Triond - Log in to Start Publishing Your Writing Online
Shared via AddThis
Tuesday, June 9, 2009
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
Redesign Health Care system using modern technology and health care business model
As long as we're questioning the astounding growth in health care costs, let's get a discussion of WHY out in front.
More new drugs coming to market, all for symptom relief, virtually none for cures. Does that strike you oddly?
It does me.
And considering that the side effects of many of these drugs are more threatening than the underlying disease, why do we -the FDA, Congress, us as Citizens, continue to allow conditions, programs and processes that are so obviously at the expense of the American public, the health care consumers like the retired and disabled?
Everybody in the health "food chain" blames the other guy; remember the old criminal defense, "SODDIT" (Some Other Dude Did IT)? When nobody takes responsibility, nothing gets done. The one "cure" that almost everybody with a vested interest seems to agree on is some version of Universal Health Care, with"Uncle" paying the bills.
That won't work, just drives up costs. And we can't keep saying the government (meaning taxpayers) just has to pay for it. It is only when we get individual responsibility for health care decisions and personal responsibility that we will get the system under control.
As long as somebody else pays, everybody wants a piece, and the bigger the better. Lots of people remember when "insurance" meant just that-you paid your premiums, the insurer paid the bills. What went wrong? Lots of people can add, and the cost of a family of four health premium on average is up to $8000.00 a year, in some areas and groups, up to $12,000, even more.
Who can pay these ridiculous premiums, and then have to pay deductibles and have caps on benefits even after all that? How much individual care would that $8,000 buy if consumers made the decisions? I'll bet if we gave consumers the chance it would surprise us, as long as the delivery system were structured along modern designs.
Yes, the "health denial" system needs reform; yes, there is a structure which would use free market economics to control cost, while INCREASING the quality of health care and delivery.
And, how about still using mostly hundred-year-old infrastructure in the health care industry, when we have a new twenty-first century capability to deliver more, for less. (If the Internet and Computer industry changed at the same rate as the medical industry, we'd still be using Abacus, sheepskins and quills)
And, if the system were restructured, doctors might welcome Medicaid and Medicare (Universal care) patients, rather than finding ways to "beat" the system to get paid. We can do better; we must, if the system is to survive for all of us.
America spends more on health care than any other country, yet ranks 12th to 15th in Quality of Care and in overall ranking. How can that make sense?
Throwing more taxpayer money at the problems is just not going to work without consumer-driven reforms.There is a solution that would work, if we can get past the "whose ox is being gored" phenomenon.
Here it is.
First, nationalize the Health Insurance industry, or make them part of the restructuring process by integrating insurance with the health care delivery process through ownership of health care facilities. Insurers collect hundreds of Billions of dollars in premiums and huge profits for managing the claims process and making non-medical coverage decisions, some unfairly, some efficiently, if not considerately.
Second, change the delivery of health Care by instituting a national system of privately-owned walk-in clinics, utilizing accepted national standards of health care, and staffed mostly by fully trained and licensed Registered and Practical nurses, along with salaried medical professionals, including an Internists or GPs, a Pediatricians, and an OB/Gyns. These folks would be rewarded by typical private business incentives like profit sharing, bonuses and so on, based on typical health care measurement standards like outcomes, quantitative and qualitative standards of health status
In areas where privately owned clinics do not choose to operate, and there should be few of these considering the profit potential, government-sponsored clinics with salaried professionals would practice. It is not hard to budget this approach since all the logistics are known(number of people to be served per clinic, square footage and equipment needed, minimum staffing requirements).
These are NOT hospitals, but clinics who can take advantage of the volume of "customers" to achieve economies of scale. Since these clinics are the "first line" in health care, they would be the emergency centers as well, able to diagnose conditions, and forward patients to hospitals as necessary. This would be the Intake point-of-contact for indigents, immigrants and others, whose use of high-cost emergency care in place of doctors or other medical alternatives are a significant upward cost driver. This would also be a good place to initiate home country bill-back for care of illegals. No refusal of care, just a better method of delivering needed care, and a way to make someone responsible for the cost.
What happens to the existing Doctor/Specialty Practice/hospital integrated system? It gets changed to accommodate the needs of twenty-first century health care business models. In the transition, the existing medical infrastructure must change to accommodate the new. There may be much crying, and gnashing to teeth, and huge lobbyist expenditures to preserve the status quo.
The status quo doesn't work.
Full-service hospitals would handle true emergencies like heart attacks, accidents, major incidents that require trained staff professionals to handle, and surgeries, Intensive Care, and the other things that hospitals are equipped to do.
Future hospital designs and remodeling of existing facilities could incorporate the walk-in model, could even take over the walk-in model if they were properly restructured. The idea here is to lower the cost of Intake and Management through lower-cost operations and overhead, while at the same time increasing efficiency to handle the required well-person maintenance.
Three. Alternatively, as noted above, existing hospitals could be formally restructured to become part of the Well Person management and Intake process. However, hospitals cannot be allowed to use their traditional, high-cost model of Operations and Administration to set rates; rates must be set on the Clinic Intake model, even if at a later stage, patients are admitted for tests, procedures and surgeries that would more likely have the higher costs associated with them.
The concept and business model is to introduce the efficiencies of a large -scale care business model, and modern technologies that such a structure would virtually force into the marketplace, computer aided procedures, even including computer-aided diagnoses models. Modern medical technology applied at the Intake point of contact with the health care consumer would and should, revolutionize the industry, to the substantial betterment of the health care consumer.
(It should be noted here that one of the most talked about Cloud Computing applications includes medical devices for home use that monitor, measure and manage a consumer's everyday health care, even providing Alerts when conditions exceed established standards. More on this another time).
If we consider that a "tiered" health care system offers real efficiency, while devoting the level and capability of resources when and as needed, we could provide more healthcare with less expense. At the very least, more people would get health advice and annual check-ups at overall costs that would allow more eligible people to be covered. Since the current system is forced to deal with the effects of demands of high-cost care from uninsured, and underinsured consumers, the opportunity for better care, more consistently, at lesser cost, is overwhelming.
The current system uses the highest cost care model, at all levels of intake, which obviously makes little sense. The current, practice-based medical business model, along with the unreasonable cost of using highest cost- determination model of care- the hospital complex-can be restructured to the "best practices" medical business model, delivering better care, to more people, at lower per-patient and overall annual and continuing costs.
Current health care practices, primarily the insurance costs, are in reality a "tax" on each of us, a huge tax and cost not justified by the social and economic needs for health care by American Citizens. This restructuring of the system, at the outset, would incur some expense, primarily during the transition to tiered care, and the building of the infrastructure. But, rapidly, the cost per patient, and the continuing cost of care provision would decline as better health care outcomes, reduced undiagnosed disease and well-person maintenance programs become part of the mainstream.
Some back of the envelope calculations indicate that consumers could pay out-of-pocket for all normal costs like Annual Health Checkups, Over-The-Counter medicines, and most prescription medicines, as well as pay a nominal amount for Catastrophic Care Coverage, and have several thousand dollars left over. Right now, healthy people pay for sick, insured pay for uninsured, and the system doesn't work.
If you believe that access to affordable health care is a Citizen's right, then the system has to be restructured.
This is one way.
As part of the restructuring and provisioning of care, require/suggest that EVERY person in the U.S. who is a Citizen gets an annual physical through the clinics. This process would enable early intervention when intervention-type care could be most needed, providing "well-person" health advice, looking at a person's or child's health and discerning conditions or changes that the person might not have noticed, or whom would benefit from this type of health care advice.
Clinics would be the perfect place for health care counseling regarding diet, family planning, and all the things that medical professionals agree would mitigate, even help prevent, the rapidly growing numbers and kinds of conditions and diseases that are affecting our society.
More new drugs coming to market, all for symptom relief, virtually none for cures. Does that strike you oddly?
It does me.
And considering that the side effects of many of these drugs are more threatening than the underlying disease, why do we -the FDA, Congress, us as Citizens, continue to allow conditions, programs and processes that are so obviously at the expense of the American public, the health care consumers like the retired and disabled?
Everybody in the health "food chain" blames the other guy; remember the old criminal defense, "SODDIT" (Some Other Dude Did IT)? When nobody takes responsibility, nothing gets done. The one "cure" that almost everybody with a vested interest seems to agree on is some version of Universal Health Care, with"Uncle" paying the bills.
