Government Broadband

Continuing the FCC theme from the prior post. I stumbled across a great article on ZDNet demonstrating a handful of negative effects of the FCC controlling cost and infrastructure of broadband. The following is an excerpt from that article by the David Gewirtz, the executive director of the U.S. Strategic Perspective Institute, founder of the ZATZ technical magazines, and the cyberterrorism advisor for the International Association for Counterterrorism and Security Professionals:

But there is a dark side. First, you gotta know that the minute FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski mentioned providing broadband to another 100 million DVD-buying-cause-they-can’t-watch-Hulu-yet Americans, some movie industry executives somewhere went full-goose bozo.

And that’s even before Julius mentioned those juicy upload speeds of 100 megabits per second. Can you say BitTorrent? Sure, I knew you could. Now, think about the FCC’s stated goal of “access to at least 1 gigabit per second broadband service to anchor institutions such as schools.”

In schools all across America, there will be armies of teenagers who’ll use their schools’ increased bandwidth to share every movie and every TV show ever digitized. After all, if it takes less than ten minutes to download a full-length movie, why not? Yes, I know, there’s software to prevent that. Do you seriously think any security software can stand up to an army of teenagers who want free movies?

Somewhere in Hollywood, an accountant in an overpriced suit just screamed into his latte.

Where else could this thing go off the rails?

Broadband For The Masses

The FCC is revealing its plan this week to use Stimulus money to upgrade our internet infrastructure. The problem: Too many people cannot access broadband internet. The plan will:

"provide high-speed Internet access to the estimated 93 million people in the U.S. without it. The plan, mandated by Congress last year as part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, aims to increase home broadband use to 90 percent of the population by 2020 (Scientific American)."

The U.S., as of 2009, had 26.7 percent of the population on broadband. That is 81 million people were using broadband. The next closest country, in raw numbers, was Japan with 31 million. 90 percent would equal 245 million people with broadband. Comparing percentage of population (or penetration), the Netherlands had the highest percentage at 38 percent. But I don't need to tell you the population and land size differences in comparing our country to The Netherlands or even Japan. Our usage already trumps all other countries. Then what is the issue of access? Now, if it was faulty infrastructure, I could understand federal concern. If goats kept chewing through the cross-country trunk lines we would all agree that would be a problem. But the United States has no issue with goats. The FCC estimates that cable TV is accessible to 99 percent of the U.S. population. Cable broadband available to 96 percent. DSL 82 percent. If 96 percent of the nation already has the option, then why aren't more people using it and what exactly does the FCC mean by "access (all stats from OECD.org)?"



Obviously they don't mean connecting to broadband.

"The number one reason people cite for being offline is cost," Clyburn said. "Some might be in the position of having to choose between paying for basic necessities or paying for broadband, while others might not see the value of broadband relative to other things they could pay for like cable TV"(Scientific American)."

Those poor people; having to choose between paying for necessities or paying for broadband. How terrible. Cost is the issue: in FCC lingo "cost" must equal "access." Until two weeks ago, I too was one of the 93 million choosing not to use Broadband. I had no desire to pay the high rates. I chose to buy camping gear instead. Why is it suddenly a federal issue that I would rather spend my money buying some other product instead of broadband?


Are costs in the United States that bad? The average monthly bill is $45.52 putting us safely in tenth place for lowest monthly costs in the world. The world average is $51.55. Sounds like we don't have too much to complain about. Remember the Netherlands, which has the highest percentage of citizens on broadband? They are paying an average of $66.79 a month.


So why is it suddenly a national issue that we have nine countries paying a few dollars less than us for broadband? I don't know.

Instead of making people decide how to spend their money, the FCC wants to regulate the costs so we don't have to choose between cable TV or broadband internet. Or 60 inch TVs. Or speed boats. Or fast food. We can afford it all.

Sounds like a good idea; it has got me thinking: why stop with the internet? We all have access to roads. Most of us have a car to get around the roads on. But those who can't afford a car have access through public transit. And some of us splurge for sports cars. But we all have access to the roads. But you know, I'm sick of not driving a Ferrari like my rich neighbor. I'm also concerned that the penetration of Ferrari's is far higher in Italy than in the United States. And they are paying less. Why should I have to drive an old Honda so I can afford to buy food? Where do I live, some third world country? This is the 21st century. I don't think I should have to suffer like this. Not when I have to watch my hard working neighbor driving his Ferrari. And the people taking public transit should suffer no more. Where are their Ferraris? Imagine how wonderful the world will be when we all can travel in more style than any other country. I hereby declare Ferraris our right. Oh, and broadband internet.

