Wednesday, April 23, 2008

Net Neutrality only works without cable and telco Content monopolies

I have noted in the past about the “tipping point” the point in time where demand exceeds capacity. It now appears that the largest telco agrees with me, and others, that the time is near.
Verizon and others haven’t invested all that money in fiber optic infrastructure because they believe it is a public service; they’ve done it to make a profit, and profit (big time) they will.
Net Neutrality is a bad concept in that it interferes with the marketplace. Better that Net Neutrality should be used to define the concept of “neutral access,” access allowed to any and all Content providers on a reasonable-cost basis.
Infrastructure must be separated from Content provision; this means Cable, Telco and satellite, WiFi, Powerline and other infrastructure must be weaned away from their monopolies, by force if necessary, to allow a la carte Content providers reasonable access to infrastructure.
Who pays? Cable and telco would like their ownership of infrastructure to give them the same monopoly profits as cellular provides; that is charging “both sides” for usage of the infrastructure. And maybe that will work, if there is a truly competitive marketplace from which to source the Content you want, when you want it.
I believe that if infrastructure is separated from Content, that bandwidth metering will become the normal standard for charging consumers, who will make choices of what Content they want, when they want it, and where. It isn’t so hard to see a business model wherein the new “Mission Impossible 5″ is offered to all comers as a new Release Pay-Per-view on the Internet, say at $7.00, $10.00, even $12.00 for a viewing household. It doesn’t take a math genius to see that even 20,000,000-30,000,000 million households would subscribe, just in the U.S., leading to a minimum gross of $140,000,000 plus!, up to $360,000,000 plus or more. People would gladly pay, with the difference in cost being absorbed in the gas, popcorn, candy, and soda savings.
However, that does require a slight (sarcastic joke)increase in bandwidth.
Net neutrality unfairly penalizes consumers and minimum-level Content bandwidth users by assuming that Content A is more, or less, valuable than Content B. The problem of bandwidth capacity, which is what leads to this discussion in the first place, can be cured by merely allowing the infrastructure providers to invest in their highly profitable future by adding to bandwidth. It is no accident that 13 other countries offer higher bandwidth penetration, at lower costs, than the U.S.
Now there’s a place for Congress to get busy! How could that happen? Could it be that the monopoly infrastructure we have allowed, and the “asleep at the switch” regulatory authorities have allowed the infrastructure providers to get too big, haven’t forced competition, haven’t forced “reasonable access” to Content providers?
Cable has enjoyed over $200,000,000 Billion EXCESS profits (that’s Billions with a big “B” folks) in the last twenty years because of allowed monopoly. If you really want an Internet that works for you, get your friends and neighbors, your legislative representatives, to take a hard look at the numbers. Hold their feet to the fire of the voting booth and don’t let lobbyists and contributions buy them off.
A free market really works when it is free, and not manipulated by special interests, and as currently exists, monopoly participants.
Posted by Mediaman at 21:31:23 | Permalink | No Comments »

Saturday, February 2, 2008

Real ID is a real solution

We should be doing more, not less, in the Real ID program.
While I am apprehensive about the government having more information about me, I do feel that Real ID is a security program long past due. And, while government abuse in the past has occurred, it has been rare. Further, civil liberties groups always seem to find the right avenue to correct the abuses; that’s the beauty of our system.
Conversely, let’s consider the effects of not having a reliable Real ID system; the ability of illegals, and terrorists, to penetrate our society, with stated goals that are to the detriment of us all.
Does the writer think that journalists, or housewives, or executives, would be singled out?
Get real!
I don’t like my movements being tracked, like which nightclubs I visit, or my library book selections, or the web sites I visit, or…or….
But, I love the idea that people who may have bad purposes in mind can’t get on the plane I’m on, as in Israel; or on trains, as in Spain.
Here’s what really bothers me; we’re spending hundreds of billions of dollars to secure ourselves against terrorism.
Terrorists are driving us broke and potentially out of existence with the leverage of threats that cost untold Billions to strategize against, plan for, develop remedial programs “in case,” and much more. Osama Bin Laden and his ilk must laugh several times a day at the chaos, real and imagined, that they have, and will cause.