That won't work, just drives up costs. And we can't keep saying the government (meaning taxpayers) just has to pay for it. It is only when we get individual responsibility for health care decisions and personal responsibility that we will get the system under control.
As long as somebody else pays, everybody wants a piece, and the bigger the better. Lots of people remember when "insurance" meant just that-you paid your premiums, the insurer paid the bills. What went wrong? Lots of people can add, and the cost of a family of four health premium on average is up to $8000.00 a year, in some areas and groups, up to $12,000, even more.
Who can pay these ridiculous premiums, and then have to pay deductibles and have caps on benefits even after all that? How much individual care would that $8,000 buy if consumers made the decisions? I'll bet if we gave consumers the chance it would surprise us, as long as the delivery system were structured along modern designs.
Yes, the "health denial" system needs reform; yes, there is a structure which would use free market economics to control cost, while INCREASING the quality of health care and delivery.
And, how about still using mostly hundred-year-old infrastructure in the health care industry, when we have a new twenty-first century capability to deliver more, for less. (If the Internet and Computer industry changed at the same rate as the medical industry, we'd still be using Abacus, sheepskins and quills)
And, if the system were restructured, doctors might welcome Medicaid and Medicare (Universal care) patients, rather than finding ways to "beat" the system to get paid. We can do better; we must, if the system is to survive for all of us.
America spends more on health care than any other country, yet ranks 12th to 15th in Quality of Care and in overall ranking. How can that make sense?
Throwing more taxpayer money at the problems is just not going to work without consumer-driven reforms.There is a solution that would work, if we can get past the "whose ox is being gored" phenomenon.
Here it is.
First, nationalize the Health Insurance industry, or make them part of the restructuring process by integrating insurance with the health care delivery process through ownership of health care facilities. Insurers collect hundreds of Billions of dollars in premiums and huge profits for managing the claims process and making non-medical coverage decisions, some unfairly, some efficiently, if not considerately.
Second, change the delivery of health Care by instituting a national system of privately-owned walk-in clinics, utilizing accepted national standards of health care, and staffed mostly by fully trained and licensed Registered and Practical nurses, along with salaried medical professionals, including an Internists or GPs, a Pediatricians, and an OB/Gyns. These folks would be rewarded by typical private business incentives like profit sharing, bonuses and so on, based on typical health care measurement standards like outcomes, quantitative and qualitative standards of health status
In areas where privately owned clinics do not choose to operate, and there should be few of these considering the profit potential, government-sponsored clinics with salaried professionals would practice. It is not hard to budget this approach since all the logistics are known(number of people to be served per clinic, square footage and equipment needed, minimum staffing requirements).
These are NOT hospitals, but clinics who can take advantage of the volume of "customers" to achieve economies of scale. Since these clinics are the "first line" in health care, they would be the emergency centers as well, able to diagnose conditions, and forward patients to hospitals as necessary. This would be the Intake point-of-contact for indigents, immigrants and others, whose use of high-cost emergency care in place of doctors or other medical alternatives are a significant upward cost driver. This would also be a good place to initiate home country bill-back for care of illegals. No refusal of care, just a better method of delivering needed care, and a way to make someone responsible for the cost.
What happens to the existing Doctor/Specialty Practice/hospital integrated system? It gets changed to accommodate the needs of twenty-first century health care business models. In the transition, the existing medical infrastructure must change to accommodate the new. There may be much crying, and gnashing to teeth, and huge lobbyist expenditures to preserve the status quo.
The status quo doesn't work.
Full-service hospitals would handle true emergencies like heart attacks, accidents, major incidents that require trained staff professionals to handle, and surgeries, Intensive Care, and the other things that hospitals are equipped to do.
Future hospital designs and remodeling of existing facilities could incorporate the walk-in model, could even take over the walk-in model if they were properly restructured. The idea here is to lower the cost of Intake and Management through lower-cost operations and overhead, while at the same time increasing efficiency to handle the required well-person maintenance.
Three. Alternatively, as noted above, existing hospitals could be formally restructured to become part of the Well Person management and Intake process. However, hospitals cannot be allowed to use their traditional, high-cost model of Operations and Administration to set rates; rates must be set on the Clinic Intake model, even if at a later stage, patients are admitted for tests, procedures and surgeries that would more likely have the higher costs associated with them.
The concept and business model is to introduce the efficiencies of a large -scale care business model, and modern technologies that such a structure would virtually force into the marketplace, computer aided procedures, even including computer-aided diagnoses models. Modern medical technology applied at the Intake point of contact with the health care consumer would and should, revolutionize the industry, to the substantial betterment of the health care consumer.
(It should be noted here that one of the most talked about Cloud Computing applications includes medical devices for home use that monitor, measure and manage a consumer's everyday health care, even providing Alerts when conditions exceed established standards. More on this another time).
If we consider that a "tiered" health care system offers real efficiency, while devoting the level and capability of resources when and as needed, we could provide more healthcare with less expense. At the very least, more people would get health advice and annual check-ups at overall costs that would allow more eligible people to be covered. Since the current system is forced to deal with the effects of demands of high-cost care from uninsured, and underinsured consumers, the opportunity for better care, more consistently, at lesser cost, is overwhelming.
The current system uses the highest cost care model, at all levels of intake, which obviously makes little sense. The current, practice-based medical business model, along with the unreasonable cost of using highest cost- determination model of care- the hospital complex-can be restructured to the "best practices" medical business model, delivering better care, to more people, at lower per-patient and overall annual and continuing costs.
Current health care practices, primarily the insurance costs, are in reality a "tax" on each of us, a huge tax and cost not justified by the social and economic needs for health care by American Citizens. This restructuring of the system, at the outset, would incur some expense, primarily during the transition to tiered care, and the building of the infrastructure. But, rapidly, the cost per patient, and the continuing cost of care provision would decline as better health care outcomes, reduced undiagnosed disease and well-person maintenance programs become part of the mainstream.
Some back of the envelope calculations indicate that consumers could pay out-of-pocket for all normal costs like Annual Health Checkups, Over-The-Counter medicines, and most prescription medicines, as well as pay a nominal amount for Catastrophic Care Coverage, and have several thousand dollars left over. Right now, healthy people pay for sick, insured pay for uninsured, and the system doesn't work.
If you believe that access to affordable health care is a Citizen's right, then the system has to be restructured.
This is one way.
As part of the restructuring and provisioning of care, require/suggest that EVERY person in the U.S. who is a Citizen gets an annual physical through the clinics. This process would enable early intervention when intervention-type care could be most needed, providing "well-person" health advice, looking at a person's or child's health and discerning conditions or changes that the person might not have noticed, or whom would benefit from this type of health care advice.
Clinics would be the perfect place for health care counseling regarding diet, family planning, and all the things that medical professionals agree would mitigate, even help prevent, the rapidly growing numbers and kinds of conditions and diseases that are affecting our society.
Monday, December 29, 2008
Free Speech Isn't, and Shouldn't Be
First Amendment to the Constitution
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Pretty simple, right?
Yet hundreds of court judgements, similar amounts of Supreme Court reviews and Opinion (why is it an Opinion, not a Final Order?) affirming, modifying, declaring, opining, and other descriptive terms point towards the continuing need for affirmation of Free Speech as a bedrock component of Democracy, at least as practiced here in the U.S.
Now comes the recent case involving the woman who masqueraded as a boy, terrorizing a young girl, deliberately intending to harm the girl through SPEECH, with, some folks claim, direct responsibility for the young girl's suicide. The woman was found guilty, and may face jail time; some feel that she should get life for what she did, and caused. The way the woman was found out was through inspection of the girl's computer and Chat activity, and tracking down the woman.
In Maryland, a lawsuit for damages is pending, waiting for a decision on whether an Anonymous web site poster may be identified for purposes of legal action for damages, originating from claimed defamation. Other cases either resolved in determining identification, or still pending, attempt to argue that Anonymous speech is inherent in the right of Free Speech, constitutionally protected.
I don't think so.
The Right of Free Speech, in my opinion, carries the concurrent right and responsibility to "claim your speech" as well.
Why? Because the Founding Fathers contemplated the absolute right to petition the government, in whatever forum, at the time town center speeches and postings, "cry outs" in meetings, articles and letters in newspapers, and literally every way possible to let a voice be heard, and protected in the process, even encouraged. The Founding Fathers occasioned the founding of United States as a result of Free Speech activities, considering that our founding was precipitate upon the ability to create speech in the form of a government expressing self-determination, with, for instance, the Vote being a form of speech.
