As serious as this subject is, I can still find time to get the joke!
Repent and support fast lanes
As serious as this subject is, I can still find time to get the joke!
Author: southwerk
I am a 53 year old teacher. I have double major in Speech and Criminal Justice resulting in a Bachelor's degree from Northeastern State University in Oklahoma and a law degree.
My Letter to the FCC Board
This is an excellent, eloquent piece of writing directed at the FCC. If you are going to write a letter in the same spirit, you should use some of these points! jp
Public opinions are now open via an official FCC email regarding the proposed net neutrality rules proposed this week by the board and Chairman Wheeler. This is what I wrote. You can send your own at openinternet@fcc.gov and I urge you to do so.
—————————-
To FCC Board Members and Chairman Wheeler,
My name is Wes Smith, and I wanted to make a statement regarding the proposed net neutrality regulations recently put forth by the board members of your committee. I do not feel that these proposed rules will leave a positive effect on the internet and will ultimately hurt consumers, stifle innovation, and establish a harmful precedent for future technological advances.
I understand that Mr. Wheeler has stated that there will careful regulation of business practices, essentially stating that companies purchasing faster access to customers is ok so long as internet providers do not place other websites in a…
View original post 426 more words
Steaming Mad
I agree. This is important. You should add your voice. jp
Net Neutrality, A Student Site!
Net Neutrality, A Student Site!
I search the Internet for sites of interest almost daily. There are so many sites with great writing and a lot of passion. They often are up for a year or six month, … and then there are no more posts. It’s like the skeleton left after a body decomposes.
So, I try to encourage people to post and keep on posting. I ran across this student, David Watson, and his web site on net neutrality. I like his attitude and his writing.
Please give him a read and encourage him to continue posting and developing his ideas.
James Pilant
Net Neutrality, Don’t get caught in the slow lane!
http://com472netneutrality.wordpress.com/
We connect to the web using pipes owned by major telephone and cable companies. These companies such as Comcast, Verizon, Time Warner, and AT & T want to change that. They want to establish their own parts of the web, and to make sites pay them more money to use it. Now they would like to charge you for access to the network, and then charge you again for the things you do while you’re online. These big companies want to set up a restricted fast-lane on the internet, a fast-lane that would only be usable for their partners and services that have complied with the additional fees. In order to achieve this, these companies will be destroying one of the internet’s founding principles known as net neutrality.
This issue is meaningful to me because if net neutrality becomes a reality, innovators who want to start small and work there way up to the top and become the big thing will be shut out of the big picture and their dreams will be destroyed. There are rules in place to prevent internet service providers from blocking or “unreasonable discriminating” against any legal website or other piece of online content. If they eliminate net neutrality, they will be destroying one of the internet’s founding principles known as net neutrality. These rules guarantee equal opportunities for all web sites and internet technologies. Without those rules, the internet will turn into how you can buy a cable package today that has some channels and excludes others.
Net Neutrality and Strange Bedfellows?
Net Neutrality and Strange Bedfellows?
It is a trite statement: “Politics makes strange bedfellows.” However overused the expression, it is quite accurate.
In the struggle over net neutrality a number of corporations have joined the side of the angels. Why?
When the subject is net neutrality we are talking about access. Without net neutrality major players, that is, those with millions or more commonly billions of dollars, will own the prime real estate, the highest internet speeds while the rest of us will live in a ghetto of diminished speed and low expectations.
Obviously, bloggers and activists need net neutrality so their sites can be effective, but so do small businesses and corporations. Some corporations have large internet operations that offer only a limited opportunity for profit. Buying internet speed is not economical for some users. Further, if you have a startup, like Facebook was at one time, you will not be able to afford the extra cost of the speed that might make your business a success.
Think of the attacks on net neutrality not as a corporate assault on equal privileges of use – think of it as specific corporations making that assault. It is not hard to figure out which ones. The other corporations will be in the same boat with the rest of us, unable to get high internet speeds without paying a premium.
Thus, we have a probably temporary but workable alliance between social activists, some businesses and corporations and independent bloggers (like me).
We’re like ill-funded insurgents often enemies with each other in a common cause against a formally trained, experienced and huge army. Let’s see what our ragged band of fighters can do?
James Pilant
Net neutrality has done the impossible: Align leftist and corporate interests
http://qz.com/209029/net-neutrality-has-done-the-impossible-align-leftist-and-corporate-interests/
Welcome to Occupy Inc.
