I was listening to the Laura Ingraham show today, and this issue was brought up. Ms. Ingraham suspected that Google will back down in the end, letting China continue its gross human rights and business practices violations. I disagree, however- Google has made a stand, and to go back on that stand would show it to be weak. This would not do anything positive for the company’s standing with non-Chinese markets, whereas standing up against China might actually give Microsoft and other companies the guts to do the same. This could cause major change in certain Chinese policies. Google literally could be the tipping point that causes technology companies to stop allowing the abuses the Chinese government consistently heaps on them.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – U.S. taxpayer profits from bank bailout investments are being offset by estimated losses from American International Group and automakers and mortgage payment cuts for struggling homeowners, a U.S. Treasury report showed on Monday.

The Treasury estimated net losses on its $700 billion bailout program at $68.5 billion for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2009.

The December report for the Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP, showed that the fiscal 2009 net loss included estimated losses of $30.4 billion for AIG and $30.4 billion for automakers, with $27.1 billion in losses from the Home Affordable Modification Program.

These were much larger than a $15 billion profit registered from the Capital Purchase Program for banks and $4.4 billion in profits from other bank investments, asset guarantee and lending programs.

A senior Treasury official said the bank investments will ultimately produce a positive return for taxpayers. But the department was not yet ready to update its estimate of the final taxpayer costs for the bailouts.

The official said the Treasury would update its cost estimates on a quarterly basis as the bailout program shifts its focus toward small business lending and housing relief in its final 10 months of operation.

The Treasury in November said TARP’s ultimate cost estimate had been reduced to about $141 billion from $341 billion earlier in the year. Further reductions in the final cost estimate could aid the Obama administration as it faces pressure to produce a new budget that starts to show deficit reductions.

(Reporting by David Lawder; Editing by Dan Grebler)

Unfortunately, this story was not the lead anywhere today, though Fox did have  a related one on their top three stories. Drudge’s lead story today is about Scott Brown, the candidate for former Senator Kennedy’s seat (okay, that one’s fairly important). Yesterday, he had an accusation that Senator Reid (D-NV) had a facelift or something. Drudge did have this story, but buried several stories down. Meanwhile, cable news is failing as badly as usual to provide important news. Fox has the “tell-all” story about Senate Majority Leader Reid (D-NV) as their lead story, and CNN has David Frum’s newest column as theirs. MSNBC actually has the most important lead story of the three, with an article about the death of an Iranian opposition leader. ABC is also not doing their job, with a massive lead story about President Obama allegedly playing favorites regarding the race card. 

Once again, I’ll ask Americans to look at the important news. Who really cares if Sarah Palin is on Fox? Is anyone surprised? Reid has said two racial statements in recent weeks. Why are we letting our elected officials waste our taxpayer money over his comments? (Note- every time they go after or defend Reid instead of doing their job they are wasting taxpayer money.) We are losing billions of dollars to corrupt government, business and other officials and executives…and we care about something stupid Reid said or the common-sense career move of Sarah Palin? Give me a break. Let’s worry about the troops dying overseas, our sovereignty, the education of our youth and the other critical issues facing this country. Our mainstream/professional media certainly won’t do it, obviously, but in the age of the Internet and other technologies, we the people have no excuse.

Mmmmm…wasn’t it just a few years ago that Bush was invading Iraq without international support, despite evidence to the contrary? Oh, wait, we have other countries with us in Iraq? Or are they talking about the War on Terror? Or are they sliding over to the war in Afghanistan?

I just don’t understand the flexible logic these people use. Of course, I’m just a knucke-dragging conservative.

Six month from now things will be very interesting.? The first campaigns since the 2008 presidential race will begin cranking their engines.? It will be the first big test as well.? Letting all of us evaluate who “got it” after the last go round.

One has to understand that when they attend these sorts of events that there is certainly a goal of objectivity.? The reason for attending is to discover the areas in which politics and technology are intersecting.? How is technology, or possibly more specifically, the Internet changing politics?? Are these changes creating the evaporation of results from the previous models?? If so, how do we incorporate these new tools into our area of politics to create new successful models?? That’s what we are hear to discover.

The reality though is that people that are passionate about anything can’t keep it from seeping out even when they are trying to hold back.? There is nothing wrong with this.? I take zero issue with individuals who wear their heart on their sleeve.? At least it’s out there.

