Wednesday, February 25, 2015

Killer of 'American Sniper' Kyle sentenced to life in prison

Killer of 'American Sniper' Kyle sentenced to life in prisonB
STEPHENVILLE, Texas Wed Feb 25, 2015 12:17am EST

Well, that was predictable.  He done kilt a boh-nah-fied Texas Hee-roh and betcha most Texans think he shoulda been shot or hung with no trial atalll!

Let me repeat; No wonder dad couldn't wait to get the fuck out of Texas. They do everthin' big there, including stupid. What kind of arrogant dumbass lets a guy who he texts is "straight up nuts" have a gun?  An arrogant dumbass with a death wish, that's who.

 I also predict that Taya Kyle beats feet out of Texas purty darn quick now. I just hope she doesn't come back here.

Now let me predict that Routh will not last 3 years in prison unless he's in protective custody, nor will he get the help he needs. The VA and the military recruiting procedures can continue being just as shitty as they are now.

Carry on, justice was served..(can ya hear the sarcasm dripping?)

Tuesday, February 17, 2015

My opinion of Routh trial

As far as I'm concerned if Eddie Ray Routh is convicted of capital murder during this trial, then the military recruiters and the VA are off the hook.

Not cool.

Thursday, February 05, 2015

Jury selection for alleged American Sniper killer begins today

Jury selection in Routh trial begins today

Pretty tall order since Chris Kyle has been glorified since the movie American Sniper was released worldwide about 3 weeks ago and is quite popular. As is Kyle in Texas, where the killing took place and they are trying to pick jurors for the trial.

A Reporter at Large JUNE 3, 2013 ISSUE
In the Crosshairs
Chris Kyle, a decorated sniper, tried to help a troubled veteran. The result was tragic.
 The New Yorker

I wonder if Kyle knew that Routh's family and friends had hidden firearms and ammunition from Routh because they knew he was a danger to himself and others the day he and Littlefield were killed on the rifle range?  I wonder if that will come up in the trial?

I also wonder if the trial will shed light on the Veterans Administration (who paid this dinky, no hit blog a visit the day I posted my last post) and the indadequate treatment of PTSD.  Does the VA need to take a different tack? You know, mabye get a clue from the fact that thatthe war on drugs is a complete fucking failure also?

Or will it all be swept under the rug and the Texas HEE-Rohs murderer be executed?  They execute a lot of people in Texas.  The biggest executers in the US, in fact. (Feb 7 prosecution not seeking death penalty)

Jebus, no wonder my dad couldn't wait to get the fuck out of there.

This case just brings up how goddamned stupid the whole Iraq war is for me.  The bitterness I feel at watching a whole new generation of broken vets.  Lives lost or wasted and the only people benefitting from this war are people who are part of the war machine.

That includes me, because I wouldn't have a roof over my head, food to eat and insurance to cover my  counseling for my PTSD if not for my husband's service and current employment with a mil contractor.  My counselor should have been able to help a shit ton more veterans, but the nature of the military beast is to hide it's wounds, lick them when they are alone, don't let it become part of the service jacket. To suck it up, Buttercup, to soldier on,to ride the waves of bu·reau·crat·ic indifference at the highest levels right down into the gutters of a freeway underpass.

Sunday, February 01, 2015

American Sniper

I read the book .  I saw the movie.   I've read a few articles and reviews online. I didn't really hate the book or the movie. What I hated was the fact that I've lived 45 out of my over 50 years in San Diego and I call bullshit. That's because I know of these guys and they bullshit a lot, and they back each other's bullshit up.  I'm not doubting that Chris Kyle believed in all that jingoistic bullshit and I don't doubt that he killed a shitload of Iraqis.  Or that he loved his wife and kids and Texas and the USA and blhah blah zipityfuckindoodah.  The movie made me want to drink copious amounts of tequila.

Dude has been proven a liar in court.    I also got the idea that his wife is the kind of Navy wife that turned me off to Navy wives forever.

I am a retired veteran's wife and I was born here in San Diego and have lived here for MOST of my life and was single for a long time.  I know how full of crap many military guys are.  I've seen and heard shit that wives don't see and hear.  I've worked on a base, a couple in fact.  I'm not a veteran and never thought that was a realistic goal for me.  I have asked quite a few young, active military guys  why they joined and very few spout the kind of uber-patriotic nonsense that oozes out of the book or the movie.  Their girlfriend broke their heart or their girlfriend got pregnant or they timed out of foster care or they wanted to go to college on the GI bill or there just weren't any JOBS back home. Or my favorite- they wanted to be in the MPs so they could go be a cop back home when they got out.

