Don't you mean the current corporate model of "socializing-costs and privatizing-profits"???
"...but Verizon and AT&T have ceased the rollout of their FiOs and U-verse services--if you don't have it now, you're not getting it."
Net neutrality is dead. Bow to Comcast and Verizon, your overlords
By Michael Hiltzik
January 14, 2014, 3:05 p.m.
Advocates of a free and open Internet could see this coming, but today's ruling from a Washington appeals court striking down the FCC's rules protecting the open net was worse than the most dire forecasts. It was "even more emphatic and disastrous than anyone expected," in the words of one veteran advocate for network neutrality.
The Court of Appeals for the D.C. circuit thoroughly eviscerated the Federal Communications Commission's latest lame attempt to prevent Internet service providers from playing favorites among websites--awarding faster speeds to sites that pay a special fee, for example, or slowing or blocking sites and services that compete with favored affiliates.
Big cable operators like Comcast and telecommunications firms like Verizon, which brought the lawsuit on which the court ruled, will be free to pick winners and losers among websites and services.
ISPs like Comcast are only doing what comes naturally in an unregulated environment, the way a dog naturally scratches at fleas. "Cable and telephone companies are simply not competing for the right to provide unfettered, un-monetized internet access," wrote Susan Crawford, an expert on net neutrality, around the time of the Comcast case.
This wouldn't be as much of a threat to the open Internet if there were genuine competition among providers, so you could take your business elsewhere if your ISP was turning the public Web into its own private garden. In the U.S., there's no practical competition. The vast majority of households essentially have a single broadband option, their local cable provider. Verizon and AT&T provide Internet service, too, but for most customers they're slower than the cable service. Some neighborhoods get telephone fiber services, but Verizon and AT&T have ceased the rollout of their FiOs and U-verse services--if you don't have it now, you're not getting it.
Who deserves the blame for this wretched combination of monopolization and profiteering by ever-larger cable and phone companies? The FCC, that's who. The agency's dereliction dates back to 2002, when under Chairman Michael Powell it reclassified cable modem services as "information services" rather than "telecommunications services," eliminating its own authority to regulate them broadly. Powell, by the way, is now the chief lobbyist in Washington for the cable TV industry, so the payoff wasn't long in coming.
United in House against Enron
By Alicia Mundy and Marcel Honore
Seattle Times Washington bureau
Instead, they'll be argued behind closed doors today and tomorrow by the "Big Four," the Democratic and Republican House and Senate energy-committee leaders. If they reach any agreements, the conference committee will hold an unusual Sunday session to vote.
The Cantwell amendment could save more than $500 million in contract-termination fees for Snohomish County, most of Nevada and some utility districts in California. FERC has already determined that Enron manipulated the energy markets to inflate prices there.
"FERC must be recognized as the rightful regulator of the wholesale power market in order to ensure that large corporations, such as Enron, are not able to make unjust power contracts that are contrary to public interest," said Rep. Cathy McMorris, R-Spokane.
But Enron's creditors and several oil and gas companies, who are important contributors to the GOP, have lined up to limit FERC's power. And even though Enron is in bankruptcy, it has hired a lobbyist to undo Cantwell's work.
Inslee complained that Barton is pushing for Enron's allies and denounced a so-called "sanctity of a contract" clause included in the House version of the bill. It would effectively prevent FERC from allowing public utilities to escape contract cancellation fees, even if the contracts were deliberately inflated.
It would certainly appear that BP wants it's cake and eat it too.
By the way Viki,
When I reported this to the FBI in Anchorage, Alaska in the spring of 1998 the special agent I reported to later told me that "the senior administration within the FBI had threatened him with the loss of his pension if he continued his investigation" into this insurance company's fraud.
The Deputy Director of the FBI at that time later went to work as head of the private Insurance industry funded - National Insurance Crime Bureau (NICB).
Louis Freed was then the head of the FBI at that time.
It's sure a small world, Viki.
This reminds me of a workers compensation insurance company that was complaining of wide scale fraud. In the end only 3/100s of 1% of all claims resulted in a conviction for being being fraudulent.
And that insurance company?
Well the insurance company's own executives it turned out were defrauding their own stockholders and the public by net line underwriting, by the knowingly selling of insurance below the cost the service resulting claims and then attempting to passing the losses to their reinsurers (including Warren Buffet) in order to gain market share.
The executives' financial incentives were based on gaining market share (a bad move by the BODs) not the continued long term viability of the insurance company.
After this company's holding company went bankrupt, in the end the employers, employees and taxpayers around the country ended up paying an additional $2.245 Billion in accepted but unfunded claims.
So back to BP,
I'm sure Judge Barber must know that any honest claim losses not funded by BP will end up being paid by the employers, employees and taxpayers of these effected states.
By signing on to that original class settlement BP avoid all the litigation expenses of disproving the stated "causation" of claims with which BP now disagrees and much more expensive punitive damages and then trying to go before a trial of these same citizens in any criminal cases.
By the way,
How exactly does one prove or disprove many of these health claims of BP's clean-up workers?