In the Maryland case, anonymous Internet posters claimed that plaintiff's business, an eating establishment, was dirty, unsanitary, polluted the area, and more. The web host, a newspaper publisher, defends the poster's anonymity as a Free Speech right. Plaintiff claims that without knowing the Anonymous poster, truth, motive, intent are open. Plaintiff's harm may be substantial; poster's claims untruthful, defamation may have occurred.
While the court decision is Pending, my hope is that the poster's identity will be revealed. I feel that Anonymous posting offers the opportunity for free speech to be used in "evil pursuit," at least as far as potential harm to people is concerned. The American system of justice must protect Speech of all types, be it whistle blower evidencing government, corporate or Citizen misdeed., or Citizens expressing Opinion of politicians, institution, or commerce.
The need for and right to Anonymity stops at the point where untruth, defamation, or other damage occurs, giving civil right to those harmed to pursue civil damages, as prescribed by law. Whether in actuality untruth is claimed, harm is caused, monetary damages are justified, al all to resolved in a Civil Court, and rightly so.
"Juries can most easily determine the fairness of a thing, and the rightful outcome."
In essence, we must take responsibility for our speech, and be protected in the Right to present speech. Our responsibility extends to accepting the consequences for our actions, when necessary.
"There is little Truth in perception or in subjectivity; Truth reveals itself in the examination of the facts."
"If you must speak, declare publicly, be known for your portrayal, be confident in your righteousness. Let those who disagree debate publicly as well, with vigor and similar righteousness. Let the public decide the right of it all."
The Constitution provides for the protection of Speech, and provides for the responsibility of Government to vigorously, energetically, and constantly be alert for the need to protect Speech, both it's Right, and Responsibilities.
It's one thing to opine that a politician reminds you of a Groundhog, only sticking his head up to see what the weather is like; it's another to suggest Anonymously that he collects bribes for constructing the burrow. In the first instance satirical humor is offered, in the second, a claim of criminal conduct requires the identification of the poster if the politician claims damages, AND if the poster is the only Proof of the claim.
Similarly, it's one thing to Anonymously claim that a MySpace Friend really isn't, diddles your boys and girls, has HIV, or other claims which are false, and defamatory. The Accused must be able to confront the Accuser, and our system of justice demands an avenue of redress; I suggest must even assist in the pursuit of redress, such responsibility inherent in providing a Guaranteed right of Free Speech.
The Constitution provides for the right of the Accused to confront their Accuser. The government, at the instance of prosecution, even discovery, acquires the absolute responsibility to protect the accuser.
In this country let no man be afraid to stake his claim to opportunity, nor be afraid of declaring the same; let no auspice of government interfere, but protect equally.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Pretty simple, right?
Yet hundreds of court judgements, similar amounts of Supreme Court reviews and Opinion (why is it an Opinion, not a Final Order?) affirming, modifying, declaring, opining, and other descriptive terms point towards the continuing need for affirmation of Free Speech as a bedrock component of Democracy, at least as practiced here in the U.S.
Now comes the recent case involving the woman who masqueraded as a boy, terrorizing a young girl, deliberately intending to harm the girl through SPEECH, with, some folks claim, direct responsibility for the young girl's suicide. The woman was found guilty, and may face jail time; some feel that she should get life for what she did, and caused. The way the woman was found out was through inspection of the girl's computer and Chat activity, and tracking down the woman.
In Maryland, a lawsuit for damages is pending, waiting for a decision on whether an Anonymous web site poster may be identified for purposes of legal action for damages, originating from claimed defamation. Other cases either resolved in determining identification, or still pending, attempt to argue that Anonymous speech is inherent in the right of Free Speech, constitutionally protected.
I don't think so.
The Right of Free Speech, in my opinion, carries the concurrent right and responsibility to "claim your speech" as well.
Why? Because the Founding Fathers contemplated the absolute right to petition the government, in whatever forum, at the time town center speeches and postings, "cry outs" in meetings, articles and letters in newspapers, and literally every way possible to let a voice be heard, and protected in the process, even encouraged. The Founding Fathers occasioned the founding of United States as a result of Free Speech activities, considering that our founding was precipitate upon the ability to create speech in the form of a government expressing self-determination, with, for instance, the Vote being a form of speech.
In the Maryland case, anonymous Internet posters claimed that plaintiff's business, an eating establishment, was dirty, unsanitary, polluted the area, and more. The web host, a newspaper publisher, defends the poster's anonymity as a Free Speech right. Plaintiff claims that without knowing the Anonymous poster, truth, motive, intent are open. Plaintiff's harm may be substantial; poster's claims untruthful, defamation may have occurred.
While the court decision is Pending, my hope is that the poster's identity will be revealed. I feel that Anonymous posting offers the opportunity for free speech to be used in "evil pursuit," at least as far as potential harm to people is concerned. The American system of justice must protect Speech of all types, be it whistle blower evidencing government, corporate or Citizen misdeed., or Citizens expressing Opinion of politicians, institution, or commerce.
The need for and right to Anonymity stops at the point where untruth, defamation, or other damage occurs, giving civil right to those harmed to pursue civil damages, as prescribed by law. Whether in actuality untruth is claimed, harm is caused, monetary damages are justified, al all to resolved in a Civil Court, and rightly so.
"Juries can most easily determine the fairness of a thing, and the rightful outcome."
In essence, we must take responsibility for our speech, and be protected in the Right to present speech. Our responsibility extends to accepting the consequences for our actions, when necessary.
"There is little Truth in perception or in subjectivity; Truth reveals itself in the examination of the facts."
"If you must speak, declare publicly, be known for your portrayal, be confident in your righteousness. Let those who disagree debate publicly as well, with vigor and similar righteousness. Let the public decide the right of it all."
The Constitution provides for the protection of Speech, and provides for the responsibility of Government to vigorously, energetically, and constantly be alert for the need to protect Speech, both it's Right, and Responsibilities.
It's one thing to opine that a politician reminds you of a Groundhog, only sticking his head up to see what the weather is like; it's another to suggest Anonymously that he collects bribes for constructing the burrow. In the first instance satirical humor is offered, in the second, a claim of criminal conduct requires the identification of the poster if the politician claims damages, AND if the poster is the only Proof of the claim.
Similarly, it's one thing to Anonymously claim that a MySpace Friend really isn't, diddles your boys and girls, has HIV, or other claims which are false, and defamatory. The Accused must be able to confront the Accuser, and our system of justice demands an avenue of redress; I suggest must even assist in the pursuit of redress, such responsibility inherent in providing a Guaranteed right of Free Speech.
The Constitution provides for the right of the Accused to confront their Accuser. The government, at the instance of prosecution, even discovery, acquires the absolute responsibility to protect the accuser.
In this country let no man be afraid to stake his claim to opportunity, nor be afraid of declaring the same; let no auspice of government interfere, but protect equally.
Sunday, November 30, 2008
net Neutrality will limit content Choices
As we move closer and closer to the realization that Internet is a Utility, then we must realize that usage-based pricing must prevail. Combined with open access to Content providers, this will finally allow consumers to be the determining factor in fair and reasonable pricing.
When consumers can select Content a la carte, and choose the provider based on the best "value package" combination of pricing and Content selection, then true net neutrality is achieved. Anything less is just more industry control. But, not forcing the FCC to adopt reasonable Access rules, including reasonable pricing, will only achieve more industry control of pricing.
Industry-cable and telco, and now wireless- have always had reasons to be restrictive in Access.
No more.
Wireless provides one avenue to deliver Content with full bandwidth and consumer choice.Usage-based pricing, if determinedly regulated open access to Content providers is insured, offers the best chance for consumers to get the widest choice of Content at the most reasonable price.
We've too long allowed cable and telco to restrict access. Forcing separation of Content and Infrastructure, as we did with TV in the 60's, opens up the possibility of greater Content choices for less cost to consumers. If you believe that Anything, Anytime, Anywhere is the grail of Consumers regarding usage and content; that a Universal Connect Appliance is coming, then it must follow that usage-based pricing with reasonable access open to Content providers of all stripes, is the best way to ensure maximization of satisfaction.
Industry should be required to take reasonable risks for reasonable rates of return, that's a free market system. The jumble of monopolies and regulatory favoritism must cease in respect of open access.