+
US Federal Communications Commission chair Tom Wheeler’s proposals last week against “net neutrality”—the principle that all internet traffic should be treated equally regardless of source—created a wave of internet traffic in its own right. Wheeler’s new proposal, that internet service providers can prioritize some sites’ traffic over others by allowing bandwidth-guzzling sites such as Netflix to pay a premium for optimal speed (but not restrict access to lawful sites altogether), is a virtual about-face from the FCC’s 2009′s edict that ISPs “must treat lawful content, applications, and services in a nondiscriminatory manner.” The FCC’s inconsistency has not gone unnoticed—with companies ranging from web behemoths like Facebook and eBay joining forces with social responsibility titans like CREDO Mobile and a myriad of startups to oppose the new FCC ruling. Critics say that such the FCC’s two-tiered “fast lane” framework—where the haves stream video in HD and the have-nots are relegated to slower speeds—would make it virtually impossible for Netflix-esque startups to take shape – “…if deep-pocketed players can pay for a faster, more reliable service, then small startups face a crushing disadvantage,” says one venture capitalist.
+
And with one government statement, net neutrality has become the new income inequality, the cause celebre of the progressive activist — and for the first time, the offices of Big Technology are allied with the tents of Occupy.
+
Last week saw the birth of the #OccupyTheFCC movement and a protest movement began camping on on the steps of the FCC’s Washington, DC headquarters. True to Occupy form, daily (and nightly) “actions” have punctuated the FCC’s daily operations since last Wednesday. From banners and greeting workers daily with a “human firewall” outside of the front entrance, to citywide awareness-driving PSA campaigns, to highway overpass signs, the movement is picking up steam heading into day eight. They’re “not going away anytime soon.” Its organizers, Fight for the Future, are no strangers to online protest, having risen to prominence in 2011 through the viral anti-SOPA “blackout” widget, was adopted by everyone from Google to Wikipedia in a coordinated effort against the unpopular “anti-piracy” legislation. …
From Around the Web.
From the web site, Vergaranomics.
Fine Bright Like a Diamond: The Financial Story of Shiny Rocks, the Future of the 21st Century Economy, and that One Disney Movie I Haven’t Seen in Ages
Yesterday, the Federal Communications Commission voted to open debate to a restructuring of net neutrality laws. Nothing is set in stone yet, but there is a lot at stake that could have ripples from the direction of our economy to the existence of this blog and much more.
A useful place to start before diving into the world of economic shift and corporate interests it to start with the basics: what is net neutrality? Coined by Columbia media law professor Tim Wu in his 2003 publication, the term “net neutrality” is the idea that ISPs (Internet service providers, such as Verizon or Comcast) should treat all data available on the Internet in a fair and equal manner, with no discrimination towards access, content, website, application, or the users accessing said data. Such an environment is amenable to both consumers and producers, because it’s relatively cheap to buy a site and a domain and begin producing your own product in a matter of hours. This proliferation of producers and products makes the market awash in competition and thereby keeps prices down for us consumers.
So, what’s the catch? The FCC is entertaining a motion to discuss the possibility of “paid prioritization,” meaning that ISPs could charge content providers higher premiums to maintain quality service. Though the FCC has rigorously denied any claims of such “lanes,” this would create a two-tier system: a “regular” lane being slower and lower quality than prioritized ones. Consider it being analogous to the tollways that run concurrently with highways, with the exception that the owners of the tollways are launching missiles at a few highway underpasses every few weeks. These prices get passed down to us, the consumers, as ISPs will no longer have incentive to expand and update their pipes when they can simply charge more for usage of existing infrastructure. Suddenly, fast Internet becomes a commodity.
In economics, we call this artificial scarcity. Consider the Disney Vault. Every few years, a commercial fervor grows as yet another Disney movie that I haven’t seen in eons is re-released on VHS, then to DVD, then to Blu-Ray, available only for a few weeks before “returning to the vault,” only to be released again 10 years later, remastered and in Gold Edition. Disney is artificially creating demand by limiting the supply of said re-released film for an allotted amount of time. It’s not that these movies are especially rare: a trip to a Goodwill will nab you some classics and a VCR for thirty bucks. Rather, Disney is creating scarcity by returning that re-released film back to the Vault. …
(Please visit the above site and read the whole entry – it’s a good post and deserves your full attention. jp)
A Guide To DWP Euphemisms
They use the same language tricks here in the United States particularly the word, reform.
“I love you this much”
‘Reintroducing fairness to the welfare system’ – introducing means-testing in order to dismantle the welfare system.
‘Fairness’ – discriminating against people.
‘Creating a system based on fairness’ – ignoring need, in favour of targets.
‘Work experience’ – unpaid labour.
‘Fit to work’ – somebody suffering from an incapacitating condition, whose heart still beats.
‘Tough’ – punitive.
‘Tough but fair’ – punitive and arbitrary.
‘Employment Support Allowance’ – financial support for people incapable of retaining employment due to illness/disability.
‘Unconditional support’ – strictly conditional support.
