24thState

Cyber Sleuthing for Dummies

 

Private Enterprise for Public Policy

Since announcing millions of dollars in Federal stimulus money to expand broadband in Missouri, Governor Nixon has been traveling the state lauding every local effort to expand Internet access.  Recently, while in New London, Missouri, he said, “Just like Missouri in 1956 was the centerpiece for the interstate system, the Show-Me State will be the centerpiece” for broadband.

Certainly the expansion of broadband is a good thing. And Nixon has a point about how its expansion will help rural communities. The Internet Innovation Alliance (IIA) has published a list of ten ways broadband will help rural communities. Our concern is not whether more and better broadband is good, but whether the government needs to pay for it.

President Obama has made the expansion of broadband a priority of his administration--and stimulus dollars like those being funneled to Missouri have gone across the country. But the proposed merger between AT&T and T-Mobile, currently being considered by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) may make much of the federal spending unnecessary.  According to the National Journal, the Minority Media and Telecom Council reported in its letter of support to the FCC,

By easing capacity constraints, the merger will help avert the spectrum crunch – especially in very large majority-minority markets – and thus alleviate the pressures that could drive prices up, drive down minority adoption, and widen the digital divide.

In fact, the merger may free up enough resources for the company to meet almost all of the President's goals.  According to one newspaper report,

AT&T says that as a result of the merger, AT&T will be able to offer broadband Internet services to 97 percent of the U.S. population, which would help the Obama administration reach its goals of making broadband available to every American.

The merger has the support of many unions, including the Communications Workers of America and the Teamsters.  In fact, The Hill reported a few months ago that the merger could help swell the numbers of union members who traditionally support Democrats.

Whatever the secondary implications of the merger, it remains true that this is an example of private enterprise being able to meet important public policy goals without throwing taxpayer money at it.  Conservatives have always maintained that government should not do what the private sector can do, and the AT&T/T-Mobile merger is a perfect example.

 

Net Neutrality - Casting A Wide Regulatory Net To Neuter Us All - Part I

Looking beneath the transparency

Well... good news ladies and gents out there in the free and open skies of internet land.  Public spirited folks from the IT world are looking out for bad deed doers and speaking up for your interests. There are such keen eyes as these from a vigilant tech writer for PC Magazine (never realized how well named it was before) who has expressed his dismay at the regulatory process... not over the interference of government into the free flow of information across the internet... no, no... no. He has seen reports of something 'fishy' in the land of regulatory purity, and is shocked at what he's found.

Here, have a look:

"The end of the FCC negotiations is actually good news. What the FCC should do is execute its duties to oversee the industry without apologizing or asking permission. The FCC negotiations sought to compromise with the industry--the very nature of which implies that the agency would be making consessions in order to appease companies like Verizon and Comcast.

Negotiation and compromise are cornerstones of the political process, but they should be conducted openly and involve all parties. The problem with the FCC efforts was that the closed-door meetings excluded most of the affected parties from the process."

To useful ... uhm... pundits... like our PC tech writer here, they feel that government regulation of industry is a good thing, that 'Net Neutrality' will be a benefit to all Americans, and they are only upset that the process hasn't had more transparency involved in it. I'd like to look at that here, and go a bit beyond that 'transparency' to get a wider perspective than their little government issue world viewer window might otherwise afford us. But first, let's try looking through only that itty bitty viewer they use, and see what we can see.

I know I see one thing here that I particularly enjoy, and that's the line "should be conducted openly and involve all parties."... do you suppose that this tech writer for PC Magazine has ever ventured out and onto the internet? I don't know how many providers there are out there, my quick Googling popped up around a hundred or so big and small, providers, still, I do believe it might be just a few more than can conveniently cozy up around a conference table and hash out some regulations that will be 'fair' to all parties. And while he's not alone in his concern for all us little people... what of the millions of users who will be affected and deprived of their ability to pay more, or less, to receive the service they most value?

Craigslist Postings Don't Count As Threats

This is just for the losers, so if you're not a loser, don't bother reading further.