Blog @ MoreWhat.com

Imagine that.. Someone is interested in taking Bill Gates and his legacy, Microsoft, to task for laying off American workers. The complaint from US Senator Charles Grassley of Iowa ties the current financial crisis and the trend of increasing unemployment to companies who abuse the H-1B visa program of hiring foreign workers for American jobs.

Political life in Washington may be as fragile as anything else vulnerable to the impact of severe economic downturns. Where was all this angst over visas and foreign workers during the summer of 2007 when Congress and the White House tried to pass McCain/Kennedy shamnesty? There’s hardly a difference. A primary responsibility of the federal government is to defend its citizens from foreign attack. Whether that is from the typical source of armed forces of another country or countries, the sinister terrorism from radical groups without a well-defined geopolitical base or an economic invasion on our shores and borders from foreign sources the task is understood. You protect your own citizens first and once protected then and only then do you extend assistance to those who are not citizens.

One could say better late than never except these occasional expressions from elected officials are more often political in nature and for their vested interest and not yours. Senator Grassley is an elected official with some volatility. Similar to a company’s stock which responds wildly and unpredictably to changes in the market. But this recent press release and letter from the Senator does have some usefulness. To bring some attention to both inequities in the labor market as well as a renewal notice that immigration policies including visa programs and offshore outsourcing are by no means dead issues. With the election of the most liberal senator in the US to the Office of President of the United States you can bet the farm on the fact the issue of amnesty will rear its ugly again this year or next.

For Immediate Release
January 23, 2009
Grassley Works to Ensure American Workers are Priority

WASHINGTON – Senator Chuck Grassley today said that in a time of economic downturn, American workers must be a top priority for American companies. Grassley reiterated those words after he sent a letter to Microsoft urging the company to make efforts to retain qualified American workers during the recently announced lay-offs.

Microsoft employs thousands of people through the H-1B visa program. This temporary work visa program allows American companies and universities to employ temporary foreign guest workers who have the equivalent of a U.S. bachelor’s degree in a job category that is considered by the U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Services to be a “specialty occupation.” The purpose of the h-1b program is to help companies hire foreign guest workers on a temporary basis when there is not a sufficient qualified American workforce to meet those needs. However, the program is not intended to replace qualified American workers.

In October 2008, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services released an internal report that found the H-1B program has more than a 20 percent violation rate. The fraud identified in the report included jobs not located where employers claimed, H-1B visa holders not being paid the prevailing wage, forged documents, fraudulent degrees, and shell businesses. In one instance the H-1B position described by the employer was “business development analyst.” However, it turned out that the H-1B visa holder would be working at a laundromat doing laundry and maintaining washing machines.

Grassley has been a leader in the effort to improve the H-1B visa program. In the 110th Congress, he introduced a comprehensive H-1B and L visa reform bill with Senator Dick Durbin that would give priority to American workers and crack down on unscrupulous employers who deprive qualified Americans of high-skill jobs. He has also asked questions of both American and foreign based companies about their use of the H-1B visa program.

Here is a copy of the text of Grassley’s letter

January 22, 2009
Mr. Steve Ballmer
Microsoft Corporation
One Microsoft Way
Redmond , WA 98052-6399

Dear Mr. Ballmer:

I am writing to inquire about press reports that Microsoft will be cutting approximately 5,000 jobs over the next 18 months. I understand that the layoffs will affect workers in research and development, marketing, sales, finance, legal and corporate affairs, human resources, and information technology.

I am concerned that Microsoft will be retaining foreign guest workers rather than similarly qualified American employees when it implements its layoff plan. As you know, I want to make sure employers recruit qualified American workers first before hiring foreign guest workers. For example, I cosponsored legislation to overhaul the H-1B and L-1 visa programs to give priority to American workers and to crack down on unscrupulous employers who deprive qualified Americans of high-skilled jobs. Fraud and abuse is rampant in these programs, and we need more transparency to protect the integrity of our immigration system. I also support legislation that would strengthen educational opportunities for American students and workers so that Americans can compete successfully in this global economy.

Last year, Microsoft was here on Capitol Hill advocating for more H-1B visas. The purpose of the H-1B visa program is to assist companies in their employment needs where there is not a sufficient American workforce to meet their technology expertise requirements. However, H-1B and other work visa programs were never intended to replace qualified American workers. Certainly, these work visa programs were never intended to allow a company to retain foreign guest workers rather than similarly qualified American workers, when that company cuts jobs during an economic downturn.

