Bureaucratic Finger Pointing Over the Amtrak Crash

Even before the dead had been moved to the morgue, the Congressional Democrats were "ghoulishly" blaming Republicans for the the Amtrak crash.  They fault the GOP because they claim that funding delays were created when they didn't approve President' Obama's $300 billion infrastructure bill. They cite it as a direct cause of the accident.  But, in typical Democrat fashion, this was all a lie.

The first thing that disproved the infrastructure argument was when it was revealed that  the train engineer took that fatal turn at twice the speed recommended for that stretch of track.   Then, the Democrats shifted the argument by saying that, if the infrastructure spending bill had been approved,  a Positive Train Control (speed control) would have been installed on that train and the tragedy would have been avoided.

Really?

The truth is that the speed system was installed but not turned on.  Apparently, the blame for failing to activate it falls on the shoulders of Obama's Federal Communication Commission (FCC) who was dragging its heels at deciding which frequency the train control system could use.  But, the FCC is saying they already approved the frequency usage and the fault lies with Amtrak for not turning the system on.  Somehow, George W. Bush has avoided the blame on this one. At least for now.

Lying and CYA (covering Your a*s) seems to be alive and well in Washington D.C.  Does anyone really care about the lives that were lost and the people who were injured, or are we just taking advantage of another political opportunity?


References:

Speed Control Was Installed, Not On at Time of Amtrak Crash: http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2015/05/14/exclusive-train-control-was-installed-turned-off-at-time-of-amtrak-crash-congressmen-say


Are Republicans really to blame for fatal Amtrak crash? : http://www.marketwatch.com/story/are-republicans-really-to-blame-for-fatal-amtrak-crash-2015-05-15

Mr. Obama, We Don't Need FCC Regulation of the Internet

Those of us who are old enough to remember, know that it was the FCC regulation of long distance and international calling that led to the creation of a massive unionized and bloated monopoly called AT&T which stifled innovation and forced all of us to pay excessively high rates to make calls.  Billing rates during the business day in the 1970's, started at (if I remember correctly) 45 or 50 cents a minute with a 3-minute minimum charge.  Longer distance domestic calls were close to a dollar.  International calls were billed in dollars per minute.  I believe a call to Canada or Mexico cost something around $2 per minute with another 3-minute minimum. Calls to Europe started at $3/minute.  As long as AT&T had no competition and could ask for rate increases every few months and, get them approved by the FCC, there was no need to streamline their long distance and international calling business to lower the costs.

When AT&T was broken up and other long distance carriers like MCI and Sprint were allowed to freely compete without price regulation, the prices for phone calls dramatically dropped.  Today, you can make unlimited calls on many cellphones at what it would cost in 1970 to make just one 10-minute call.  That's because it would take nearly $6 in today's dollars to buy what $1 did in 1970.

Now, the President wants to regulate the Internet like a phone service.  We don't need to go backwards again in stifling competition through the regulation of an Internet that doesn't need regulation.  Every year,  providers are developing faster and faster upload/download speeds and, there is competition.  Today, in most areas of the country, you can purchase access to high-speed internet through almost every cellphone provider,  cable TV provider, and telephone company.  And, if you can't get that access through any of these outlets there is still low-speed dial-up services available.

Of course, Obama will argue that access isn't available on a universal basis, with many rural communities going without any high speed Internet. And, that's true.  It's true because it would cost 10's of thousands of dollars to provide the kind of wiring needed to serve a single farmhouse that is miles away from the local telephone company's servicing office.  But, that's what he wants and he wants us all to pay for Old McDonald getting high-speed Internet on his remote farm; which means higher costs for the rest of us.  Quite frankly, Old McDonald may not want the Internet or even own a computer or cellphone.

But, remote areas can get high-speed Internet today without Obama's help.  If they have 3G or 4G bars on a cellphone, they can also get mobile broadband access to the internet.   There are at least 4 Satellite Internet providers who will gladly sell service.  Also, there are all kinds of services in development on a private basis that could give remote rural access within months to just a few years.