‘Scrounger’ – somebody who is poor.
‘Hardworking people’ – people on very high salaries, such as company executives.
‘Striver’ – somebody who works for a low salary, and who doesn’t object to a pay cut. Alternatively, somebody who works for a high salary, and who doesn’t object to a pay rise.
‘Skiver’ – somebody who is temporarily too ill to work…
View original post 506 more words
We’re All in This Economics Thing Together
We’re All in This Economics Thing Together
One of my relatives was at a family reunion and he proudly stated firmly and unequivocally that all of his success was due to his hard work. There was chorus of disapproval and anger. The family had sacrificed for him to stay in school and then to go to college. There were times when he struggled in his career and again his family provided support. It caused a breach in the family that never quite healed.
I know where he got this idea. Popular culture. The idea of the lone wolf struggling against all odds, the lone man facing fate along, and all that other crap. It’s very romantic, Ayn Randian stuff. Of course, we are, in a sense, alone but really we are creatures of our culture and our time. We stand on the shoulders of giants ever dependent on the philosophies and ideas generated by our ancestors and our endeavors are smoothed by the cooperation of our fellow citizens.
I suppose I should be beguiled by the idea of myself as a lone hero, a Western style avenger fighting for right. But the fact is, there is a certain pleasure in coming from Locust Grove, Oklahoma, and by some measurement having made good. I remember where I came from and the many kindnesses extended to me and the occasional cruelties as well.
I don’t understand the “I did it all” mentality. When I drive to work, I realize that I didn’t pay for the road save in some small share. My car is constructed in accordance with federal regulations which means unlike vehicles in the 1950’s and before, my little vehicle will enable me to survive most crashes. I work in a state institution, a cooperative endeavor financed over time by millions of citizens. Etc.
I don’t like the “I did it all” mentality. It seems to me that it inevitably leads to evading responsibility to help others and to be part of the community – the state and the nation will take a back seat to self interest. Self interest has its place but it’s not the only thing to take into consideration. I am a patriot and I believe in my fellow Americans. We like to think we all are but the fact is the number of Americans renouncing their citizenship to evade taxes is growing every year. They are traitors to their country.
Please read the article below, the author eloquently explains that lone wolf scientist is really a figment of the fiction writer’s agile mind rather than a real character.
James Pilant
Iron Man and the Myth of the Lone Entrepreneur
A popular misconception we’re often confronted with is the idea that successful business people somehow made it through their own hard work, graft and smarts. While it can take immense perseverance, skill and acumen to build business empires, it is a fallacy to believe that ultimate success is down to the individual entrepreneur. Yes they may be the important component, but a lone effort it certainly is not. Maybe one can better think of them as the star strikers in football – great show and talent but completely useless without the backup of mid-fielders, defenders, trainers, coaches, managers, family, promoters, ad-men, agents, supporters and so on.
Popular films like the Iron Man series portray a fantasy world where a supremely gifted and arrogant engineer single-handedly builds a complete semi-autonomous robot exoskeleton with over-unity power source. Anyone with an actual real-world technical background (or half a brain) would tell you that in reality he’d have needed a team of ten to write and test the code for the control mechanism of the little finger on the left-hand glove.
So the team of scientists, engineers and project managers would need to be absolutely massive. And who would have trained them? Did Robert Downey Jr. recruit a bunch of uneducated kids and teach them maths, physics, computing, etc, from scratch? Not likely especially given the amount of time he spends partying and getting pissed. No he did it on the back of the education system of multiple countries (engineers move around). Who pays for that education? The public does, either through taxes or fees, both of which require people to earn something in order to pay. And then Tony Stark made his fortune selling weapons to Uncle Sam and other military forces, all of whom are for a large part funded by tax payers money. …
http://formerdundeeman.org/2014/05/12/iron-man-myth-lone-entrepreneur/
From Around the Web.
From the web site, Philip Valdes.
Why do so many startups fail? The business myth says: A lone entrepreneur – beavering away in a lab or a garage somewhere – through hard work, grit and sheer perseverance develops a great product which then becomes a blockbuster hit. That sounds appealing but the reality is most startups tend to burn through their resources and then disappear because they never get around to seeing what their potential customers think of what they’re developing. They worry about the product first and assume customer demand will be there automatically.To succeed with a startup, you’ve got to manage it differently. Instead of developing a business plan, find ways to accelerate your learning and validate customers demand.
The best way to do this is to build a prototype (with minimal features) and sell it to some early adopters. Then change the product repeatedly – daily if necessary – and keep supplying your customers with the new and improved versions. Listen to their feedback and use those ideas to make a better version and then get more feedback on that. Keep iterating until you get a fully featured product which your customers love. Click here to find out who is Phillip Valdes.
