So unless you've been living under a rock for the past year you saw ads regarding the switch to digital TV this past summer. These ads did not say it outright but the implication was that this was our government bringing us into the Digital Age with this change. They were even kind enough to subsidize around $40 for the cost of converter boxes for those people who didn't the necessary services or equipment to receive the new signals.
I realize your first thought is likely the same as many others, this program is to help people and so the government did a good thing, right? Wrong! How about we pull back the proverbial curtain and see what really went on and why this switch was done. I assure you it was not the altruistic gesture it was made out to be.
Here's what you likely didn't know and for some reason wasn't reported anywhere. Before this change there were several sets of bands for standard TV. These are regulated by the FCC and are similar to cordless phone frequencies, etc. They prevent these types of devices from causing interference with each other and therefore should be regulated. However, the DTV switch freed up these TV bands for use with other devices. But what you didn't hear is that these bands were actually freed up so that cell phone carriers could use them for the next generation of wireless services (4G) because these bands allowed a substantial increase in data rates. So phone customers could do things like surf the web and download larger amounts of data from the web much quicker and easier. Obviously this would be attarctive to any phone company wishing to offer their customers a faster connection to the web.
Since all phone companies would be interested in this the FCC had auctions for the various bands. And how much did the make at these auctions? 19.5 BILLION DOLLARS! Yes, that's BILLION with a B! Or better visualized $19,500,000,000. Yet for some reason this information was lost in the translation from auction house to the DTV feelgood commercials. And where did this money go you ask? Who knows. It was likely absorbed into the governmental black hole. Or in my opinion is likely being used now to help fund the push for Net-Nuetrality which I've written another blog about.
And to add insult to injury, remeber those $40 coupons they were so happy to give us to subsidize the cost of convertor boxes? Congress appropriated at least 1.3 BILLION DOLLARS of taxpayer money to fund the program!
So they subsedized a change that they forced on taxpayers with taxpayer money to make 19.5 BILLION DOLLARS which we never saw and most of us were unaware they even made. This is the kind of government BS that makes my blood boil!
Saturday, November 28, 2009
Sunday, October 25, 2009
Net Neutrality - An IT Right-winger's Take
I'm sure you've heard a lot about Net Neutrality lately. Well, I'll give you both sides of the argument and why I believe what I believe.
At a high-level Net Neutrality is a set of rules the FCC is attempting to enact which would force ISPs (Internet Service Providers) like Comcast, AT&T and Insight to allow all communications to flow freely to the Internet. This means that no applications or services would be given preferential treatment and that no sites or content can be blocked by the ISPs. An example of this is the recent move by several carriers to limit P2P (Peer to Peer) traffic since this traffic is most often used for illegal file sharing (think illegal music downloads).
Pro Net Neutrality
Those who are for NN believe that the Internet is and should be free from any restrictions such as the P2P throttling listed above. They believe that the Internet has become what it has because it has always been 'free' and open. In their opinion, the ISPs are attempting to implement a 'tiered service model' whereby they can charge users based on what services they use. This also gives ISPs too much control over what information crosses their network. To them, this stifles collaboration, innovation and of course freedom. Finally, they are also of the opinion that without NN several new or smaller online companies would be at a disadvantage and would be severely hampered in their ability to compete.
Against Net Neutrality
Those against NN claim that ISPs have no reason to severely restrict services and except for a few services have not done so to this point. Another major factor is the ISPs assertion that they have spent billions of dollars on their infrastructure to handle the ever growing Internet. They feel that it is unfair for them to spend such a substantial amount of money and then be told how and what they can or cannot allow on their networks. They also think that NN is trying to address a non-existent problem. It's their assertion that the Internet has become what it has because of the lack of heavy-handed government regulation.
My Take
When discussing NN, you will likely hear 'freedom' (or some iteration of) to describe it. On the surface it appears to be a good thing. Freedom is always a good thing right? In this case, no. In this case freedom for some equates to restricted freedoms for others.