First, there is Wide Area WiFi.  Currently these networks are being installed by local governments to give their police and firemen access as far as 3 miles away.  But, there is no reason that this service couldn't be implemented on a commercial basis.  Second, there is something called the AIR.U Project to provide Super WIFI Internet access.  Initially, this is a joint effort by Google and Microsoft to get Internet service to the 500 remote colleges and universities that don't have high speed connections.  Eventually, it is intended to serve all those who live in rural areas. Lastly, there is Project Loon by Google.  Loon involves launching stratospheric balloons that would carry the electronics necessary to give everyone on earth access to high speed Internet. 

The fact is that access to rural America (and the world!) is being driven by private enterprise.  We don't need the government to get involved.  Again, this is just another case where Obama wants the government to be involved in every aspect of our lives.


References:

Obama's plan to regulate the Internet would do more harm than good: http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/obamas-internet-rules-would-do-more-harm-than-good/2014/11/14/64a795d0-6b82-11e4-a31c-77759fc1eacc_story.html

Long Distance Rates For the Late Seventies and Early Eighties: http://ask.metafilter.com/211826/Long-Distance-Rates-For-the-Late-Seventies-and-Early-Eighties

Inflation Calculator: What a 1970 Dollar is Worth Today: http://www.westegg.com/inflation/

Lessons from the AT&T break up, 30 years later: http://www.techpolicydaily.com/communications/lessons-att-break-30-years-later/

Mobile Broadband: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_broadband

2015 Best Satellite Internet Service Reviews and Comparisons: http://satellite-internet-review.toptenreviews.com/

Local Governments Deploy Wide-Area Wi-Fi Networks:  http://www.computerworld.com/article/2565061/mobile-wireless/local-governments-deploy-wide-area-wi-fi-networks.html

Google, Microsoft team up to bring Super Wi-Fi to rural USA: http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/131810-google-microsoft-team-up-to-bring-super-wi-fi-to-rural-usa

Loon for All: http://www.google.com/loon/

Obama's Call For Net Neutrality: A Backdoor To Regulating The Internet

Do you remember who said those infamous words: "If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor."  Well, that same person is indirectly saying something similar about the Internet: "If you like your Internet, you can keep your Internet."  That's why, like the takeover of healthcare, Obama now wants the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to regulate the Internet.  His guise for doing so is something called "Network Neutrality" or, simply, "Net Neutrality".

So, what is Net Neutrality?  Well, the supporters of it, would tell you that it is needed to insure that the internet remains free (as in freedom of speech) and open (as in nothing gets blocked).

But, isn't it already free and open and, won't the free market place and competition keep it free and open in the future?  Why does a regulatory agency like the FCC need to take control of it?  Couldn't free speech and openness be guaranteed by the simple passage of a federal law that makes it a crime to control speech or content on the Internet?

There is a lot more to this than simply keeping the internet free and open.  Already, the President wants his appointed Federal Election Commission (FEC) to put a stop to political speech on sites like Drudge.  So, why not a two-pronged attack to do the same by having tThe FCC control speech on the internet in the same way it is controlled on the public airways for television and radio?  Probably arguing that political speech on the Internet should be balanced by applying something like the Fairness Doctrine.

As many have said, Net Neutrality is a solution looking for a problem.  Those saying that, don't understand that everything Obama does is politically motivated.  In his mind, Net Neutrality is an attempt to minimize as much conservative speech on the Internet as possible.

References:

President Obama calls on FCC to keep Internet 'free and open': http://www.cnet.com/news/president-obama-calls-on-fcc-to-keep-internet-free-and-open/

FCC coordinated net neutrality with outside [liberal] group: http://hotair.com/archives/2011/06/04/fcc-coordinated-net-neutrality-with-outside-group/

Federal Communications Commission: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Communications_Commission#Regulatory_powers_and_enforcement

Fairness Doctrine: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine

Limbaugh is Right, Net Neutrality Is An Attack On Free Speech -- So Why Is Comcast For It?: http://www.forbes.com/sites/frankminiter/2014/09/18/limbaugh-is-right-net-neutrality-is-an-attack-on-free-speech-so-why-is-comcast-for-it/

FEC Democrat pushes for controls on Internet political speech: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/oct/24/fec-democrat-pushes-controls-internet-political-sp/?page=all