Month: December 2017

What a Surprise, Ajit Pai is a Lying Sack of Sh%$

No Comments

The FCC Chairman has been asserting that net neutrality cripples investment in broadband.

It turns out that this is unequivocally false:

You’ll recall that ISPs (and the lobbyists, think tanks, politicians, and consultants paid to love them) argued incessantly that if we passed net neutrality rules, investment in broadband infrastructure would grind to a halt, leaving us all weeping gently over our clogged tubes. ISPs like Verizon proudly proclaimed that net neutrality rules would “jeopardize our investment and the development of innovation in Broadband Internet and related services.” ISP-tied think tanks released study after statistically-massaged study claiming that net neutrality (and the reclassification of ISPs as common carriers under Title II) would be utterly catastrophic for the broadband industry and its consumers alike.

But as time wore on it became abundantly clear that these warnings were the empty prattle of a broken industry, using a thick veneer of bunk science to defend its monopoly over the uncompetitive broadband last mile.

Since net neutrality was passed there has been absolutely no evidence that a single one of these claims had anything even remotely resembling merit, with broadband expansion pushing forward at full speed, constrained only by the ongoing lack of competition in many markets. We’ve watched as outfits like Google Fiber continue to expand its footprint. We’ve watched as Verizon suddenly promised to deploy fiber to cities long neglected. We’ve watched as Comcast and AT&T rushed to try and keep pace with gigabit investments of their own. In short, nothing changed, and things may have even improved.

This is not a surprise.

There isn’t a lot of money in supplying customer with better and more technically advanced service.

The money is in leveraging monopoly rents, hence things like the lobbying of state legislatures to prohibit municipal broadband.

Pass the Popcorn

No Comments

Lock Him UP!

Michel Flynn has just copped a plea with Robert Mueller:

Former national security adviser Michael Flynn pleaded guilty Friday to lying to the FBI about his contacts with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak and, in an ominous sign for the White House, said he is cooperating in the ongoing probe of possible coordination between the Trump campaign and the Kremlin to influence the 2016 election.

 When Flynn was forced out of the White House in February, officials said he had misled the administration, including Vice President Pence, about his contacts with Kislyak. But court records and people familiar with the contacts indicated he was acting in consultation with senior Trump transition officials, including President Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, in his dealings with the diplomat.

 Flynn’s plea revealed that he was in touch with senior Trump transition officials before and after his communications with the ambassador.

 ………

 “My guilty plea and agreement to cooperate with the Special Counsel’s Office reflect a decision I made in the best interests of my family and of our country. I accept full responsibility for my actions.”

 ………

 The records say that a “very senior member of the Presidential Transition Team” directed Flynn to contact officials from foreign governments, including Russia, about the U.N. resolution on Israel. That official is also not named, but people familiar with the matter said it refers to Kushner. According to one transition team official, Kushner told Flynn that blocking the resolution was a top priority of the president-elect.

 Abbe Lowell, Kushner’s attorney, declined to comment.

The article implies that there was a Logan Act violation, but but there hasn’t been a single successful prosecution under the Logan act in the 218 years it has been on the books, and the behaviors seem to fall under the rubric of free speech.

On the other hand, the, “The best interests of my family and of our country,” comment implies that a part of the plea deal might have involved his son not getting prosecuted.

In any case, it should be an interesting time, in the Chinese curse sense, in the White House right now. (Caveat: What follows a likely a parody account)

Trump is “melting down” over Michael Flynn news. Launched coffee pot into a West Wing hallway & “not taking any calls all day.”

— Rogue WH Snr Advisor (@RogueSNRadvisor) December 1, 2017

How It’s Done

No Comments
Jeremy Corbyn is is in the house:

Britain’s opposition Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn warned Morgan Stanley that bankers are right to regard him as a threat because he wants to transform what he cast as a rigged economy that profits speculators at the expense of ordinary people.

Morgan Stanley cautioned investors on Nov. 26 that political uncertainty in Britain was a bigger threat than Brexit given the risk of Corbyn winning power and then dismantling what was once seen as one of the world’s most stable free-market economies.

“Bankers like Morgan Stanley should not run our country but they think they do,” Corbyn, a 68-year-old socialist, said in a video posted on Twitter that showed the towers of the City of London and Canary Wharf financial districts.

“So when they say we’re a threat, they’re right: We’re a threat to a damaging and failed system that is rigged for the few,” he said.

………

Now many investors fear Corbyn, who was once dismissed by his own party as an out-of-touch peace campaigner with no hope of ever winning power, could win the top job if the political turmoil continues in London.

One senior executive at a top U.S. investment bank said that at a meeting in New York recently concerns over Corbyn trumped concerns about Brexit.