But at some point a balance issue develops.? If panels are mostly chaired by a certain orientation of political enthusiast, the point of view is always the same.? If the audience to which they are speaking is of the same enthusiasm, then they are preaching to the choir.? The cheers and hardly applause comes because of political orientation and alignment and not because all political technology enthusiast share the same goals.

We don’t.

Case in point was the fine display of two sheep being led on stage for the final panel of the day.? The sheep, in the form of two teleco representatives, had their achille’s slit so that they couldn’t escape and then were promptly ritually massacred by the Picadores Josh Silver.? Silver, well known in tech policy circles for avoiding any concerns or facts outside of his own talking points was suburb in his beat down.? I honestly couldn’t tell if the teleco reps were ill prepared or just trying to play the saint for the audience, the obvious antagonist.

But why was this happening?? Silver has a particular motivation and a goal, and not one with which all parties in the tech policy community would agree.? Why was no one with a differing point of view sitting on this panal?? Not to defend the telecos, but to ask questions from a differing foundation, or to call Silver’s bluff.? Where was Wayne Crews of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, or Adam Thierer who started Technology Liberation Front?? Where was Timothy B. Lee, CATO fellow and Ars Technica contributor? (Who in my humble opinion has hands down written the best scholarly explanation of network neutrality available.? Which is mighty humble of me, if I do say so, considering I’ve written on it myself.)

I did appreciate hearing the audience gleefully suck up every drop the FCC commissioner Blair Levin had to say; especially the part where he told us that they were creating a plan.? Really? The plan he is referring to of course is the National Broadband Strategy which comes due in February of 2010.? What hardly anyone knows though is that the US Department of Agriculture who has used the Rural Utilities Services (RUS) division to improve broadband distribution in the past has been awarded funds for distribution from the stimulus.? RUS plans to distribute its roughly $2.5 billion by September 30th, 2009.? The National Telecommunications and Information Administration?who received the bulk of the broadband stimulus funds?will hand out their dollars in three phases occurring Spring of 2009, Fall of 2009, and Spring of 2010.

Spend first, formulate your plan later, Mr. Levin?? Sort of seems counterproductive to planning at all.

Conservatives are boned at PDF 2009.? There is certainly not enough representation amongst panel members.? Some of this is absolutely not the fault of Personal Democracy Forum.? We are under a liberal Administration, and that administration appoints liberal bureaucrats.? An invite to Robert McDowell or Meredith Attwell Baker would have been nice.? Maybe they were invited, and turned it down.? This too is a possibility.? At least Cas Sunstein with his Fairness Doctrine-esque “electronic sidewalks” for the Internet isn’t present.

I’m not laying the wood to PDF.? Yes, from initial indications it doesn’t appear that the ideological sides are well balanced, and possibly they don’t know where to look.? The real trouble however is the attendees.

The Personal Democracy Forum doesn’t help conservatives.? Because conservatives aren’t there to be helped.

The numbers are simply overwhelming.? I’d guestimate that the attendance is somwhere close to one thousand.? I’d also venture to say that there are roughly five conservatives there.? And I’m incorporating the one libertarian I saw with a Ron Paul button.

I’m dismayed.

I know these folks are out there.? I’ve written about them.? So where are they?? After this past Fall why aren’t ogles of people from the right side of the aisle on Capitol Hill all over this event?? Did the speakers shy them away?? I don’t really think so.? I’m a strong conservative-libertarian, and have been for years.? And while there are a few people in the speaker list that irk me on the average day, I wouldn’t let them keep me from attending when the majority of lectures and panels are simply focused on an examination of content in some form, a discussion of getting content to an audience, or about tools to help you be more efficient and productive.

This is subject matter that conservatives need to hear.? Maybe PDF needs to market themselves more to conservative circles on the web?? Possibly all conservatives on the web are poor and couldn’t afford to attend?? It could be that conservatives don’t fit in with all the Apple fan boys present at the conference.? If there were more Dell owners then it might have been more balanced.

All thought provoking questions.

These are just initial reactions.? I’m sure I will be thinking more about it into the second day of the event as I look for reasons for the paltry representation.

Secretly though, I think the liberals in the crowd are ecstatic.? Why wouldn’t they be?? It’s like someone serving up a box of free gold to anyone who shows up at the box and takes the gold.? And only liberals are showing up, so they get to take home all the gold.