Unfortunately, the modern world and all it’s threats, are a symptomatic reaction to the hopes of people tantalized by democracy and capitalism.
Read ID may be considered overkill in a Constitutionally-driven society which values privacy, but allowing our enemies to penetrate our society at will, and execute plans that harm thousands is not a solution.
It might help to consider that Real ID would have prevented most, if not all, of the 9/11 hijackers from taking flying lessons, boarding planes, or many other activities.
We should be able to build safeguards into the compilation of a Real ID system that will minimize the potential for misuse by the government or anyone else.
More importantly, it has to start right now. We have been lucky the last few years. How long can luck last?
Americans may be finally starting to take Citizenship seriously; attaching real value to citizenship by Americans should point the way towards making Real ID a necessity, and right away.
If everyone in this country had to provide proof of their legal status to be present, we would be even more amazed at our loss of control of our borders, and the threats we face.
We should consider Real ID the opportunity that it is; a way to establish a national ID system for US Citizens that is foolproof, biometrically attached and verifiable to the holder, with multiple ID points, including finger/hand print verifications, retinal verification, and in the future DNA verification.
We could start with DNA Real ID for children of US citizens that becomes part of their Real ID issued at birth.

Posted by Mediaman at 18:57:58 | Permalink | No Comments »

Monday, January 14, 2008

Voting without ID is the real scam

 My response to Cynthia Tucker, the Editorial Page Editor of the Atlanta Journal Constitution.

Cynthia Tucker’s column of Monday, January 14, 2008 shows that a liberal rant can always serve in place of informed opinion.

    Ms. Tucker is exercised by the Supreme Court’s decision to review an Indiana law requiring verifiable Voter ID at the polls in exchange for the right to vote. She calls the law un-American, likens it to a right-wing conspiracy, suggests that it is targeted at people of color, when it is in actuality race and color neutral, requiring ID of ALL those who want to vote.
    Let’s deal with the basic issue.
    Voting is a privilege and a right of citizenship. Since that citizenship is a basically guaranteed right generated by our Constitution, conferring a responsibility for confirming citizenship seems eminently reasonable.As to it being unreasonable and an “ inconvenience,” let me have the temerity to suggest, “So what?”
    Is it an inconvenience so intolerable as to justify the widespread voter fraud that occurs every election in the highly democratic wards of major cities, in which people vote two, three and ever more times without ID in different polling places, using bogus addresses, even empty lots, for the purpose? Where dead people vote not once, but also two, three or more times?
    Republicans and Independents don’t vote multiple times, even using absentee ballots. They don’t think that way. They value their vote; it isn’t a prize for sale to the highest political bidder.
    It is not a “highly partisan” law as she claims, it is voter neutral, attempting only to place value on a Citizen’s right to vote by having the affirm that right through identification. The Constitution says throughout that CITIZEN’ S rights to vote shall note be abridged by race, religion, sex or other means. The emphasis is on Citizens, and that is as it should be.
    Congress should pass a national counterfeit-proof ID law forthwith, requiring proof of citizenship to be obtained.
    Our modern society is well past the point where citizenship can be so taken for granted so as to allow the fraudulent conveyance of one of the most sacred rights of a democratic society. The right to vote carries with it the attendant responsibility to vote: every time, in every election.
    Those too lazy to participate in the process show how little they value their rights.
    For rights to have meaning they must be exercised openly, not just when convenient; demonstrated often, not just in favorable weather; conveyed with vigor, assiduously, to representatives; and felt wholeheartedly.
    If the voice of the people is to have value, it must be heard.
    It seems little trouble to require that the voice be a real, legitimate voice, not an illegal immigrant, or someone who is slightly inconvenienced by the registration process, and is required to present proof of the right to vote.
    Ms. Tucker’s plaintive calls notwithstanding, voting is the touchstone of our society; we should value it more, not less.
    And establish value by requiring any necessary proof to exercise our right to vote.
    Many Americans do value their voting rights, and I, for one, resist any attempts to dilute my vote’s value.
    I have voted continuously, openly and without fear for forty three years in every local, state and national election.
    While I can’t say I’m always pleased with the results, I do feel that by voting I have exercised my citizenship rights, responsibly.
Posted by Mediaman at 22:54:04 | Permalink | No Comments »

