Revisiting Net Neutrality: Now that Obama’s Got It
Posted in Public Affairs, Money Matters, Technology, wordpress, Politics, internet, ethics, Net Neutrality, telecom, obama, Business on September 6th, 2009 by Stanford MatthewsSometimes it’s hard to know who you can trust. It would be foolish to proclaim that businesses never mistreat their customers. And no one is likely to express complete confidence in government as a champion of consumers. So the old term ‘caveat emptor’ is still relevant these days. The burden of buyer beware is well placed. We all need to take responsibility for the choices we make. But when the options are severely limited rendering one’s choices to the ‘only game in town’ the choice is not really a choice at all. You either accept what is available or decline to participate.
Here’s the rare personal example for illustration. This blogger has not subscribed to cable, satellite or pay-tv for almost a decade. The short version of why goes like this. I used cable tv for years. The price continued to rise. The content quality continued to decline. The couch potatoes helped support the trend by paying anything to watch nothing all the time. You know, 57 channels and nothing on. And this blogger realized watching less tv was probably a good idea on its own merits.
Cable tv companies were essentially petitioned to offer channel by channel pay schemes which never materialized. Programming became redundant as one successful channel after another spawned new channels based solely on previously successful formats. The programming schedules became several hours in length followed by repeats of the same programs for the remainder of the day. It was no better than broadcast networks and getting worse. The plethora of channels offered increased by leaps and bounds while one was hard pressed to find a few that were useful in some way.
Wireless human to human voice communication followed a similar price/quality conundrum for the thinking consumer. Actually talking to another person on a wireless telephone was lost in the promotion of other meaningless or non-essential services or bells and whistles. As if telecom was focusing on an old description of top salespeople they were trying to sell the sizzle not the steak. Prices have increased dramatically with wireless communications and savvy entrepreneurs have exploited the ‘gotta have it’ mentality with picture phones, net access with wireless phones and even convinced some consumers that texting was practical.
This blogger’s response to the ‘telephone’ situation is also about a decade old. Perhaps before it was fashionable the land line was abandoned in favor of a cell phone. As the costs continued to rise and service continued to decline this blogger opted for a pre-paid disposable phone where one buys airtime with cards or online. So as with cable tv, this blogger while not eliminating the use of a phone has greatly minimized the use of it. And as for internet access I have opted for broadband at the lowest price/speed available for my needs.
So what is the point in all this babble? Up to this point this blogger was in favor of the idea of net neutrality as he understood it. It appeared to me the argument against it by telecom companies was feeble. It appeared as the anecdotes above this was one more consumer ripoff waiting to happen where quality takes a nose dive and prices inflate dramatically. It also seems that ISPs could tackle the problem of users who take more than their fair share of bandwidth through other means.
But all that or other views on the issue may be moot. Not until Barack Obama’s FCC guy publicly expressed net neutrality a good thing did I question my position. You may think that unfair but given the performance of the Obama Administration, his liberal legions and controlled Congress to date a red flag has been raised. So some new research and study will be required for a follow up post on the topic. Until then you can read the excerpt below and follow the link for the rest of the story. And feel free to submit comments to enlighten or inform this blog(ger) on net neutrality’s status and true intent.
Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com
You can argue all day but the simple fact is telecom services whether voice, data or anything else mysteriously have similar pricing and it is all too much. The single largest problem causing that is the reluctance of consumers to object to excessive pricing. In this latest story on the topic the public has not been impressed. That is largely an exception to typical consumer behavior which acquiesces to vendor pricing.
But even better is the one million estimate offered on the date in between the other two. It may seem like a small thing and in this case it has the diminished value of who cares? Not so much who cares about the varying, correct or incorrect estimates but who cares about the movie? If you have an appreciation for storytelling or the cinematic experience, whatever that is these days, it is understandable you may be interested in this movie if the genre is your ‘thing’. But no matter what your interests or what you watch or how you fulfill the need to satisfy your personal demand for such leisure pursuits it is tough to argue that Hollywood and other sources for movies rarely fail to disappoint. The hype is also rarely justified after viewing the promoted offering.
