The Federal Communications Commission today issued a notice of proposed rulemaking as a first step toward creating an incubator program for disadvantaged groups that want to enter the television and radio broadcast industries. According to the Commission, “Such a program would seek to encourage new and diverse broadcast station owners by drawing on the technical expertise and/or financial assistance of existing broadcasters.”
The NPRM also seeks comment from the public on how best to structure and implement the program.
The State via the Commission has a monopoly on access to spectrum. It has the force of law behind this monopoly. It should, for the sake of bond holders, pursue policies that help increase returns on the spectrum that it licenses to private companies. The better broadcast companies perform i.e. attract listeners and views and sell advertisement, the more taxable income for the State and continued flow of income to bond holders.
I don’t see this incubator program doing that. It is a pure political move. It is designed to keep the barbarians aka social justice warriors from knocking down the gate. The Commission has been holding the warriors off since the Clinton Administration by not following through on recommendations to institute such programs. It appears now, with this NPRM, that they are trying to give the impression of progress on the issue of diversity.
They should save their strength.
Any incubation for future broadcast station owners can be done in the private sector. Potential and existing broadcast station owners can enter into voluntary agreements to exchange expertise and financial assistance in exchange for a piece of a minority owner’s action. It should be up to a potential minority owner to explain the economic and financial value that an existing broadcast station owner can glean from an investment in a minority-owned station or outright sale of an existing station to a minority-owned firm.
Think of the decision rule the British Empire imposed on itself when it decided to decolonize. The second world war drained the Empire of resources. Holding on to territories in Africa and the Caribbean was expensive, so they cut a deal with these protectorates. We’ll prepare you for independence and you’ll give us a piece of the economic action.
This is the model that existing broadcast station owners and potential minority-owned firms should enter. Where the existing owner wants to off-load a station and a minority firm shows it can bring value, then they can enter an exchange. The State via the Commission need not involve itself by establishing incubator programs.
The financial press has been focusing on Bitcoin’s rapid appreciation in value of late. The value of a single Bitcoin eclipsed the $7,000 mark a couple weeks ago. At the time of this writing, Bitcoin.com reported the cryptocurrency is selling for around $7,171 while its “fork”, Bitcoin Cash, is selling at $1,181.
Supply and demand primarily drive the price the currency. I guess it also helps that over 100,000 merchants accept the coin. A payment system driven by blockchain provides Bitcoin owners additional certainty about who actually owns a generated coin at a particular time. Also the near instantaneous payment is an attractive feature.
In my business, I focus on political threats and I see the Federal Reserve taking a parallel approach to Bitcoin as a payment system. One possible route is issuing its own digital currency supported by an enhanced payment system. A report filed last September by CNBC described a recommendation by the Bank of International Settlements that central banks consider issuing their own digital currencies.
Also, the Federal Reserve is in the process of revamping the payments process system. Bitcoin competes with at least two prongs of the Federal Reserve’s payments system: clearinghouse services and coin distribution services. Federal Reserve governor and Fed chair nominee, Jerome Powell, currently serves as co-chair of the Federal Reserve’s payments improvement oversight committee. I expect given Bitcoin’s growing popularity, the appeal of blockchain, and the concerns about using cryptocurrency for fraudulent purposes that should Mr Powell become Fed chair, improving the payments system and increasing the Fed’s ability to compete with innovative payment systems will remain a priority.
As transparent as Bitcoin’s underlying block chain process is for Bitcoin users, there is still a need for protecting the privacy of the user when moving Bitcoin from seller to purchaser. Current net neutrality rules on transparency may negatively impact the need for privacy.
Experts at Bitcoin.org warn the crypto-currency’s use to protect the IP addresses used during Bitcoin transactions. Including an IP address on a website or social network site may not be a good idea if maintaining anonymity is crucial. Once a Bitcoin address is used to receive a payment, the address becomes traceable along with all other transactions associated with the address.
Further, according to Bitcoin.org, since the currency’s users usually reveal their identity’s in order to receive goods or services (like a Klingon or Romulan starship decloaks before firing), Bitcoin addresses won’t remain fully anonymous.
Question is, as investment in Bitcoin and transactions using Bitcoin increase, why would the Federal Communications Commission pursue a net neutrality regime that includes an intrusive transparency requirement?
Current net neutrality rules require that broadband providers disclose certain details about network management including disclosures about congestion management practices and the types of traffic subject to those practices. Proponents of the transparency component of net neutrality rules argue that these rules protect consumers against misinformation about prices, services offered, and data speeds.
What isn’t discussed by net neutrality advocates is the slippery slope that transparency embarks on when it comes to Bitcoin. For example, as more consumers use broadband, and in particular mobile broadband to conduct Bitcoin transactions, should we put their anonymity at risk by requiring broadband provides disclose information about the data Bitcoin users send?
Bitcoin could become mainstream over the next ten years especially given its use of the blockchain. Should intrusive transparency rules be allowed to slow down this train?
I sense a major “cost shift” for tax payers over the next twenty to fifty years as the more affluent of United States citizens move more of their survivability activities into cyber society versus current brick and mortar society.