Frankly, I'm a much bigger Michael Moore fan than I am a Clint Eastwood fan and Eastwood became just another asshole like Charleton Heston in my mind when we were reminded of the incident where he said he would shoot MM if MM ever came to his door.

And oh by the way, Fried Green Tomatoes is streaming on Netflix right now.

Saturday, November 08, 2014

uh huh

The $9 Billion Witness: Meet JPMorgan Chase's Worst Nightmare

Meet the woman JPMorgan Chase paid one of the largest fines in American history to keep from talking

Tuesday, October 14, 2014

You're only paranod if they're not after you

A Valuable Reputation

After Tyrone Hayes said that a chemical was harmful, its maker pursued him.


Just read it.  Then see if your reaction is like mine.  Disgusted at yet another corporate campaign to discredit scientists who might get in the the way of their profits with Oh,, I dunno, sciency stuff that indicates that their products might cause physical harm to living things.

Corporate power and Zombie shows getting bigger, or is it just me?

Monday, October 13, 2014

Ho hum

Not much interested in blogging any more.   I will do my civic duty and vote in a couple of weeks, but I'm not really interested in the rigged political system any more.  Not when I see the people I care about struggle every day for survival and my survival is only easier because I subjugated idealism for  pragmatic reasons.

And I'll read this and this to help me do my civic duty.

Wednesday, September 10, 2014

save the internet

Saturday, September 06, 2014

Barely Keeping up

With all of the technical gadgets that I bought in December.  And I REALLY  am sick of trying to help my husband learn.  He's so resistant to change that he's kind of a fucking pain in my ass.

Wednesday, August 13, 2014

Yes, I'm still alive

My dad is now in a special memory care unit and I couldn't be more pleased.  He likes it, I got him to laugh the last time I saw him and I haven't seen him laugh in a long time. They take good care of him, and the family couldn't do it anymore.  Dude deserves some peace and quiet before he dies and he sure wasn't getting that at the Bickerson's

Thursday, March 27, 2014

Why the politickybitch has been burned out on political blogging

Hmm. Guess it's been obvious for a while that I am completely burned out on political blogging, yeah?


Because in order to take it to the next level and become a "real activist" as I see it, might make some people very dear to me vulnerable. Also, it's all I can do to avoid the idiocy so prevalent in  the corporate funded mainstream media's attempts to dominate, control, anesthetize and profit from as many Americans as possible.

 There are so many stupid people in this country that the corporate interests are winning big. Many Americans are just ignorant and I have no problem with ignorance. Stupidity, however, gets on my last fucking nerve. There is a difference.

The politicians for the most part are only about winning their next election and they need money to run in it and the corporate interests provide those funds.

 The voters are apathetic because they look at the self-interested politicians and wonder why the politicians never do anything for them or theirs.  There are a few national politicians that give me hope that the broken political system can occasionally work for the constituents (umm, thats us, if you're wondering.) 

Frankly, I dunno what it's going to take for us Americans to change our fucked up political system but my biggest hope lies in the fact that there are so many more of us than there are of the selfish, greedy fucking fucks that control the system right now because they have more money than we do.  I've known for years that money wouldn't change things for most of us.  It's not money that we need to change this broken system, it's the confidence that we CAN do it, and standing together in order TO do it.  Because the castles can be stormed and you can bet your asses that the 1% are scared shitless of that.  As well they should be.

Sunday, March 02, 2014


You know you're playing way too much Scrabble and completely neglecting your political blog when you make up words like "Cogistan-- the place where Americans finally understand that they are sending their kids off to die so some rich fuck can get richer"

Saturday, February 22, 2014

Henry Giroux on Zombie Politics November 22, 2013

Watch here . Its fascinating and I"m sorry I missed it in November.

Thursday, February 20, 2014

got hung up on by AT&T for the 3rd time today

I am so furious with Sprint and AT&T right now and their customer service reps it is not funny. Customers are getiing screwed if they want to keep up with technology and customers are FORCED to make changes to keep up with the technology. I hope these carriers' shareholders are happy bankrupting the rest of us. Assholes.

