Net neutrality rules proceeded from a no value premise

Back in the early 1990s, a higher value was placed by the consumer on her use of the internet and the dial-up services that were used to access it. It was expensive paying either per use or per minute or hour or day depending on your AOL package. The analog telephone service sometime required additional toll fees to access online providers. You didn’t take for granted your time used to access or be online. You made a cost=benefit analysis regarding the time online and paid for the value of the information you retrieved.

Our perspective on value for being online has changed. We have gone from waiting till after 9 pm or weekends to make a long distance call in order to save on toll fees to having bundled wire or wireless services that have eliminated toll calling. You no longer wait minutes for a 100-page document. Such a document can be downloaded in and shared with others around the globe in seconds. Our appreciation for the cost of being online has fallen so low that a significant number of Americans believe that using online resources to transmit videos of singing cats has equal value to data containing vital procedures for surgery.

Net neutrality has spawned the delusion that democracy requires equal treatment of all traffic, no matter how mundane, non-substantive, or perverse. It is time to reverse this perversion by imputing a value component to online access and data exchange. A crucial first step toward bringing back value is the repeal of the Federal Communications Commission’s 2015 open internet order and the no-value rules that it created.

True network neutrality cannot occur if agreements on the pricing of the exchange of traffic are overseen by the federal government.  Content delivery networks, internet information portals, and broadband access providers should negotiate traffic exchange freely and allow their assessment of the value of traffic exchange determine price. These carriers have data on the value the consumer places on their content and access services and can design the proper price points for recovering costs and generating profits.

For the end-use consumer, a day of reckoning will occur. Will they meet the new demand for price recovery issued by content providers by paying higher prices?  Or will they spend less time on the internet? Some may see value by paying additional fees to content providers. For those who don’t, they will threaten to abandon internet networks or reduce the time spent on them. This will provide content and network providers to become innovative by providing tiers of services that give the consumer additional flexibility on payment and usage.

In the end, network neutrality won’t “destroy democracy” on the internet. To be technical, democracy is about choosing political leaders and until we have elections via the internet, the democracy argument is nonsense. What we will have, with the elimination of these rules, is a conduit of commerce being subjected to market rules voluntarily entered into by its participants.

 

West End Atlanta is a low value information commodity

Atlanta’s West End has no political power and appears to mirror the stagnant thinking of its representation on its city council. In the nine years that I have lived in the West End, I have yet to see how the power to “get what you want, when you want it, from who you want it from” has been applied to help its current citizens.

West End Atlanta should be the southwest version of Buckhead, especially given its proximity to City Hall, the downtown district, a MARTA transit station, and the airport. Instead, it’s the home of too many fast food restaurants, above average crime, and a high level of poverty. It doesn’t surprise me that West End’s city council member, Cleta Winslow, does not give the media interviews.  She would rightly be called to task about the state of poverty in her district. Not only the poverty, but the stagnation in mindset and lethargy in body language, the manifestation that stems from accepting less. It is very negative energy.

Blacks in West End give me the impression that they are just hanging around waiting to die.

If the 30310 zip code is going to improve, it won’t be as a result of current political leadership. After 23 years, Ms Winslow is merely a caretaker, or should I say undertaker. Individuals, particularly individuals of African American descent, are going to have to do this on their own.

One approach is to get more young, black producers to buy into the neighborhood. We need engineers and technologists to support and promote the attempts I see in the neighborhood to provide urban farming. The West End needs a self-contained political economy based on self-reliance.

Another, more important approach is to develop a tribal aspect to the West End’s social ordering. The West End needs to go from just a proclamation that “We here”, to an affirmation that, “We are here to stay. Let’s work.” The West End’s lack of progressiveness comes from a fear of being cohesive. This fear is a common thread running through most Black Americans. There is no conqueror mentality, just a “keep on, keeping on” mantra that adds to the lethargy of the West End’s inhabitants.

This attitude has made it easier for whites to gentrify the West End. It has been a slow and steady process. It is no shocker for me now to see mostly smiling white couples out walking their dogs or jogging along the Beltline while pushing a baby carriage. They are here, with conqueror mentality in tow.

In my title I asserted that the West End represents a low value information commodity. The West End Atlanta is low information value not simply because of the level of poverty, but because of the poor mindset and lack of cohesion. The most valuable information from the 30310 is that the area is wide open for plunder.

So far, so gloomy in Atlanta

Prior to today’s election, Mary Norwood was nursing a six percentage point lead over mayoral rival Keisha Lance Bottoms. That lead is compounded by the gloomy looking weather outside, although supporters holding campaign signs on the corner of Tenth Street and Peachtree this morning offset the cloudy day with their enthusiasms.

