Yeah they’re going to be sending angry schoolmarms right into your home office to rap you across the knuckles with heavy wooden rulers. Well, virtually anyway:

Comcast said it was setting a monthly data usage threshold of 250 gigabytes per account for all residential high-speed Internet customers, or the equivalent of 50 million e-mails or 124 standard-definition movies.

“If a customer exceeds more than 250 GB and is one of the heaviest data users who consume the most data on our high-speed Internet service, he or she may receive a call from Comcast’s Customer Security Assurance (CSA) group to notify them of excessive use,” according to the company’s updated Frequently Asked Questions on Excessive Use.

Customers who top 250 GB in a month twice in a six-month timeframe could have service terminated for a year.

Not to worry, this is the United States. Of course there’s still a right way and a wrong way to do this. The right way would be to do what cell phone companies do, which is to offer plans selected by the customer, to project their usage. If you want to sign up and you think you’ll be using more than 250 GB, you pick a different plan and pay extra.

And, being this is the United States, and Comcast made the wrong decision, the competition of the marketplace will fix this fine and dandy. We don’t need me or one of my friends to take over this place and make these companies do things the right way. We believe in freedom of the customer to wear the Internet out, as long as he hits himself in the billfold and nobody else; and we believe in the freedom of companies to make boneheaded decisions about how to treat their customers, and succeed or fail by those boneheaded decisions. Freedom all around, that’s our motto!

Or is it.

As Web usage has rocketed, driven by the popularity of watching online video, photo-sharing and music downloading services, cable and phone companies have been considering various techniques to limit or manage heavy usage.

But Comcast has come under fire from a variety of sources for its network management techniques. The U.S. Federal Communications Commission investigated complaints by consumer groups that it was blocking peer-to-peer applications like BitTorrent, and earlier this month ordered Comcast to modify its network management.

Comcast has said that by the end of the year it will change its network management practices to ensure all Web traffic is treated essentially the same, but has also been exploring other ways to prevent degradation of its Internet service delivery. [emphasis mine]

Hey Founding Fathers! I’m a time traveler from 2008! In my time we’ve modified this government you’re putting together now, into a predatory leviathan that gives orders to private entities about how to sell commodities to each other, like molasses, leggings, silk, tobacco and sugarbeets.

What would they say?

Ah well, being a bunch of clueless old dead white guys & all, they wouldn’t understand the nuances of our nation’s history, most notably the Red Lion v. FCC ruling from the Supreme Court back in 1966.

Before 1927, the allocation of frequencies was left entirely to the private sector, and the result was chaos. It quickly became apparent that broadcast frequencies constituted a scarce resource whose use could be regulated and rationalized only by the Government. Without government control, the medium would be of little use because of the cacaphony of competing voices, none of which could be clearly and predictably heard. Consequently, the Federal Radio Commission was established to allocate frequencies among competing applicants in a manner responsive to the public “convenience, interest, or necessity.”

As is the case with a lot of the SCOTUS rulings from the 1960’s, generations later we’re only now beginning to appreciate the full scope of damage done by them. Radio is a “scarce resource” (the phrase is used extensively throughout Red Lion); therefore, some centralized office is needed to assign the frequencies and prevent this “cacaphony”; the Federal Government’s authority is conferred entirely on the basis of that logistical need for coordination.

From that we had the Fairness Doctrine. You own a radio station, you interview Al Franken for half an hour, maybe I can petition the FCC to force you to let me come on for thirty minutes and offer a rebuttal. And maybe the FCC will say yes. You’ll stammer “B-b-but I was just interviewing him about the weather in Minnesota and how things are going in general” and maybe the apparatchicks will say — We don’t care, Mr. Franken is a political figure, therefore you put out political content.

The First Amendment protects you from that kind of meddling if, for example, you splashed a transcript of your interview of Al Franken on a billboard by the side of the freeway. Not a scarce resource, you see. But there are only so many radio channels to be parceled out; this is what separates the radio from the billboard and, for that matter, from leggings and sugarbeets.

Nation of veal calves. We’re becoming a nation of veal calves. The story of Comcast’s bad policy is a story of an encroaching nanny state, and quite a frightening one at that — for the cure is just as bad as the disease. Both involve “oversight” from some supposedly wise and beneficent authority, which in turn is qualified to be neither wise nor beneficent. And, we’ve neglected to go through that obligatory hoop-jumping by which the Internet is supposed to be somehow categorized as a “scarce resource” subject to regulation, more like radio and less like sugarbeets. We didn’t even ponder the question. This is the most alarming thing of all; a commodity is subject to possible depletion, and the debate’s over. Right away, we’re putting some wise, all-knowing demigod into some capacity in which he can tell others when to jump, how high, and when to come back down again. And after we’ve done that, we won’t even care about what his name is. Just another nameless, faceless, unaccountable bureaucrat with power over life and death.

And so I know what the Founding Fathers would say.

The same thing they’ve said, in my dreams, every time I’ve traveled back to tell ’em what’s going on.