To me, NN is essentially the redistribution of wealth by the government to be enacted on the Internet. How do I come to that conclusion? Well, equal access for everyone means there can be no tiered pricing by the ISPs. Why is that good? Think of it this way, if you have cable TV then you likely have many options for your service. If you like sports you may get the sports package for an additional fee. If you enjoy movies of a certain genre then you can add that package to your lienup for an additional fee. So in other words, you choose what you want and pay your provider accordingly. Almost all businesses operate under this model. Why should ISPs be any different?
The ISPs have spent a considerable amount of money to upgrade their networks. Why should they not be allowed to guarantee a return on their investment? Why should bureaucrats be in charge of telling them what they can or cannot do on their networks? This will simply lead to more government regulation, which in my opinion is always a bad thing. And call me paranoid but it doesn't seem too far of a jump between this and total Internet control. You may laugh but it's been my experience that when you let them get their foot in the door, the regulation only becomes more restrictive and either hampers the development of or more often fundamentally changes whatever is being regulated .
I'm sure detractors will say that this gives the big, bad carriers an unfair advantage and that they will be able to allow only the most wealthy among us to preferential access to the Internet. And that they will be able to throttle services and Internet content at their discretion. But what you won't hear is that just like any other business you are a customer of, you have choices. If your ISP slows down services or blocks content that you use often, then you can simply change ISPs. That is what is so great about our free market system. If you feel that you are not getting what you expect from companies you deal with, then you find a different company. To me, that is freedom!
At a high-level Net Neutrality is a set of rules the FCC is attempting to enact which would force ISPs (Internet Service Providers) like Comcast, AT&T and Insight to allow all communications to flow freely to the Internet. This means that no applications or services would be given preferential treatment and that no sites or content can be blocked by the ISPs. An example of this is the recent move by several carriers to limit P2P (Peer to Peer) traffic since this traffic is most often used for illegal file sharing (think illegal music downloads).
Pro Net Neutrality
Those who are for NN believe that the Internet is and should be free from any restrictions such as the P2P throttling listed above. They believe that the Internet has become what it has because it has always been 'free' and open. In their opinion, the ISPs are attempting to implement a 'tiered service model' whereby they can charge users based on what services they use. This also gives ISPs too much control over what information crosses their network. To them, this stifles collaboration, innovation and of course freedom. Finally, they are also of the opinion that without NN several new or smaller online companies would be at a disadvantage and would be severely hampered in their ability to compete.
Against Net Neutrality
Those against NN claim that ISPs have no reason to severely restrict services and except for a few services have not done so to this point. Another major factor is the ISPs assertion that they have spent billions of dollars on their infrastructure to handle the ever growing Internet. They feel that it is unfair for them to spend such a substantial amount of money and then be told how and what they can or cannot allow on their networks. They also think that NN is trying to address a non-existent problem. It's their assertion that the Internet has become what it has because of the lack of heavy-handed government regulation.
My Take
When discussing NN, you will likely hear 'freedom' (or some iteration of) to describe it. On the surface it appears to be a good thing. Freedom is always a good thing right? In this case, no. In this case freedom for some equates to restricted freedoms for others.
To me, NN is essentially the redistribution of wealth by the government to be enacted on the Internet. How do I come to that conclusion? Well, equal access for everyone means there can be no tiered pricing by the ISPs. Why is that good? Think of it this way, if you have cable TV then you likely have many options for your service. If you like sports you may get the sports package for an additional fee. If you enjoy movies of a certain genre then you can add that package to your lienup for an additional fee. So in other words, you choose what you want and pay your provider accordingly. Almost all businesses operate under this model. Why should ISPs be any different?
The ISPs have spent a considerable amount of money to upgrade their networks. Why should they not be allowed to guarantee a return on their investment? Why should bureaucrats be in charge of telling them what they can or cannot do on their networks? This will simply lead to more government regulation, which in my opinion is always a bad thing. And call me paranoid but it doesn't seem too far of a jump between this and total Internet control. You may laugh but it's been my experience that when you let them get their foot in the door, the regulation only becomes more restrictive and either hampers the development of or more often fundamentally changes whatever is being regulated .
