Vonage’s Appeal Refused; Verizon Owed $120 Million (Update4) — Bloomberg

I have turned a lot of people onto Vonage, mostly because in my opinion you can’t beat the service, but things have looked bleak for Vonage for a while. In the latest bit of bad news, Vonage had their appeal refused, thus nearly cementing their requirement to pay Verizon $120 million.

Vonage wanted the court to review a decision that upheld most of a March verdict, which found that the company had violated two Verizon patents. The jury from that trial awarded Verizon a 5.5 percent royalty on future income. The amount owed to Verizon had grown to about $88 million when Vonage announced the settlement.

Under the terms of the settlement, the $120 million payment would have been cut to $80 million had the appeals court in Washington agreed to review the decision. Holmdel, New Jersey- based Vonage must pay $117.5 million to Verizon and give $2.5 million to charity.

I don’t think it’s time to abandon ship just yet, but it may take a touch of creativity to get out of this jam. Overall, as a consumer, this is beyond unfortunate. The alternatives from Time Warner, etc., don’t hold a candle to what Vonage offers at half the price. I love being able to get voice mails in email attachments and text messages on my cell phone telling me that someone has left a voice mail, along with a host of other nifty features for $25/month. Oh, and all calls in the U.S. and Canada are local with international rates at a fraction of the big boys.

Regardless, I hope that that creativity of Vonage will come through. Their product is clearly superior to other VoIP offerings; therefore, the market will surely help them through this if the initial damage isn’t too damning.

Senate Republicans bar Iraq withdrawal plan — Reuters

Here is another article about how it’s all the Republicans fault we’re still in Iraq, and a very quick analysis of why it’s actually more the Democrats “fault.”

Despite passionate appeals by Democrats, who noted that 2007 had been the deadliest year for U.S. troops in Iraq so far, Republicans stopped the proposal that had passed the House of Representatives on a largely partisan vote on Wednesday.

[…]

The bill would have given President George W. Bush about a quarter of the $196 billion he wants for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in fiscal 2008, while setting a goal that all U.S. combat soldiers withdraw from Iraq by December 15, 2008.

“What will it take to end this war? How many lives, how many limbs, how many broken families, how many innocent victims?” the Senate’s No. 2 Democrat, Dick Durbin of Illinois, asked. Over 850 U.S. soldiers have died this year.

Senator Durbin asked, “[w]hat will it it take to end this war?” Senator, simply don’t fund it at all. Right now, the war effort receives zero (0) dollars unless you, and the other Democrats in power, fund it.

Democrats have tried repeatedly to limit the war this year, and Republicans promised to keep blocking their attempts.

Democrats can do more than limit the war, they can end it by not voting on ANY more money. This article is another magic trick done by the mainstream media to make you think it’s all the Republicans fault that we are in Iraq, but Democrats control both Houses of Congress. This war could be over before you could say “Saddam’s rape rooms” if the Democrats wanted to end the war. Thus, I think it’s very plain that the Democrats are continuing to play magic tricks on the voters. “Just don’t pay attention to the elephant jackass in the room.”

Iraq, Afghan War Costs Are $1.6 Trillion — AP

The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are costing, apparently, a lot more than the White House predicted. By the way, the Democrats control both the House of Representatives and the Senate. One simple vote could end both wars; all they have to do is not give any more money.

The $1.6 trillion figure, for the period from 2002 to 2008, translates into a cost of $20,900 for a family of four, the report said. The Bush administration has requested $804 billion for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars combined, the report stated.

By the way, the Democrats control both the House of Representatives and the Senate. One simple vote could end both wars; all they have to do is not give any more money.

For the Iraq war only, total economic costs were estimated at $1.3 trillion for the period from 2002 to 2008. That would cost a family of four $16,500, the report said.

By the way, the Democrats control both the House of Representatives and the Senate. One simple vote could end both wars; all they have to do is not give any more money.

Future economic costs would be even greater. The report estimated that both wars would cost $3.5 trillion between 2003 and 2017. Under that scenario, it would cost a family of four $46,400, the report said.

By the way, the Democrats control both the House of Representatives and the Senate. One simple vote could end both wars; all they have to do is not give any more money.

The report comes as the House prepares to vote this week on another effort by Democrats to set a deadline for withdrawing troops from Iraq as a condition for providing another $50 billion for the war.

I refuse to consider any conflicts we are engaged in, now that Democrats are in control of both Houses of Congress, as “Bush’s wars” or “Republican’s wars.” The Democrats are in complete control of the money, yet they keep funding it. If people wanted the Iraq war over with, and America to come home in defeat leaving Iraq a vacuum for one of the regional dictatorships to take over, then the Democrats would end it. Obviously, they aren’t. We would all be better with less rhetoric over the war in Iraq and more true information — but don’t hold your breath.

