography after March 23 will be made "private." That means the content will be allowed to remain up, but it will only be accessible to the site's owner and the people who the user directly shared the blog with.
Google noted that it isn't completely banning nudity from being shown publicly on Blogger. The site will allow nudity "if the content offers a substantial public benefit, for example in artistic, educational, documentary, or scientific contexts." But it also puts Google in the position of deciding what is art and what is pornography -- a
decision that Instagram and other sites have struggled with.
Blogger previously allowed adult content on its sites, but it required users to mark their blogs as "adult." Those Blogger sites came with an "adult content" warning that would appear before a visitor could enter the site.
It's unclear how many sites will be affected by the new rules. Google did not respond to a request for comment.
The announcement is part of a larger campaign by Google to cut down on the amount of porn served by its network.
In July, Google
stopped porn from appearing in its online ads. And in 2013, Google decided to remove blogs from its Blogger network that contained advertisements for online porn sites.
RUSH LIMBAUGH
RUSH: Let me -- because we got a lot of people that have run to their telephones to call me and try to correct me and tell me, some of them, that I don't know what I'm talking about. I knew it was gonna happen. I knew that I was gonna hit the mother lode with this, so I'm eager to talk to these people. I just want to say one thing to all of you, and I want to stress here that I'm not trying to irritate you.
Now, I don't know how many of you have tuned in here thinking of me what you have heard about me elsewhere, but whatever you do, you do not need to be contentious. There isn't any reason to be, and I have no desire to insult you. I really want all of you to get this right. I want all of you to understand what is happening to our country. Now, to all of you -- and I'm gonna take the calls, and I'm gonna gladly and happily engage you in conversation about this, but I want to tell you at the outset that not one of you can argue with me.
Now, wait. The reason you can't argue with me is that you don't know what it is. Obama has not released the details of this plan. You may think you know what net neutrality is, but you haven't the slightest idea. He's keeping it secret. You don't know what it is. You may think it's about getting even with these "mafia ISPs" that are making it problematic for you to watch Netflix. You may think that's what this is about, and if you do, God, I wish you'd realize that it's not about that. You've been sold that it's about that to get your support.
This is how proponents of big government do this. They boil issues down, they found out what it is about anything they want to take over and control that makes you unhappy, and then they let it be known they're gonna fix it for you. So if you are paying Netflix $7.99 a month and occasionally the content buffers and you think you're getting ripped off by a mafia middleman slowing or throttling down your feed, eight dollars a month, do you realize -- you can't go to one movie for eight bucks. You can't park, you can't go to a movie, you can't buy popcorn with or without coconut oil and your jumbo size 95-ounce soft drink, other than New York City, eight bucks. What do you think you're gonna get for eight bucks a month?
Now, you may think that's cruel, but do you realize there are people paying more than eight bucks for Netflix and they're not having these problems that you are. There are certain economic realities about this. When I say economic realities, I'm talking about the laws of economics. And I think in this country economics is woefully mistaught. It's a subject that is largely esoteric to people, and it need not be. Economics is pretty logical. Logic is a problem, though. Logic doesn't allow for opinions. Logic is what it is and sometimes you don't agree with the end result of logic.
Our last caller gave me the Netflix example. I remember reading about it on one of my tech blogs. Some tech blogger was just livid. He was fit to be tied, almost word-for-word what our caller said. So I sent an e-mail off to my economics advisor, Professor Hazlett, who is at Clemson, and he wrote back a long and detailed answer expressing sympathy for the poor man, but explaining why the attitude held by the poor man could end up screwing it for everybody else.
He made the point that any Internet service provider is going to have a wide and varied customer base. He's gonna have his best customers who pay him the most and expect the best, and he's gonna have his customers that pay $15 bucks a month. He says it's only natural the people that pay the provider a thousand, $1,500, $2,000 a month are gonna get first dibs on high speed and access. And they happen to be subsidizing service for $15 bucks a month.
So the guy paying $15 bucks a month is expecting to get the same service, i.e., speeds and availability as somebody paying $2,000 a month, and it just doesn't work that way.
