disappointment

Whenever we hear about the government trying to regulate internet providers, the right gets in a frenzy. They start screaming about “government takeover” and “interfering in private business”. Perfect examples of this can be seen in Rand Paul speeches.

Now a new report shows that internet providers routinely lie about the speeds you get from them, and in most cases they inflate the speeds by about 50%:

After crunching the data, FCC wonks have concluded that ISPs advertised an average (mean) "up to" download speed of 6.7Mbps in 2009. That's not what broadband users got, though.

"However, FCC analysis shows that the median actual speed consumers experienced in the first half of 2009 was roughly 3 Mbps, while the average (mean) actual speed was approximately 4 Mbps," says the report. "Therefore actual download speeds experienced by US consumers appear to lag advertised speeds by roughly 50 percent."

Internet speed isn’t something you can test before you buy. You won’t know your actual speed until you have signed up and have the equipment installed. After that you can actually test your speed and find out the disappointment, but at that point it’s usually too late. You are now stuck in a contract for a year and face huge fees if you cancel.

In the National Broadband Plan, the FCC has started outlining details on how to fix this crime against consumers. One of the recommendations is a labeling requirement, similar to those we have on food, appliances and cars.

Here's the email the Obama campaign just sent out:

Friend --

The polls are closed in Kentucky and votes are being counted in Oregon, and it's clear that tonight we have reached a major milestone on this journey.

We have won an absolute majority of all the delegates chosen by the people in this Democratic primary process.

>From the beginning, this journey wasn't about me or the other candidates. It was about a simple choice -- will we continue down the same road with the same leadership that has failed us for so long, or will we take a different path?

Too many of us have been disappointed by politics and politicians more times than you can count. We've seen promises broken and good ideas drowned in a sea of influence, point-scoring, and petty bickering that has consumed Washington.

Yet, in spite of all the doubt and disappointment -- or perhaps because of it -- people have stood for change.

Unfortunately, our opponents in the other party continue to embrace yesterday's policies and they will continue to employ yesterday's tactics -- they will try to change the subject, and they will play on fears and divisions to distract us from what matters to you and your future.

But those tactics will not work in this election.

They won't work because you won't let them.

Not this time. Not this year.

We still have work to do to in the remaining states, where we will compete for every delegate available.

But tonight, I want to thank you for everything you have done to take us this far -- farther than anyone predicted, expected, or even believed possible.

And I want to remind you that you will make all the difference in the epic challenge ahead.

Thank you,

Barack Obama

Very true, but I don't know if Clinton will see the writing on the wall yet.

There was so much talk the other night when Obama was asked about Farrakhan supporting him. I wonder if the media will now focus on McCain's endorsement problem:

Calling Pastor John Hagee a "bigot," the conservative Catholic League is calling for Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., to denounce/renounce/reject his endorsement Wednesday.

With a Youtube link to prove his point, Catholic League president Bill Donohue said Hagee "has waged an unrelenting war against the Catholic Church. For example, he likes calling it ‘The Great Whore,' an ‘apostate church,' the ‘anti-Christ,' and a ‘false cult system.' ..."Senator Obama has repudiated the endorsement of Louis Farrakhan, another bigot. McCain should follow suit and retract his embrace of Hagee."

Today Donohue noted that former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee expressed disappointment that he hadn't received Hagee's backing.

"If Senator Hillary Clinton and Senator Barack Obama were fighting over the support of Louis Farrakhan, we'd say they're nuts," Donohue said. "So what are we to conclude about McCain's embrace of Hagee, and Huckabee's lament for not getting the bigot's endorsement?"

Here is the YouTube referenced in the article:

McCain has refused to denounce (or reject) the endorsement of Hagee. So is the media saying being anti-semitic is worse than being anti-Catholic? Is that also what McCain is saying?

This has to hurt:

In 1999, Matthew Dowd became a symbol of George W. Bush’s early success at positioning himself as a Republican with Democratic appeal.

A top strategist for the Texas Democrats who was disappointed by the Bill Clinton years, Mr. Dowd was impressed by the pledge of Mr. Bush, then governor of Texas, to bring a spirit of cooperation to Washington. He switched parties, joined Mr. Bush’s political brain trust and dedicated the next six years to getting him to the Oval Office and keeping him there. In 2004, he was appointed the president’s chief campaign strategist.

Looking back, Mr. Dowd now says his faith in Mr. Bush was misplaced.

In a wide-ranging interview here, Mr. Dowd called for a withdrawal from Iraq and expressed his disappointment in Mr. Bush’s leadership.

He criticized the president as failing to call the nation to a shared sense of sacrifice at a time of war, failing to reach across the political divide to build consensus and ignoring the will of the people on Iraq. He said he believed the president had not moved aggressively enough to hold anyone accountable for the abuses at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, and that Mr. Bush still approached governing with a “my way or the highway” mentality reinforced by a shrinking circle of trusted aides.

“I really like him, which is probably why I’m so disappointed in things,” he said. He added, “I think he’s become more, in my view, secluded and bubbled in.”

In speaking out, Mr. Dowd became the first member of Mr. Bush’s inner circle to break so publicly with him.

Check out the entire article. It really shows how Bush has let down the people who trusted him.

OK I think we have now seen enough of Bush to last the next decade. From his
televised radio address on Saturday to his prime time speech last night I was
already tired of him. Today though, I got an extra dose. Bush decided to
surprise people with a press conference. He actually used this time to address
the eavesdropping program and take questions on it. Of course the answers were
still limited and still leave people wondering if he has broken the law.

Bush did raise concern and strong disappointment in the fact that the program
was leaked to the press. He said the Justice Department has a system of dealing
with leaks and that it should be ongoing right now. In other words he wants the
to know who leaked the program to the press and wants something done about it.

Why is it that this leak has really upset Bush yet it was no problem for
someone to disclose the classified identity of a CIA agent who worked on weapons
of mass destruction at a time when we are in a war over the very same weapons?
Bush's outrage by the leaking of the eavesdropping program in contrast to his
lack of outrage over the outing of Valerie Plame shows that Bush was glad
Plame's identity was leaked and that he knew it happened. I only hope if a grand
jury hearing starts on who leaked the program that the person/persons questioned
also lie and obstruct justice then we can really see Bush in his true form.