I'm sure detractors will say that this gives the big, bad carriers an unfair advantage and that they will be able to allow only the most wealthy among us to preferential access to the Internet. And that they will be able to throttle services and Internet content at their discretion. But what you won't hear is that just like any other business you are a customer of, you have choices. If your ISP slows down services or blocks content that you use often, then you can simply change ISPs. That is what is so great about our free market system. If you feel that you are not getting what you expect from companies you deal with, then you find a different company. To me, that is freedom!
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Taxes via Proxy
A friend of mine recently posted on her FB account that she was frustrated with how much of her property taxes went to fund public education. Having no children she thought this was unfair which I completely agree with as I have no children myself. But, her post really got me thinking about all the taxes we pay. Especially those we pay via proxy.
Taxes via proxy, you ask. Yes, you do indeed have them. Simply review your water bill, electric bill, or gas bill. If you notice, you pay an education tax (and several others) in one form or another on all of these bills. Is this a mistake? Is it simply evil private businesses trying to increase their profits? No. This is what I like to refer to as 'taxes via proxy'.
Understand, this is nothing new. This has been going on as long as I have paid these bills. But I ask you, should this practice be allowed? Was there a law passed or legislation signed that allows this type of activity to go on? Or is it simply the government strong-arming private businesses to collect taxes that the government cannot (or more likely, does not) want to collect because they have already overburdened taxpayers directly and have to find ways to increase revenue (remember of course that they produce nothing and therefore their only income comes from taxpayers). My guess is it's not the former but rather the latter.
This seems to be to be the ultimate insult to both the taxpayer as well as the businesses. Are the businesses being subsidized to handle this additional workload? It's possible but highly unlikely. Are taxpayers really aware of this practice? Probably not, since most of us don't do a line item check of our bills. But that's what they're counting on. And even if you do check it's usually a seemingly small amount. Usually less than a dollar. But, if there are say 250,000 people in the county who pay .50 cents a month for 12 months, that equates to 1,500,000 dollars a year! Which to me is hardly chump change.
I could be wrong but absent the government, if one group of people forced another group of people to do this, I believe it would be called racketeering and would be punishable by federal charges and prison time. But since it's the government, it's simply business as usual and I'm sure no charges will be filed.
Taxes via proxy, you ask. Yes, you do indeed have them. Simply review your water bill, electric bill, or gas bill. If you notice, you pay an education tax (and several others) in one form or another on all of these bills. Is this a mistake? Is it simply evil private businesses trying to increase their profits? No. This is what I like to refer to as 'taxes via proxy'.
Understand, this is nothing new. This has been going on as long as I have paid these bills. But I ask you, should this practice be allowed? Was there a law passed or legislation signed that allows this type of activity to go on? Or is it simply the government strong-arming private businesses to collect taxes that the government cannot (or more likely, does not) want to collect because they have already overburdened taxpayers directly and have to find ways to increase revenue (remember of course that they produce nothing and therefore their only income comes from taxpayers). My guess is it's not the former but rather the latter.
This seems to be to be the ultimate insult to both the taxpayer as well as the businesses. Are the businesses being subsidized to handle this additional workload? It's possible but highly unlikely. Are taxpayers really aware of this practice? Probably not, since most of us don't do a line item check of our bills. But that's what they're counting on. And even if you do check it's usually a seemingly small amount. Usually less than a dollar. But, if there are say 250,000 people in the county who pay .50 cents a month for 12 months, that equates to 1,500,000 dollars a year! Which to me is hardly chump change.
I could be wrong but absent the government, if one group of people forced another group of people to do this, I believe it would be called racketeering and would be punishable by federal charges and prison time. But since it's the government, it's simply business as usual and I'm sure no charges will be filed.
Sunday, October 18, 2009
Some Helpful Safety Advice
As you are likely well aware, hackers are constantly changing their tactics to increase their chances of infecting you with malicious code or stealing your personal information. The purpose of this post is to let you know some of the most common tactics currently being employed and how you can protect yourself.