Wednesday, December 26, 2007

Today’s Garbage is Tomorrow’s Toy (and food, and chair)

 

My own thinking suggests that we are even closer to the “tipping point” wherein end-to-end recycling may offer resources at costs equivalent to raw material production and transportation costs. Some proof is des covered in the “numbers” of some researchers who see the percentages of recycling of many valuable ores and minerals as indicative of calculations made by producers that recycling materials offer equivalent or even lower costs that buying and transporting raw materials from origin sources like existing mines. Demand exceeds amounts currently produced from recycling.
To be successful, however, it must truly be a production recycling process wherein all of the material is recycled to it’s “highest value reuse.”
Therefore recycling plastic into road materials is not a highest value reuse, but plastics into plastics is.
Research beyond what is available today is required to process a diversified stream of raw materials, organic and inorganic, into a finished series of highest value materials for reuse in the manufacturing of everything from foodstuffs to materials for furniture, toys and building materials.
This new “alchemy” of recycling will slow, not eliminate, the process or sourcing, mining, processing and transporting materials, because populations and standards of living are constantly growing, even accelerating in much of the world.
Fortunately (unfortunately) most of the world’s easily discovered and processed raw materials, including energy sources, are in play. However, 80% plus of the earth’s mineral, and energy, resources remain yet to be discovered.
They are high(er) cost sources to be sure, but their cost is a component of what drives the tipping point calculations of recycling from end-to-end.
Eventually, earth’s population will (hopefully)stabilize; living standards will be mostly “balanced,” and recycling will generate most of the materials needed for all of the production of goods and services.
Posted by Mediaman at 22:20:58 | Permalink | No Comments »

Monday, October 29, 2007

Senate Dream education bill death well- deserved

                                                                   “Dream” death well deserved

Cynthia Tucker’s Column (Editorial page Editor Atlanta Journal Constitution)”Young immigrants’ dreams die in Senate” was
long on idealistic rhetoric and short on understanding that Americans are not willing to do virtually anything to reward
illegal immigrants, or their children.
    Illegal means illegal, and wishing for a back door to give status is not fair and will not be accepted by Americans.
    That’s why the Senate voted against it. That’s why this and many other proposals looking to get “a nose under the tent’ for
 illegals just won’t stand.
    You can offer many justified comments about the American body politic that highlight apathy, unfocused values, even
laziness, but on this issue Americans see the basic unfairness of allowing illegals a reward which they feel millions of
other legal immigrants have earned by following the rules. 
    And since when are we willing to paint a character portrait of illegals that makes them better than legal Americans of the
same stature and standing?
    Finding examples of outstanding students who are illegals is just as easy as finding examples of U.S. citizens who are
legal, and who deserve the opportunity to be credibly educated, maybe using funds that Ms. Tucker would use otherwise.
    Did Ms. Tucker calculate the cost of educating the illegal Mr. Marcos through high school? (About $$85,000)
What would those funds have paid for helping legal citizens?
    The educational cost of all illegal immigrant children K-12 runs about 60 Billion dollars a year- that’s Billions with a
big “B” folks! That’s a lot of educational improvement for U.S. citizens!
Like $20,000 a year college tuition for each of 3,000,000 legal citizens. Or 2,000,000 college tuitions,  
AND after school programs for 4,000,000 K-6 poor  children.
    And, lastly, character assassination (“craven White House, elected leaders quake and cower,”) of those who want
social and educational benefits reserved for citizens and legal immigrants is unworthy of Ms. Tucker and her sponsors
and more, deserve condemnation and a retraction by Ms. Tucker. Those who disagree with Ms. Tucker are still operating
under the assumption that America’s greatest freedom, that of Free Speech, is still intact.
    Or, would Ms. Tucker change that little law also?

Posted by Mediaman at 19:35:21 | Permalink | No Comments »

Thursday, October 18, 2007

FDA -Foolish Drug Authorization?

 

FDA -Foolish Drug Authorization?