I believe one key will be the use of cyber currency by an increasing number of service providers and producers. Less dependence on fiat money and more reliance on a block chain that cuts out the middleman providing for faster payment systems. In addition, the affluent are re-imagining the use of public infrastructure by using it less frequently or more efficiently. Think drones, driver-less & fuel efficient vehicles, or the delivery of groceries via Instacart.
The affluent will also find more innovative ways to provide security, from improved security technology to private police forces. In short, as the affluent pursue an increasingly self-sovereign approach to life, they will make the case for dishing the traditional services of the State while arguing that their tax burdens should be less. Why support police and road services that hey hardly need. If anything, they will argue, let us reduce our tax bills by the amount that we spend on providing these services for ourselves.
For low income individuals and a large proportion of communities of color, they will experience the burden of the “cost shift” as tax jurisdictions pass on the costs of providing traditional State services to these communities. These communities will not be able to bear the burden given their low incomes. Services will be reduced as traditional government finds itself facing competition from non-State actors financed by the more affluent.
The State will react violently at first. It will create laws designed to slow down the affluent’s abandonment of the traditional State system. It may, ironically, use net neutrality laws to slow down deployment of the advanced networks necessary for delivering services to taxpayers leaving the system. It will further reduce renewable energy subsidies to residents that generate electricity at their residences.
I don’t expect the State’s attempts at holding sovereign individuals hostage will be successful. The attempts will invalidate the State’s arguments that it represents democracy when the actions to squelch freedom are the furthest from the truth.
Mary Norwood and Keisha Lance Bottoms are heading for a run-off on 2 December if the polls hold out going in to today’s elections. Ms Norwood held the lead in the polls well into the late summer and early fall, but fortune has changed in favor of Ms Bottoms who has amassed a two percentage point lead over the woman who could potentially be Atlanta’s first white mayor since 1974.
Ms Bottoms’ change in fortune may be due in part to a surge in campaign donations. According to the Atlanta Business Chronicle, Ms Bottoms led all candidates in fund raising in October.
How much the “Vote the Black Slate” movement has contributed to Ms Bottoms’ surge is debatable. The desire on the part of Atlanta blacks, especially those living in the southwest sector of the city, is real to the point of palpable. While Ms Norwood’s amicable personality is pleasing to a lot of blacks (Full disclosure. I voted for her in 2009 partly for that reason), increase in support for Ms Bottoms is visible. Campaign signs supporting Ms Bottoms have sprouted up in many southwest Atlanta yards like grass after a solid rain.
If Ms Bottoms does come out the victor and continues current mayor Kasim Reed’s economic policies, her voters may find themselves experiencing further disappointment. I have lived in the southwest sector of Atlanta for over nine years. The wielding of political power via the vote has not brought poor blacks in the sector any more real capital or employment opportunities. Gentrification has brought young white couples into the neighborhood, but their capital may be spent elsewhere in the city as they head out to work in the morning and return in the evening. Their capital sees no value in the southwest.
The “Vote the Black Slate” movement may help boost the self esteem of Atlanta’s black elite. Another black mayor gives them something to talk about during homecoming games and cocktail parties. What it does for blacks with no capital is another issue.
All political systems get hacked. If you understood your nation’s history you would understand that its coming into existence was the result of a hack. You are too focused on the technology used today. Every 4th of July you celebrate the men that committed the first hack of the system and even they expected their newly created system subject to continuous hacking.
The real question is why would anyone attempt to hack a political system unless they believed the allocation of “justice” was not sufficient? Politics is about allocation of power. Whether the hackers are a bunch of slave-holding white boys in 1776, black and Jewish civil rights leaders in 1963, women’s lib protesters in 1972, or white nationalists in 2017, someone or some group is always hacking your system.
Maybe you should take a closer look at your system. It’s like driving a car that breaks down every ten miles. Sooner or later you have to figure out why.
The Wall Street Journal today reported that investors did a little flight to safety moving money from equities into the bond markets as a result of today’s federal indictment of Paul Manafort, the former campaign manager for President Donald J. Trump. The increased demand drove up bond prices while sending bond yields down.
According to The Journal, yields fell to 2.374% from 2.426% for the ten-year Treasury note. Investors believe that the indictment will divert Mr Trump and Congress’ attention from tax reform and other economic growth initiatives. As the investigation continues and hearings for Mr Manafort get on the way, investors probably believe that the Administration will be in denial and prevent mode between now and mid-terms.
I believe that this indictment alone should not engender this type of fear and that by tomorrow it may pass.
My more experienced litigation posse may confirm this, but you are supposed to make your strongest argument up front, and if your argument is that there was complicity between the Trump campaign and Russia but your indictment of the campaign manager doesn’t even include the word, “Russia”, something is wrong.
Maybe Shonda Rhimes wrote this indictment or is running this investigation. Maybe she wants Mueller to do a Perry Mason and build up to a dramatic finish at the end.
So far, however, failure to properly vet a campaign manager is not an impeachable offense although one could raise questions about the judgment of Mr Trump.
Maybe there is a surprise ending being written in this script, details forthcoming. In the meantime, I don’t see the Trump administration being overly distracted by this indictment. I expect them, however, to create a few more of their own as their inside the Beltway experience grows.