It is imperative that in implementing its layoff plan, Microsoft ensures that American workers have priority in keeping their jobs over foreign workers on visa programs. To that effect, I would like you to respond to the following questions:

* What is the breakdown in the jobs that are being eliminated? What kind of jobs are they? How many employees in each area will be cut?

* Are any of these jobs being cut held by H-1B or other work visa program employees? If so, how many?

* How many of the jobs being eliminated are filled by Americans? Of those positions, is Microsoft retaining similar ones filled by foreign guest workers? If so, how many?

* How many H-1B or other work visa program workers will Microsoft be retaining when the planned layoff is completed?

My point is that during a layoff, companies should not be retaining H-1B or other work visa program employees over qualified American workers. Our immigration policy is not intended to harm the American workforce. I encourage Microsoft to ensure that Americans are given priority in job retention. Microsoft has a moral obligation to protect these American workers by putting them first during these difficult economic times.

Sincerely,

Charles E. Grassley
United States Senator

The following is an excerpt from Microsoft’s website on the testimony of Bill Gates at a Congressional hearing in May 2008

U.S. immigration policies need to allow American companies to hire the best talent. Gates calls on Congress to reform immigration policies to allow more highly skilled professionals to work for companies in the U.S. “At a time when talent is the key to economic success, it makes no sense to educate people in our universities, often subsidized by U.S. taxpayers, and then insist that they return home,” he said. “To address the shortage of scientists and engineers, we must … reform our education system and our immigration policies. If we don’t, American companies simply will not have the talent they need to innovate and compete.” Gates urges Congress and the White House to address this problem by extending the period that foreign students can work in the U.S. after graduation, raising the cap on H-1B visas, creating a clear path to permanent residency for high-skilled foreign-born employees and increasing the number of green cards. “The shortage of scientists and engineers is so acute that we must do both: reform our education system and reform our immigration policies.”

Funding for basic research should be increased. Gates believes basic research funding is an essential part of keeping American companies competitive and sparking new industries. “Even though we know that basic research drives economic progress, real federal spending on basic research has fallen since 2005,” he said. “I urge Congress to increase funding for basic research by 10 percent annually for the next seven years.” Gates said that federal funding for basic research supports the education of the next generation of scientists and engineers, and provides the raw material that U.S. companies transform into commercially successful products.

Here is one reaction by an elected representative obviously enamored by Mr Gates and a believer that the Darth Vader of IT brought worthwhile technology to the masses.

“Bill Gates has played a key role in our nation’s economic and technological growth for more than 20 years and I found his testimony today informative and compelling. I was most struck by Gates’ strong appeal to Congress to fully fund the America COMPETES Act. This new law makes a significant commitment to our country’s future by investing in math and science education and federal research. I will continue to vigorously advocate for funding of the America COMPETES Act,” said Rothman.

The excerpt below combined with asking government and the taxpayer to do his research for him are the things Bill Gates was really interested in.

I personally witness the ill effects of these policies on an almost daily basis at Microsoft. Under the current system, the number of H1-B visas available runs out faster and faster each year. The current base cap of 65,000 is arbitrarily set and bears no relation to U.S. industry’s demand for skilled professionals. For Fiscal Year 2007, the supply did not last even eight weeks into the filing period, and ran out more than four months before that fiscal year even began.

In summary the view from this blog is as follows. For regular readers the views here on Microsoft are known. As an example there are reports on another lawsuit against MS called ‘vista capable’ where customers are upset that hardware requirements for vista exceeded those stated or some such nonsense. While this blog detests the attitude of MS toward customers and the repeated crap software sold, if customers have not learned by now what they can expect from MS they deserve what they get. But that is not the central point of this post.

There was mention of funding research in the information provided. That’s nice. The question would be is it the taxpayer’s responsibility to pay for research or educating future employees? Is it fair for the private sector to benefit from those expenditures rather than fund their own research? There are technology transfer programs with the federal government whereby arrangements are made to move publicly funded research to the private sector. Is a fair monetary exchange made for those transfers? And for the last point is Senator Grassley’s latest expression of discontent to Microsoft just another politician trying to make points with voters?