You can’t teach a dead dog new tricks.? And you certainly can’t expect to win a fight you don’t show up to.

Very much looking forward to Tuesday.

-nick

You can find it here:? http://works.bepress.com/nicholas_brown/2/

Here’s the abstract:

Ever since the now YouTube famous Google interview of then Senator Barack Obama promoting broadband Internet deployment nation wide, broadband deployment as part of Obama?s overarching $825 billion stimulus package has been a ready topic of conversation in technology circles. Broadband penetration in the United States is only 25.67% of all Internet connectivity or available to roughly 71 million Americans, ranking the U.S. 19th in the world. Home connections via broadband have risen to 92.4%, creating the argument that the majority of Internet users are engaged in daily activities that require, or at least benefit from, broadband connectivity. Obama has promoted this line of thinking, and believes ?that America should lead the world in broadband penetration and Internet access?. Pushing it even farther, he believes that the Universal Service Fund should be implemented in the expediting of deployment. This line of thinking is more than likely impossible.

This paper looks at the Broadband Stimulus portion of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 to investigate the feasibility of expanding broadband into underdeveloped and undeveloped areas and the forced implementation of Network Neutrality into networks funded by the federal government.

————————-

Be sure to post any feedback you may have. Would love to hear it.

-nick

In 2007, Senators John McCain and Ted Kennedy, along with former President Bush, attempted to pass controversial immigration reform. The Heritage Foundation, combined with talk radio personalities such as Michael Savage, Rush Limbaugh and Laura Ingraham, have since been credited with the grassroots reaction that caused legislators to shoot the bill down in the Senate. Since that time, liberals and Democrats have worked to reinstall the Fairness Doctrine. Despite what Representative Mike Pence (R-IN), former President Clinton, Senator Debbie Stabenow, as well as many others on the left and right think, the Fairness Doctrine is never coming back. Whichever party attempted to bring it back would quickly find itself out of power.

The bigger threat to talk radio- the only area of media dominance by conservatives, and more importantly an area of media that should remain as free as the Internet, television, newspapers (for now), books, magazines, movies, etc.- is what has been coined as “localism.” In 2007 the Center for American Progress came out with the liberal blueprint for policy designed to diminish the hold conservatives have on talk radio- the report decries the Fairness Doctrine but pushes for 24-hour on-duty personnel, localism boards to guarantee minority opinions are heard, and regulations on how many stations may be owned by one corporation in a particular area.

During my time as an intern in Regulatory Policy at The Heritage Foundation, I conducted a partial case study of Littleton, New Hampshire- a town of 5,845 according to the 2000 census- and how localism regulations would affect radio stations in the area. Below are my results:

A Brief Look at Littleton, New Hampshire

Littleton is one of the most popular tourist attractions in New Hampshire. Boasting a population of only around 6,000-the official U.S. census stated 5,845 residents in 2000-Littleton has three gigantic advantages over most towns its size. The first is its location, only 15 minutes from Cannon Mountain, where Bode Miller grew up. 25-30 minutes from Bretton Woods, a mountain part of the Mt. Washington Grand Hotel. It is also accessible from New Hampshire’s only interstate highway, Interstate 93, through multiple exits.

A second advantage is Chutter’s Candy Store. Started in 1995 as a small local store, it expanded to possessing the world’s longest candy counter at over 112 feet before its founders retired. A huge draw both locally and with tourists, Chutter’s sells everything from high-end chocolates to penny candy to novelty Littleton, North Country, and New Hampshire souvenirs. Over a dozen unique stores such as The Village Book Store, Littleton Bike Shop, and “Today’s Movies At Yesterday’s Prices” Jax Jr. Cinemas complete the ensemble of small, unique New Hampshire tourist and local attractions.

The third advantage is Littleton’s status as a perennial contender for the Great American Main Street Award. It has been names the #1 Main Street in the nation at least once since 1997, and boasts a 2% retail vacancy rate on Main Street, down from 20% in 1992. (http://www.golittleton.com/littleton_main_street.php) This status, and the publicity therein, make Littleton a necessary stop for Canadians passing through to the rest of America, as well as many Americans going to Quebec and other southeastern portions of Canada. Traditional visitors who enter New Hampshire for its foliage, great skiing, and famous hiking locations also make Littleton a regular stopping point.

