SEO Company Services

Nothing in life – politics or the internet is new so to speak

On top of that most wars and hostilities long after the battle and emotions have ended usually involves riches to be had – usually if not always in the form of minerals such as  gold , diamonds and gemstones , black gold – oil or uranium

In this case the riches involves the internet and access to the black gold of advertising revenues

It used to be that people and potential customers had to physically ravel to your place of business – in the restaurant business the three most important factors to the success of any business were three things “location , location and location”

With the internet and virtual business its not physical location but rather virtual location and rankings

Google had been able to play coy and out of the debate of net neutrality – that is  that the internet is free and democratic and that “everyone ‘  deserves the same treatment in rankings and prevalence on the internet and world wide web

A troubling development in this debate and battle has been Google ( with all its power) acquiescing to the broadband industry in a joint workup proposal to the Federal Communications  Commision FCC in the US that somehow broadband wireless networks will have different terms and rules applied to these internet networks than the standard wired networks

Indeed in the FCC Google-Verison joint proposal seven key components are detailed.   Chief among these is that somehow wireless broadband  providers would not have to abide by policies and regulations  mandated to “net neutrality”

The interesting point is that America’s internet practices and infrastructure rules and guides the industry and whole world. Sure though America ( and even Al Gore) invented the internet.  America may be behind when it comes to broadband  market penetration to such market leaders such as South Korea and Canada. Yet look at hosting of sites ( web hosting) as per ip.  The highest majority ( and even foreign hosts such as Indian)  mainly seem to be in the US. Not even in such industrialzied areas such as Europe and the UK.

Some of this may be communications availability , lack of hampering rules and inexpensive power costs

Woe behold us if Mr. Obama has his way with “cap and trade”

• Web Development Company Enhances Online Business Revenues Net is a dynamic place and its increased use as a business media, clearly demonstrates its significance in our daily lives. Folks conduct business, share info, converse and do host...
• Google Web Page Rank Drop Off Several webmasters have been reporting a Google Page Rank drop in latest weeks which has had blended outcomes on the search positions of numerous millions of web internet sites. Whilst...
• Boost Your Business With Franchise SEO Get more leads for your franchisees off the web with the help of franchise SEO.  Or gain much more leads of people thinking about purchasing a franchise. SEO has helped...
• Does Alexa Page Rank Really Problem? I always believed previously useless due to flaws in how Alexa web rankings are calculated. If you've never been aware of it, Alexa.com is really a site that ranks websites...
• Small Business SEO 101: The Basics SEO or search engine optimisation is a really important part of a small business website. Let me explain why… Anyone who uses Google, Yahoo! or Bing (formerly MSN) regularly, knows...

Advocates of smaller government received some rare good news this week concerning government regulation of the Internet. Where your government is concerned, however, there is no shortage of alternate paths to the same regulated, restricted and controlled future. Almost before the news had broken, statist supporters of government Internet control were already scheming to circumvent a legal ruling that has erected the smallest of roadblocks in their collective path.

Tuesday, the Federal Appeals Court in Washington, D.C., ruled that, as written by CNET’s Declan McCullagh, the “Federal Communications Commission does not have the legal authority to slap Net neutrality regulations on Internet providers.” McCullagh went on to point out that “Tuesday’s decision could doom one of the signature initiatives of FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski, a Democrat. Last October, Genachowski announced plans to begin drafting a formal set of net neutrality rules – even though Congress has not given the agency permission to do so. … Net neutrality proponents responded … by saying the FCC should slap landline-style regulations on Internet providers, which could involve price regulation, service quality controls, and technological mandates.”

Price regulation. Service controls. Mandates. Do these terms disturb you? Do they disturb you further because they come on the heels of an autocratic federal agency being told it does not have the authority to control what it is attempting to control? Reporters covering the “net neutrality” ruling have blithely speculated as to whether the government might reclassify broadband Internet services as telecommunications services, giving the FCC the authority to enact price controls. This would be the first step in destroying the free market Internet Service Providers (ISPs) serve.

Price controls destroy the normal, natural, practical exchange of value for value among consumers and providers, invariably inviting further government intervention. This is socialism. This is collectivism. Barack Hussein Obama’s supporters hate it when the president’s critics point this out, but this is why his administration is bad for our country, for our economy and for our liberties.

In February, I wrote here in Technocracy of Obama’s totalitarian plans for the Net. I also recapped past coverage of the “net neutrality” issue and how Barack Hussein Obama’s administration has advocated this policy. On paper, it sounds worthwhile; most of us want a “free and open Internet” to continue:

We covered the dangers of “net neutrality” in October after first, perhaps optimistically, suggesting that an Internet controlled by the United States and its commitment to individual rights would prevent the establishment of thoughtcrime. It has become clear that a government empowered to enforce its vision of net neutrality will only do harm, interfering in commerce while opening the door to the institution of the very thoughtcrime the concept of “net neutrality” is intended, idealistically, to prevent. Should we be surprised, then, that Barack Hussein Obama is an ardent supporter of this most recent evolution of a once high-minded principle?

Obama has said, “I’m a big believer in net neutrality,” and he wants to empower the unelected, unaccountable autocrats at the FCC to force you and your Internet Service Provider to toe his totalitarian line. Even if they lose the court battle over whether Obama can impose new government rules on the Internet, they intend to do it anyway. The overlords at the Federal Communications Commission are even now plotting and scheming to find a way around the law and our court system, inflicting their controls on us regardless of what we want, what our judges say or what the Constitution might contain.

(Column continues below)

The problem, then, is that the “free and open Internet” as mandated and regulated by Barack Hussein Obama’s regime would be anything but. As is so often the case where Obama’s policies are concerned, the conflict quickly becomes one of Marxist, collectivist, communitarian sensibilities versus traditional American free-market principles. Obama’s idea of “net neutrality,” meaning his FCC autocrats’ idea of “net neutrality,” is not about government protecting individual rights to free expression and access to information. No, it is about divorcing service providers from ownership of their privately possessed equipment, mandating that they stop managing their own networks as they deem best. This forces them to own and run their property to their detriment, which is only too common a theme among socialist government-control schemes.

An editorial in the Christian Science Monitor yesterday put the argument over “net neutrality” into perspective. “That companies providing a Web service would hurt their customers with less content is a big and unproven assumption,” the editorial board wrote. “Some 95 percent of Americans have access to at least four wireless carriers that offer broadband, in addition to … cable, satellite, and phone line carriers still offering broadband access. That’s quite a range of choices … if companies don’t fear more government rules coming down that might discourage investments in this ever-changing industry.”

Technological industries grow, develop and evolve amazingly quickly. Centralized government-control schemes suffer from a single, overarching problem that will and does kill this innovation and evolution wherever such controls are applied. That is that government-control schemes cannot respond quickly enough to the market. They cannot compare to the “spontaneous order” of millions of consumers making independent, free choices in a marketplace unencumbered by debilitating government restrictions.

Obama’s FCC wants to protect you from yourself and from the onerous freedom of choice. Obama’s appointed staff of Marxist czars wants to stop ISPs from managing their own property on the assumption that the equipment owned by these service providers belongs to everyone. This is collectivism. This is Marxism. This is your government grinding your civil liberties underfoot in the name of freedom. This is your president urging that you be controlled in the name of setting you free. This is those in power further deepening that power in the name of protecting the powerless.

This is countless lesser tyrannies, and this is wrong.

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=138105

Furnasman One Hour UV Lights

Furnasman One Hour Furnace CBC

SEO Company Services

http://www.seocompany-services.com/