“Their top concern was not what’s happening in Germany and Spain, or North Korea and Trump: their main concern was what’s happening in the UK and what Corbyn might mean for the country,” the executive, who spoke on condition of anonymity said.

Big, scary, socialist Jeremy Corbyn is scaring those poor banksters.

They are afraid that they won’t be able to keep looting.

My heart bleeds borscht for them.

The Joys of Hyperlinks

No Comments

In a rather alarming article about the contractor looting that is the F-35 program, POGO revealed a little gem:

Military officials like to say that contractors actually cut costs and take care of the support functions, allowing the troops to focus on winning the war. Whether or not a contractor really “frees a Marine to fight” is debatable. Using contractors does provide a convenient means by which Administrations can mask the size of our military commitments to these places by adhering to caps on the official numbers of troops deployed in the strict sense of the actual number of uniformed military personnel deployed. These force caps rarely include contractor personnel. And contractors are hardly more economical. A 2011 Project On Government Oversight study found contractors can cost the government more than twice the amount (PDF) of an equivalent government employee.

Following the above link down the rabbit hole gets us to this:

Based on the current public debate regarding the salary comparisons of federal and private sector employees, the Project On Government Oversight (POGO)1 decided to take on the task of doing what others have not—comparing total annual compensation for federal and private sector employees with federal contractor billing rates in order to determine whether the current costs of federal service contracting serves the public interest.

The current debate over pay differentials largely relies on the theory that the government pays private sector compensation rates when it outsources services. This report proves otherwise: in fact, it shows that the government actually pays service contractors at rates far exceeding the cost of employing federal employees to perform comparable functions.

POGO’s study analyzed the total compensation paid to federal and private sector employees, and am-1ml billing rates for contractor employees across 35 occupational classifications covering over 550 service activities. Our findings were shocking—POGO estimates the government pays billions more annually in taxpayer dollars to hire contractors than it would to hire federal employees to perform comparable services. Specifically, POGO’s study shows that the federal government approves service contract billing rates—deemed fair and reasonable—that pay contractors 1.83 times more than the government pays federal employees in total compensation, and more than 2 times the total compensation paid in the private sector for comparable services.

Additional key findings include:

  • Federal government employees were less expensive than contractors in 33 of the 35 occupational classifications POGO reviewed.
  • In one instance, contractor billing rates were nearly 5 times more than the full compensation paid to federal employees performing comparable services.
  • Private sector compensation was lower than contractor billing rates in all 35 occupational classifications we reviewed.
  • The federal government has failed to determine how much money it saves or wastes by outsourcing, insourcing, or retaining services, and has no system for doing so.

POGO’s investigation highlights two basic facts about outsourcing government work to contractors. First, comparing federal to private sector compensation reveals nothing about what it actually costs the government to outsource services. The only analysis that will shed light on the true costs of government is that of contractor billing rates and the full cost of employing federal employees to perform comparable work. The Commission on Wartime Contracting in Iraq and Afghanistan recently completed a fundamental study of costs, and found that, in certain contingency operations, although savings resulted from hiring local or third-country nationals, military and civilian employees can cost less than hiring American contractors.

I’m glad that someone else has noticed this.

Because Franken Isn’t Accused of Abusing His Public Office?

No Comments

Over at Politico, they have s story headlined, “Black lawmakers wonder why Conyers has to go — but not Franken.”

This really is pretty simple: Conyers is accused of doing something much worse.

Al Franken is accused of engaging in inappropriate conduct in ways that are not through the direct exercise of his authority as a member of Congress.

Specifically, he is accused of:

  • Engaging in inappropriate behavior on a USO tour as a private citizen.
  • Grabbing the asses of some constituents at photo ops.

These are both bad things, and they might justify his removal from the Senate, (That’s up to that particular band of narcissistic psychopaths) or his loss in the primary or general election.

John Conyers is accused of:

  • Making sexual advances to multiple employees.
  • Allegedly firing one for refusing his advances.
  • Used office resources for private trysts.
  • Using his office accounts to pay a settlement to one alleged victim.

I don’t mean to make light of the Franken allegations, nor do I wish to dismiss the issues of race here, honey traps have historically been used against black politicians, but the allegations are qualitatively very different.

Conyers allegations go straight to his official behavior as a Congressman, and Franken does not.

It’s not exactly apples and oranges, but it is at least apples and pears, and from a purely political perspective, and it is politics, not due process that drives calls for resignation, they are different.

Neither one of them is going to serve another term, but Blake Farenthold (pictured in ducky PJ’s) probably will, because IOKIYAR.

Linkage

No Comments

Stop Making Sense: