I have had the opportunity to listen to and read the opinions of FCC Board member Mignon Clyburn on several occasions.
She was placed on the FCC board for no other reason than she is a solid vote for the "Social Justice Meets The Internet", "Let's Regulate" camp that President Obama and fellow FCC board member Michael Copps occupy. While a few members of the Congressional Black Caucus are presently under attack by leftwing-fundamentalist activists groups for their apparent rejection of "net neutrality" (they are said to have taken kickbacks from evil telecomm firms) you need not worry that Ms Clyburn will ever venture over to that "dark side" of the force.
This is not about Ms Clyburn's qualifications. Apparently she is a trained lawyer and can handle her own. This is purely an ideological appraisal of her and how her view of the role of government cuts so distinctly against that of my own. Lest you assume that I am being presumptive about the exclusive correctness of my opinions let us translate the views expressed by Ms Clyburn from the video above.
Technology Meets Social Justice Entitlements
What strikes me the most with some people is that they continuously sell the VALUE of new technology in enriching the lives of "the least of these" yet they can never see through to the notion that it is the "Least Of These" who must be asked to appraise the VALUE of this resource and sever any other expenditures of their time and limited resources that would tend to thwart their actual use of the asset that Ms Clyburn and others keep selling to them.
In summary Mr Clyburn is guilty of taking "telegraph and ticker tape" thinking and its associated inferiorities and applying it to the "clean room era" of advanced technology where indeed a new world is opened up to those who seek to enhance their vista.
As we look at Verizon Wireless' much heralded "3G High Speed Wireless Broadband" coverage map I get the feeling that Ms Clyburn will focus upon the great expanse in Nevada that apparently doesn't have coverage and thus proves to be "economically discriminatory" to those who occupy this region.
There is a constant refrain from certain individuals who have chosen to use telecommunications that the telecommunications infrastructure in the United States is below grade and that the corporate greed and the lack of aggressive government dictates is the problem. I recall a Bill Moyers' special from several years ago which indicted the telcos for pushing for the adoption of the "1996 Telecommunications Act" but then reneging on their promise to build out a high speed national Internet. This indictment of several years ago - for example mentioned nothing about how just recently the 40Gb interfaces on the multi-million dollar backbone switches have just come on the market. Thus - if company had done as the "technology activists" had wanted they would be stuck on old (SONET) technology instead of being able to evolve to the more robust architectures that have been naturally evolved to per the market demand.
When Verizon spends $50 billion on their multi-year Fios build out. When AT&T invests over $17 billion year over year for theirs. The fact that Sprint just today announced a $5 billion investment which includes turning off the old "Nextel" iDen network. The present legal fight by T-Mobile to install a new cellular tower in a community against the wishes of the "NIMBY" people who might later complain about poor coverage - none of this matters to the "technology activists". They don't operate in finances, logistics or the need for easements to do the installations. They instead pride themselves in their lofty moral stance of "People over Profits".
Why is it that I can go to certain developing nations and see new businesses formed as they offer shared access services otherwise known as "Internet Cafes"? Absent the abundant social safety net they are forced to practice "cooperative and commercial" economics, defraying the costs of the services that they use upon the consumers. And yes I am talking about areas where the "real people" live and not tourist traps.
What, ultimately, does Ms Clyburn and others fear regarding the fate of these "least of these people" if they are not provided with "FREE" Internet access?
Does a nominal cost incurred upon a consumer cause him to value a given commodity? What if this revenue flow itself provides the grounds for a business venture?
Why is it that we keep getting sold on the VALUE of the Internet and yet certain individuals are hellbent on DEVALUING the costs borne by those who express their own valuation by their priority investment in time and money?
Not the Internet nor health care is "free".
0 comments:
Post a Comment