OF course the taxpayers paid.
JPM and the other TBTF banks paid back those Billions of borrowed TARP funds with cheaper dollars.
You never heard of the time value of money?
Oh tiglet2l you say:
"JPM didn't want TARP but was forced to take it. They gave it back!"
OH PLEASE, "but do please, Br'er Fox, don't fling me in dat brier-patch!"
And jhitcher2011 says:
"As far as the major banks are concerned the TARP program was very successful. All the loans and investments made by treasury were rrepaid (sic) plus over $50 billion in interest, dividends and capital gains. All within one year. The taxpayers made out."
In reality the Fed loaned $Billions and $Billions in 0% interest rate TARP funds to TBTF banks who then bought short term no risk Treasury bills to boot strap the Banks capitalization ratios up until they became liquid again by collecting the difference in interest rates in free money.
And all the while artificially decreasing the interest rates on these short term Treasury Bills.
And these same banks can say the banks "were forced to take TARP" and "All the loans and investments made by treasury were rrepaid (sic) plus over $50 billion in interest, dividends and capital gains" (less the interest rate difference).
(Why didn't we just give them the money and save the subterfuge?).
This was the perfect Ponzi scheme for these banks and Fed and the only ones that got hurt are the taxpayers' children who must now repay that $17 Trillion in long term Federal Debt.
With all due respect jhitcher2011,
The taxpayers were repaid with deflated money.
However we still have 40+% of G.D.P. of this country now in rent seeking financial services that provide little to nothing for the betterment of the average person in this country.
Ripped any faces off lately?
Disgusting -- The taxpayers will pay again!
After the taxpayers bailed out these Wall Street crooks now these TBTF banks will write these fines off on their taxes.
What is wrong with this country?
BP and Shell 'rigged Brent oil price for a decade', traders claim
By Emily Gosden
The Telegraph UK
11:15AM GMT 06 Nov 2013
BP and Royal Dutch Shell have been accused of manipulating the Brent crude oil price for more than a decade, in allegations filed in a lawsuit New York.
The North Sea oil benchmark is used as the basis for trades across the global commodity markets, affecting the price of thousands of consumer products from petrol to food.
The class action claim, brought by four traders, was lodged last month in the wake of the European Commission in May launching an investigation into alleged price rigging by the companies.
The US Federal Trade Commission in June launched its own investigation into the allegations. It is understood the US regulators asked Shell to provide them with the same information it had provided to European authorities, but that the Anglo-Dutch giant referred them back to Brussels.
BP and Shell both declined to comment.
BP 3RD QUARTER RESULTS filed with the SEC on 29 October 2013
"The cumulative income statement charge does not include amounts for obligations that BP considers are not possible, at this time, to measure reliably. The total amounts that will ultimately be paid by BP in relation to all the obligations relating to the incident are subject to significant uncertainty and the ultimate exposure and cost to BP will be dependent on many factors, as discussed under Provisions and contingent liabilities in Note 2 on page 27, including in relation to any new information or future developments. These could have a material impact on our consolidated financial position, results of operations and cash flows. The risks associated with the incident could also heighten the impact of the other risks to which the group is exposed, as further described under Principal risks and uncertainties on pages 35 - 42 of our second-quarter results announcement."
BP's "non-operating items and fair value accounting effects."
"All amounts relating to the Gulf of Mexico oil spill have been treated as non-operating items,..."
"BP believes that underlying RC profit or loss is a useful measure for investors because it is a measure closely tracked by management to evaluate BP's operating performance and to make financial, strategic and operating decisions and because it may help investors to understand and evaluate, in the same manner as management, the underlying trends in BP's operational performance on a comparable basis, period on period, by adjusting for the effects of these "non-operating items and fair value accounting effects."
Google: How Fair Is Fair-Value Accounting?
Liz Moyer, Forbes Staff
6/25/2008 @ 6:00AM
"The SEC wants to air concerns about the usefulness of fair-value accounting and whether current standards can be improved. It also plans to talk about market behavior related to fair-value accounting and the challenges of applying the rules."
[ BP] "acted quickly, responsibly, and as appropriately as possible"?
"All amounts relating to the Gulf of Mexico oil spill have been treated as non-operating items", with a net adverse impact on a pre-tax basis of $209 million for the quarter and $241 million for the half year 2013. For further information on the Gulf of Mexico oil spill and its consequences, including information on utilization of the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill Trust fund, see page 12 and Note 2 on pages 25 – 30. Information on the Gulf of Mexico oil spill is also included in Principal risks and uncertainties on pages 42 – 49 and Legal proceedings on pages 50 – 52.
[Italics are mine]
All amounts relating to the Gulf of Mexico oil spill have been treated as non-operating items, with a net adverse impact on a pre-tax basis of $39 million for the quarter and $280 million for the nine months. For further information on the Gulf of Mexico oil spill and its consequences, including information on utilization of the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill Trust fund, see page 12 and Note 2 on pages 25 - 30. Information on the Gulf of Mexico oil spill is also included in Legal proceedings on pages 35 - 37.