Back in the 1990s, Littleton struggled with unemployment and sagging local support. One of its big turnaround points was the opening of Wal-Mart, which draws shoppers from as far away as an hour on a regular basis. Since 1998, when Wal-Mart opened its doors, Littleton has replaced Berlin, NH has the hub of activity in the White Mountains of New Hampshire. Applebees, Lowe’s, Home Depot, Ninety-Nine Restaurant, and over a dozen chains have entered the town, boosting population, employment, and tourism rates.

Background of Major Littleton/North Country/New Hampshire Media

Newspapers

According to local author and bookstore owner Mike Dickerman, The Littleton Courier used to cover six high schools; now, since it is owned by a New Hampshire-based corporation with 11 North Country newspapers under its name, only three are covered. Mr. Dickerman, a former writer for the newspaper, explained that while the corporation allows for greater profit for the local newspaper, the amount of local news is lacking. Furthermore, since the corporate-owned papers trade articles, many locals are seeing the same articles twice in the same week. The Coos County Democrat, owned by the same corporation as The Courier, is one such paper located only two towns away from Littleton. Dickerman feels, as many do, that repetitive articles take away from the amount of news covered locally.

Eileen Alexander, the Democrat’s editor, says that since 1990 her paper dropped its coverage from the entire North Country-approximately 90 minutes of driving, from end-to-end, and many towns-to the several towns in the local school district as well as three towns close by and big news in neighboring Vermont.

John Harrigan, former 2^nd-generation owner of the Colebrook News & Sentinel in Colebrook, NH, believes that the Localism laws would have no effect on ability of papers to be local; he makes the claim they already are. According to Harrigan, weekly papers outnumber dailies 11-1; approximately 13,000 to 1,200. Dailies are less profitable than weeklies, because they offer much of the same information as other dailies, whereas weeklies cover what the local people want in a unique fashion. Furthermore, on the business end, corporations have little effect on newspaper ownership, because the public chooses what it wants. The New Hampshire Sunday News columnist believes there are always opportunities available to entrepreneurs who want to open a newspaper in the modern world and serve a market better. Harrigan states without equivocation: “I don’t give a fly about the FCC.”

Few other newspapers reach into the Littleton area. Some of the larger papers, such as The Boston Globe and The New York Times, have their typical presences, but other than The New Hampshire Union Leader-NH’s largest state newspaper-and The Caledonian-Record, a medium-sized paper out of St. Johnsbury, VT with a circulation of just over 10,000 daily papers, (http://caledonianrecord.com/main.asp?SectionID=14&SubSectionID=467&ArticleID=60&TM=53123.72) other printed media presences are limited primarily to several small, free papers.

Radio

In radio, however, things are very different. Presences range from ultra-local to locally regional to multi-state regional. Also, while change takes place, there is a free-flow of stations and interchanging ownership.

Recent examples of the ever-changing, as well as growing, evolution of radio in the Littleton, NH are omnipresent; the following are just a sample. 106.3, WMTK’s, move to its base of operations one town over to St. Johnsbury, VT; however, it still plays Classic Rock in Littleton and the surrounding towns. Two new radio stations-one, an Oldies station, and the other, a Classic Rock station-have opened in the area in the last twelve months, owned by the same radio company that owns 96.7, WLTN and 1400 A.M. A small, privately-owned station started a summer program of music within the last several years on 91.7 FM. 107.5, Frank FM, an Oldies station out of Portland, Maine hit the airwaves several years ago, and has expanded to around half-a-dozen stations in Northern New England. Also, 96.3, WJJB, out of Gray, Maine changed from Fox Radio to Sports on September 1^st. A light rock station, 94.9 WHOM, the largest radio transmitter in the nation-which reaches five states & parts of Canada-and country station 103.7, WOKQ, are both located on Mt. Washington, the tallest mountain on the East Coast. Both reach from Massachusetts to the North Country. Kiss 102.3, WXXS, plays modern pop music, and has been in the area since 1998. Other stations include Star 92.9, WEZF Burlington, VT and 90.5 WCKJ-owned by Christian Ministries, Inc.-out of St. Johnsbury, VT.

A number of local stations cover local events, news, etc. 106.3, WMTK, covers Littleton-Chevrolet events, as well as daily updates on local restaurants and specialty stores. 1400 AM covers all Red Sox games, as well as Littleton High School basketball games. 103.7, known as 97.5 in the southern part of NH, covers events at the local airport and other locations, in addition to all New England Patriots games. New Hampshire Public Radio also covers many different events.