Iran and the Bomb

Reading Joel Rosenberg's book, Inside the Revolution, I came across this stunningly concise description of the likely fallout of Israel attacking Iran this year. They are trapped and threatened. They have no where to run:

Israeli leaders may, therefore, choose a strategy similar to the one their predecessors chose in 1967. In this case, they may launch a massive air and missile strike against Iranian nuclear facilities, air bases, missile launchers, air defense systems, and possibly government offices and critical infrastructure facilities before Iran has the opportunity to strike Israel first.

Such a move may prove necessary in the end, but it could also set the whole region on fire. Israel could face hundreds of incoming retalkiatory missiles from Iran as well as tens of thousands of incoming ballistic missiles and rockets from Syria, form Hezbollahin Lebonan, from Hamas in Gaza, and possibly from the West Bank, as well. Some of these missiles could be carrying chemical or biological warheads, even if the nuclear warhead in Iran were not in the picture. Ballistic missiles could also be fired from Iran at the oil fields in Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States, at the oil tankers in the Persian Gulf and the strait of Hormuz, and at the U.S. bases and forces in Iraq. Thousands of suicide bomber cells could be activated in the region, particularly against Iraq and Israel. At the same time, sleeper terrorist cells could be activated in Western Europe, Canada, and the United States.

...Amid such global carnage and chaos, oil prices could soar to $300 a barrel or more. U.S. gas prices could spike to $10 a gallon or more, with horrific domestic and international economic repercussions. Worst of all, tens of millions of innocent civilians could be caught in the cross fire of a war they don't want but cannot prevent (p.17-18, Rosenberg).

Right and Wrong and Math

Here are the principle points of People’s Law as practiced by the Anglo-Saxons…[point number three] The laws by which they were governed were considered natural laws given by divine dispensation, and were so well known by the people they did not have to be written down (5000 Year Leap, p 13).

It is interesting how the more I read about the Constitution and early US Government, the more I hear about Natural Law. Our Founders, and the majority of people at the time, believed in Natural Law which, simply and roughly put, is God’s unalterable Law. It is a divine, eternal right and wrong. Today, Natural Law has been erased almost completely. Modern dogma states that there is no way to know absolutes, and it is inappropriate to judge others by your belief. In example, why is homosexuality wrong if there is no eternal law on sexual reproduction? Why is anything wrong, for that matter? Who said cheating, or lying, or stealing, or killing is wrong? If not God then society. You may say, “but I make up part of society, and I really see no reason for those things to be wrong. And why deny physical desire? I want it now. Who came up with abstinence, tolerance, patience? If not God then society; my friends and I say ‘wait no more.’ In the words of Better Than Ezra, ‘If it feels good, do it. If it tastes great, drink’ (Teenager).”

I feel the battle in our society is not whether this or that is right or wrong, but whether there is right or wrong. If there is no wrong, then whatever the majority desires is correct. However, if there is no wrong, there is no right. No right, no good; no good, no bad.

This argument just seems ludicrous to me.

Abraham Lincoln said, "When I do good, I feel good; when I do bad, I feel bad, and that is my religion." Why did he feel good when he did good or bad when he did bad? Why do you? For that matter, why does charity and service exist in the world at all? Why does the general populous not lie, steal, and kill? It makes no sense for us not to do any and everything we can to get gain. So there has to be something more at play here. Example: if the government stopped punishing murder, that would not suddenly make man, woman, child, willing to go out and kill. Yes, I’m confident the murder rate would soar. But I believe that those increased murders would be primarily committed by the same few who now kill. The majority would still be horrified at the idea of taking life. Why is that so, if there is no absolute right and wrong?

I find solace in mathematics. In math, there are rigid laws set in place that function under all conditions and through all time. As you undoubtedly know, 1 + 1 can only equal 2. It did so six thousand years ago. It does so today. It will tomorrow. Saying there is no absolute right and wrong, no Natural Law, is like saying the natural law of math allows for 1 + 1 to equal 2, 3, 271, or whatever the public majority feels like this certain year. ‘Who are you to say that it equals 2 and all the rest of us are wrong for saying it equals 271?’



This argument is far larger than I care to make at this point; far larger, in truth, than I have yet thought out. But it seems to me that since there is a law that clearly states mathematically that there is a right and there is a wrong, and that law is the foundation of everything in our existence, then it seems odd to ignore its implication in human interaction and ethics. It was the mathematical law that allowed the Egyptians to build the pyramids. It is this same law that today thrusts humans into the void of space. It is this same law that dictates the decoding of DNA and the formation of cells within us. It is the same law that shows when, say, chemicals inhaled from cigarettes reach a certain threshold, a chain reaction occurs within the body. Or that cells die in the absence of oxygen after so much time. It also dictates the formation of planets, the movement of their paths, and the fusion in stars.

The natural law of mathematics is the basis of everything and it empirically points out the validity of absolute rights and wrongs.