I have begun to wonder-actually for years now-why the FDA continues to approve drugs whose side effects are worse that the symptoms they are offered to relieve. Or worse, have fatal side effect potential for even treating allergies, or hives, or even minor discomforts.
The labeling required and the Disclaimers in advertising are designed to put the public on notice of side effects, but beg the question of why in the first place. I seem to remember a time when drugs were developed as cures.
When was the last time you saw a cure offered?
Ninety-nine percent of FDA approved drugs offered today are for symptomatic relief, not cures.
And yet the number of life-threatening diseases and the millions affected by them continues to grow. The drug companies have sidelined and under-emphasized most of their research into cures, preferring instead to work on high-profit drug development for relief of symptoms.
Erectile Dysfunction?– a wonderful series of products, multiple drugs from multiple manufacturers, helping millions of men have satisfying sex. All came out within a year or so of each other, virtually same day in FDA approval terms.
Sleeplessness? Same story, multiple drugs. Ever wonder how they all show up at the same time?
I do.
Do the drug companies get together and sit around a table and say. “Let’s try to do something about insomnia. Or, how about Erectile Dysfunction? My wife wants more sex.”
Cancer? Oops, sorry nothing yet. That is, we have chemotherapy, radiation. But the underlying cause, discovery and prevention is just not there, and it looks like forever will come first.
Arthritis? Many billions for symptomatic relief, no cure on horizon.
Alzheimer’s? Some Symptom relief drugs being offered or in trials, no cure yet.
Drug companies emphasize that high drug prices are required to provide money for research and development of new drugs. If that were true, wouldn’t there be years when R&D costs would cause losses? Yet for most drug companies, their Return on Equity, Return On Investment, Gross Profits and Net Profits remain higher than any other industry, when viewed over a consistent period for the last twenty years.
Tax policies, using your tax dollars, help immensely. 
Why is most cancer research being conducted or sponsored by National Cancer Institute, instead of at drug companies on their own dime? A cure would mean Billions, even Trillions in sales.
Here’s what really gets me. Causes are pretty well known for most diseases, some cancers.
Is it more profitable for drug companies to treat symptoms over a lifelong period as in Arthritis, or develop a cure for which the period of usage and profitability are much shorter?
Here’s something else I wonder. Would we have all these diseases without modern technology and the chemicals and accoutrements that go with our standard of living?
If X-Rays can cause cancer and radiation from many things can cause cancer, why is there no discussion about the proliferation of radio waves and TV frequencies, which are just a shorter form of X-Ray waves?
How? Radiation causes cell mutations  to interact negatively with your cells. When it happens often enough, you get the big “C” Cancer. Sunlight is just another form of radiation, ergo Melanoma, skin cancer.
Since it’s unlikely that radio and TV stations and satellites will stop broadcasting, the need for a cure becomes all the more pressing.
What do you think?

Posted by Mediaman at 02:02:34 | Permalink | No Comments »

Thursday, October 11, 2007

No government coups here! Lots less criminals, too!

My gun, my safety.

U.S. Constitution - Bill of Rights
Amendment II
     A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