A number of those involved with the radio industry agree the changes would have some negative effect. The General Manager of Nausau Broadcasters: Frank FM, Patrick Tyrrell, in Portland, Maine, for example, believes that “The customers get what they want. If they want local, they will go local. If they don’t, they will go non-local.” Meanwhile Andy Phillips, a 17-year veteran of Littleton-area radio and a former radio personality in northern Vermont, believes that harm will depend on the station; some stations still fully staff, so variety is present. Also, the effects of localism will affect these stations minimally. The Main Studio Rule would only apply if on-air, so closing at night gets rid of expense problems.

One of the strongest opponents to localism regulations was Barry Lunderville, owner of Barry P. Lunderville, LLC and several area radio stations. He believes that localism boards put stations out of business, and that greater ownership in the Littleton area increased by anti-conglomeration regulations would create less of a piece of the pie per company would also but stations out of business. In fact, Lunderville stated that “centrally-located” business will be impossible with the type of regulations the FCC proposed in December of 2007.

Television

There has always been a local television channel in Littleton, for selectman’s meetings, etc. WMUR-TV, an ABC-affiliate owned by Hearst-Argyle with two other locations in Boston, MA and White River Junction, VT, made a return to the North Country of New Hampshire in 2005. (http://www.wmur.com/station/5013678/detail.html) It provides state news on its TV station and website, as well as locally-focused programs such as “New Hampshire Chronicles.” It has three repeaters located in the North Country; two are in Littleton, and a third is in Berlin, New Hampshire. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WMUR-TV)? Also, New Hampshire Public Television goes all around the state, often in the North Country.

Internet

The lack of high-speed Internet has been a point of concern for years in New Hampshire, especially in the rural North Country. However, recent efforts by New Hampshire Senator Judd Gregg and former Senator John Sununu have brought broadband Internet access to the North Country. This had been previously unavailable, leaving Dial-Up as the primary Internet access speed to towns without the (relative) economic influence of large towns/small cities like Berlin, North Conway, and Littleton. Many people, from business owners to public officials, believe this will improve the economies and opportunities of and in rural New Hampshire. (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa5283/is_200712/ai_n21277993)

Several new and influential sites are www.bluehampshire.com, a liberal blogging/grassroots website, and www.polickernh.com, a takeoff from www.politicker.com. BlueHampshire, started several years ago, gained notoriety when a former staff member of former Representative Charles Bass went on the site to blog against Bass’ opponent, current Representative Paul Hodes (http://bluehampshire.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=85) Politicker, on the other hand, bills itself as a “virtual watercooler for the state’s political elite.” Its opinions and biases appear moderate-they make no official statement on their site regarding leaning left or right-and it runs daily polls, weekly “winners & losers” within New Hampshire, and has numerous articles and opinions from local to national influence and scale.

Littleton and its neighboring towns have added websites promoting themselves; the sites range from relatively simple and straightforward- http://www.whitefieldnh.com/ -to comprehensive and vibrant-www.golittleton.com. These sites are incredibly useful to the thousands of tourists who visit the area every year, as well as the many actively involved and culturally inclined local citizens.

Telecommunications

One issue of great contention across Northern New Hampshire for the last several years has been telephone company Fairpoint’s plans to buy Verizon’s northern New England telephone network. Many New Hampshire residents and organizations opposed this, and took many steps to prevent its passage. (http://www.nhpr.org/node/13987)

The FCC eventually signed off on the deal in early 2008, but it still needed state support and approval. (http://www.boston.com/news/local/new_hampshire/articles/2008/01/09/fcc_oks_fairpoint_verizons_new_england_phone_deal/) Since then, New Hampshire has accepted Fairpoint’s offer (http://www.nhpr.org/node/14351), which critics have called a positive for Verizon-which is trending away from residential phone lines-and a negative for everyone else, especially consumers. (Investors appear to feel the same way; the day the FCC approved the deal, Fairpoint’s stock dropped while Verizon’s went up). The deal also includes some Internet services. Since then, the issues have not stopped for Fairpoint, including some customers claiming they have not received bills in months (my parents and some of their friends, for example) and accusations of “cramming” onto bills. (http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=Fairpoint+bills+%27crammed%27+with+bogus+charges&articleId=a4cde5ad-bf43-49aa-bb6a-3e57f7b6d9f1)

Conclusions

Localism and localism-related concerns are largely invalid. Rules such as main studio, 25-mile radius, and ownership limits are far too expensive for single-station and other small radio companies to follow and still be in business. Local boards will also be expensive, as radios will lose market share, in addition to limiting what consumers within the market listen to. After all, if the majority of a particular market ignore what the minority wants and listen to what they want anyway, a station that listens to minority opinions on local boards will be out of business in a very short time.