As this post really relates to the current economic conditions and the mass frenzy to push bailouts and stimulus packages on the public dime something else needs to be said. Once government does something undoing it is nearly impossible and if it is possible there is much more pain and suffering involved than would have been present with precise and reasoned action. There is no need for speed since no one in Washington nor anywhere else can guarantee that any solution suggested will work.

If these spending programs are to be deployed then they should be done in such a way as they can be stopped on command and rather than huge outlays smaller amounts should be floated as test balloons to avoid even larger mistakes. The experience thus far with AIG and others in their arrogance to spend taxpayer money should be proof enough that planned spending will not work without deadly force as a protection. Just today CITI has decided to buy a private jet. Ya, they say it will not be paid for with bailout funds. Right. If you need bailout funds then you don’t have enough of your own money or you lied about needing bailout funds. In any event you don’t need to buy a private jet. Has this post made the point clearly?

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Another report of how enthralled (had to add this, enthralled = beguiled, filled with wonder and delight) consumers are with electronics offerings from manufacturers. This post is another attempt to raise some issues regarding consumer electronics. Some long standing criticism from this blog toward those who market electronics and control the infrastructure on which much of it is used range from how internet access is manipulated between what is available, offered and how it is priced to similar issues living in other telecom areas like wireless communication. Have you noticed how cell phones are marketed and its relationship to the primary function of telephones. That’s right. Voice communication between humans has long been the need filled by telephone service. Text messaging, chocolate phones, camera phones and all manner of other bells and whistles have relegated speaking to another on the phone as an afterthought. Could it be that spending the money necessary to offer reliable and quality voice communication does not present the profit margin desired by the providers? Could it be the public has once again allowed the market to be driven by the easily manipulated younger demographic with all that loose change to spend being ‘cool’? The manufacturers know it. Ignore the more demanding demographic for the one you can manipulate and who may have the most discretionary income with the most liberal criteria for purchasing decisions.

The ridiculous nature of the coming switch from analog to digital broadcasts is a critical tipping point in electronics related markets that should require no explanation for using adjectives like ‘ridiculous.’ The reasonable method for introducing new products and services by offering value in terms of quality, utility, pricing and other factors has been supplanted by collusion between entities within the public and private sectors in the electronics industry just like the examples found in the current ‘financial crisis’ stemming from the subprime mortgage scheme and lack of regulation and oversight from Wall Street to Main Street to the halls of government.

That is all the angst this blog author can withstand for the current post on this topic. It would be gratifying if the consuming public could muster enough discretion over their buying decisions as an aggregate to apply the needed pressure on suppliers to do the right thing. The vendors certainly won’t do it on their own. But then the same could be said about the public reaction to activity in government. And we all know to well how that usually works out.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Retailers around the country are reporting a slower-than-usual holiday shopping season this year. But 2008 has been a terrific year for those who love consumer electronics - whether they are buying or just looking.

Despite the current economic downturn, large consumer electronics chains like Best Buy are doing brisk business this year

During lunch hour at the Midtown Manhattan outpost of Best Buy, the largest consumer electronics chain in America, the checkout line is 30 people deep and counting. That’s no surprise to Nicholas Thompson, a senior personal technology editor at Wired magazine.

“It’s been a cool year,” says Thompson. “There has been lots of stuff introduced that’s faster, smaller, sleeker, cheaper, better than anything we’ve had before.”

Thompson adds that product design also has improved this year, partly as the result of Apple products.

“Apple makes beautiful things, and these things sell. So now everyone is making beautiful things!”

Wired Magazine editor Nicholas Thompson says that in 2008, the smart money for portable music players is on the Sansa Fuze

One of the new products that Thompson believes deserve high marks for both design and affordability is the Sansa Fuze. It’s one of dozens of handheld digital music players on sale here.

“It’s about $80, which is much less than it would have cost a year ago, [and] you can watch TV shows. You can watch movies. You can listen to music, and you can look at photographs you can put on it, all your little media files.”

Thompson soon heads straight for the camera aisle, where he unhesitatingly picks up a stylish Sony T700. Unlike most digital cameras, which have smallish viewing screens, the entire back portion of the T700 is designed for viewing photos. He says people often put their photographs online, but relatively few people trouble themselves with viewing.

“But if you have a nice screen on your camera, it makes it a lot easier to share your photos with your friends,” he says.