UPDATE: Here is an article from The Politico that sums up my above post rather nicely:

Since taking the majority, they have forced 40 votes on bills limiting President Bush’s war policy.

Only one of those has passed both chambers, even though both are run by Democrats. That one was vetoed by Bush.

Indeed, the only war legislation enacted during this Congress has been to give the president exactly what he wants, and exactly what he has had for the past five years: more money, with no limitations.

In other words, the Democrats are 0 of 40; and, they only manage to go 1 for 40 just amongst themselves. The Democrats were unable to vote a majority on 39 of 40 pieces of legislation dealing with Iraq, instead giving the President “exactly what he wants.” Sorry people, these are America’s wars, and if you voted Democrat because you were fed up, congratulations, you were duped.

Why are Republicans in Congress targeting Google? Two reasons — CNet

There is an article at CNet with a decidedly negative tone toward the Republican opposition to the Google-Doubleclick merger.

What’s odd is that these are the same Republicans who have spent their political careers extolling the virtues of mergers when telecommunications giants are vying to acquire one another. To say these Republicans like telecommunications mergers is an understatement akin to saying the U.S. occupation of Iraq may have encountered some setbacks over the past few years.

[…]

Like many of these Republicans, Barton is paid most handsomely in campaign contributions from the oil and gas industry (he supports taxpayers subsidizing the creation of new refineries for petrochemical companies). But telecommunications companies and their employees are up there as well, writing him checks for more than $1 million over the years.

Ok so we are to understand that Republicans are flip-flopping when it comes to mergers, unlike the virtuous and wonderful Democrats.

That’s the first reason some Republicans in Congress dislike Google, or at least are willing to publicly savage it: The search company has been fighting against AT&T, Verizon Communications, and Comcast over Net neutrality regulations for the last few years. Now that the Federal Trade Commission is reviewing the Google-DoubleClick deal, it’s time for some payback.

The second reason is more speculative but worth noting. And it’s that Republicans know that Google is run by Democrats.

In other words, Republicans are fighting this major merger because of a political issue and the fact that Google is run by Democrats. And you can certainly trust the author when it is said Google is run by Democrats.

It’s true. Chief Executive Eric Schmidt has written checks for $163,000 to Democratic campaign committees. Google board member John Doerr has given more than $507,000 to Democratic committees (and that’s not even counting individual politicians). Google board member Ram Shriram gave to only one presidential candidate this year: Barack Obama. Google board member Shirley Tilghman gave money only to Democratic causes, including Emily’s List. And so on.

[…]

Google’s policy staff reflects this partisan split. Andrew McLaughlin, Google’s director of global public policy and government affairs, was once a House Democratic aide. So was Johanna Shelton, a Google policy counsel. Google’s Washington spokesman was Sen. Joe Lieberman’s press secretary. Alan Davidson, Google’s senior policy counsel, worked in the White House Office of Policy Development in the Clinton administration. John Burchett, Google’s state policy counsel, was chief of staff to Jennifer Granholm, the Democratic governor of Michigan. (The lone exception is Pablo Chavez, a Google policy counsel, who worked for Sen. John McCain. And Google’s outside lobbyists are more evenly split between the major political parties.)

Here is the kicker, though:

This shouldn’t matter. But politicians are petty and parochial. So it probably does.

Oh it matters; so apparently when Republicans, who receive money from the oil and gas and telecom companies, which are probably run by Republicans, vote to allow mergers, it’s evil. (And, I should point out, by negative implication, when Democrats vote against these same mergers because they don’t receive money, it’s virtuous apparently.) On the other hand, when the money is switched, and the Republicans vote against the merger and the Democrats vote for it, it’s only the Republicans that are flip-flopping?

Seems like politics as usual to me; if one doesn’t want to become a political target, one shouldn’t get involved in politics.

Amid gloom and doom, US tops list of world’s most competitive economies — Ars Technica

Yawn. The United States has the world’s most competitive economy. Also: sky blue, grass green.

Stop me if you’ve heard this before, but you probably haven’t. The last two years have seen an enormous amount of fretting over US economic strength and competitiveness, but the WEF’s research indicates that things may be much better than perceived.

The reason that “you probably haven’t” heard that the economy is doing well is because of a willing media parroting the Democratic party’s talking points on the economy. If the President was a Democrat, and if we had the same economy, people would have a vastly different opinion. In that case, the willing media would be showering the (Democrat) President with praise, not-so-subtly “reminding” the American voters of reasons to keep Democrats in office.

As an aside, if you have trouble believing that the economy just peachy, just do what I did yesterday: go to the mall.