In regards to the Littleton, NH market specifically, there are more radio stations now than ever before. Also, with the Internet, TV, phone lines, and cellular phones become more modern, more numerous, and more prominent than ever before, information can be gathered more effectively, quickly, and thoroughly than those trying to pass localism regulations realize. Localism rules, the Fairness Doctrine, etc. are limiting to small companies and consumer choice, not liberating.

One of the other arguments used in support of the aforementioned regulations is that in small and/or rural markets greater risks of conglomerate monopolization exist. While such business practices DO take place, by and large it is medium and small businesses that are present in small towns. Also, should a conglomerate monopolize a region and bring a product-in this case, listening material-different than what is preferred by the target market, consumers will not listen because they have so many different options of media. This will cause the company to lose profits, and therefore either modify to the market or sell that particular location. Lastly, between 1970 and 2004, in the era of deregulation of media, the number of radio stations has actually increased, putting a lie to the idea of conglomeration preventing radio growth and diversification. (http://www.cato.org/testimony/ct-at040928.pdf)

ONE LEGITIMATE CONCERN: If there are no other choices, people may HAVE to listen…they may not care enough to demand change. However, there will always be a disgruntled listener, risk-taking entrepreneur, etc. to bring a product the target market will enjoy and partake of. Furthermore, with current technologies including television, Blackberries, and computers, the negative effect of a dominant radio conglomerate is very limited.

-dustin siggins

——-

I?m beginning to think ?no? is the definitive answer.? While most tend to understand the basic concepts of Internet connectivity and its associated parts, it seems that it is becoming abundantly clear that terminology has been misused by media and public organizations such that no one really understands what they are even talking about anymore.

It?s understandable that people who don?t work in the telecommunications sector are unfamiliar with networking.? But a group of writers that should understand these concepts are the individuals that are paid to write for PCWorld.

Today, David Coursey discussed the recent decision of Time Warner Cable to back off its plans to test metered broadband service in an essay strangely entitled, ?Why Metered Broadband Would Work?.? It?s odd, because he describes why TWC is up to no good and why metered broadband is greedy.

The column states that metering broadband service violates net neutrality and concludes that, ?anything that hinders Internet neutrality hinders the development of new technologies and new business models.?

Where do I begin? First of all, net neutrality has nothing to do with metered broadband service.? Nothing.

Metered broadband has nothing to do with how fast your connection is.

Metered broadband is a cap on the total amount of data you transfer during a given billing cycle.? That?s it. There is nothing more to it than that.? It has nothing to do with giving certain packets priority.? It has nothing to do with preventing the use of certain applications or equipment (like a VoIP handset) on your computer.? It has nothing to do with blocking access to sites that have competing content.? And it has nothing to do with Quality of Service.

Let?s look at this in different terminology.? The speed at which you travel in your car has nothing to do with the number of miles you choose to travel in a given month.? If you were to rent a car, and your rental agreement dictated that you could not travel more than 100 miles in 30 days, (assuming speed limits and the police were not a factor) you could travel at whatever speed you desired until you traversed 100 miles.? In this case, whatever connection speed you have from TWC would not change.? If you had a 10 meg connection, you would still get a 10 meg connection.? The difference is the number of miles you could travel on the Internet in a given billing cycle, not the speed at which you could get there.

Interestingly enough, metered broadband is a new business model that Coursey claims Internet neutrality would hinder.? Since metered broadband has nothing to do with Internet neutrality, and the column claims that in a recession the last thing we need to do is hinder new models, then this was the perfect opportunity to allow the free market to test a new model.