The T700 digital camera has a screen almost as large as a traditional photograph

Another important feature of the Sony T700 Thompson touts is its Smile Shutter technology, which is able to detect when a person the camera is aimed at smiles. It then shoots the photo without the user having to press a button.

Nearby, shoppers are snapping up a surprisingly small and simple looking video camera called the Flip Ultra.

“Video cameras used to cost $300 to $400,” recalls Thompson. “And for a lot of people, all you want to do is take a little video of your dog and stick it on YouTube. And why pay $300 for that?”

In contrast, at $129, the Ultra is relatively inexpensive. It also has what Thompson considers another virtue: almost no buttons.

“Buttons can sometimes be good, but they can also confuse you. This very simple, very nice present for someone.”

“Next in line, please” is a request this cheerful Best Buy cashier calls out hundreds of time a day

Video games are bigger than ever in 2008. Thompson’s favorite this year is the FIFA 09 virtual football game based on the teams in the World Cup.

“For example, say you want to be the United States, or you want to be Brazil,” explains Thompson, “You actually have the simulation of all the soccer players who play on that national team. And if Brazil plays the United States, Brazil wins!”

When this Voice of America reporter asks him just why Brazil is sure to win, Thompson is quick to laughingly opine, “Brazil is better!” He adds that in the football-oriented video games of the past, the players would all look the same

“… and they would kind of run in the same direction, kick as hard, run as fast as each other. Now everybody is an individual,” he says.

Samsung high-end, flat-screen televisions offer images that can be almost too realistic for comfort

Thompson says hard-core couch potatoes who want excitement from their electronic toys without exercise - even of the virtual kind - will love Samsung’s new top-of-the-line, large-screen flat televisions. The store’s demonstration model uses liquid crystal display technology enhanced with light-emitting diodes as backlights.

“The colors are truer. The blacks are a lot better, and it’s much easier to watch for a long time,” Thompson says. “You actually feel like you are in a movie theater even though are just sitting in your own living room.”

Soon, a chase scene from The Dark Knight, the franchise’s most recent Batman film, begins to play on the television monitor. But Thomson says that virtually zooming through the streets of Gotham City at 250 kilometers per hour in the Batmobile - while sitting in one’s own living room at the same time - is only one of the high-tech thrills in store for gadget lovers during the 2008 holiday season.

CAGW Disputes Sen. Dorgan’s Remarks on Net Neutrality

WASHINGTON, April 27 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — Citizens Against
Government Waste (CAGW) today challenged Sen. Byron Dorgan’s (D-N.D.)
comments on the issue of net neutrality and warned against enacting any
type of legislation that would hurt growth and the free market on the
Internet.
Sen. Dorgan held a conference call with reporters on April 26, the
occasion of pro-net neutrality group SavetheInternet.com’s one year
anniversary. Sen. Dorgan said, “The Internet became a robust engine of
economic development by enabling anyone with a good idea to connect to
consumers and compete on a level playing field. The marketplace picked
winners and losers, not some central gatekeeper. That freedom — the very
core of what makes the Internet what it is today — must be preserved.”
“If net neutrality is enacted, Congress itself will become the
gatekeeper by imposing restrictive and unnecessary controls. Any attempt to
regulate the Internet would create an unneeded layer of government
bureaucracy on a technology that has thrived precisely because regulations
have been absent,” said CAGW President Tom Schatz.
In January, Sen. Dorgan reintroduced the misnamed Internet Freedom
Preservation Act (S. 215) in the Senate. Net neutrality would mandate that
Internet service providers carry every single piece of content and every
service available, regardless of cost or need. Content providers have
expressed concern that the ISPs would either block content or create
different tiers of online services. Such differential pricing occurs in
virtually all forms of commerce, such as charging more for faster delivery
of packages by UPS or Federal Express. Should net neutrality become law and
traffic on the Internet continue to skyrocket, the delivery of important
content, such as medical information, will receive the same treatment as
spam.
Editorial voices on op-ed pages as diverse as those of the New York
Times and Wall Street Journal have criticized net neutrality as a false
issue. Last June, the Washington Post editorialized, “The weakest aspect of
the neutrality case is that the dangers it alleges are speculative. It
seems unlikely that broadband providers will degrade Web services that
people want and far more likely that they will use non-neutrality to charge
for upgrading services that depend on fast and reliable delivery, such as
streaming high-definition video or relaying data from heart monitors.”
“Net neutrality is nothing but a solution looking for a problem. This
kind of aggressive law-making would violate the principles of both the free
market and common sense. Stepping in now could adversely affect taxpayers
and consumers by stifling the development of the high-speed Internet
services America needs to keep its economy growing and nation competitive,”
concluded Schatz.
Citizens Against Government Waste is a nonpartisan, nonprofit
organization dedicated to eliminating waste, fraud, abuse, and
mismanagement in government.