     The U.S. Constitution, as quoted above, is the watchword of individual freedom in the United States. We currently worry, and rightly so, about all the firearms used in robberies, and other criminal acts.
     But, do we wonder at what would really happen if our duty to keep and use firearms should be abridged in the many ways some well-meaning legislators have sought?
    For instance, no army general, no officeholder, would possibly think, even today, of attempting a coup, or otherwise usurping the government. Why? Because the millions of households that do have firearms, from hunting rifles to pistols and shotguns, would be an impossible force to overcome, even if hundreds of thousands of U.S. soldiers could be convinced to shoot at their neighbors, and I don’t think they could be so convinced.
     The Founders envisioned a free society in which citizens having arms could be enlisted in a militia to defend the country and themselves as necessary. The Founders were considering at the time the certain possibility of attack from outsiders, and saw a future where they wanted to make it impossible for an errant government, even our own, to take over the country. If every citizen was armed and ready to fight, there was not much chance of any army being able to conquer ours. And we were the very best guerrilla fighters in the world at that time! Some might offer that we are no less a frontier country today, because the criminals have guns, and many of us don’t. We should change the equation.
     So besides contemporary worries about the criminal element, we really need to take our responsibility as Citizens seriously.
In that vein, I think every high school graduate should be required to take and pass a course in handling firearms. Upon passing and at graduation, part of the graduation would be a firearm license, allowing that person to obtain a hand gun and other arms as allowed, mainly being hunting and sport firearms, and shotguns and pistols for personal protection.
     Yes, there would be jerks who did bad things, but no more than today. The upside is that many of the criminals who have firearms today would find less willing victims; potential victims who could and would shoot back, rapidly reducing the criminal population. Yes, there would be mistakes, yes there would be unintended deaths. But overall, there would be a rapid decrease in the criminal element. I cynically note the substantial cost savings in housing the prison population, although much of that is drug-based. ( More on drugs later).
     So, let’s take our Constitutional responsibilities as Citizens more seriously. Every household should have at least one person licensed to carry firearms for personal protection, and all those over eighteen should be trained in their safe use.
     For those worried about our Privacy Rights, this might help; no government would attempt a coup if they were facing over 200 million armed resisters! For those worried about all those criminals with guns, how many armed robbers would be left after a year or so?
     Answer: Not many.

Posted by Mediaman at 22:55:29 | Permalink | No Comments »

Friday, October 5, 2007

Standardized Student Testing absolutely necessary

This was a letter to Marilyn vos Savant, a columnist for Parade magazine and a noted genius with an above 200 IQ.

 

     I respect your intellect and your thinking ability. However intelligence is of little value when moral and philosophical judgments get in the way.
     While it may be true that standardized tests have problems, the problems are minor in relation to the test’s value; that is they measure the relative performance against some established standards of performance, enabling evaluation by college admission boards, and others.
     You might consider that you, as a spokesperson for the intelligentsia, have a real obligation to offer solutions instead of opinions. Perhaps the limitations of short comments in the publication prevented you from offering more.
One could even go further and offer that you, of all people, have an obligation to use your considerable intellectual resources to offer the solutions that logic dictates, even if they are philosophically and socially unpopular.
     In the case of standardized tests, your failure to state the obvious, that cultural and parental failure is responsible for the desire to somehow provide other ways for under performing students to get a chance at a societal “A.”
     The inclination of commentators and pundits like you to offer “pity me” commentary in the absence of postulating real solutions just extends the time it takes to realize that solutions require real societal “tough love.” Ignoring or excusing circumstance only prolongs a lack of recognition of assigning responsibility.

     A Maryland college president, Freeman Hrabowski III, a black educator of some repute and accomplishment, recently noted “We have to admit to ourselves that large numbers of parents are not as involved… as they need to be.”
     His comments were part of a Baltimore Sun article on September 23 called “a hard look at the achievement gap.” My feeling also is that the failure to achieve can be laid directly at the feet of parents, and further at community and religious leaders. Educators can only work with the materials (the students) they receive; if children are unmotivated and unprepared because of a lifetime of neglect, and misplaced values, it is way too late in the process for us to be expected to correct parental and societal failure.
     Blaming the objectivity of testing is a poor substitute for demanding a solution of parental involvement and perhaps consequences for those who do not provide parental motivation.
      If I have somehow misinterpreted your comment, or unwittingly extrapolated from your comment, I apologize.
     But my opinions haven’t changed.

Posted by Mediaman at 00:45:34 | Permalink | No Comments »

Thursday, October 4, 2007

License Owners..or Pets…or Both?

License pets… or Owners…or Both?

 

 

 

 

 

    According to the various animal associations and U.S. government figures, there are 60,000,000 dogs, 50,000,000 cats and millions of birds, hamsters, mice, rats, snakes, lizards, tigers, and other pets in the U.S.

 

     If a free society offers rights of ownership to it’s citizens, which apply to everything from homes to cars, to pets, why not make the licensing and responsibility structure an integral part of the rights of citizenship?

     Maybe we are doing it backwards.