Now, this is a simplification of this, but I'm trying to make this as widely understood as possible. So the proponents of big government who want to come in and control every aspect of human life that they can and control everything that human beings are interested in, as much of that as they can, they're not stupid.
They figure out what it is about any industry you hate. They figure out what it is about any industry that you need and really want but that you hate about it, and they come in and claim they understand and they're gonna get even and they're gonna fix it for you. So the whole concept of net neutrality can be reduced in one person's mind to the fact that some mafia Internet service providers, the government is gonna finally make 'em play fair, and I'm not gonna have my content from Netflix buffered.
And they end up supporting net neutrality because they think the people ripping them off, the government's gonna get even with 'em and gonna punish 'em, and gonna make 'em stop doing it to boot. In the meantime, over here net neutrality is a 302-page document of regulations that nobody has seen because Obama will not release it. Just like nobody knew what was in Obamacare before it was voted on, except those of us enterprising enough to find it, dig deep, and read the 2,000-plus pages. That's why we knew what was in it. And even after we knew what was in it, spending time on this program telling people what was in it, we got people calling us, telling us we didn't know what we were talking about even though they hadn't ever seen it.
Now, our first caller, I'm sympathetic. I'm sympathetic to all of this. I want it all to work, too. But we're not talking about deregulation here. We're talking about just the exact opposite. The government, Barack Hussein O, personally, Hillary Clinton as far back as 1990 personally openly said they want control over the content of the Internet because there's too much, way too much out there in opposition to them. Now, you're tempted to say I don't know what I'm talking about.
I beg you to search your memory banks. Do you remember all the times Obama and his buddies on the left have ripped Fox News? What do you think that's about? They don't like Fox News. They don't want to try to get rid of Fox News. If they could get rid of Fox News, they would. How about me? How many times have you heard me ripped to smithereens by Obama and the Democrat Party over 25 years? They don't like what I have to say, and if they could, would regulate me out of my job. And you are helping them when you support stuff like this.
You are helping the Barack Obamas and the Democrat Party take over this country and regulate it as such that anybody in opposition to them either ceases to operate or gets punished or both. It is the antithesis of freedom. It is the antithesis of democracy. And it is not going to result in better Netflix service for you. It's gonna result in worse Netflix service for you because the business is gonna become less attractive to invest in. The government's gonna regulate as much of it as they can, including revenue. What's amazing to me, you would think that everyone would know by now how dangerous it is to allow Barack Obama and his minions to access any private sector venture, or venue, after six years of screwing up everything.
How's that global warming thing working out for those of you who believe in it? How's the wind energy business doing for you? Solyndra and those clowns, solar, how's that all working out for you? None of what they promise you ever happens. How's that health care system working out for you? Have you discovered yet the fine you're gonna have to pay? Have you discovered yet that the refund you get from the IRS is gonna go to pay your fine for not having health insurance if you decide not to have it?
THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER
Inside Obama's net fix
RICHARD BENNETT • | FEBRUARY 23, 2015 | 5:00 AM
President Obama pauses while speaking during an online Twitter town hall meeting from the East...
This coming Thursday, Feb. 26, the Federal Communications Commission will formally pass its fourth set of regulations on broadband Internet services. It’s a sobering thought.
The Internet is working well, so it’s not obvious that the FCC needs to help it.
American companies own 10 of the world’s 15 largest websites (Google, Amazon, and Facebook to name an obvious few); the United States has
greater access to advanced cable and fiber networks than any large country except Japan; it was the first to deploy advanced 4G/LTE mobile networks; it has more smartphones than anywhere else in the world; and it exports more digital goods per capita than any other nation.
These facts are indisputable, so they’re simply disregarded by the Internet regulation
advocates campaigning for net neutrality. Among the arguments they use to make their case are that some foreign cities and small nations have built extremely speedy residential networks; many of these offer Internet services for a fraction of U.S. prices; rural American communities have slower and less reliable networks than cities do; and many
older people have no interest in venturing onto the Internet at any price.
A core problem with these arguments is that they are, in truth, unrelated to net neutrality.