SOURCE Citizens Against Government Waste

Internet Freedom Coalition Responds to Moveon.org’s Resurrected ‘Net Neutrality’ Agenda

WASHINGTON, April 26 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — Jason Wright, co-founder of the Internet Freedom Coalition, today released the following statement in response to Moveon.org and their “Save The Internet” 1st anniversary conference call with reporters:

“The inappropriately named ‘Save the Internet’ coalition is back at it, celebrating their first year of existence - a year that only has served to threaten innovation. Today’s call with reporters was more of the same. Their goal is to cripple innovation and saddle the world’s freest market - the Internet - with government regulation. Why has this group failed to get their agenda passed? Because they have dreamt up the perfect regulation in search of a complaint. They offer a solution to what is only a hypothetical problem.

“Look at their track record. They lost the federal fight to install network neutrality in 2006. Backers of net neutrality legislation in Maryland this year reversed their support and voted the bill down. The bill in California was pulled over public outcry against this onerous, unproductive call for fixing a problem that doesn’t exist.

“Consumers are winning. Access to broadband in America continues to grow as competition in the marketplace has driven prices down, making high speed broadband more affordable to a cross section of America. The number of applications utilizing these information networks has thrived: online education, telemedicine and shopping from the comfort of your own home - to name only a few. All without government meddling or intervention. If Moveon.org succeeds in regulating the Internet, it will have the effect of creating real problems - like freezing innovation in time - while ’solving’ a non-existent one.”

ABOUT IFC:

The Internet Freedom Coalition is a group of more than 30 like-minded free-market, limited government non-profit associations, individuals and think-tanks including: Americans for Prosperity, Americans for Tax Reform, Black America’s Political Action Committee, Catholic Citizenship, Center for Freedom and Prosperity, Center for Individual Freedom, Citizen Outreach, Commonwealth Foundation for Public Policy Alternatives, Competitive Enterprise Institute, Cornerstone Policy Research, Council for Citizens Against Government Waste, Ethan Allen Institute, Frontiers of Freedom, Grassroot Institute of Hawaii, Illinois Policy Institute, Independent Women’s Forum, Institute for Liberty, Iowa Association of Scholars, Kansas Taxpayers Network, Media Freedom Project, National Taxpayers Union, Ohio Taxpayers Association & OTA Foundation, Public Interest Institute, Reason Foundation, RightMarch.com, TechPolicyWatch.com, The Maine Heritage Policy Center, Tennessee Center for Policy Research

CAGW Tells Congress to Keep Their Hands off the Internet

WASHINGTON, April 24 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — Citizens Against
Government Waste (CAGW) today urged Congress to say no to a national
broadband policy and government intrusion of the Internet. After the
release of a world-wide broadband usage report, Senate and House Committees
held hearings today to examine the need for further government involvement
in broadband service in light of other countries’ policies.
“The Internet has thrived in America precisely because it has been free
from government interference. The implementation of burdensome regulations,
wasteful subsidies, and complicated tax breaks that other countries are
imposing will only stifle growth and innovation,” said CAGW President Tom
Schatz. “Competition and the free market must be allowed to continue to
work.”
The Organization for Economic Co-Operation & Development (OECD)
Broadband Statistics to December 2006 report was released on April 23.
While finding that the U.S. has the most total broadband subscribers of the
30 studied countries, it ranked the United States 15th in
broadband-deployment penetration. The survey does not disclose how it
obtained its numbers and does not take into account population density or
supply and demand.
The Rural Utilities Service (RUS) is an example of an ineffective
government program charged with increasing broadband access. Besides the
more than $30 million in broadband loans that have gone into default, the
program has lost its focus on serving rural America. The RUS has been
subsidizing private companies to provide broadband in suburban
neighborhoods that would have received service anyway. Instead of allowing
the free market to work, efficient private sector forces are crowded out by
government subsidies.
According to a September 2005 audit by the USDA Inspector General (IG),
“RUS has not exclusively served those rural communities most requiring
Federal assistance to obtain access to broadband technologies. Because RUS’
definition of ‘rural area’ is too broad to distinguish usefully between
suburban and rural communities, the agency has issued over $103.4 million
in grants and loans (nearly 12 percent of $895 million in total program
funds) to communities near metropolitan areas.” The IG report noted “one of
the more highly publicized cases, [where] RUS issued loans to a company
providing broadband access to affluent suburban communities a few miles
outside of Houston, Texas.”
“Instead of increasing government control, Congress should remove
barriers to the further flourishing of Internet usage and access by
rejecting net neutrality, continuing the Internet tax ban, and protecting
intellectual property,” concluded Schatz.
Citizens Against Government Waste is a nonpartisan, nonprofit
organization dedicated to eliminating waste, fraud, abuse, and
mismanagement in government.

