There is only one real failure in life that is possible, and that is, not to be true to the best one knows.
John Farrar
Net Neutrality Vote: Thumbs DOWN!
As expected (and I briefly discussed in yesterday's post), the FCC voted 3-2 to establish new regulations on broadband ISP's. If you look at the industry reaction, you see differences; for example, AT&T seemed more concerned about reducing uncertainty in the marketplace ("net neutrality" has been a key progressive Democrat policy goal for years) and was willing to go along with what it considered reasonable regulatory burden to get there. Verizon wasn't convinced; it believes that the FCC is ruling by Executive Branch fiat, and I suspect that we could (and should) see a court battle. This is different than a local monopoly, which, for instance, could undercut a different segment competitor through predatory pricing of its own services. (In many areas, for instance, there are multiple Internet service providers: landline services (e.g., DSL), cable, satellite, and wireless.)
There are some modest circumstances where I can see an argument could be made for some limited regulation of ISP's: for example, if it provided content services and discriminated against other providers, e.g., provided more reliable, responsive service for its own benefit. Under these circumstances, you could argue that it would have to legally separate its content business and provide comparably priced access.
What is causing the most controversy involves the idea of an information toll-lane whereby the ISP charges a higher premium for preferred access. This would provide an incentive for providers to upgrade their networks (speed and capacity). To many, that seems to imply a two-tiered "separate but unequal" Internet system (perhaps in the way business or first-class travel on airline flights are sold at a premium, or one pays more for plumbing emergencies on holidays or for overnight delivery).
I'm not convinced by this line of reasoning. People often pay a premium for new technology--which paves the way, with economies of scale, for better, more affordable technology down the line. I remember my favorite math professor had been an earlier purchaser of a simple functional calculator which had cost her $150. I bought one of the first VCR's--only to see comparably featured units a year or two later at a fraction of the price I paid.
There are some other things the commission wants--i.e., greater transparency, for example, if ISP's adopt tiered pricing structures, not unlike typical cell phone plans with a large bucket of peak minutes and incremental charges for overages. Usually the ISP's are worried about a very small percentage of subscribers whom hog bandwidth, causing problems from other customers whom use minimal bandwidth, say, to download their email or check their Facebook accounts.
There's also the seeming double standard in FCC regulations between landline and wireless systems (with industry given more leeway in the latter).
But--and this is the deciding factor for me--all of this regulatory nonsense has more to do with progressives wanting to impose their ideological beliefs on other people, not sound business or economics. There are so many different ways to communicate freely (books, radio, cellphones, television, Internet, etc.) that it's hard to believe that an ISP would censor a particular view point and even if it did, it would probably provide the competition with an advantage. What we have today is a testament to what is possible through the private enterprise system.
Regulations in such a rapidly changing technological environment is not unlike my favorite Heraclitus quote: "You could not step twice into the same river; for other waters are ever flowing on to you." The only certain result of today's decision is that it raises more questions than answers, and in any case, it's almost certainly the wrong decision, with unexpected, counterproductive side effects.
START Treaty? A Lukewarm Thumbs Up
I announced my opposition in a November 22 post, but before someone accuses me of flip-flopping on the issue, I want to remind the reader of the very first line in my piece: "I'm not saying I am against the new START treaty"--and the header unambiguously stated "in the lame duck session". Let me just say that I think a better treaty could have been negotiated, but is it on balance a step in the right direction? Yes. The fact that both of G.W. Bush's Secretaries of State (Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice) and even his father (George H.W. Bush) came out and endorsed the treaty (pointedly without the White House entourage) also made a difference.
Let me make it clear that I don't like the way this was handled by the Obama Administration; the process--in particular, pushing this in a lame duck session after a mid-term where the Democrats lost 6 seats--was unduly strident and handled in an unprofessional manner. The phony alarmist rhetoric is insulting to our intelligence; for example, there are no American boots on the ground to check on what the Russians are doing in the interim--but then we should trust them to abide by the treaty... It's almost as if the Russians are doing us a favor and getting nothing in return--because they can trust us, of course. And then the Russians argue if the Senate attaches as much as a comma to the treaty, the deal is off. (I think this was all mere political posturing, because without a treaty, there is no reduction of our nuclear weapons, something that is to the Russians' benefit. I think it was probably at the administration's request, to counter the GOP claim that a better treaty could and should have been negotiated.)
The high-pressure tactics and attempts to isolate and trivialize substantive GOP objections (e.g., Jon Kyl) by PR stunts with high-profile supporters were all but a tacit admission that the treaty couldn't sell itself on its own merits. The fact that the Obama Administration didn't address certain criticisms of the treaty voiced by Kissinger, Rice and others also reflects a lack of transparency and integrity.
Political Humor
"President Obama read his new children’s book to a classroom of second-graders in Virginia. It did not go well. Fifty-nine percent of the kids disapproved, and 83 percent of the children felt the story was headed in the wrong direction." - Jay Leno
[Now Jay--it wasn't about the President's story so much as the message Michelle Obama had him read after he finished his book: how broccoli and spinach, among other items in the new salad bar, are good for you. To paraphrase a famous tuna ad, kids don't want foods that are in good taste; they want food that tastes good.]
An original:
- Somehow five minutes of a porn film played on TV's recently at Shahjalal International Airport in conservative Muslim Bangladesh. No one has claimed responsibility for the incident, but producers of the film argue that they are more hard-core than the TSA.
Musical Interlude: Holiday Tunes
Amy Grant, "My Grown-Up Christmas List". In a past post I included a video of initial American Idol winner Kelly Clarkson's cover of this original David Foster song. But the initial major hit version of this song by my favorite Christian music-crossover artist is spot on...