The FCC says it’s not passing new rules in hopes of improving the Internet but to preserve it as it is with “light touch regulations.” The agency is taking action because courts have voided all but a sliver of its three previous sets of rules. And President Obama raised the stakes by publicly urging the FCC to impose the “strongest possible rules” on the Internet to fill the regulatory vacuum.
The new net neutrality rules were reportedly formulated by a “shadow FCC” operating within the White House that actively thwarted the will of FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler, the former investor and lobbyist who heads the agency. This has sparked congressional investigations into whether the White House improperly interfered with the FCC, which is officially independent. It has also prompted Congress to hold hearings about a pair of identical “Internet openness” bills in the two chambers that endorse net neutrality but clarify and reduce the FCC’s power and control over the Internet.
Rarely has a wonky feature of telecom policy generated such drama. The FCC rules will certainly be challenged in court, and Congress will just as certainly press forward with its efforts to shield the FCC from White House control. Internet policy will become a prominent issue in the 2016 presidential election, nearly 50 years after the Internet was born.
A brief history of the Internet
The Internet traces its roots to the 1960s, when researchers in America and Britain invented “packet switching,” a nimble method of managing network capacity. The telephone network manages capacity by subdividing the total pool of bandwidth into pieces just large enough to handle a phone call and handing them out on demand. Even in its modern, digital form, the telephone network does pretty much what it did when Lily Tomlin’s Ernestine put through calls with plugs and jacks on a switching panel.
Packet switching does something so radical that most engineers doubted it would even work: It assigns all of its capacity to each user on demand, for short periods of time just long enough for the sender to transmit 1,500 bytes of information or less. This information unit, the packet, contains the addresses of the sender and the recipient, so the network is free to deliver it as it sees fit.
It might subdivide the packet into smaller pieces and send them in parallel over different paths, common practice on the French CYCLADES network that predates the American Internet. Or it could combine packets with other packets and send them over a very high capacity path. It could even send identical copies of the packet over multiple paths at the same time, which would be useful if, for example, a nuclear attack had knocked out portions of the nationwide network. Thus, packet switching replaces telephone operators with computers, harnessing computer power to deliver an unprecedented degree of flexibility and performance.
The first large packet network, the Defense Department’s ARPANet, was deployed in 1969; it became the largest and most important part of the Internet in 1983. The early Internet was restricted to government contractors and research institutions and bound by an “acceptable use policy” forbidding commerce, but the Clinton administration privatized the Internet and opened it to commerce in the mid-1990s.
Because cellular data, digital subscriber line service, cable modems, and wi-fi were invented at roughly the same time as privatization, the essential elements of a communications revolution were in place by the turn of the century.
One network to rule them all
The virtue of packet switching is its ability to support a wide range of computer activities over a variety of media, which is why we can stream TV shows, send email, and surf the Web from laptops, smartphones, and iPads over mobile networks, DSL, cable, or wi-fi without sweating the details. But packet switching does have a drawback. While it can support a wide range of content retrieval activities with a high probability of success, it can be dismal at guaranteeing the rapid delivery of any individual packet. Because each packet takes the network’s entire capacity, packet networks are fully congested for the duration of each packet. If multiple users wish to transmit at roughly the same time, each must take a number and wait for a turn.
Because a movie consists of roughly a million packets over the span of a couple of hours (or more, if the film features Hobbits or conspiracies), the delivery time of each individual movie packet doesn’t matter much. Phone calls or similar applications such as video conferencing can, by contrast, be frustrating over the Internet. Skype and Vonage generally work well, but very frequently users encounter inaudible signals. Internet telephone calls work better on high-speed connections, but even at the unusually high rate of 100 Mbps, the laws of probability occasionally produce moments of chaos. Video streaming services aggravate the problem by delivering packets in clumps rather than with uniform spacing.
Network operators can take affirmative steps to improve the quality of Internet calls without degrading the perceived quality of movies. Because Oliver Stone’s "Nixon" runs three and a half hours, a broadband Internet service can delay the Amazon Instant stream of many of its two million packets by a fraction of a second in order to deliver a Skype packet before it expires, some two-tenths of a second after it was created. Broadband networks handle some packets that must be delivered in tenths of a second to be useful as well as packets that aren’t relevant for minutes or hours. So it is absurd to treat all packets equally.