Since when did we decide to reduce risk for industry by providing regulated monopolies(actually over 30 years ago), in favor of overcharging consumers(some $200 Billion plus-that's Billions with a big "B" folks-since the eighties)?
Would the cable industry have never gotten started without monopolies to reduce risk and insure profits? Sure they would have!
In most other countries, governments did not provide subsidies to build, favorable tax rates and so on, but we did here. That's not a free-market-based system, it is a system of politically rewarding a chosen few, whereas open competition would have led to more choices much earlier than today.
Even allowing for the political atmosphere of wanting to encourage cable build-outs to service consumers, cable has long ago recovered their investment, and lots more! Fourteen other countries have greater Internet broadband penetration, most at less cost!
We can, and must force open access for Content, separate Content from infrastructure provisioning, and develop a business model that is usage based.
Some of us remember that the early days of TV were a problem for TV Content providers, who didn't have an audience until someone bought a TV. When TV penetration became widespread, then Content competition created channels, choices for consumers.
There are obvious lessons for the current Content industry, including communications, entertainment, business, education, health and more. There are great opportunities for Content competition, greater consumer choices and benefits, and much more. Usage-based pricing, combined with forced reasonable access, is the way.
Infrastructure-cable and telco- can be compensated with reasonable rates of return for their investment in infrastructure, but in today's market they want to have it (the access to the consumer and high profits) and eat it too (restricted competition).
That's not the American way!
Net Neutrality legislative discussions are a perfect opportunity to revamp the business model to force reasonable access to the Internet infrastructure for Content providers at reasonable cost.
Then we will be amazed at the capability to deliver increased leasure time, increased educational possibilities, increased health levels, Cloud Communting (use of the Internet for restructuring office and work processes, educational processes) to enable pollution reduction and environmental safety, and so much more.
So, let's look at 'Net Neutality as the perfect opportunity to get it right! More Content choices, probably less cost, and new, more competitive business and institutional structures.
When consumers can select Content a la carte, and choose the provider based on the best "value package" combination of pricing and Content selection, then true net neutrality is achieved. Anything less is just more industry control. But, not forcing the FCC to adopt reasonable Access rules, including reasonable pricing, will only achieve more industry control of pricing.
Industry-cable and telco, and now wireless- have always had reasons to be restrictive in Access.
No more.
Wireless provides one avenue to deliver Content with full bandwidth and consumer choice.Usage-based pricing, if determinedly regulated open access to Content providers is insured, offers the best chance for consumers to get the widest choice of Content at the most reasonable price.
We've too long allowed cable and telco to restrict access. Forcing separation of Content and Infrastructure, as we did with TV in the 60's, opens up the possibility of greater Content choices for less cost to consumers. If you believe that Anything, Anytime, Anywhere is the grail of Consumers regarding usage and content; that a Universal Connect Appliance is coming, then it must follow that usage-based pricing with reasonable access open to Content providers of all stripes, is the best way to ensure maximization of satisfaction.
Industry should be required to take reasonable risks for reasonable rates of return, that's a free market system. The jumble of monopolies and regulatory favoritism must cease in respect of open access.
Since when did we decide to reduce risk for industry by providing regulated monopolies(actually over 30 years ago), in favor of overcharging consumers(some $200 Billion plus-that's Billions with a big "B" folks-since the eighties)?
Would the cable industry have never gotten started without monopolies to reduce risk and insure profits? Sure they would have!
In most other countries, governments did not provide subsidies to build, favorable tax rates and so on, but we did here. That's not a free-market-based system, it is a system of politically rewarding a chosen few, whereas open competition would have led to more choices much earlier than today.
Even allowing for the political atmosphere of wanting to encourage cable build-outs to service consumers, cable has long ago recovered their investment, and lots more! Fourteen other countries have greater Internet broadband penetration, most at less cost!
We can, and must force open access for Content, separate Content from infrastructure provisioning, and develop a business model that is usage based.
Some of us remember that the early days of TV were a problem for TV Content providers, who didn't have an audience until someone bought a TV. When TV penetration became widespread, then Content competition created channels, choices for consumers.
There are obvious lessons for the current Content industry, including communications, entertainment, business, education, health and more. There are great opportunities for Content competition, greater consumer choices and benefits, and much more. Usage-based pricing, combined with forced reasonable access, is the way.
Infrastructure-cable and telco- can be compensated with reasonable rates of return for their investment in infrastructure, but in today's market they want to have it (the access to the consumer and high profits) and eat it too (restricted competition).
That's not the American way!
Net Neutrality legislative discussions are a perfect opportunity to revamp the business model to force reasonable access to the Internet infrastructure for Content providers at reasonable cost.
Then we will be amazed at the capability to deliver increased leasure time, increased educational possibilities, increased health levels, Cloud Communting (use of the Internet for restructuring office and work processes, educational processes) to enable pollution reduction and environmental safety, and so much more.
So, let's look at 'Net Neutality as the perfect opportunity to get it right! More Content choices, probably less cost, and new, more competitive business and institutional structures.
Thursday, October 30, 2008
VOTING WITHOUT VERIFIED ID IS THE REAL SCAM
SOME PEOPLE ARE exercised by the Supreme Court's decision to review an Indiana law requiring verifiable Voter ID at the polls in exchange for the right to vote. They call the law un-American, liken it to a right-wing conspiracy, suggest that it is targeted at people of color, when it is in actuality race and color neutral, requiring ID of ALL those who want to vote.
Let's deal with the basic issue.
Voting is a privilege and a right of citizenship. Since that citizenship is a basically guaranteed right generated by our Constitution, conferring a responsibility for confirming citizenship seems eminently reasonable. As to it being unreasonable and an " inconvenience," let me have the temerity to suggest, "So what?"
Is it an inconvenience so intolerable as to justify the widespread voter fraud that occurs every election in the highly democratic wards of major cities, in which people vote two, three and ever more times without ID in different polling places, using bogus addresses, even empty lots, for the purpose? Where dead people vote not once, but also two, three or more times?
Republicans and Independents don't vote multiple times, even using absentee ballots. They don't think that way. They value their vote; it isn't a prize for sale to the highest political bidder.
It is not a "highly partisan" law as she claims, it is voter neutral, attempting only to place value on a Citizen's right to vote by having the affirm that right through identification. The Constitution says throughout that CITIZEN' S rights to vote shall note be abridged by race, religion, sex or other means. The emphasis is on Citizens, and that is as it should be.
Congress should pass a national counterfeit-proof ID law forthwith, requiring proof of citizenship to be obtained.
Our modern society is well past the point where citizenship can be so taken for granted so as to allow the fraudulent conveyance of one of the most sacred rights of a democratic society. The right to vote carries with it the attendant responsibility to vote: every time, in every election.
Those too lazy to participate in the process show how little they value their rights.
For rights to have meaning they must be exercised openly, not just when convenient; demonstrated often, not just in favorable weather; conveyed with vigor, assiduously, to representatives; and felt wholeheartedly.
"If the voice of the people is to have value, it must be heard."
It seems little trouble to require that the voice be a real, legitimate voice, not an illegal immigrant, or someone who is slightly inconvenienced by the registration process, and is required to present proof of the right to vote.
Plaintive calls notwithstanding, voting is the touchstone of our society; we should value it more, not less.
And establish value by requiring any necessary proof to exercise our right to vote.
Many Americans do value their voting rights, and I, for one, resist any attempts to dilute my vote's value.
I have voted continuously, openly and without fear for forty three years in every local, state and national election.
While I can't say I'm always pleased with the results, I do feel that by voting I have exercised my citizenship rights, responsibly.
And, let's take a minute do discuss the growing trend towards Early Voting, and Absentee Voting.
What was a real attempt to help those who, by fault of physical disability, military service, now travel added, now for any reason, folks in a growing number of states can get an absentee ballot. Not only does this offer great opportunity for scams, and fraud, it seems that using Absentee Ballots to avoid polling places, identification requirements, or for "slim to none'"reasons is just wrong. Voting should be a responsible and determined exercise of Citizenship. It should not be "easier;" it should be as difficult and transparent as necessary to make people "buy in to" their responsibilities, concurrent with their rights.