“Uh, two thousand eight minus seventeen seventy-six equals two hundred thirty-two…gee…well, that kind of sucks.”

Delaware Liberal sees a need to create a more specific “netroots” platform, and so he has jotted down a statement of general principles:

The American Dream begins with every American’s right to be healthy, educated, and to live in a safe community and a clean environment. We believe vibrant economy is built with American jobs, well-paid productive workers, innovation, and the entrepreneurial spirit. We believe responsibility, honesty, and compassion are fundamental to a successful nation and that efficient government, effective public investments, and fiscal responsibility serve our citizens best.

We believe protecting personal liberty begins with the right of every citizen to enjoy their full civil liberties with equal access to opportunity and justice[.] We believe in the values of freedom, fairness, and respect. We believe the cornerstone of democracy is honest elections, transparent government and a deep commitment to our nations’ Constitution and Bill of Rights.

We believe leadership with global cooperation is the best way to secure peace and acting on environmental challenges strengthens our nation and protects the Earth. We believe the power of the United States must be used honestly and wisely.

We believe America’s promise of prosperity, liberty and security belongs to all Americans and that our nation’s strength lies in a shared commitment to these ideals.

Paragraph 2 is so vague as to become complete ineffectual. It does not identify any point of disagreement with any other competing platform, nor does it explain how, exactly, “the right of every citizen to enjoy their full civil liberties with equal access to opportunity and justice” makes it possible to “protect…personal liberty.” I presume I have to watch To Kill A Mockingbird one more time; if that is a control scenario, to which the “netroots” oppose a societal regression, well then I agree we shouldn’t go back to that. Who wouldn’t?

Paragraph 3 is a mish-mash between code words for a world government at the expense of American sovereignty, and…more ineffectual nonsense that doesn’t mean anything.

Paragraph 4 is more pap.

Paragraph 1, to me, is the scary part. Sure it sounds good. We have all these rights! Cool! Except, these rights include things that would cost other people their choices, their money, or both. You know what that reminds me of? It reminds me…of…this:

Article 40
Citizens of the USSR have the right to work…

Article 41
Citizens of the USSR have the right to rest and leisure…

Article 42
Citizens of the USSR have the right to health protection…

Article 43
Citizens of the USSR have the right to maintenance in old age, in sickness, and in the event of complete or partial disability or loss of the breadwinner…

Article 44
Citizens of the USSR have the rights to housing…

Article 45
Citizens of the USSR have the right to education…

Article 46
Citizens of the USSR have the right to enjoy cultural benefits…

I’ve noticed something over the years. And I’m going to keep it to myself.

Hah! Kiddin’…

…no, I’m going to jot it down. Right here. This thing I’ve noticed over the years has to do with what local cultures — not actual nations, per se, but just enclaves in which there is a localized code of expectations for people’s behavior — seem to have a consistent equation with a constant product, said equation consisting of individual obligations and societal obligations. When I say “constant product” what I mean is the more of the former there is, the less there is of the latter, and vice versa.

If every little bad thing that happens is blamed on “society,” people act irresponsibly.

If people are entitled to things unconditionally, they end up, ironically, losing those things. Free speech doesn’t fall into this. Things that cost other people money, seem to. That appears to me to be the defining boundary. If someone else has to pay for these things to which you’re entitled, sooner or later, there’s a big pot of money that is tapped out and then there’s some kind of crisis.

Oh, maybe I don’t know what I’m talking about though…I write from California…which is about to begin its eighth week of not having a constitutionally-required budget signed…

Yeah, delawaredem, by all means feed us some more of that mushbucket o’liberal goodness. It works out so well everywhere it’s been tried.

This big…at latest report…

Big Dig’s red ink engulfs state
Cost spirals to $22b; crushing debt sidetracks other work, pushes agency toward insolvency

Massachusetts residents got a shock when state officials, at the peak of construction on the Big Dig project, disclosed that the price tag had ballooned to nearly $15 billion. But that, it turns out, was just the beginning.

Now, three years after the official dedication of the Central Artery/Third Harbor Tunnel, the state is reeling under a legacy of debt left by the massive project. In all, the project will cost an additional $7 billion in interest, bringing the total to a staggering $22 billion, according to a Globe review of hundreds of pages of state documents. It will not be paid off until 2038.

Contrary to the popular belief that this was a project heavily subsidized by the federal government, 73 percent of construction costs were paid by Massachusetts drivers and taxpayers. To meet that obligation, the state’s annual payments will be nearly as much over the next several years, $600 million or more, as they were in the heaviest construction period.

Big Dig payments have already sucked maintenance and repair money away from deteriorating roads and bridges across the state, forcing the state to float more highway bonds and to go even deeper into the hole.

Among other signs of financial trouble: The state is paying almost 80 percent of its highway workers with borrowed money; the crushing costs of debt have pushed the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority, which manages the Big Dig, to the brink of insolvency; and Massachusetts spends a higher percentage of its highway budget on debt than any other state.