Metered broadband does cap the total amount of data that an individual can transfer in a given month.? That is not a negative thing, though.? Transfer speeds and data transferred are two different things.? The first is the speed at which data could potentially be transferred to or from your computer.? These are commonly referred to as ?downstream? and ?upstream?.? Over a given billing cycle ? generally a month ? an individual receives data and sends data by surfing the Internet, receiving email, using instant messaging, etc.? The benefit of a bandwidth cap is that it creates tiers that allow for more affordable service, and open up the doors of barred entry to individuals that could not previously afford Internet service.

TWC reports that their users in the Austin, TX area averaged 5-6 gig a month.? A benefit of metered service is that if a user falls into this category, there is no reason for them to be spending $50-$75 a month for unlimited access.? This is similar to a cell phone plan, in that if you don?t talk 3,000 minutes a month, purchasing the 3,000 minute or unlimited plan would be a major waste of money when you could get a lower plan for far cheaper.? TWC was proposing lower-priced tiers combined with higher fees for heavy users. A relatively basic plan would have offered 5 GB a month for $29, and a more robust tier would have offered 15 GB a month for $40, all the way up to unlimited plans for $150.

Metered service could be a major benefit for most average or below average users.? The only people that it hurts are Bittorrent fiends.? Additionally, those that use larger amounts of data on movie streaming services would have probably fallen into a data tier that was similarly priced to what they were paying before a switch to metered service.

Something that Coursey hints at, but never comes right out to explain, is the concern that caps are in response to television and movie distribution on the Internet.? The implication is that monthly caps would deter individuals from watching TV online, causing them to return to the couch where profits are higher. It is a certainty that cable providers do not want to simply become sellers of bits.? But the individuals that are concerned of this notion that caps force individuals into higher caps, or that they are somehow being cut off from certain services is really just silly.

Consumers are not forced to use the Internet.? They have the right to determine how much data they will transfer in a month and purchase an appropriate tier.? This occurs every day when consumers purchase cell phones.? They purchase the tier that is suitable for their needs.? This approach by TWC opened the door to allow low volume users to have very affordable rates.? Yes, the higher cap tiers were arguably pricey.? But that isn?t a reason for the media to create such a false state of fear over the issue that the entire trial is pulled.? The free market would have caused those tiers to adjust and match companies offerings like Comcast?s 250 gig cap.

Coursey is right about one thing.? In these dreadful economic times, we don?t need to be hindering new business models.? It?s too bad the noise heavily outweighed the signal on this issue and caused TWC to back off on something that most likely would have saved the majority of their customers a great deal of cash.

-nick

But we will be led to think differently in tonight’s faux State of the Union Address.? Obama will undoubtedly speak on the subject of what I have decided to call Social Internet Expansionism.? This is the extension of networks into rural areas for people that can’t afford or don’t want Internet according to Pew studies, but of whom Obama asserts need it and has determined it will create 300,000 non-farm jobs for every 1 percent increase of penetration.? This assertion is of course based on a paper by Robert Crandall, William Lehr, and Robert Litan who have repeatedly stated that their research is being taken out of context.? Mainly because the project was completed almost 2 years ago and was looking at 2005 numbers for non-rural areas.

Nonetheless, the Obamulus will pour almost $7 billion into funding projects led by the National Telecommunications and Information Administration and to a lesser extent the Department of Agriculture who previously headed the Rural Utilities Service Braodband Grant and Loan Program (RUS).

My top 10 questions for the President regarding Social Internet Expansionism:

1) Will the public or private sector be building your networks?

2) How precisely will bureaucracy define “unserved” and “underserved” areas?

3) If it is the private sector, how will grant winners be chosen?

4) Will the grantee manage the network after it is built?

5) If so, will maintenance costs be solely their responsibility?

6) Will the government pick winners?

7) What if a grant holder does not have a stake in an area, and they begin building a network in direct competition with an existing area network provider who does not have government financing?

8) What if a service provider who does not have government financing is pushed out of business because of a service provider that has government financing?? Will the out of business service provider receive compensation?

9) If a service provider constructs a network in a government mandated rural area and cannot attain service contracts and therefore cannot continue service in that area, will they receive compensation for any privately invested funds?

10) If Social Internet Expansionism proves unsuccessful, will you return the original investors money in form of a tax rebate?

Post on openmarket: here

-nick

Future of American Communications working group revealed their recommendations for broadband entitlements this week.

Take a gander at my post on the issue at openmarket.org: FACT Check the Internets Future.

- nick