Organizations, liberally-oriented and sponsored, are even using government funding, approved through a liberal wing of congress, to use paid staff and volunteers, including felons, to go out and obtain registrations. Some (how many, I wonder?) are registering the same people at different addresses, multiple times, registering them in spite of being told that they are felons and can't vote, registering people from gravestones, using vacant lot addresses, non-existent addresses and more. Hundreds of thousands, if not millions of phony registrations are in the works for November's Presidential election.
How can that be responsibile Citizenship?
I want everybody to vote and have their vote counted; I don't want those who are motivated by money, persuaded by a free lunch or a ride, to vote with less than a full committment to their attendant rights and responsibilities.
The Ameican system of government we all value will wither and die unless Citizenship returns to the value our Founders coveted and promoted; nothing is more important.
In "olden days," Citizens used to have to ride horses ten miles, 20 miles or more, to Vote. Voting was difficult, but so important that in most elections turnout of those eligible was close to one hundred percent; people valued the Vote that much.
Nowadays, we're lucky to get fifty percent plus turnout, even for Presidential elections.
Also, many states had property ownership as a requirement or the right o vote, today everyone is eligible who is a Citizen.
Our great country, well maybe not so great anymore, still has more value than any two other countries, any four or five, even. Value in the sense that America is the place people want to go to, not get away from. America is where the greatest opportunities are; for entrepreneurship, education, personal freedom.
Many, if not most, Americans wake up every day knowing that there are chances for them to get ahead, get an education, work for themselves, even if they choose not to participate, they believe that the opportunity is there.
There are no countries to which they could point and say "I could do better in Russia, or Afghanistan, or China, or ...or..."
We are the best, let's keep it that way!
Make sure that America continues to be the land of opportunity for it's Citizens.
Vote for American Values.
Let's deal with the basic issue.
Voting is a privilege and a right of citizenship. Since that citizenship is a basically guaranteed right generated by our Constitution, conferring a responsibility for confirming citizenship seems eminently reasonable. As to it being unreasonable and an " inconvenience," let me have the temerity to suggest, "So what?"
Is it an inconvenience so intolerable as to justify the widespread voter fraud that occurs every election in the highly democratic wards of major cities, in which people vote two, three and ever more times without ID in different polling places, using bogus addresses, even empty lots, for the purpose? Where dead people vote not once, but also two, three or more times?
Republicans and Independents don't vote multiple times, even using absentee ballots. They don't think that way. They value their vote; it isn't a prize for sale to the highest political bidder.
It is not a "highly partisan" law as she claims, it is voter neutral, attempting only to place value on a Citizen's right to vote by having the affirm that right through identification. The Constitution says throughout that CITIZEN' S rights to vote shall note be abridged by race, religion, sex or other means. The emphasis is on Citizens, and that is as it should be.
Congress should pass a national counterfeit-proof ID law forthwith, requiring proof of citizenship to be obtained.
Our modern society is well past the point where citizenship can be so taken for granted so as to allow the fraudulent conveyance of one of the most sacred rights of a democratic society. The right to vote carries with it the attendant responsibility to vote: every time, in every election.
Those too lazy to participate in the process show how little they value their rights.
For rights to have meaning they must be exercised openly, not just when convenient; demonstrated often, not just in favorable weather; conveyed with vigor, assiduously, to representatives; and felt wholeheartedly.
"If the voice of the people is to have value, it must be heard."
It seems little trouble to require that the voice be a real, legitimate voice, not an illegal immigrant, or someone who is slightly inconvenienced by the registration process, and is required to present proof of the right to vote.
Plaintive calls notwithstanding, voting is the touchstone of our society; we should value it more, not less.
And establish value by requiring any necessary proof to exercise our right to vote.
Many Americans do value their voting rights, and I, for one, resist any attempts to dilute my vote's value.
I have voted continuously, openly and without fear for forty three years in every local, state and national election.
While I can't say I'm always pleased with the results, I do feel that by voting I have exercised my citizenship rights, responsibly.
And, let's take a minute do discuss the growing trend towards Early Voting, and Absentee Voting.
What was a real attempt to help those who, by fault of physical disability, military service, now travel added, now for any reason, folks in a growing number of states can get an absentee ballot. Not only does this offer great opportunity for scams, and fraud, it seems that using Absentee Ballots to avoid polling places, identification requirements, or for "slim to none'"reasons is just wrong. Voting should be a responsible and determined exercise of Citizenship. It should not be "easier;" it should be as difficult and transparent as necessary to make people "buy in to" their responsibilities, concurrent with their rights.
Organizations, liberally-oriented and sponsored, are even using government funding, approved through a liberal wing of congress, to use paid staff and volunteers, including felons, to go out and obtain registrations. Some (how many, I wonder?) are registering the same people at different addresses, multiple times, registering them in spite of being told that they are felons and can't vote, registering people from gravestones, using vacant lot addresses, non-existent addresses and more. Hundreds of thousands, if not millions of phony registrations are in the works for November's Presidential election.
How can that be responsibile Citizenship?
I want everybody to vote and have their vote counted; I don't want those who are motivated by money, persuaded by a free lunch or a ride, to vote with less than a full committment to their attendant rights and responsibilities.
The Ameican system of government we all value will wither and die unless Citizenship returns to the value our Founders coveted and promoted; nothing is more important.
In "olden days," Citizens used to have to ride horses ten miles, 20 miles or more, to Vote. Voting was difficult, but so important that in most elections turnout of those eligible was close to one hundred percent; people valued the Vote that much.
Nowadays, we're lucky to get fifty percent plus turnout, even for Presidential elections.
Also, many states had property ownership as a requirement or the right o vote, today everyone is eligible who is a Citizen.
Our great country, well maybe not so great anymore, still has more value than any two other countries, any four or five, even. Value in the sense that America is the place people want to go to, not get away from. America is where the greatest opportunities are; for entrepreneurship, education, personal freedom.
Many, if not most, Americans wake up every day knowing that there are chances for them to get ahead, get an education, work for themselves, even if they choose not to participate, they believe that the opportunity is there.
There are no countries to which they could point and say "I could do better in Russia, or Afghanistan, or China, or ...or..."
We are the best, let's keep it that way!
Make sure that America continues to be the land of opportunity for it's Citizens.
Vote for American Values.
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
Society and Economy in a "Cloud"
Recently, a Microsoft executive announced their entry into "Cloud Computing" through their product called Azure.
Cloud computing is a relatively new way of using the Internet to accomplish many, if not all, personal and business tasks, using software that is maintained and utilized through the host company's web site and servers. Amazon initially pioneered this effort and is the largest and most advanced in it's utilization and acceptance. Seeing the inherent opportunity in the efficiencies offered in this methodology, many, many others will get into this sphere, and soon.
The rationale is that instead of buying individual software applications on discs that you own and which must have Service Pack updates and upgrades from time to time, the Cloud, accessed from your home or office computer, will offer the applications-probably for a small fee, either monthly, or by usage- and maintain the software and your records and work product that it generates.
In all likelihood, the Cloud will better serve individuals, and Small and Medium businesses. Many large business now, in effect, have their own internal Cloud, maintaining certain software and records on internal servers, rather than on individual desktops, from which individuals access their needs as required.
Large companies may find a cost effectiveness in this approach, which spreads cost over their many users. Perhaps, in the near future the cost equation will dictate a combination of Cloud access for certain applications, and internal server-based usage for others. Economies of scale argue in favor of the continual improvement in efficiency of Cloud-based usage; servers have larger and growing capacity, as do computers and the infrastructure to support them.
The future of the Internet also indicates a need for a Universal Communications device, wireless, transportable, usable Anywhere, at Anytime to connect to Anything, whether work applications, voice, entertainment, whatever. Better yet, when this Universal Communicator is developed, ("Holy Star Trek, Batman!"), is will be "docked" at home, with wireless sensors and routers within your environment and AI software telling the system where you are, and accepting your voice commands to "watch movie," "call Amy," or "send Email to Roger Dodger, " and eventually, "make coffee,", and respond to questions like "what's for dinner?"
The trend is in this direction already, with cell phones, Iphones, PDA's and many variations thereof, replacing home phones at an increasing rate, The major land-line carriers have already lost over 20,000,000 land line users in favor of people using their cell phone exclusively.
Security is, and will be the biggest concern of both large and small users, and individuals, and will be handled through encryption and subsequent decryption at the receiving end of every command, document and transmission of data, even including voice.
How will Cloud computing be implemented?