In other words, go through the Build-Measure-Learn loop as often as you can. If you make validated learning the real aim of your startup, you stand a better chance of success. Focus on what customers want, utilize an extremely fast cycle time and take a scientific approach to making decisions. That’s the essence of the Lean Startup approach.
How to deny, discount, and dismiss bullying and psychological abuse at work
The always invaluable David Yamada has a new post. Please read and then sign up as a follower for his blog. James Pilant
A recent blog piece by psychologist Kenneth Pope explaining how reports of torture can be easily denied, discounted, and dismissed strongly resonated with my understanding of the dynamics of bullying and abuse at work. I thought it worth sharing and discussing with readers here.
Three cognitive strategies
Dr. Pope identifies “three common cognitive strategies for denying, discounting, dismissing, or distorting instances of torture and for turning away from effective steps to stop it and hold those responsible accountable”:
First, “reflexively dismissing all evidence as questionable, incomplete, misleading, false, or in some other way inadequate.”
Second, “using euphemism, abstraction, and other linguistic transformations” to hide the abuse.
Third, by “turning away: ‘I’m not involved,’ ‘There is nothing I can do about it,’ ‘I have no authority, jurisdiction, power, or influence,’ ‘This is no concern of mine,’ etc.”
Applied to workplace bullying
I quickly thought of workplace bullying when I read this blog post.
View original post 182 more words
Net Neutrality Under Attack
Net Neutrality Under Attack
I guess it is the nature of the beast. Whenever a profit can be made by converting a public asset into a private one, the knives are out. The reasons for net neutrality are so obvious and so important, it should not be necessary for me to repeat them here. The idea of favoring one user over another has one major advantage over net neutrality, the enormous profits possible on services already provided.
James Pilant
Net neutrality: What is it, and why is the U.S. about to lose it? | Al Jazeera America
For decades, Americans have taken for granted that every website, service and app is treated equally by their Internet service providers. This principle, dubbed Net neutrality, is what allows startups and large corporations to compete on a level playing field, ensuring that Internet providers can’t pick winners and losers by blocking websites or having some load faster than others.
But Internet advocates warn that under a new set of rules scheduled to be introduced by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) on Thursday, this guarantee will be effectively gone, allowing Internet service providers to give prioritized access to websites that pay a premium — and slower service to everyone else.
The FCC proposal would be welcome news for broadband Internet providers like Verizon, Comcast and Time Warner Cable, some of which have already begun experimenting with charging online services for fast-lane access to their customers. FCC chairman Tom Wheeler has tried to reassure critics that these arrangements would be strictly regulated on a case-by-case basis. But a growing coalition of Net neutrality advocates, tech companies, investors and members of Congress have slammed the anticipated proposal, calling it “a threat to the Internet” as a domain for free speech and commerce.
“It’s going to be ruinous for innovation online,” said April Glaser, an activist with the Electronic Frontier Foundation. “It directs people away from newer, innovative services that might not be able to afford that price tier.”
via Net neutrality: What is it, and why is the U.S. about to lose it? | Al Jazeera America.
From Around the Web.
From the web site, Andelino’s Weblog.
http://andelino.wordpress.com/2014/05/16/net-neutrality/
What could that mean for me, in English, please?
First off, the web could get more expensive. The impact on the average Internet user will likely not be felt right away. But over time, websites would probably pass on to consumers the costs of paying for high-speed access, according to Harold Feld, a senior vice president at the consumer group Public Knowledge.
In addition, it could become difficult to view certain websites owned by companies that can’t afford to pay for access to an Internet fast lane, Feld said.
On top of Internet users potentially paying more, they would also be more confused, Feld said. Under the proposed rules, people would need to make sense of a fragmented Internet landscape where the time it takes to load an online video would depend on whether that website paid extra to their Internet provider. Consumers may start choosing their Internet providers based on which websites they like to visit.
Feld compared the situation to the exclusive deals that AT&T and Apple once made that only allowed AT&T subscribers to purchase the iPhone.
This sounds pretty frustrating. It would be. Under the FCC’s proposed rules, the quality of online streaming services like Netflix or HBO Go would depend on whether those services are paying your Internet provider or not, Feld said.
“It will become more fragmented and more frustrating,” he added.
The proposed rules could affect not just entertainment, but also education. If schools use an online curriculum made by a company that cut a deal with Verizon, students who subscribe to Verizon’s Internet service at home would have an advantage over other students who subscribe to another provider, Feld said.
How to “Do Your Homework” and Be a Critical Consumer of News
This is simple intelligence. I wish everybody did this. Remember, I emphasize over and over again the importance of facts and reason in business ethics. How do you get those watching nonsense on television?
Pilant's Business Ethics Blog 
You must be logged in to post a comment.