I guess "It's always been like that" duncy twit ("it was wrote on here") didn't realize that the changes were made and customers were not informed of the change on their bills until there were data overages? I don't think so. I am getting screwed without so much as a kiss. The slick salesmen have no conscience but they are a bit smarter than the people paid to take the complaints and resolve issues (by hanging up on you).

Wednesday, February 19, 2014

AT&T sucks syphlitic donkey dick

I have always had unlimited data usage for high speed internet through At&T. I changed my service and the customer service rep neglected to tell me that that was no longer and option. Today I called and the idiotic twit I talked to couldn't even tell me how badly I am now getting fucked in the ass with razor blades on my internet bill.

Saturday, January 18, 2014

Monday, December 30, 2013

For Economic Stability, Follow the French

For Economic Stability, Follow the French
Monday, 30 December 2013 15:19
By The Daily Take, The Thom Hartmann Program | Op-Ed

Wednesday, December 25, 2013

Merry Christmas

 Haven't figured out my ridiculously expensive new cell phone and if I call you my husband's name will show up on your caller ID.

Thursday, December 19, 2013

Is this possible?

So far I am both overwhelmed, and underwhelmed by the Samsung Galaxy S4. My eyes like that the screen is bigger than the iPhone, but I haven't figured out how not to use the battery very quickly. I'm not looking forward to trying to move my music from my 4 yr old workhorse iMac to the extra SD card I had installed before I even bought the thing.

update 22-21-13-  returned it.  

Sunday, December 15, 2013

CDMA vs. GSM: What's the Difference?

CDMA vs. GSM: What's the Difference?

If you're shopping for a mobile phone, you're in for a lot of acronyms. Here's what you need to know about two basic, yet important, terms.
By Sascha Segan December 5, 2013 08:47am ES PC Magazine

Two basic technologies in mobile phones, CDMA and GSM represent a gap you can't cross. They're the reason you can't use AT&T phones on Verizon's network and vice versa. But what does CDMA vs. GSM really mean for you?

CDMA (Code Division Multiple Access) and GSM (Global System for Mobiles) are shorthand for the two major radio systems used in cell phones. Both acronyms tend to group together a bunch of technologies run by the same entities. In this story, I'll try to explain who uses which technology and what the real differences are.

Which Carries are CDMA? Which are GSM?
In the U.S., Sprint, Verizon and U.S. Cellular use CDMA. AT&T and T-Mobile use GSM.

That means we're mostly a CDMA country. It also means we're not part of the norm, because most of the world is GSM. The global spread of GSM came about because in 1987, Europe mandated the technology by law, and because GSM comes from an industry consortium. What we call CDMA, by and large, is owned by chipmaker Qualcomm. This made it less expensive for third parties to build GSM equipment.

There are several variants and options carriers can choose, like toppings on their technological ice cream. In this story we'll be talking about U.S. networks.

What CDMA vs. GSM Means to You
For call quality, the technology you use is much less important than the way your carrier has built its network. There are good and bad CDMA and GSM networks, but there are key differences between the technologies. Here's what you, as a consumer, need to know.

It's much easier to swap phones on GSM networks, because GSM carriers put customer information on a removable SIM card. Take the card out, put it in a different phone, and the new phone now has your number. What's more, to be considered GSM, a carrier must accept any GSM-compliant phone. So the GSM carriers don't have total control of the phone you're using.

That's not the case with CDMA. In the U.S., CDMA carriers use network-based white lists to verify their subscribers. That means you can only switch phones with your carrier's permission, and a carrier doesn't have to accept any particular phone onto its network. It could, but typically, U.S. carriers choose not to.

In other words, you can take an unlocked AT&T phone over to T-Mobile (although its 3G may not work well because the frequency bands are different). You can't take a Verizon phone over to Sprint, because Sprint's network rejects non-Sprint phones.

Many Sprint and Verizon phones now have SIM cards, but that isn't because of CDMA. The SIM cards are generally there for Sprint's and Verizon's 4G LTE networks, because the LTE standard also uses SIM cards. The phones may also have SIM slots to support foreign GSM networks as "world phones." But those carriers still use CDMA to authenticate their phones on their own home networks.

3G CDMA networks (known as "EV-DO" or "Evolution Data Optimized") also, generally, can't make voice calls and transmit data at the same time. Once more, that's an available option (known as "SV-DO" for "Simultaneous Voice and Data Optimization"), but one that U.S. carriers haven't adopted for their networks and phones.

On the other hand, all 3G GSM networks have simultaneous voice and data, because it's a required part of the spec. (3G GSM is also actually a type of CDMA. I'll explain that later.)

So why did so many U.S. carriers go with CDMA? Timing. When Verizon's predecessors and Sprint switched from analog to digital in 1995 and 1996, CDMA was the newest, hottest, fastest technology. It offered more capacity, better call quality and more potential than the GSM of the day. GSM caught up, but by then those carriers' paths were set.

It's possible to switch from CDMA to GSM. Bell and Telus in Canada have done it, to get access to the wider variety of off-the-shelf GSM phones. But Verizon and Sprint are big enough that they can get custom phones built for them, so they don't see the need to waste money switching 3G technologies when they could be building out their 4G networks.

The Technology Behind CDMA vs. GSM
CDMA and GSM are both multiple access technologies. They're ways for people to cram multiple phone calls or Internet connections into one radio channel.

GSM came first. It's a "time division" system. Calls take turns. Your voice is transformed into digital data, which is given a channel and a time slot, so three calls on one channel look like this: 123123123123. On the other end, the receiver listens only to the assigned time slot and pieces the call back together.

The pulsing of the time division signal created the notorious "GSM buzz," a buzzing sound whenever you put a GSM phone near a speaker. That's mostly gone now, because 3G GSM (as I explain later) isn't a time division technology.

CDMA required a bit more processing power. It's a "code division" system. Every call's data is encoded with a unique key, then the calls are all transmitted at once; if you have calls 1, 2, and 3 in a channel, the channel would just say 66666666. The receivers each have the unique key to "divide" the combined signal into its individual calls.

Code division turned out to be a more powerful and flexible technology, so "3G GSM" is actually a CDMA technology, called WCDMA (wideband CDMA) or UMTS (Universal Mobile Telephone System). WCDMA requires wider channels than older CDMA systems, as the name implies, but it has more data capacity.

Since its inception, GSM has had many more add-ons and evolutions than CDMA. As I mentioned above, WCDMA is considered the 3G version of GSM technology. To further speed things up, the 3GPP (the GSM governing body) released extensions called HSPA, which have sped GSM networks up to as fast as 42Mbps, at least in theory.

Our CDMA networks, meanwhile, are stuck at 3.6Mbps. While faster CDMA technologies exist, U.S. carriers chose not to install them and have instead turned to 4G LTE to be more compatible with global standards.

The Future is LTE
The CDMA vs. GSM gap will close eventually as everyone moves to 4G LTE, but that doesn't mean everyone's phones will be compatible. LTE, or "Long Term Evolution," is the new globally accepted 4G wireless standard. All of the U.S. carriers are turning it on. For more, see 3G vs. 4G: What's the Difference?.

The problem is, they're turning it on in different frequency bands, with different 3G backup systems, and even, in the case of the new Sprint Spark network, using an LTE variant (TD-LTE) that doesn't work with any other U.S. carrier's phones.

Furthermore, it's not like the 2G and 3G networks are going away any time soon. Carriers have told us they're leaving their UMTS and EVDO networks live until at least 2020. So we will not enter a European-style paradise of interchangeable phones anytime soon.

So what does all of this mean for you? If you want to switch phones often, use your phone in Europe, or use imported phones, go with GSM. Otherwise, pick your carrier based on coverage and call quality in your area. Our Readers' Choice and Fastest Mobile Networks awards are a great place to start.

My head is spinning, but I'm determined to figure out how to change my communications situation. Just not today.  I now have a throbbing headache from trying to learn about technology changes that I've attempted to ignore for the last 18 months.  I AM tired of being the cash cow that allows my communications carriers to make changes that entice NEW subscribers.

Sunday, December 01, 2013

I am pissed

These greedy assholes raised my rent for the second time in 6 months.  Between watching my neighbor's dog shit while I have my morning coffee, the cheap disgusting carpet they put in after 14 years of needing new carpet and paint, and the freeway noise, I've had it.   There is no pool, no dishwasher, no ac, no parking, a filthy disgusting laundry room with cold water only, and the smell of garbage wafting over the rotten assy smell of fish sauce covered garlic in asian food cooking,  I'm done.

Saturday, November 23, 2013

Dog Pound

Dog Pound (2010)
91 min - Drama - 23 June 2010 (France)
Reviews: 29 user | 42 critic | 8 from

Three juvenile delinquents arrive at a correctional center and are put under the care of an experienced guard.