While Cloud is available now through Amazon, Google and Microsoft,and others, many more are coming. Who might be the additional, credible entrants that we could learn to trust? The largest ISPs are the first logical choice. Comcast, Verizon, AOL, Earthlink, Hughes Direct ( I love Hughe's opportunity, because they are already wireless) are all candidates.
The Business Model that I think will replace local newspapers also sets them up as the Local guys offering all Cloud applications and services, including ISP, because most need and usage is local, local, local. The continuing need to separate Content from the transmission infrastructure is important as well. There is a real need to enhance choice and Content quality by not allowing any one party to own both the means of getting it to you, and the Content that is delivered, Owning both invariably leads to reduced choices and higher costs.
There is some logic in thinking that with the Internet, the cost is virtually the same, whether you are in Mumbai, or the Philippines, or down the street. But, security concerns, infrastructure costs and maintenance, business costs, personnel availability and education, all may point toward local, meaning large city-based systems.
Infrastructure capacity is a real concern. Even with the FIOS buildout of Fiber Optic by Verizon and others, and enhanced Cable capability, we are still facing a capacity problem, when, and if, we reach the point where everyone wants to see a New Release movie -think Disney's "High School Musical Five"-and accommodating 60 million households with High Def Video demand, all at one time on one night. As currently structured, the system would crash.
I can see software which determines the best "path" for different kinds of digital data, choosing between wireless, wired, even powerline transmission to get the Content to the user, as telephone companies now do, and ISPs are starting to do. It's entirely possible that we will develop multiple Internets; think of networks, that may even use different infrastructures than currently used. In all likelihood, those additional 'nets will be structured by user components, like Gov.Net, Mil. Net(military), Edu.net, maybe many others. Initially, they may use existing infrastructure, but eventually usage will demand parallel combinations of wired and wireless structures to accommodate demand.
How Much and Who Pays?
Economists might suggest that a usage-based model works best in creating choices and encouraging capacity. However, as in Cable, Telco, and even AOL, there will be different Business Models which providers can justify; Flat Rate for ease of pricing and appeal to consumers, Tiered Pricing, accommodating consumers, Business, Institutional and Government users, maybe even other models which conform to the needs of both users and providers. Separating Content provision from infrastructure transmission will be key to keeping costs low. Ultimately, if the Internet evolves in the direction of Universal Utility and becomes so necessary and ubiquitous in everyday business and personal life, as the telephone has, usage-based pricing will be best.
The television model developed as advertiser-supported, the Cable model developed initially as delivering a reliable signal, then as Content provider and transmitter, in effect charging for a potion of Content that you could get for free. Their Government-allowed monopoly was designed to guarantee them exclusion in exchange for building the systems, but has allowed hundreds of Billions of dollars of monopoly profits, far and beyond the recovery of their initial investment.
Even today, Cable forces rates up continually through their monopoly control of infrastructure. We are beginning to see the light at the end of the tunnel in this matter, as competitors come to the market. When Wireless truly develops, as it will, Cable's and Telco's hold on Content transmission will be subject to the competition of a free market. Here's hoping.
Which makes it even more important to separate Content creation and production from the delivery system. Only then will competition drive consumer cost to a reasonable level.
In America we pay more, by a substantial factor, for many products and Services than the same products and services in many other countries. Internet Broadband? As much as three to four times for the same speeds as in Korea, Japan, Canada, UK, some major European countries. Capacity much more in other countries for the same broadband service. Why do we pay more and get less? Monopolies.
Cloud presents a real opportunity to encourage free and competitive access for Content and Service providers, allowing all who meet minimum standards for reliability and security to have access to the various infrastructures that support the Internet.
Ultimately, Cloud Computing is the Utility of tomorrow.
Increased ability to communicate at every level, Anything, Anytime, Anywhere.
A "sea change" in the definition of work and where work is performed (maybe requiring new tools for managers to measure and evaluate "work"), and on what schedule. The transition to a "cloud" economy will of necessity require extensive and long lasting changes in how we think and plan for "commuting" to work; ten feet or ten miles-you choose. Why go to a place far away to write pieces of paper when you can do the same in your "home office?" The insecurity managers and executives feel when they read this will soon translate into realization of the huge increases in productivity and profit that will result.
Why drive to an office when everything you need to accomplish your task is available technologically at your "home office," including the valuable collaborative process known as "face-to-face" time, with conferencing cameras and audio capabilities more and more being built into your Universal Communicators -AKA computers -managers, execs, and peers and subordinates ("associates") can all accomplish what they need with this process, coming soon to a home and business in your area.
A true Cloud economy will develop, where support takes on a whole new meaning. Office buildings by the hundreds of thousands will be recycled into condos and apartments-designed with the new "office" infrastructure included.
Education - Cloud may do substantially away with the need for classroom-based teaching. Students sit at a "home desk" or chair, or whatever, and based on the same conferencing technology, interact with peers and teachers (think process mentors) as necessary, but utilizing the Capacity of the cloud through AI and instructional, programmed learning. No need for far away buildings and transportation of students; cafeterias and hall monitors ( mom and dad are just 20 feet away).
Best of all, students get the highest quality materials of learning, achieve as fast as their curiosity and motivation allow. What we call "genius" today may be relatively common using such a system. It has been demonstrated over and over that students all do better when motivated by the feedback of accomplishment.
Cloud offers the unmatched capability of the resources available through the Internet in Virtual Tours- see what's on display at the Louvre right now, see the famous painting in VR, understand the geography of Roosevelt's Battle of San Juan Hill, see the effects of annual flooding in India and the effects of environmental "landscaping" to accommodate civilization; Anything, Anytime, Anyplace.
Cloud computing offers the economies of scale to provide teaching and learning experiences that are currently unattainable. Teachers get to do what they are supposed to do; teach the process of thinking.
Oh, and kids and parents no longer have to get up at 5:30-6:00 AM to "start the day" unless they want to.
There is a concern about the continually reduced interactivity and development needed through physical and sports education, exercise and related benefits. However, the new cloud society also leads to new, and potentially more interactivity by allowing more time for community-based sports, and physical training and exercise. How easy to plan soccer, Karate , volley ball, tennis and a hundred other things in community-based facilities (think of physical "clouds" of sport and exercise facilities). Utilizing commercial facilities and recycled portions of existing school-based or even new structures designed with those purposes in mind- Community Centers like the 'Y" and others vastly expanded,-and you get a lot of good interaction and outcomes.
How about Health?
Even now, Microsoft and others are sponsoring web sites that offer personal and family health tracking and record keeping; WebMd and others are coming. Combine that with Cloud capability in providing health monitoring and management software programs and home-based testing accessories that wirelessly transmit to your Communications device Health Monitoring program and give you a status, problem report, more or less as needed, daily, even continuous. Think Life Alert with full diagnosis and monitoring/notification capability and the security that offers.
Entertainment?
Cloud makes the choice of Anything, Anytime, Anywhere even more possible. TV shows, movies, sports events, conferences, expositions, conventions, even Virtual Scrabble (absent the smack on the hand). And Cloud allows Entertainment to develop as consumer choice. Taking a break from your Virtual work day and want a movie? Go to it-On Demand, at your convenience.
Flying to Dallas from New York to vacation with relatives on a three hour flight? Cloud allows you to finish your Work project, review your vacation schedule, Virtual Tour the Instructions for your glider piloting adventure, and more.
Cloud offers the potential for much greater personal freedom; more choices of When and Where, Who and How.
As with all such societal advances driven by technology, great risk is presented along with the potential. Personal Privacy and security may, and probably will, be challenged in exchange for the greater freedom and choices offered, and of necessity to protect government and business interests, but this can be done.
The more we invest in a particular structure of a society, the greater the leverage of the inherent risk to our structure and infrastructure of so investing. Concentration of methodology increases the risk of damage either by accident, or through intent of people who want to harm what we have accomplished. Care must be taken to secure the future we design.
Perhaps, as we grow more and more dependent on the Cloud for our personal and business accomplishments, we must manage to mitigate, if not eliminate the greater risk we create.
Government must be the arbiter of credible, if possible, unbreakable standards for the security in the Cloud systems, the processes and infrastructure we create. Not to say that private, free enterprise can't and won't do the job of building and delivering the products and services; they will. But Citizen and consumer security and rights must be the controlling force guiding the process.
The profit motive and the proven ability to develop goods and services, competition and choice are needed, so long as the interests of both citizen users, personal and corporate, and Cloud providers, will be maximized. They need not be mutually exclusive as some would think, but must be mutually profitable and satisfactory, as needs our society.