You realize, don’t you, that this is everyone’s fault — even the fault of people who don’t live in Massachusetts. Whenever we’re given an option to evaluate the desirability of some massive government undertaking that has been previously handled in the private sector, we tend to make the decision by meme. There are popular memes and unpopular memes.

Example: A man handing the television remote to his wife, is a popular meme. Her handing it back to him, and maybe making him a sammich, would be an unpopular meme. Her and the kids calling him a clueless dork would be a popular one.

Like that.

Well, this is turning into an apt description of how government boondoggles come to exist. They aren’t really sold to us in the first place under a thesis that they will stay within stated budget parameters. Yes that is what the wording of the sales pitch says — but we don’t check it out.

We shouldn’t be buying into these things by meme. We should be buying into them based on history. It’s easy to demonstrate that we don’t do that. Quick: Where is the master atlas of government efforts, nationalized away from private enterprise, with ratings on how much they cost versus how much they were supposed to cost, how successful they were, whether they did what they were supposed to do. In a sane universe, not only would such a list exist, but we’d be adding to it constantly, and cracking it open every time we were asked to support a new such undertaking.

That’s pretty much what the bank does when you apply for a loan.

If we did that, we would all be practically the dictionary definition of the word “conservative.”

But we don’t do that. We decide by popularity of the meme. Therefore, even with the Big Dig in the rear view mirror (as it will be, throughout at least the next thirty years) — we’ll be doing this again.

That makes two, for me, counting the hands-free requirement that goes into effect Tuesday. I’ll back up the nanny-state goo-gooders again here. All those of you who’ve said I’m “locked in” to my viewpoints on things, take note, I can be flexible if things make enough sense…

Under new regulations, parents who are asked by the organisers of a children’s sports team to take other children to sports fixtures like football or cricket matches will have to be vetted.
:
The new rules are part of the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006 and are due to come into force from October next year at the same time as a new Independent Safeguarding Authority to vet adults.

I was wondering about this when my bicycling experience was tapped to teach the cub scouts how to hit those trails. Yes I get checked out when my registration is complete…but…I can lead these kids into the woods on bicycles? Sure, I’m the dad of one of ’em, but other than that what do you know about me?

It’s not the kind of thing where “if you do nothing wrong you have nothing to worry about.” I had the hair go up on the back of my neck, in particular, when one of the littler ones straggled and I had to go chasing off after him. It gets a guy to thinking: This is a fairly commonplace thing. I’m me. What of the other guys who are put in this situation, who aren’t me? Are they all parents? What if a couple of them are “That Weird Uncle So-And-So” who’s taking the family’s little tyke to the bike meet, whom the parents are just sure is alright…everyone else is sure because the parents are sure…

Like I said. When you’re a parent, the mind wanders. Yes, if you have a virtual stranger around other people’s kids, you ought to know something. I would hope it wouldn’t be a controversy.

Professor Frank Furedi, whose “Licensed to hug?” report for thinktank Civitas this week triggered a debate about the use of Criminal Records Bureau checks, said he knew of parents who have been rebuked for taking too many children to matches without being vetted.

He said: “I have talked to people who were reprimanded for taking three to four boys to football training. They were told they should have spoken to the manager.

“People can drive their own children to matches – but to drive four kids to the same match you should get CRB-checked.”

Makes sense to me. And it seems they got that far without doing it this way in uber-nanny-state Britain, no less. Whod’ve thought it.

Update: Regarding that other nanny-state thing, the hands-free deal. My thoughts are pretty much the same as what they were two years ago — except, as of now, I have in fact successfully trained myself to avoid texting. With considerable but not insurmountable difficulty.

Frank Drews. David Strayer. William Johnson. As of today, those are the only names I have found behind “all these studies that say” that hands-free devices fail to make driving safer. I continue to be told there are all these studies that say it’s the conversation that distracts the driver and not the physical presence of a hand-held device pressed up against the face. Those “studies” are attempting to assert a physical impossibility — when holding a device up to the ear, I cannot change lanes, and neither can you. And, furthermore, to the best I can determine, those “studies” are just being cranked out over and over again by three people. For reasons I don’t know, and don’t really care to find out because it doesn’t matter.

It’s a bunch of baloney. Two hands are better than one, and the discussion ends there.

Having said that, I do agree that the root of the problem is an exaggerated sense of self-importance because out of a hundred calls coming in to your cell phone, only one or two are important enough that it makes sense to take ’em while you’re driving…hands-free device, or no. By that I mean, someone is in the emergency room, and it’s somebody you didn’t know was in the emergency room before you took the call.

Here in NorCal, people take a hundred calls out of a hundred. About stupid crap.

“Get milk on the way home” doesn’t cut it. Sorry, it just doesn’t. If you weren’t planning to get groceries on the way home as of that morning, you don’t need to pick ’em up tonight. If you were, and something got left off your list, call the missus after you park the car at the store. If you’re worried that by the time you get there, she might have her phone turned off or she might otherwise be unavailable…you know what? She doesn’t really want the damn milk!

So shut up & drive.