Yahoo apparently has no way to make legitimate revenue by catering to a broad audience anymore. As others have noted in forums, Yahoo might already be “belly up” if it wasn’t for race baiting articles leading to a comment section that only lacks swastikas to identify it’s participants. Beyond racism it’s clearly a forum dominated by those who worship authoritarianism, ongoing worship of law enforcement and the military, a den of hyper nationalism. They call themselves “patriots”. No, they are just fearful, hyper nationalists and racists who believe addressing all opposing viewpoints that denigrate them with a threat of brutal force makes them strong. It is, even for the women, straight penile compensation.
These are the people responsible for Trump, not the Bernie Bro’s or write in’s. They are weak minded individuals who want to be lead by authority as they are not leaders. That does not mean Hillary Clinton was a better option than Trump. It simply means that as arrogant and pretentious as Hillary’s supporters were, Trumps Yahoo supporters are usually categorically confused and bad people who harboring true racism and hate they are clearly tired of containing. They found their outlet at Yahoo. The question is why Yahoo allows it to go on knowing they are being branded on-line as an Alt-Right channel? Because they have no other audience? They found success in the Breitbart model? Verizon would do well to liquidated this asset as fast as they acquired it before they become associated with Yahoo’s audience, a gaggle of right wings haters trolling every article in search of mutual support for their white, militant agenda.No comments
This is another post that will draw some fire. It will be construed as a stand against veterans. It will be characterized as treacherous by those who wave their patriot flags (Made in China) while shedding their sentimental tears for veterans. Truth hurts though and the raw truth is Veterans Treatment Courts are good intentions flawed by prejudice.
Prejudice? Yes, prejudice is not reserved for conversations about racism. Veterans Treatment Courts are inherently prejudice by design. I harbor my own sentiments towards veterans of military conflict but also veterans of law enforcement conflict, civilian casualties of conflict and civilians considered collateral damage and forgotten. Meanwhile, to assert that a veteran who sat behind a desk in a clerical or communications capacity or as a cook should enjoy special considerations of a “treatment” court is sentimental patriotism running out of control.
Okay so the point is these veterans return with anger management issues, drug and alcohol addictions. All caused by their time in a conflict zone. Guess what? The intersection of West Mulberry and N. Fremont Ave. in Baltimore is a dangerous conflict zone. The most dangerous in America in 2015. Perhaps not a military battle but more than enough ongoing violence to ingrain mental and social issues along with chemical dependencies. Far more dangerous than any Yeoman in the Navy or even an I.T. guy in the Air Force will likely face. Isn’t it time for a court to take in the special reform and “treatment” considerations for those subjected to Detroit’s East side? Many subjected to such ongoing violence involuntarily I should add. They didn’t sign up to get shot at on the way to school or be forced into a gang at gunpoint.
Veterans Reform Courts are specifically a call for special treatment weighing on the emotions of the “Make America Great Again” set with magnetic flags still stuck on their pickup bumpers. Yay for vets. Thanks for your service. I suppose it’s time to tell my kids they need to enlist for an active tour so that if the time comes they screw up they will get special treatment from special courts, offered treatment instead of punishment. Meanwhile the reality is we need to be focused in decreasing recidivism across the entire inmate population, not just those the hero worship set deem eligible for special treatment.
It seems commercial customers of major telecommunications companies (that would be most American businesses) are now mostly subject to the carriers collection of the cost of their required contribution to the Federal Universal Service Fund. This is a fund that is supposed to reimburse or pad the cost of telecommunications expansion into rural areas where service would often not be available due to profitability in the market. So let’s first define how absurd this fee is to begin with.
Say we have a small rural community area 100 miles from their nearest metropolitan neighbor. It has a population of less than 800 people and no local ISP’s or broadband providers. A telco carrier (Time Warner, AT&T, Comcast, Windstream) may not find a return on investment to run fiber lines into this community so many miles from their nearest C.O. (central office). If there is a close breaking point for profitability, over the course of say 5 years, the carrier may choose to build the infrastructure for service but then seek a subsidy from the Universal Service Fund. So the money from the fund pads the carrier until a term of profitability can be reached.