The most common one is compromising legitimate sites. This is when hackers add malicious code to legitimate websites. This takes advantage of the fact that people believe if they know a website then it must be safe, right? Wrong. But I have posted a link below to a free tool from McAfee called Site Advisor. While this (and no) tool will be a silver bullet of protection it help you surf more confidently.
http://www.siteadvisor.com/download/windows.html
Another common tactic is sending emails claiming to be updates from Microsoft, Adobe, Office, etc. Always remember that no legitimate companies should send you unsolicited emails with updates for their software. If you receive an email like that, delete it! If you believe an update is needed simply go to their site and update your software from their website.
Similar to the paragraph above remember that your bank, EBay, PayPal, Amazon, etc. will not send you an unsolicited email requesting information like your user name, password, credit card info or any personal info like you SS number. They should already have this information. If you believe the request is legitimate, call the company or go to their website on your own. Do not click on a link within an email. It is trivially easy to make a link seem like it's going one place when it's actually going somewhere else.
Stolen user names and passwords for online banking have become a huge money maker for criminals. So big in fact that some of the software designed to steal your information can actually do it while you are logged into your online banking. This is accomplished by silently hijacking your session and changing the information real-time. So essentially, when you log in and say pay a bill, you say you want to pay $50 to someone. That information is intercepted changed to $500 and paid to a criminal instead of your intended payee. Yet, because the transaction is hijacked the information sent back to you indicates that you paid the $50 and everything seems fine. Scary, I know. But, don't fret there is software out there that will protect you from this as well as many other Internet threats. I have a link to the software below. It's called Rapport and it's free to customers of certain banks. Central Bank in Lexington is offering it free to customers and non-customers. Non-customers need to manually protect their bank's website but CB customers are protected automatically.
This software protects against a myriad of threats and assumes your PC is infected with spyware even if it is not.
https://www.centralbank.com/news/rapportsoftwareprotectsyoufromonlinethreats
Since this is my first post, I will stop here but I will post helpful information from time to time to help you better protect yourself online.
The most common one is compromising legitimate sites. This is when hackers add malicious code to legitimate websites. This takes advantage of the fact that people believe if they know a website then it must be safe, right? Wrong. But I have posted a link below to a free tool from McAfee called Site Advisor. While this (and no) tool will be a silver bullet of protection it help you surf more confidently.
http://www.siteadvisor.com/download/windows.html
Another common tactic is sending emails claiming to be updates from Microsoft, Adobe, Office, etc. Always remember that no legitimate companies should send you unsolicited emails with updates for their software. If you receive an email like that, delete it! If you believe an update is needed simply go to their site and update your software from their website.
Similar to the paragraph above remember that your bank, EBay, PayPal, Amazon, etc. will not send you an unsolicited email requesting information like your user name, password, credit card info or any personal info like you SS number. They should already have this information. If you believe the request is legitimate, call the company or go to their website on your own. Do not click on a link within an email. It is trivially easy to make a link seem like it's going one place when it's actually going somewhere else.
Stolen user names and passwords for online banking have become a huge money maker for criminals. So big in fact that some of the software designed to steal your information can actually do it while you are logged into your online banking. This is accomplished by silently hijacking your session and changing the information real-time. So essentially, when you log in and say pay a bill, you say you want to pay $50 to someone. That information is intercepted changed to $500 and paid to a criminal instead of your intended payee. Yet, because the transaction is hijacked the information sent back to you indicates that you paid the $50 and everything seems fine. Scary, I know. But, don't fret there is software out there that will protect you from this as well as many other Internet threats. I have a link to the software below. It's called Rapport and it's free to customers of certain banks. Central Bank in Lexington is offering it free to customers and non-customers. Non-customers need to manually protect their bank's website but CB customers are protected automatically.
This software protects against a myriad of threats and assumes your PC is infected with spyware even if it is not.
https://www.centralbank.com/news/rapportsoftwareprotectsyoufromonlinethreats
Since this is my first post, I will stop here but I will post helpful information from time to time to help you better protect yourself online.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