SOURCE Citizens Against Government Waste

Universal Service for the 21st Century Act (Introduced in Senate)

S 711 IS 110th CONGRESS 1st Session

S. 711

To amend the Communications Act of 1934 to expand the contribution base for universal service, establish a separate account within the universal service fund to support the deployment of broadband service in unserved areas of the United States, and for other purposes.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

February 28, 2007

Mr. SMITH (for himself, Mr. DORGAN, and Mr. PRYOR) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation

A BILL

To amend the Communications Act of 1934 to expand the contribution base for universal service, establish a separate account within the universal service fund to support the deployment of broadband service in unserved areas of the United States, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Universal Service for the 21st Century Act’.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

The Congress finds the following:

(1) The preservation and advancement of universal service is a fundamental goal of the Communications Act of 1934 and the Telecommunications Act of 1996.

(2) Access throughout the Nation to high-quality and advanced telecommunications and information services is essential to secure the many benefits of our modern society.

(3) As the Internet becomes a critical element of any economic and social growth, universal service should shift from sustaining voice grade infrastructure promoting the development of efficient and advanced networks that can sustain advanced communications services.

(4) The current structure established by the Federal Communications Commission has placed the burden of universal service support on only a limited class of carriers, causing inequities in the system, incentives to avoid contribution, and a threat to the long term sustainability of the universal service fund.

(5) Current fund contributors are paying an increasing portion of their interstate and international service revenue into the universal service fund.

(6) Any fund contribution system should be equitable, nondiscriminatory and competitively neutral, and the funding mechanism must be sufficient to ensure affordable communications services for all.

SEC. 3. UNIVERSAL SERVICE FUND CONTRIBUTION REQUIREMENTS.

(a) Inclusion of Intrastate Revenues- Section 254(d) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 254(d)) is amended–

(1) by striking `Every’ and inserting `Notwithstanding section 2(b) of this Act, a’;

(2) by striking `interstate’ each place it appears; and

(3) by adding at the end `Nothing in this subsection precludes a State from adopting rules or regulations to preserve and advance universal service within that State as permitted by section 2(b) and subsections (b) and (f) of this section.’.

(b) Universal Service Proceeding-

(1) PROCEEDING- The Federal Communications Commission shall initiate a proceeding, or take action pursuant to any proceeding on universal service existing on the date of enactment of this Act, to establish a permanent mechanism to support universal service, that will preserve and enhance the long term financial stability of universal service, and will promote the public interest.

(2) CRITERIA- In establishing such a permanent mechanism, the Commission may include collection methodologies such as total telecommunications revenues, the assignment of telephone numbers and any successor identifier, connections (which could include carriers with a retail connection to a customer), and any combination thereof if the methodology–

(A) promotes competitive neutrality among providers and technologies;

(B) to the greatest extent possible ensures that all communications services that are capable of supporting 2-way voice communications be included in the assessable base for universal service support;

(C) takes into account the impact on low volume users, and proportionately assesses high volume users, through a capacity analysis or some other means; and

(D) ensures that a carrier is not required to contribute more than once for the same transaction, activity, or service.

(3) EXCLUDED PROVIDERS- If a provider of communications services that are capable of supporting 2-way voice communications would not contribute under the methodology established by the Commission, the Commission shall require such a provider to contribute to universal service under an equitable alternative methodology if exclusion of the provider from the contribution base would jeopardize the preservation, enhancement, and long term sustainability of universal service.