Cloud shouldn't be"free;" it should be priced to deliver the most choices and satisfaction to the consumer/citizen, while at the same time providing all the incentives necessary to encourage infrastructure and Content development.
Go Cloud!
Barry Dennis410-591-1900
Cloud computing is a relatively new way of using the Internet to accomplish many, if not all, personal and business tasks, using software that is maintained and utilized through the host company's web site and servers. Amazon initially pioneered this effort and is the largest and most advanced in it's utilization and acceptance. Seeing the inherent opportunity in the efficiencies offered in this methodology, many, many others will get into this sphere, and soon.
The rationale is that instead of buying individual software applications on discs that you own and which must have Service Pack updates and upgrades from time to time, the Cloud, accessed from your home or office computer, will offer the applications-probably for a small fee, either monthly, or by usage- and maintain the software and your records and work product that it generates.
In all likelihood, the Cloud will better serve individuals, and Small and Medium businesses. Many large business now, in effect, have their own internal Cloud, maintaining certain software and records on internal servers, rather than on individual desktops, from which individuals access their needs as required.
Large companies may find a cost effectiveness in this approach, which spreads cost over their many users. Perhaps, in the near future the cost equation will dictate a combination of Cloud access for certain applications, and internal server-based usage for others. Economies of scale argue in favor of the continual improvement in efficiency of Cloud-based usage; servers have larger and growing capacity, as do computers and the infrastructure to support them.
The future of the Internet also indicates a need for a Universal Communications device, wireless, transportable, usable Anywhere, at Anytime to connect to Anything, whether work applications, voice, entertainment, whatever. Better yet, when this Universal Communicator is developed, ("Holy Star Trek, Batman!"), is will be "docked" at home, with wireless sensors and routers within your environment and AI software telling the system where you are, and accepting your voice commands to "watch movie," "call Amy," or "send Email to Roger Dodger, " and eventually, "make coffee,", and respond to questions like "what's for dinner?"
The trend is in this direction already, with cell phones, Iphones, PDA's and many variations thereof, replacing home phones at an increasing rate, The major land-line carriers have already lost over 20,000,000 land line users in favor of people using their cell phone exclusively.
Security is, and will be the biggest concern of both large and small users, and individuals, and will be handled through encryption and subsequent decryption at the receiving end of every command, document and transmission of data, even including voice.
How will Cloud computing be implemented?
While Cloud is available now through Amazon, Google and Microsoft,and others, many more are coming. Who might be the additional, credible entrants that we could learn to trust? The largest ISPs are the first logical choice. Comcast, Verizon, AOL, Earthlink, Hughes Direct ( I love Hughe's opportunity, because they are already wireless) are all candidates.
The Business Model that I think will replace local newspapers also sets them up as the Local guys offering all Cloud applications and services, including ISP, because most need and usage is local, local, local. The continuing need to separate Content from the transmission infrastructure is important as well. There is a real need to enhance choice and Content quality by not allowing any one party to own both the means of getting it to you, and the Content that is delivered, Owning both invariably leads to reduced choices and higher costs.
There is some logic in thinking that with the Internet, the cost is virtually the same, whether you are in Mumbai, or the Philippines, or down the street. But, security concerns, infrastructure costs and maintenance, business costs, personnel availability and education, all may point toward local, meaning large city-based systems.
Infrastructure capacity is a real concern. Even with the FIOS buildout of Fiber Optic by Verizon and others, and enhanced Cable capability, we are still facing a capacity problem, when, and if, we reach the point where everyone wants to see a New Release movie -think Disney's "High School Musical Five"-and accommodating 60 million households with High Def Video demand, all at one time on one night. As currently structured, the system would crash.
I can see software which determines the best "path" for different kinds of digital data, choosing between wireless, wired, even powerline transmission to get the Content to the user, as telephone companies now do, and ISPs are starting to do. It's entirely possible that we will develop multiple Internets; think of networks, that may even use different infrastructures than currently used. In all likelihood, those additional 'nets will be structured by user components, like Gov.Net, Mil. Net(military), Edu.net, maybe many others. Initially, they may use existing infrastructure, but eventually usage will demand parallel combinations of wired and wireless structures to accommodate demand.
How Much and Who Pays?
Economists might suggest that a usage-based model works best in creating choices and encouraging capacity. However, as in Cable, Telco, and even AOL, there will be different Business Models which providers can justify; Flat Rate for ease of pricing and appeal to consumers, Tiered Pricing, accommodating consumers, Business, Institutional and Government users, maybe even other models which conform to the needs of both users and providers. Separating Content provision from infrastructure transmission will be key to keeping costs low. Ultimately, if the Internet evolves in the direction of Universal Utility and becomes so necessary and ubiquitous in everyday business and personal life, as the telephone has, usage-based pricing will be best.
The television model developed as advertiser-supported, the Cable model developed initially as delivering a reliable signal, then as Content provider and transmitter, in effect charging for a potion of Content that you could get for free. Their Government-allowed monopoly was designed to guarantee them exclusion in exchange for building the systems, but has allowed hundreds of Billions of dollars of monopoly profits, far and beyond the recovery of their initial investment.
Even today, Cable forces rates up continually through their monopoly control of infrastructure. We are beginning to see the light at the end of the tunnel in this matter, as competitors come to the market. When Wireless truly develops, as it will, Cable's and Telco's hold on Content transmission will be subject to the competition of a free market. Here's hoping.
Which makes it even more important to separate Content creation and production from the delivery system. Only then will competition drive consumer cost to a reasonable level.
In America we pay more, by a substantial factor, for many products and Services than the same products and services in many other countries. Internet Broadband? As much as three to four times for the same speeds as in Korea, Japan, Canada, UK, some major European countries. Capacity much more in other countries for the same broadband service. Why do we pay more and get less? Monopolies.
Cloud presents a real opportunity to encourage free and competitive access for Content and Service providers, allowing all who meet minimum standards for reliability and security to have access to the various infrastructures that support the Internet.
Ultimately, Cloud Computing is the Utility of tomorrow.
Increased ability to communicate at every level, Anything, Anytime, Anywhere.
A "sea change" in the definition of work and where work is performed (maybe requiring new tools for managers to measure and evaluate "work"), and on what schedule. The transition to a "cloud" economy will of necessity require extensive and long lasting changes in how we think and plan for "commuting" to work; ten feet or ten miles-you choose. Why go to a place far away to write pieces of paper when you can do the same in your "home office?" The insecurity managers and executives feel when they read this will soon translate into realization of the huge increases in productivity and profit that will result.
Why drive to an office when everything you need to accomplish your task is available technologically at your "home office," including the valuable collaborative process known as "face-to-face" time, with conferencing cameras and audio capabilities more and more being built into your Universal Communicators -AKA computers -managers, execs, and peers and subordinates ("associates") can all accomplish what they need with this process, coming soon to a home and business in your area.
A true Cloud economy will develop, where support takes on a whole new meaning. Office buildings by the hundreds of thousands will be recycled into condos and apartments-designed with the new "office" infrastructure included.
Education - Cloud may do substantially away with the need for classroom-based teaching. Students sit at a "home desk" or chair, or whatever, and based on the same conferencing technology, interact with peers and teachers (think process mentors) as necessary, but utilizing the Capacity of the cloud through AI and instructional, programmed learning. No need for far away buildings and transportation of students; cafeterias and hall monitors ( mom and dad are just 20 feet away).
Best of all, students get the highest quality materials of learning, achieve as fast as their curiosity and motivation allow. What we call "genius" today may be relatively common using such a system. It has been demonstrated over and over that students all do better when motivated by the feedback of accomplishment.
Cloud offers the unmatched capability of the resources available through the Internet in Virtual Tours- see what's on display at the Louvre right now, see the famous painting in VR, understand the geography of Roosevelt's Battle of San Juan Hill, see the effects of annual flooding in India and the effects of environmental "landscaping" to accommodate civilization; Anything, Anytime, Anyplace.
Cloud computing offers the economies of scale to provide teaching and learning experiences that are currently unattainable. Teachers get to do what they are supposed to do; teach the process of thinking.
Oh, and kids and parents no longer have to get up at 5:30-6:00 AM to "start the day" unless they want to.