I watched this a couple of days ago and it is still a bit disturbing to me.  Not only because it brings back terrible memories for me, but because the normal evolution (developement)? necessary in the main character to make a good movie is thwarted.  What is treated superficially in the movie is how these boys came to be where they are and just how few good role models they have had in their lives.

I was never in juvenile hall, but I certainly was stuck in a few places where kids who had been were.  None of the places I was were same sex and I imagine the violence level with a bunch of teenaged male offenders was much higher than what I experienced.  I was threatened a few times and I suppose I threatened the staff a couple times as I was restrained and isolated.  What did come across is how few staff or offenders will understand or take responsibility for their own actions.  The Bleakness might have been a better title for this example of how truly fucked up the "justice system" is in this country.

The Hunger Games Catching Fire

The Hunger Games: Catching Fire (2013)
146 min - Action | Adventure | Sci-Fi - 22 November 2013 (USA)

Since I read the books I knew exactly what was going to happen, but I enjoyed the movie. I normally refuse to plunk down 9 bucks for a matinee, but I loved it. The series is quite timely.

Saturday, November 09, 2013

Don't blog much any more

I'm usually dinking around here  

I play the games I kind of quit caring about the whore politicians and how much richer the rich are getting and how much more poor the poor are getting.  I have a short window to enjoy being out of abject poverty and I'm going to enjoy it.  I'll be there again soon enough.  I'll never own a home or a new car, but right now I don't have to worry about having enough food,  we can pay the rent, we can fix the cars if the ancient beasts break down and I'm stocking up on footwear since my feet are such a bitch to fit.

So no, I'm not getting outraged because frankly, I'm fucking sick of it, I need a break from being outraged, and I deserve a little bit of peace and happiness.

Monday, November 04, 2013

We’re About to Lose Net Neutrality — And the Internet as We Know It

(copied from Wired magazine word for word for future reference)

We’re About to Lose Net Neutrality — And the Internet as We Know It

Net neutrality is a dead man walking. The execution date isn’t set, but it could be days, or months (at best). And since net neutrality is the principle forbidding huge telecommunications companies from treating users, websites, or apps differently — say, by letting some work better than others over their pipes — the dead man walking isn’t some abstract or far-removed principle just for wonks: It affects the internet as we all know it.

Once upon a time, companies like AT&T, Comcast, Verizon, and others declared a war on the internet’s foundational principle: that its networks should be “neutral” and users don’t need anyone’s permission to invent, create, communicate, broadcast, or share online. The neutral and level playing field provided by permissionless innovation has empowered all of us with the freedom to express ourselves and innovate online without having to seek the permission of a remote telecom executive.

But today, that freedom won’t survive much longer if a federal court — the second most powerful court in the nation behind the Supreme Court, the DC Circuit — is set to strike down the nation’s net neutrality law, a rule adopted by the Federal Communications Commission in 2010. Some will claim the new solution “splits the baby” in a way that somehow doesn’t kill net neutrality and so we should be grateful. But make no mistake: Despite eight years of public and political activism by multitudes fighting for freedom on the internet, a court decision may soon take it away.

Marvin Ammori
Marvin Ammori is a Future Tense Fellow at the New America Foundation and a lawyer who represents technology companies on internet policy issues. He is also the cofounder of a startup,, which enables content to be distributed to wearable devices. A graduate of Harvard Law School, Ammori serves on the boards of Demand Progress, Fight for the Future, and Engine Advocacy. Fast Company named him one of the 100 Most Creative People in Business in 2012 for being Silicon Valley’s “go-to First Amendment guy” and one of the leaders of the campaign against SOPA and PIPA.

Game of Loopholes and Rules
How did we get here?

The CEO of AT&T told an interviewer back in 2005 that he wanted to introduce a new business model to the internet: charging companies like Google and Yahoo! to reliably reach internet users on the AT&T network. Keep in mind that users already pay to access the internet and that Google and Yahoo! already pay other telecom companies — often called backbone providers — to connect to these internet users. [Disclosure: I have done legal work for several companies supporting network neutrality, including Google.]

But AT&T wanted to add an additional toll, beyond what it already made from the internet. Shortly after that, a Verizon executive voiced agreement, hoping to end what he called tech companies’ “free lunch”. It turns out that around the same time, Comcast had begun secretly trialing services to block some of the web’s most popular applications that could pose a competitive threat to Comcast, such as BitTorrent.