What kind of signal would a Mary Norwood win send to Atlanta? It would an indication that the city has changed demographically. As I was telling my Uber driver this morning while we sat at the corner of Tenth and Peachtree, Atlanta in 1985 was just black and white. Blacks didn’t live in Buckhead. We just visited Lenox Square Mall every now and then. We saw white people at work and that was about it. The phrase, “the city too busy to hate” really meant “Everyone has other things to do so we aren’t interested in hanging out together.” That phrase has fooled a lot of people looking at the city from the outside thinking that Atlanta was becoming a mecca for racial harmony.

Quite the opposite. “Too busy to hate” was merely a blueprint for a new kind of segregation, a blueprint that also served as a marketing scheme to attract more Yuppies and Buppies to the capital city of Georgia. It included a truce, that Blacks would enjoy the political privileges stemming from having a majority of the city’s voters while kept what was really most important: economic power.

The thing with political power based on the number of people with black skin is that even if that power can be passed down the nepotism chain to other people with black skin, it is only a matter of time before that power becomes diluted. As the demographics changes and the city became more diverse, the power base naturally became diluted by other groups that did not share either skin color or the struggle narrative as promoted by Atlanta’s political elite.

Not only did economic power stay with whites (and it is only reasonable to expect this), whites also distributed opportunities stemming from economic power to non-black groups typically under the argument that these groups brought more value because they had the high-tech skills a diversifying Atlanta economy needed.

If anything, this is where Atlanta’s black elite screwed up. The establishment types, led by old heads like John Lewis, never expressed any sophisticated knowledge about capital, finance, and technology. So immersed were they in continuing the 1950s and 1960s legacy of Martin Luther King and Ralph David Abernathy, that they didn’t appreciate changes in the domestic or global economy. So alluring was their Pied Piper flute playing, that the masses followed them over the cliff of complacency.

Now tonight, after a day of gloomy clouds, Black Atlanta faces a new uncertainty …

Why I have no problem with nationalism

Nationalism represents the freedom for a particular ethnic or cultural group to be and promote who and what they are. Americans, particular those on the left, play revisionist history when calling out so called white nationalists for expressing their need for separation. This country’s history is rife with “white nationalism” where Europeans cleared out indigenous occupants they found on the land and appropriated its natural resources in order to fuel Euro America’s expansion to the Pacific and beyond.

I sense Euro Americans have either an intellectual aversion to white nationalism or an indifference. I believe it is more indifference because given their dominant cultural status in the United States, it is a waste of time pondering on the alleged wrongs their ancestors carried out against indigenous tribes as well as against African tribes that they traded for and brought to the United States.

If Euro Americans believed that non-Europeans were their brothers and sisters under the eyes of God, then the mass atrocities Europeans carried out against indigenous American tribes and African tribes would never have happened. The atrocities were simple to carry out because Europeans convinced themselves that because of their technology, language, religion, skin color, and view of life, that they were better thus had the authority to carry out violence against these peoples.

The United States is simply Europe extended.

But given the brief argument I provided above, why then would I support nationalism? Didn’t I just make an argument about how unacceptable it is? The answer is no, I didn’t. European campaigns to conquer and occupy the North and South American continents were examples of human nature on steroids. Africans, Asians, and Europeans have varied histories of occupation and conquest. Europeans took their model of conquest and and nation building and went global. Indigenous American and African tribes are understandably upset that they lost tens of or even hundreds of millions of lives over a almost four century period of war, rape, and slavery, but in the end, just because these tribes were not capable of warding off the onslaught doesn’t mean that Europeans owe an apology. Rather, it means that these groups need to ask themselves what was it about self preservation that they did not understand then and today how best do we go about correcting it.

Progressives will respond that to address these past wrongs either all peoples should start to live as one, to put aside ethnic differences, to be human first or pay the descendants of the victims some form of reparations.  Neither approach will work.

First, the “we are all human” approach invites subjecting disadvantaged groups to a European standard. If we are all one people, then efficiency calls for a clear standard to follow and I don’t see a group of European descendants who control America’s wealth subjecting themselves to the socio-economic-political standards of the African Diaspora.

Nor will reparations work. First, Euro Americans will push back on the idea going as far as a tax revolt, something the United States could not afford. Even if reparations were approved, what would be the formula for doling out monies? What would be the criteria? Could Barack Obama collect just based on skin color even though there is no proof that any member of his lineage was a slave?

And what would the reparations be used for? Members of the African Diaspora have a higher propensity to consumer relative to Euro Americans. While there will be a huge spike in the United States’ gross domestic product, I don’t see any leadership calling for wealth building, something the African sorely needs.