Inflicting a tiny delay on a movie is of less consequence than, say, erasing part of a conversation. Given a choice, users would certainly like their broadband service providers to do this for them. So why don’t they? You may think the failure of broadband Internet service to meet Skype users’ needs is driven by greed or indolence, which is what critics say. But the answer lies in another quarter altogether.
Regulation vs. innovation
The hallmark of the White House’s broadband Internet service regulations is network neutrality, which is the idea that all packets should be handled equally. While you may prefer your Skype packets to take precedence over your movie packets on the occasions when the two are in conflict, the service provider can’t do this without looking into the packets to see what application created them. As Harvard law professor Lawrence Lessig said in his book
Code, the most important rule of net neutrality is that the
network must operate blindly, without bias or favor: “Like a daydreaming postal worker, the network simply moves the data and leaves its interpretation to the applications at either end.”
Lessig proteges Tim Wu, coiner of the term “net neutrality," and Barbara van Schewick, the FCC’s most dedicated lobbyist, have modified Lessig’s rule in modest ways, but a prohibition against preferential treatment remains intact in both of their current formulations.
Broadband Internet service providers understandably do not want to offer services that break the law and popular notions of Internet correctness. Some foreign Internet services manage packet streams intelligently, but mainstream U.S. firms have shied away from providing such services since the FCC’s infamous 2008 ruling against Comcast on a complaint brought by Vuze, a video streamer that produces a version of the BitTorrent protocol.
Vuze complained that Comcast was interfering with its users’ abilities to share movies on personal computers on the Comcast network. The accusation was at least partially true, but for reasons the FCC failed to uncover, Comcast reduced the amount of upstream bandwidth BitTorrent clients were able to use in a somewhat crude attempt to deal with problems BitTorrent caused for Vonage users.
Comcast offers a telephone service of its own which is unaffected by Internet applications because it uses a dedicated path from the home to the telephone network. Vonage shares capacity with other Internet applications, and Comcast found itself in a pickle in 2007 when it was deluged with customer service calls from disgruntled Vonage users who suspected Comcast was degrading their service to make them switch to Comcast's voice service.
Comcast knew that interfering with Internet telephony was forbidden since the FCC had already sanctioned Madison River Communications, a North Carolina phone company, for blocking access to Vonage in 2005. The Madison River action had been based on the
Internet Policy Statement devised by former Chairman Michael Powell that was never adopted as a formal rule.
When Comcast engineers found that the Vonage complaints were coming from neighborhoods with high BitTorrent use, it reduced the bandwidth BitTorrent could consume by injecting forged packets that told BitTorrent to disconnect some of the dozens of upstream connections it maintained. Comcast didn’t prevent BitTorrent users from sharing their movies with others, but it did reduce the amount of bandwidth they could take. The system employed by Comcast was a stopgap until the deployment of faster, next-generation broadband equipment that had been delayed for reasons over which Comcast had no control.
The FCC ordered Comcast to stop disconnecting BitTorrent streams. The company had already done so before the agency issued the order. But Comcast then sued the FCC and won because the agency's action was predicated on an unpublished rule. Following this court decision and Congress’ refusal to pass a net neutrality bill before the 2010 election, the FCC published its third iteration of Internet regulations, the Open Internet Order of 2010. This was challenged by Verizon and largely voided by the D.C. Circuit in January 2014 on jurisdictional grounds, which brings us to where we are now.
80 years of communications law
The FCC’s mission is to implement the Communications Act of 1934, that defines the general framework of “communication by wire and radio” within the U.S. For historical reasons, the law is organized into several technology-dependent categories, known as “titles."
Title I relates to information services, which are those that store, retrieve or process information — in essence, anything that’s done with a computer. Title II covers the common carrier wired telephone network, Title III is for the mobile voice and data network, and Title VI is cable TV.
There is limited cross-pollination between the titles. Voice services provided over mobile and cable networks are classified as Title II services because they interface with the telephone network, but voice services provided over the Internet are regulated under Title I.