Yet the phone and cable companies tried to dress up their plans as a false compromise. Counterintuitively, they supported telecommunications legislation in 2006 that would authorize the FCC to stop phone and cable companies from blocking websites.

There was a catch, however. The bills included an exception that swallowed the rule: the FCC would be unable to stop cable and phone companies from taxing innovators or providing worse service to some sites and better service to others. Since we know internet users tend to quit using a website or application if it loads even just a few seconds slower than a competitor’s version, this no-blocking rule would essentially have enabled the phone and cable companies to discriminate by picking website/app/platform winners and losers. (Congress would merely enact the loophole. Think of it as a safe harbor for discriminating online.)

Luckily, consumer groups, technology companies, political leaders, and American citizens saw through the nonsense and rallied around a principle to preserve the internet’s openness. They advocated for one simple, necessary rule — a nondiscrimination principle that became known as “network neutrality”. This principle would forbid phone and cable companies not only from blocking — but also from discriminating between or entering in special business deals to the benefit of — some sites over others.

Unfortunately, the FCC decision that included the nondiscrimination rule still had major loopholes — especially when it came to mobile networks.
Both sides battled out the issues before Congress, federal agencies, and in several senate and presidential campaigns over the next five years. These fights culminated in the 2010 FCC decision that included the nondiscrimination rule.

Unfortunately, the rule still had major loopholes — especially when it came to mobile networks. It also was built, to some extent, on a shaky political foundation because the then-FCC chairman repeatedly folded when facing pressure. Still, the adopted rule was better than nothing, and it was a major advance over AT&T’s opening bid in 2005 of a no-blocking rule.

As a result, Verizon took the FCC to court to void the 2010 FCC rule. Verizon went to court to attack the part of the rule forbidding them from discriminating among websites and applications; from setting up — on what we once called the information superhighway — the equivalents of tollbooths, fast lanes, and dirt roads.

There and Back Again
So that’s where we are today — waiting for the most powerful court in the nation, the DC Circuit, to rule in Verizon’s case. During the case’s oral argument, back in early September, corporate lobbyists, lawyers, financial analysts, and consumer advocates packed into the courtroom: some sitting, some standing, some relegated to an overflow room.

Since then, everyone interested in internet freedom has been waiting for an opinion — including everyday folks who search the web or share their thoughts in 140 characters; and including me, who argued the first (losing) network neutrality case before the DC Circuit in 2010.

Web and mobile companies will live or die not on the merits of their technology, but on the deals they can strike with AT&T, Verizon, Comcast, and others.
But, in their questions and statements during oral argument, the judges have made clear how they planned to rule — for the phone and cable companies, not for those who use the internet. While the FCC has the power to impose the toothless “no-blocking” rule (originally proposed by AT&T above), it does not (the court will say) have the power to impose the essential “nondiscrimination” rule.

It looks like we’ll end up where AT&T initially began: a false compromise.

The implications of such a decision would be profound. Web and mobile companies will live or die not on the merits of their technology and design, but on the deals they can strike with AT&T, Verizon, Comcast, and others. This means large phone and cable companies will be able to “shakedown” startups and established companies in every sector, requiring payment for reliable service. In fact, during the oral argument in the current case, Verizon’s lawyer said, “I’m authorized to state from my client today that but for these [FCC] rules we would be exploring those types of arrangements.”

Wait, it gets even worse. Pricing isn’t even a necessary forcing factor. Once the court voids the nondiscrimination rule, AT&T, Verizon, and Comcast will be able to deliver some sites and services more quickly and reliably than others for any reason. Whim. Envy. Ignorance. Competition. Vengeance. Whatever. Or, no reason at all.

So what if you’ve got a great new company, an amazing group of founders, a seat in a reputable accelerator program, great investors and mentors. With the permission-based innovation over “our pipes” desired from the likes of Comcast, Verizon and AT&T… there’s no meritocracy here.

Of course, despite everything the judges suggested during the two-hour argument, it’s possible that they offer net neutrality a reprieve. Given how sticky this morass is, there’s one simple way for you to judge the opinion: If the court throws out the non-discrimination rule, permission-less innovation on the internet as we know it is done. If the nondiscrimination rule miraculously survives, then, for now at least, so too will freedom on the internet.


Wednesday, October 23, 2013