(4) DEADLINE- The Commission shall complete the proceeding and issue a final rule not more than 6 months after the date of enactment of this Act.

SEC. 4. INTERCARRIER COMPENSATION.

(a) Jurisdiction- Notwithstanding section 2(b) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 152(b)), the Federal Communications Commission shall have exclusive jurisdiction to establish rates for inter-carrier compensation payments and shall establish rules providing a comprehensive, unified system of inter-carrier compensation, including compensation for the origination and termination of intrastate telecommunications traffic.

(b) Criteria- In establishing these rules, and in conjunction with its action in its universal service proceeding under section 3, the Commission, in consultation with the Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service, shall–

(1) ensure that the costs associated with the provision of interstate and intrastate telecommunications services are fully recoverable;

(2) examine whether sufficient requirements exist to ensure traffic contains necessary identifiers for the purposes of inter-carrier compensation; and

(3) to the greatest extent possible, minimize opportunities for arbitrage.

(c) Sufficient Support- The Commission should, to the greatest extent possible, ensure that as a result of its universal service and inter-carrier compensation proceedings, the aggregate amount of universal service support and inter-carrier compensation provided to local exchange carriers with fewer than 2 percent of the Nation’s subscriber lines will be sufficient to meet the just and reasonable costs of such local exchange carriers.

(d) Negotiated Agreements- Nothing in this section precludes carriers from negotiating their own inter-carrier compensation agreements.

(e) Deadline- The Commission shall complete the pending Intercarrier Compensation proceeding in Docket No. 01-92 and issue a final rule not more than 6 months after the date of enactment of this Act.

SEC. 5. ESTABLISHMENT OF BROADBAND ACCOUNT WITHIN UNIVERSAL SERVICE FUND.

Part I of title II of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 201 et seq.) is amended by inserting after section 254 the following:

`SEC. 254A. BROADBAND FOR UNSERVED AREAS ACCOUNT.

`(a) Account Established-

`(1) IN GENERAL- There shall be, within the universal service fund established pursuant to section 254, a separate account to be known as the `Broadband for Unserved Areas Account’.

`(2) PURPOSE- The purpose of the account is to provide financial assistance for the deployment of broadband communications services to unserved areas throughout the United States.

`(b) Implementation-

`(1) IN GENERAL- The Commission shall by rule establish–

`(A) guidelines for determining which areas may be considered to be unserved areas for purposes of this section;

`(B) criteria for determining which facilities-based providers of broadband communications service, and which projects, are eligible for support from the account;

`(C) procedural guidelines for awarding assistance from the account on a merit-based and competitive basis;

`(D) guidelines for application procedures, accounting and reporting requirements, and other appropriate fiscal controls for assistance made available from the account; and

`(E) a procedure for making funds in the account available among the several States on an equitable basis.

`(2) STUDY AND ANNUAL REPORTS ON UNSERVED AREAS-

`(A) IN GENERAL- Within 6 months after the date of enactment of the Universal Service for the 21st Century Act, the Commission shall conduct a study to determine which areas of the United States may be considered to be `unserved areas’ for purposes of this section. For purposes of the study and for purposes of the guidelines to be established under subsection (a)(1), the availability of broadband communications services by satellite in an area shall not preclude designation of that area as unserved if the Commission determines that subscribership to the service in that area is de minimis.

`(B) ANNUAL UPDATES- The Commission shall update the study annually.

`(C) REPORT- The Commission shall transmit a report to the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation and the House of Representatives Committee on Energy and Commerce setting forth the findings and conclusions of the Commission for the study and each update under this paragraph and making recommendations for an increase or decrease, if necessary, in the amounts credited to the account under this section.

`(3) STATE INVOLVEMENT- The Commission may delegate the distribution of funding under this section to States subject to Commission guidelines and approval by the Commission.

`(c) Limitations-

`(1) ANNUAL AMOUNT- Amounts obligated or expended under subsection (c) for any fiscal year may not exceed $500,000,000.

`(2) USE OF FUNDS- To the extent that amounts in the account are not obligated or expended for financial assistance under this section, they shall be used to support universal service under section 254.

`(3) SUPPORT LIMITED TO FACILITIES-BASED SINGLE PROVIDER PER UNSERVED AREA- Assistance under this section may be provided only to–

`(A) facilities-based providers of broadband communications service; and

`(B) 1 facility-based provider of broadband communications service in any unserved area.