In addition to the six titles, Section 706 of the Act deals with promoting “advanced telecommunications capability,” which is generally taken to mean broadband networks. Section 706 orders the FCC to survey the build-out of broadband networks and take necessary deregulatory actions to speed up deployment if it finds progress too slow.
Congress last updated the law in 1996, when it passed a Telecommunications Act that tried to create competition for local phone service. It failed to achieve its principal objective, but it is most remarkable for its almost complete failure to mention the Internet.
Because there is not a Title VII on regulating the Internet, the FCC has jumped through hoops to find the legal authority to regulate it. When phone companies initially offered DSL service, they volunteered to have this new service regulated under Title II. They gravitated in this direction to secure common carrier immunity from liability for the unlawful behavior of users, such as piracy and libel. Title II also meant making lines available to competitors at prices set by regulators, but this provision didn’t hold up in court.
Cable Internet took a different route. It had been classified by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit as a common carrier in 2000 before any FCC ruling on its status. In 2002, however, the FCC issued a ruling that it was actually an information service because Internet services process substantial amounts of information (packet switching is a rich exercise in information processing by itself). The Ninth Circuit wasn’t happy with the FCC’s judgment, but the Supreme Court ruled in 2005 that it was the agency’s call to make.
Justice Antonin Scalia, who had worked on telecommunications policy in the Nixon White House, dissented, much to the glee of today’s leftist net neutrality advocates. But a dissent is a minority opinion.
The 2008 FCC order in the Comcast matter was quickly overturned because the Internet Policy Statement wasn’t an actual regulation. Most of the 2010 Open Internet Order was overturned because it attempted to impose a Title II regulation on a Title I service, the stipulation that broadband service providers “prophylactically” ban the kind of packet discrimination that permits phone services to co-exist peacefully with video streaming.
But the FCC scored a major victory in winning court approval for a creative reading of its Section 706 authority to accelerate the build out of “advanced telecommunication capability” by pre-emptively banning the use and/or sale of network management capabilities that would allow a diverse array of applications to co-exist on common networks. Venturing onto thin ice, the court bought the FCC’s contention that networks should strive to become faster but not smarter.
The tortured path to the 2015 order
The court offered the FCC two paths to a legally valid net neutrality rule. It could rely on its Section 706 authority, as it had in a previous order on mobile data services, or it could attempt to reclassify broadband Internet service under the common carrier title. Classification is not supposed to be an exercise that the commission undertakes with an eye to expanding its own power. The FCC is, rather, supposed to examine the nature of a service and determine where it best fits within the confines of the law. Classification should be a factual judgment, not a policy choice.
The law is actually more complicated than this, because the 1996 Act gave the FCC a special authority known as “forbearance” that allows it to refrain from applying specific portions of an existing title to a new service. Thus, it has a choice between assigning broadband to Title I (information services), Title II (common carrier telephone networks), or to a subset of Title II left over after some portions of the law are excluded by the forbearance power. Some commenters describe Title II with forbearance as a ransom note, since it cuts and pastes parts of the law into an entirely new configuration. But there’s no doubt that Congress did in fact give the FCC this power.
Largely because Title II has spawned so much litigation — there have been literally thousands of cases in the courts and before the FCC — Wheeler was reluctant to apply it to broadband networks. From February to June of last year, his speeches indicated that he would use the FCC’s new Section 706 authority to fashion a third way on net neutrality that would refrain from “prophylactic bans” on smart network management practices in favor of a more permissive approach. He signaled willingness to permit bargaining between content providers such as Netflix and communication apps like Skype and Vonage on the one side and broadband Internet service providers on the other.
Wheeler has been a long-time participant in the Internet policy conferences held at the Silicon Flatirons Center at the University of Colorado Law School in Boulder, arguably the premier venue for Internet policy discourse in America. Tim Wu introduced the notion of net neutrality at a Flatirons event; Powell unveiled his Internet Policy Statement in Boulder; and the center’s director, Phil Weiser, co-wrote a paper laying out a “Third Way on Net Neutrality” after Wu and Powell had expressed their positions. Wheeler’s Notice of Proposed Rulemaking issued last May owes a heavy debt to the Weiser paper.