     If we license the right to own a pet, in addition to and preceding the right to license and obtain the actual animal, and make that license commensurate with the attendant responsibility and incidents of ownership, might we have a better system?

     And, more importantly, wouldn’t the licensing process establish standards of care and community responsibility, which would allow us to hold owners responsible for consequences?  In a free society, rights are supposed to be mutually balanced with the responsibility to care for and protect those rights, along with the concept of respecting the rights of your fellow citizens.

     Owner licensing is commensurate with the tenants of a free society including “user fees” that allow management and enforcement. Owners and individual animal fees allow the hiring of necessary enforcement personnel, and maintenance of the infrastructure to manage the process.

     Setting community standards, including owner responsibility, could and should include insurance against the actions of the pet. No insurance, no pet ownership license. We don’t allow a driver’s license without proof of insurance, why should we allow other “citizenship” rights without the necessary licensing process? For example, the liability insurance for a bird or a mouse, might be $1.00 or $2.00 annually; for a pit bull or other aggressive breed, $50.00 or $100.00 annually.  Some part of those licensing fees could be used to set up an injured persons fund, similar to what we do for crime victims. Also, a reward could be offered for information leading to discovering illegal and unlicensed animals and owners.

     Obtain a pet illegally and get caught? Sell a pet without a license?

     Animal is destroyed; owner forfeits right to future animal licenses and ownership, and may be subject to fines and jail time. Animal injures another? Then the owner is personally responsible for damages. Catch an unlicensed animal on the street or through the enforcement process? Confiscate the animal and prosecute the owner.

     No insurance? Felony jail time plus unlimited personal responsibility if convicted when animal injures another animal or person. If a dog gets loose and bites or kills someone, then the owner is responsible for medical bills, even felony prosecution where warranted. Who says that owners have a right to train pit bulls and other breeds and even other animals, to maim and kill, to fight?

     With over 125,000,000 pets in the U.S., the time has long passed for a more comprehensive animal ownership structure which protects society and animals.

Posted by Mediaman at 22:54:36 | Permalink | No Comments »

A New Non Profit Mission - stopping Mission “creep”

A New Mission - Stopping Mission Creep
     “Mission creep” refers to charitable associations evolution over a period of time from a doable, supportable mission to a somewhat different, always larger, fully paid and supported “staff,” organization which bears little or vague resemblance to the original altruistic concept.
     The justification for this expansion varies from the nominal, probably true, ”the need is there and growing,” to the hidden; larger organizations raise more money to pay directors and  growing staff more money and benefits, seemingly a vicious circle.
     By continually expanding the “mission” horizontally-more beneficiaries- and vertically-more mission “components,” justification for larger staff receiving more pay is achieved. Achieved as well is a sense of never-ending growth in demand for “more” support from donors. Carried to it’s ultimate conclusion, the “wall” is reached; not enough donors to support the expanded mission(s) and staff costs.
      Conclusion: redefine the mission of charitable organizations to include self-limiting geographical and infrastructure parameters, and, concurrently change the fund raising mission to include an “endowment” which would provide the basic operating income necessary to fulfill the mission, through diligent fund management. Donors could be persuaded that an extra ten percent or more annual donation over a ten year period would do the job.
     Boards of Advisors and Directors should be charged with ensuring that Directors and staff adhere to the revised plan, no exceptions, particularly finding reasons, however altruistic, to dip into the endowment.
     Donors may be particularly attracted to the “horizon” concept, knowing that supporting the “new mission” and fund raising goals actually achieves an viewable end to constant solicitation.
     Nothing in this concept would preclude future adoption of additional worthwhile and rational extensions of the basic mission; but with the Board setting parameters, particularly restrictions on expansion, the abyss of ever-increasing clamors for support would be muted, even successfully eliminated.
     Is this rational, necessary?
     Many business donors are becoming jaded to constant solicitation from an ever increasing number of charitable organizations, to say nothing of requests for ever more support year over year from traditionally sponsored organizations.
     The concept is perhaps a bitter pill, “bad tasting medicine for bad habits,” but deserves consideration.
      There’s more depth here, but you get the idea, I trust.
Posted by Mediaman at 00:14:49 | Permalink | No Comments »