Following the content listed in most popular news on Google and Yahoo has been a regular occurence here. At first it was disappointing that so much of what made it to the listing were stories with topics that probably shouldn’t rank as high as they did. But that just seemed to indicate a sad trend that ‘clickers’ at these venues concentrated on items that really do not matter. The tabloid type of content was getting the lion’s share of the most popular ratings by click. Again, sad that important issues were being neglected by whatever the demographic was. If one assumed that the readers were a representative slice of the general public the bulk of what they were reading was an even more dismal trend.
The central argument in the NYT piece seems to be that McCain’s VP selection gives ammunition to Obama while diminishing McCain’s criticism that Obama is not ready to lead due to inexperience. Right out of the blocks, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin has executive experience and a resume’s considerably more accomplished than Senator Obama’s. No one said you cannot take on the VP slot as it does not lend itself to on the job training. And as for the ability to step in to the Presidency if disaster would strike, how many former VP’s would have been ideal for that contingency? If Palin ends up spending four years as VP she will likely be quite prepared for the Office of President in 2012. Even with the unlikelihood that she would have to take over as President, by then the McCain Adminstration would be in place and the typical resources used by each President would be available to Palin for executing the office. In contrast, nothing about Barack Obama equals that assessment.
The youngest among us are the easiest to fool. Haven’t been on the planet long enough or care about the trends that matter. Gotta have the newest and coolest even if it is a marketing campaign that defines the object. The trend is the business community has long known how to use hype to drive revenue. They not only target the younger demographic due to the extreme discretionary income as compared to other groups but they are keenly aware that they are largely clueless when it comes to intelligent purchasing decisions supported by fact.
Why do cars cost so much? Why does health care cost so much? Why is the cost of an education higher than most think it should be? Although the details may vary the overall reasons for the cost of goods and services and their associated real value are so dramatically skewed. People convince themselves they need what they are buying and have no patience, discipline or any buyer sophistication adequate to the task. This is followed by subsequent complaints about how bad things are without the consumer accepting any guilt for the outcome. The ‘i’ in iPhone stands for idiot.
Possibly more interesting than the fact the Queen of Cringe’s campaign announced she will be outdone in fund raising by the Obama campaign this quarter is the fact her Communications Director’s top resume item is crisis management. And it is funny that the Dems will not debate on Fox yet Howard Wolfson’s association with The Glover Park Group featured NewsCorp as a client. You know, Rupert Murdoch, NewsCorp, Fox News, Fox Broadcasting, etc. And the connections to Rupert Murdoch are just the beginning of Hillary Rodham Clintons’s contradiction in alliances. Glover Park Group has much to do with that.
The not so subtle predictions that Hillary Rodham Clinton is the default Democratic candidate for 2008 is largely a product of people like Penn and Wolfson or others linked to the Clinton crew. Stay on message, cultivate the middle of the road liberal appearance, speak to the concerns of the Democratic base and lie your way to the White House.
So how did the United States Congress do in the first month of the 110th session? You be the judge. First, a little review of the fact that posts here have sometimes asked why we get so focused on what Congress does. After all, they legislate. That’s it. They legislate. The can pass laws. Whatever the House passes must be passed in the Senate also. So both Houses of Congress must pass the same version of a bill before it can become law. Then it goes to the President. He can sign it into law. He can veto it and send it back to Congress. He can pocket-veto at the end of the session. Or he can pretty much ignore it and it becomes law. All you expert legal types out there, feel free to refute this if you must.
So six bills and one joint resolution have the term “on passage” next to them in the voting record in the House. Being that it is joint and includes the Senate, that’s the only thing showing up on their completed list. Then there are the six bills. You’ll remember them from the daily reminder of the 100 hour agenda. Here’s a take on that.
One law was passed to rename a park. And the other bills have many hurdles to cross before they can become law. Even if they become law there is no guarantee they will have any positive effects. No one, with any regularity, will follow up on them. So the Congress has done nothing for one month. They have solved nothing. There is only one item as law and it is not critical. 21 Senators are worried about 2008 due to re-election. Other Senators are worried about running for President. And the rest have passed one joint resolution and participated in renaming a park.