Through the summer and early autumn it appeared that Wheeler would draft a new Open Internet order relying on Title I and Section 706 consistent with the third way. This would permit bargaining for customized delivery services as long as baseline network quality was sufficient for users to enjoy the benefits of common applications such as web surfing, email, and video streaming. Common applications would need to work well before providers could offer special treatment to leading-edge applications that we’ve yet to see on the Internet, such as immersive video conferencing, high definition voice, and accelerated gaming.
Unfortunately, cracks began to appear in Wheeler’s resolve after he briefed Democrats on Capitol Hill just before the commission’s notice was published. Someone, either an FCC staffer or a member of Congress, leaked a distorted version of the notice to the Wall Street Journal. Press speculation led to the creation of an Internet meme to the effect that the FCC planned to permit Internet service providers to collect ransom from small businesses under threat of relegating them to “slow lanes” if they didn’t pay up. This story proved to be a boon to technically illiterate bloggers and journalists assigned to the Internet beat. Many bloggers announced that the FCC proposed to allow the Internet providers to extort small businesses. Sadly many credulous readers believed them; many filed comments with the FCC protesting what was an entirely fictional plan.
The Netflix saga
The effects of the vindictive leak were exaggerated by a tale of woe that figured heavily in the ginned-up reaction to Wheeler’s plan. A little more than a year ago, Netflix users in many parts of the country experienced a service meltdown. Instead of seeing their movies and TV reruns flow seamlessly across their screens as they always had, they were jarred by frozen images, erratic delays, and disconnections. Netflix had created this problem itself by poor planning and was ultimately bailed out by the large Internet service providers, but not without cash payments and a great deal of complaining.
The underlying cause of the Netflix catastrophe was a hasty attempt to realign the middlemen of a complex entertainment delivery process. Netflix delivers video content to ISPs in “Internet peering centers,” gigantic buildings in major cities where dozens of Internet companies rent floor space in order to exchange packets according to bilateral agreements. These deals are lifesavers, but critics are more likely to describe them as extortion because they’re not aware of the flow of payments between Internet firms. The story is hard to tease out of popular narrative because it centers on a portion of the Internet few understand, even within the FCC.
Netflix was able to overcome the problem by negotiating special deals for its massive traffic load — a third of all traffic on the Internet comes from Netflix — with AT&T, Comcast, and Verizon. But the deals weren’t free, just as the middlemen Netflix eliminated by going direct to the large Internet providers weren’t free, either. The financial details are shrouded by non-disclosure agreements, but most experts estimate that Netflix’s communication costs are now lower than they’ve ever been because the company was able to bypass the middlemen and negotiate its own deals at the source. This is a typical trajectory for successful Internet content merchants.
Apple is undergoing the same transformation today to meet demand for its immensely popular iTunes service, but without any of the drama that colored the Netflix transition. Amazon and YouTube built their own acceleration facilities a decade ago, again without fanfare. These other companies didn’t wait until their traffic loads outstripped the Internet’s capacity before changing their delivery method as Netflix did. The lesson here is to plan for growth instead of lurching from crisis to crisis.
But the Netflix story combined with media distortion of the third way created the appearance that Netflix was being held hostage to the kind of bargaining contemplated by Wheeler’s notice.
The November shellacking
Despite voters' sharp rebuke to President Obama and the Democrats in the 2014 midterms, the president went on the offensive with a slew of orders only a few hours after a chastened talk about bipartisanship. Obama almost appeared to be trolling Republicans in hopes of provoking an over-the-top backlash that would undermine the “party of grownups” image that had been key to the midterm success.
This campaign of provocation culminated in a
YouTube video encouraging Wheeler to impose the “strongest possible rules” on the Internet instead of the third way “light touch” he was refining. Wheeler appeared blind-sided by the president’s message, which amounted to an order, and he buckled. Forced to explain his change of position, Wheeler offered two ambiguous stories. The first, presented as an epiphany, stressed the success of mobile networks under Title II and glossed over the fact that mobile data service was classified under Title I by the 1996 Telecommunications Act.