Our nation was built upon Natural Law, despite what the prevalent thought de jour may claim. On July 4th, 1776, Congress declared that they were “to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them,” (Declaration of Independence, para 1). Again, who said there is wrong and there is right? Who said that free sex, drugs, and killing babies is wrong? If not God, then who? Our founding fathers knew these things were wrong. Just as the 1776 congress and Lincoln, I surmise that when I do good, I feel good and that Natural Law decrees it; just as 1 + 1 equals 2.

Save our Parks - Turn off the TV

Have you visited a national park lately?

"The iconic American family vacation to a national park, after 50 years of rising popularity, is now in steady decline. From 1987 to 2007, per capita visits to national parks shrank by 23 percent" (Scientific American hereafter mentioned as Sci Am).

I only went to one last year. Why didn't I go to more? Well, personally, work. I wouldn't let myself take the time off. What is your excuse?

"Surprisingly, we discovered that 97.5 percent of the decline in national park visits could be explained by just four factors: the rising price of gasoline and the increasing amount of time people spend plying the Web, playing video games and watching movies. Although correlation is not causation, the relationship was strong."

The last three of those four factors, web, video games, and movies, really blend into one. That one I call 'life.' Sci Am "coined the term 'videophilia' to describe 'the new human tendency to focus on sedentary activities involving electronic media.'" The problem appears to be: less people coming to parks, less funding. Less ardent support for environmental protection.

As Sci Am puts it, "Nature: use it or lose it."

Well, I'm going to go watch a rerun of Seinfeld.

Obama and the Media

In May I did a quick study of political coverage in all the main news sources I follow. I had a hunch. Everything I read or heard seemed to be about Obama or Clinton. Clinton has since dropped out.

Some of the sources I tallied, for an idea, were BBC World News, CNN Politics, KSL, MSNBC, NPR, Washington Post, Yahoo, etc.

What I found was that since March 2007, Obama had cornered 30 percent of all political stories. John McCain had only 22 percent. That may not seem like much, but the difference over one year is quite large. It equates to more than 1000 stories about Obama than McCain. Counting Hillary, the Democratic party received 61 percent of the news. The Republicans, less than 39 percent.

Glenn Beck stated for CNN today, "According to the Tyndall Report, a service that monitors the three network news broadcasts, ABC, NBC, and CBS have spent a total of 114 of their national airtime minutes covering Obama since June. They've spent 48 minutes on his Republican rival, Sen. John McCain." So Obama is getting over double the airtime.

Who is the media's baby?

I find it odd, though, that the media has so happily fawned around Obama, the same media that attacks big business and complains frequently about an interfering federal government. The irony being that Obama is funded solely by big business and promises to give the federal government more control of our daily lives.

"He's [Obama] been on the cover of U.S. News and World Report, GQ, Rolling Stone, US Weekly (twice), Time and Newsweek (a combined 12 times) and will soon be on the cover of Men's Vogue for the second time. To be fair, Men's Vogue also did an in-depth story on John McCain but, strangely, a photo of McCain didn't make their cover.

"Why the disparity? According to Men's Vogue deputy editor Ned Martel, there's a simple explanation: Obama 'is what is called in the magazine world an "interest driver." ' Translation: Obama sells magazines."

Of course. It all comes down to ratings and money. The media, in general, doesn't care about Obama. He is simply their new cash cow and they are milking him for all he's worth. What bothers me is that by doing so, they are avoiding many other important issues. I know very little about McCain because what little I find in the media is a cowering shadow of the many news stories on Obama. I know when and how Obama exercises, I know his favorite drinks; all thanks to the in depth media coverage. But with McCain, I barely even know his entire platform. To find it, I have to actively search for it.

"We've become a country that continually chooses the sizzle over the steak. McCain may not get my vote, but he gets my admiration for at least offering some substance and new ideas when he speaks. Obama, meanwhile, is like the rock star who's realized that he can just scream unintelligible words into the microphone between songs, and the entire stadium will still scream. When your fans already love you, there's no reason to risk it by offering anything that might be controversial. Remember the Dixie Chicks?

"As candidates, Barack Obama and John McCain are ironically a lot like the way the media treats them: Obama is the glitzy magazine cover that screams for people to buy the issue, and McCain is the fact-filled article buried inside that makes you glad you did."

For the full article, see http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/07/23/beck.obama.media/index.html?eref=rss_mostpopular

And did you know Ralph Nader is running for President? I didn't. I found that he received .3 percent of political news coverage. That is 36 stories in the last year to Obama's 4000. In these same news sources I found Jesus Christ in 222 stories, or 1.7 percent of the political news. So He is getting better coverage, and at this rate, I'd say has a better chance of becoming the next President than Ralph Nader.

Ralph, buddy, you've got to get your message out there better.
http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=3827127