`(d) Application With Sections 214, 254, and 410-

`(1) SECTION 214(e)- Section 214(e) shall not apply to the Broadband for Unserved Areas Account.

`(2) SECTION 254- Section 254 shall be applied to the Broadband for Unserved Areas Account–

`(A) by disregarding–

`(i) subsections (a) and (e) thereof; and

`(ii) any other provision thereof determined by the Commission to be inappropriate or inapplicable to implementation of this section; and

`(B) by reconciling, to the maximum extent feasible and in accordance with guidelines prescribed by the Commission, the implementation of this section with the provisions of subsections (h) and (l) thereof.

`(3) SECTION 410- Section 410 shall not apply to the Broadband for Unserved Areas Account.

`(e) Definitions- In this section:

`(1) BROADBAND-

`(A) IN GENERAL- The term `broadband’ shall be defined by the Commission in accordance with the requirements of this paragraph.

`(B) REVISION OF INITIAL DEFINITION- Within 30 days after the date of enactment of the Universal Service for the 21st Century Act, the Commission shall revise its definition of broadband to require a data rate–

`(i) greater than the 200 kilobits per second standard established in its Section 706 Report (14 FCC Rec. 2406); and

`(ii) consistent with data rates for broadband communications services generally available to the public on the date of enactment of that Act.

`(C) ANNUAL REVIEW OF DEFINITION- The Commission shall review its definition of broadband no less frequently than once each year and revise that definition as appropriate.

`(2) BROADBAND COMMUNICATIONS SERVICE DEFINED- The term `broadband communications service’ means a high-speed communications capability that enables users to originate and receive high-quality voice, data, graphics, and video communications using any technology.’.

SEC. 6. IMPLEMENTATION OF SECTION 254A.

The Federal Communications Commission shall complete a proceeding and issue a final rule to implement section 254A of the Communications Act of 1934 not more than 6 months after the date of enactment of this Act.

Try as I do, apparently I’m not getting through to you clones. (apologies to Jim Rome). It feels like a one man campaign against the onslaught of mindless acceptance to the path of least resistance. It confirms the proposition that most human beings are incapable of making choices for themselves and if the options available require more than a modicum of effort they will be ignored for the easiest answer. This happens throughout the business world and the sellers of inferior solutions couldn’t be happier. The effect of consumers making poor choices results in companies continuing business as usual as long as the public accepts it as reflected in the news story below.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Microsoft shares gain as earnings surge

MarketWatch
By John Letzing, MarketWatch. SAN FRANCISCO (MarketWatch) — Microsoft Corp. shares jumped more than 3% on Friday, a day after the company posted a 65% surge in fiscal third-quarter profit thanks to sales of new products such as the Vista operating …

This is one we missed. And by now most of you have probably seen it. But for those who missed it like we did, here is an incredibly uplifting story from the aftermath of another tragic event. It this doesn’t renew your faith in human beings you are far too cynical to be helped. I’ll be thinking about this for days and will never forget it. And let’s certainly not forget the soldier in this story and others like him who need our help to insure they receive the care they deserve.

A H/T to The Absurd Report for posting this for us to find. Although we found it a little late. But then it is never too late for something that echoes what is the American spirit that appeared as though in many places and hearts was on the decline. And as Rick said in his post at The Absurd Report, ‘Are there suspicions that IBM may have some misguided strings tied to this offer? Nope, I don’t think that’s the case – it’s more likely that the Left does not want to be embarrassed by responsible acts from the citizenry.’

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

IBM gives feds $45M in translation tech

By BRIAN BERGSTEIN, AP Technology Writer Mon Apr 2, 8:52 PM ET
To honor an employee’s son who was badly wounded in Iraq, IBM Corp. plans to give the U.S. military $45 million worth of Arabic-English translation technology that the Pentagon had been testing for possible purchase.

Trackposted to MacBros Place, The Virtuous Republic, Perri Nelson’s Website, 123beta, Adam’s Blog, basil’s blog, Stuck On Stupid, Cao’s Blog, The Bullwinkle Blog, The Amboy Times, , Conservative Cat, Jo’s Cafe, Pet’s Garden Blog, Faultline USA, Woman Honor Thyself, The World According to Carl, Blue Star Chronicles, Pirate’s Cove, and The Pink Flamingo, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.