The second story was even more puzzling. Wheeler had been hired by a personal computer company called NABU after IBM had released its PC and Apple had introduced the Macintosh. NABU's PC used an older-generation central processing unit, the eight-bit Z80, and an obsolete operating system that had been the precursor to Microsoft’s PC-DOS. The NABU machine attached to a TV set and to a one-way cable network that continually downloaded an uncontrollable stream of applications and other content. Wheeler negotiated deals with 40 cable networks to support the NABU machine, but none of these placements spurred significant sales because the overall value proposition for the NABU PC was too weak. Like so many others in the early personal computer era, the company went bust.
In an op-ed in Wired, Wheeler blamed NABU’s failure on too little network openness rather than too little computer performance.
Technical reaction
So, with these flimsy justifications, the US has arrived at a turning point in the development of the web. The present direction of Internet regulation threatens the ability of networks to advance. Supporters of Title II regulation may be well-schooled in telecom law, but few grasp the strengths and weaknesses of Internet technology. The engineering community is concerned about improper regulation, hence luminaries such as the Internet’s lead inventor Bob Kahn and networking pioneer Dave Farber have spoken out on the risk of regulatory overreach. IEEE Spectrum, a publication of the largest professional organization of computer engineers, has just published a
detailed critique of the chilling effects of neutrality regulations on the growth of the Internet, “Net Neutrality’s Technical Troubles.” Ironically, the first victims of the White House’s “strongest possible rules” imported from the annals of telephone regulation will be the Internet phone calls carried by Skype and Vonage.
The Internet as we know it today is a distillation of ideas developed around the world by both public and private sector researchers supported by investments from both public and private sources. Most of the magic comes from the profit-driven private sector. As amazing as the Internet is today, it still falls short of its potential.
It’s a certainty that the rules imposed on Wheeler will slow the Internet’s rate of progress and lock in current applications. Congress can take steps to undo the damage about to be inflicted — and it should.
Richard Bennett is a co-inventor of wi-fi and a visiting fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.
Obama's regs will make Internet slow as in Europe, warn FCC, FEC commissioners
As the Federal Communications Commission and Federal Election Commission toy with regulating aspects of the Internet, critics on those agencies are warning that speed and freedom of speech are in jeopardy.
In a joint column, Federal Communications Commission member Ajit Pai and Federal Election Commission member Lee Goodman, leveled the boom on the Obama-favored regulations, essentially charging that it will muck up the freedom the nation has come to expect from the Internet.
In one key passage of the column published in
Politico, the duo wrote Monday that heavy-handed FCC regulations like those imposed in Europe will significantly slow down Internet speech.
“These Internet regulations will deter broadband deployment, depress network investment and slow broadband speeds. How do we know? Compare Europe, which has long had utility-style regulations, with the United States, which has embraced a light-touch regulatory model. Broadband speeds in the United States, both wired and wireless, are significantly faster than those in Europe. Broadband investment in the United States is several multiples that of Europe. And broadband’s reach is much wider in the United States, despite its much lower population density,” the two wrote.
They also joined to warn about the Democrat-chaired Federal Election Commission eyeing regulation of political speech on the Internet.
Noting recent votes on the issue that ended in a political deadlock, the two wrote, “these close votes and the risk of idiosyncratic case-by-case enforcement inevitably discourage citizens and groups from speaking freely online about politics.”
Bottom line, they warned: “Internet freedom works. It is difficult to imagine where we would be today had the government micromanaged the Internet for the past two decades as it does Amtrak and the U.S. Postal Service. Neither of us wants to find out where the Internet will be two decades from now if the federal government tightens its regulatory grip. We don’t need to shift control of the Internet to bureaucracies in Washington. Let’s leave the power where it belongs — with the American people. When it comes to Americans’ ability to access online content or offer political speech online, there isn’t anything broken for the government to “fix.” To paraphrase President Ronald Reagan, Internet regulation isn’t the solution to a problem. Internet regulation is the problem.”