If the African Diaspora is to achieve any real viability on the North American continent, it will have to embark on a fifty year plan that includes the creation and implementation of tribal values, separate and distinct from the dominant culture. The dominant culture’s values have not served the African Diaspora in America well. Members of the African Diaspora rank at the bottom of every major socio-economic indicator.  Members of the African Diaspora will have to accumulate natural resources, build an economy around those resources, and use broadband and the internet to engage in trade not only with other Diaspora members in North America but across the pond as well.

Nationalism should not be looked at as a hate agenda. That is an argument that nation-state promoters make, and one that I will address later this week. What nationalism does is ensure your survivability and uniqueness. Those who allegedly seek a diverse world within which to live need to come to terms with this reality.

Learning how to disconnect from the State’s political noise

It has been two months now since I got rid of cable. The noise out of Washington has gotten to be a bit much. Americans appear to be ever increasingly losing their minds over the man sitting in the Oval Office. In less than three years his critics in the electorate will have an opportunity to enter a ballot box near them and vote for someone else.

If engagement in the ballot box and with C-SPAN’s Washington Journal were so fruitful we would have less tension or at least fewer reports on Donald Trump. Social media would be quieter or at least focused on something hopefully less mind numbing (I know that’s a lot of hope.)

As the good people at Reason.com reported back in 2012, one’s vote, in the end doesn’t matter. Given that voting is about the most active political engagement most Americans will engage in, voting amounts to a colossal waste of time.  Citing work done by the National Bureau of Economic Research, of the one billion votes cast in 40,000 legislative elections between 1898 and 2001, only seven contests were decided by a single vote. There are higher payoffs from just about any other activity than voting.

And what does government provide that we feel so emotionally invested in calling each other names, not speaking to each other, or worse, unfriending people on Facebook? Not much for our tax dollar.

For example, do you like the state of your roads or other infrastructure? The American Society of Civil Engineers gave America’s roads, bridges, and ports a grade of “D+” in a 2017 survey. The score has stayed relatively the same for the last 20 years, and given Congress’ inability to fund budgets, especially the transportation portion, I believe that grade will be on the United States’ report card for awhile.

How about America’s education policies? Are policymakers effectively addressing how well the State educates kids? Well, no. Remember Common Core, the initiative detailing what children grades kindergarten through 12th grade should know at the end of each school year? While enthusiastically supported by a Republican and Democratic president, a report by the Brookings Institution in 2012 determined that the policy would have little to no impact on a student’s ability to learn.

The news isn’t so rosy on the collegiate level either. For all its equating of democracy to equality, Blacks and Latinos are equating democracy to a racial disparity in accessing college education. In a USA Today article citing statistics from the National Center for Education Statistics, it was reported that Blacks and Latinos, while enrolling in college on a relatively similar proportion as whites, were enrolling in for-profit schools and community colleges at a higher rate than whites. This is considered problematic, according to the article, because of complications surrounding financial aid.

These are just some examples of the State’s failure to deliver on the benefits that it promises to its “extended employees”, the constituents who vote for the politicians that promise the good schools, good roads, and bountiful opportunities. One would think that more Americans would disconnect from a government that hasn’t kept its word, but on the contrary, like the population who have endured abusive relationships, there is that small fraction of the population that somehow believe that abuse is love.

So how does one disconnect from the State’s political noise? First remember that you cannot avoid the State. The State influences you via its rules and statutes; its courts; the media; and the taxes it levies. You cannot violate its rules without bringing harm to yourself. Your actions should lead to maintenance and survivability of self and family; top optimize your sovereignty. Your goal is to minimize contact with the State and replace its “services” with services provided via voluntary, private arrangement.

A couple approaches that you may have already thought of. For example, avoid owning property. The State encourages its citizens to own property so that a nexus for taxation exists. Work hard to improve the value of your property and every year there is the State swooping in for its cut.

A mistake I made was having my son educated in State schools. If you can, educate your children at home. This way you can devote more time to inculcating life survival skills and critical thinking skills very early. Schools focus primarily on programming children for allegiance to the State’s values. An independent thinking, self-actualized child is one of the biggest threats to the State. Trust me. It’s not some teen-aged gang banger that the State is afraid of. The gang banger can be shot down and no one will raise a fuss.

Another approach, stop voting. Don’t feel bad about not going to the polls. First of all, you are not required to. As we discussed earlier, your vote doesn’t matter. More importantly, the tyranny of the masses that is democracy is fueled by the vote. Why further threaten your individual sovereignty by giving wanna be master any authority to write oppressive rules.

Finally, divorce yourself from government issued currency and form a trading community that uses a non-government issued currency, hopefully one backed by a natural resource. The Treasury issued, Federal Reserve Bank distributed currency is backed by  an economic infrastructure that may be working for some but not for the majority. The currency’s demand should be a reflection of the economy that lies behind it, one that is productive.

The new cyber society will see the poor pay more for government

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.