All well and good to insure rural areas can get high speed broadband. If that were actually happening. Truth is that even with USF subsidies available most carriers are skipping out on rural infrastructure development, leaving most of these areas at the mercy of satellite broadband services that are expensive and still prone to latency. Then comes the revenue generator created by industry and FCC, i.e. government, collusion: The FUSF Administrative Fee.
This fee is passed on by the carriers to consumers and companies for the “cost of collecting” the carriers required contribution to the fund from their customers. It ranges by carrier, while not likely arbitrary it is left up to the individual carriers calculations. A calculation I’d imagine surpasses the actual “cost” of collection which is left to a programmed formula in an ERP or accounting system to be places on invoices.
The FCC’s website titled “Understanding your telephone bill” implies carriers cannot charge more than the percentage cost of their contribution to the USF for interstate customers, typically businesses.
“Companies cannot collect an amount that exceeds the percentage of their contribution to the USF”.
But what about the “Administrative USF Fee” put in place by almost all major carriers now? Verizon charges .41% of the total bill. AT&T, the worst offender, charges .88%. For clarification as to how this could not be considered a cost that “exceeds the percentage of their contribution to the USF” I inquired with the FCC. Here is my original email and their response. Notice their response has no way for a consumer to make an inquiry. This is a pinnacle example of corporate backed government bureaucracy. It’s also a clear example of why we need to get industry insiders out of regulatory oversight and make sure no one in government can become beholden to later opportunities in industries they are supposed to be regulating.
From: Todd Singleton
Sent: Monday, October 17, 2016 11:51 AM
To: FCC504 <FCC504@fcc.gov>
Subject: USF Collection Fees
On the following FCC web site titled “Understanding Your Telephone Bill” you have a section regarding Universal Service Fund contributions by carriers. It is widely known many carriers pass this cost on to customers however, I am looking for clarification on the “Administrative Fee” carriers add to the bill for the cost of collecting this fund contribution from customers. https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/understanding-your-telephone-bill
On the page you have the following comment:
“Companies cannot collect an amount that exceeds the percentage of their contribution to the USF”.
By passing through the administrative cost of collections are they not doing precisely that? Please clarify the position of the FCC on the matter of this administrative collection cost for USF contributions and since no limit or percentage is defined on this administrative fee how it is not, in fact, “an amount that exceeds the percentage of their [the carriers] contribution to the USF”.
The bureaucratic response. Apparently a call is required to make “inquiries”:
To be more responsive to your comment, inquiry , or complaint, we direct your attention to the options below. Not sure I’ll ever want an answer bad enough to call the FCC.
By following the steps below for comments, complaints, or inquiries, we will begin to act on your communication right away:
If you would like to file a COMMENT in a PROCEEDING, please visit our Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS) at http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/hotdocket/list and follow the instructions on the page.
If you would like to file a COMPLAINT about a telecommunications related service, please visit our consumer complaint page at https://consumercomplaints.fcc.gov/hc/en-us . From this page, you will directed through a series of prompts to a specific complaint form, which you can fill out and submit to the FCC. Submitting your complaint on one of our complaint forms insures that we have all the information we need to process your complaint, and will also shorten the time you will have to wait to receive a response from the company or entity you have a complaint about.
If you would prefer, you can also submit your complaint over the telephone, by calling our consumer call center at 1-888-CALL-FCC (1-888-225-5322) or 1-888-TELL-FCC (1-888-835-5322).
If you would like to make an INQUIRY into an FCC policy, or have general questions that the FCC might be able to answer, please call our consumer call center directly at 1-888-CALL-FCC (1-888-225-5322) or 1-888-TELL-FCC (1-888-835-5322).
Thank you for contacting the Federal Communications Commission.
Can you smell the fleecing? It burns!No comments