There is a concern about the continually reduced interactivity and development needed through physical and sports education, exercise and related benefits. However, the new cloud society also leads to new, and potentially more interactivity by allowing more time for community-based sports, and physical training and exercise. How easy to plan soccer, Karate , volley ball, tennis and a hundred other things in community-based facilities (think of physical "clouds" of sport and exercise facilities). Utilizing commercial facilities and recycled portions of existing school-based or even new structures designed with those purposes in mind- Community Centers like the 'Y" and others vastly expanded,-and you get a lot of good interaction and outcomes.
How about Health?
Even now, Microsoft and others are sponsoring web sites that offer personal and family health tracking and record keeping; WebMd and others are coming. Combine that with Cloud capability in providing health monitoring and management software programs and home-based testing accessories that wirelessly transmit to your Communications device Health Monitoring program and give you a status, problem report, more or less as needed, daily, even continuous. Think Life Alert with full diagnosis and monitoring/notification capability and the security that offers.
Entertainment?
Cloud makes the choice of Anything, Anytime, Anywhere even more possible. TV shows, movies, sports events, conferences, expositions, conventions, even Virtual Scrabble (absent the smack on the hand). And Cloud allows Entertainment to develop as consumer choice. Taking a break from your Virtual work day and want a movie? Go to it-On Demand, at your convenience.
Flying to Dallas from New York to vacation with relatives on a three hour flight? Cloud allows you to finish your Work project, review your vacation schedule, Virtual Tour the Instructions for your glider piloting adventure, and more.
Cloud offers the potential for much greater personal freedom; more choices of When and Where, Who and How.
As with all such societal advances driven by technology, great risk is presented along with the potential. Personal Privacy and security may, and probably will, be challenged in exchange for the greater freedom and choices offered, and of necessity to protect government and business interests, but this can be done.
The more we invest in a particular structure of a society, the greater the leverage of the inherent risk to our structure and infrastructure of so investing. Concentration of methodology increases the risk of damage either by accident, or through intent of people who want to harm what we have accomplished. Care must be taken to secure the future we design.
Perhaps, as we grow more and more dependent on the Cloud for our personal and business accomplishments, we must manage to mitigate, if not eliminate the greater risk we create.
Government must be the arbiter of credible, if possible, unbreakable standards for the security in the Cloud systems, the processes and infrastructure we create. Not to say that private, free enterprise can't and won't do the job of building and delivering the products and services; they will. But Citizen and consumer security and rights must be the controlling force guiding the process.
The profit motive and the proven ability to develop goods and services, competition and choice are needed, so long as the interests of both citizen users, personal and corporate, and Cloud providers, will be maximized. They need not be mutually exclusive as some would think, but must be mutually profitable and satisfactory, as needs our society.
Cloud shouldn't be"free;" it should be priced to deliver the most choices and satisfaction to the consumer/citizen, while at the same time providing all the incentives necessary to encourage infrastructure and Content development.
Go Cloud!
Barry Dennis410-591-1900
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
UNFETTERED CAPITALISM LEADS TO ECONOMIC ANARCHY
UNFETTERED CAPITALISM LEADS TO ECONOMIC ANARCHY
That's a mouthful. Here's what it means.
When free-market capitalists seek the highest rate of return on their capital, they invent new investment products to enhance their ROI, and as it turns out, in either unregulated financial markets, hedge funds, or in financial institutions and products whose managers, and financial markets overseers, just didn't "see" the risks developing.
As in the current mortgage derivatives markets, and recently commodities markets, this packaging of investment products requires the leverage of debt to enhance the ROI. In fact, leverage through debt is the ONLY way to maximize the spectacular rates of return desired by risk-oriented investors. For some, however, the concept of risk has been somehow transmuted from high risk to euphemisms like Collateralized Debt Obligations, Swaps, Derivatives, and others.
As these products were developed, and downstreamed to second, third, even fourth-level removed investors, so was the risk. Banks and Mortgage lenders wanted to originate loans, package them in some way, make their fees and return to the dining table-mortgage markets-for another round of feasting. That's one brand of Unfettered Capitalism
But the process eventually had to allow the risk to present itself, which it did when the ARM's reset; when the No-doc and Alt-A mortgages given to people who were not qualified, who could barely afford the initial 4 1/2 percent rate on over-priced housing, and who gave up the ghost when housing started to flatten, then decline under the wight of foreclosures, overpriced housing with no buyers, and more problems.
Worse, many of these home buyers initially saw their housing value rise by double digits in the 2004-2005-2006 period and were encouraged to take out second mortgages, home-equity loans and lines of credit which they used for cars, vacations and more.
Hence the current freeze in housing liquidity, and general liquidity overall, because new loans can't be originated, older loans can't be resold or redeemed, are in default or foreclosure, and banks don't trust each other to repay the loans normally used to finance their day-to-day business. The downstream investors can't get their money either; the investment banks, the lenders can't and won't redeem these obligations, as they promised, their value is so suspect that hardly anyone is willing to buy such debt, or sell it and take the almost certain heavy loss that risk-based pricing would incur.
Capitalist markets exploit the opportunities in the system, and so in the interest of society in general, must be regulated to the degree necessary so as not to allow greed to hurt consumers and organizations which seek advantage beyond what they have at risk of their own money.
What does this mean?
When individuals and institutions generate risk beyond the invested capital of their owners and stockholders; when society inadvertently and unknowingly joins in the risk because the investors have used leverage to enhance the reward on their own capital, that creates an unacceptable risk for the everyday investor and consumer (read taxpayer). That's the Economic Anarchy referred to above.
Now, necessarily, comes Economic Socialism.
I hesitate to use the word Socialism, but it aptly describes a process in which society's interests and active participation in the capital markets process overrides the joy and society-building effects of investor-driven capitalism; the process of investing at risk to build value, create companies, industries and jobs that increase our standard of living, and improve society.
Therein lies the conflict; the tug of war between dog-eat-dog, free market competitive systems, and the desire for a society which benefits the most people, offering opportunity and achievement.
Therein also lies the opportunity for Millennium Capitalism; a New Order of free markets in which investing in human Capital offers rewards commensurate with the risk; where achievement-oriented infrastructure is created with an eye towards getting high rates of return on Human Capital. Who takes this risk, underwrites this approach? A democratically structured government, elected by it's Citizens to marshall the resources necessary.
Obviously, a new type of capitalism is needed; less a Keynesian type of laissez-faire economics in which the unseen hand of the free marketplace rewards risk-takers appropriately for good decisions, or not, for bad ones, more a minimum oversight and infrastructure process which necessitates the levels of capital needed to offer the public financial products and services, improve the standard of living for all.
This is accomplished through regulation of the process in which capital is raised and deployed; how it is invested, and now, importantly, leveraged. New capital ratios for financial institutions must be employed, maybe even limiting the current types of "leveraged" investing at 20-1, even 30-1 employed in some packaged financial instruments, and commodities trading. Hedge funds, as well as others, must have certain levels of available capital to meet redemptions; can't deploy more leveraged risk than the capital base will insure, and other regulatory measures that insure that risk is borne by the investors and institutions that engage in it.
What does this mean?
For instance, if commodities trading only permitted "cash" contracts, there would be no leveraged risk, either on the upside or downside. Investors who really believe oil, or gold, or copper or wheat is going to rise or fall could "bet" accordingly. Investor/users of commodities like manufacturers, food processors, refiners, wouldn't have more capital at risk that the contracts they own; alternatively, since some amount of leverage would create greater liquidity, and greater risk, limiting the margin to 2-1, or even five to one, would mitigate the possibility of cascading failures dragging taxpayers into the risk matrix with the investors.
The proof? In the modern era, equity risk capital has declined as a percentage of total invested capital, including debt. The leverage of debt, and risk, at all levels-government, state, local, corporate, investor, even pension funds-has steadily increased.
We can see how the effect of allowing irresponsible investor-dominated markets, leveraged by unregulated debt, puts society at risk.
We want and admire the free market system that has given so many entrepreneurs and investors the opportunity to create companies, and profit from them.
A little more financial industry economic oversight, well-researched, and dedicated to preserving a capitalist society, may be a good, even necessary thing.
If it has the effect of limiting the "shoot the moon" rates of return that speculators and others gain through marketplace leverage and a "game the system" attitude, so be it.
It's a small price for continuing prosperity, and a system which encourages investment.
And, for those who are tempted to say that the notable and successive failures don't argue in favor of Economic Socialism, remember we managed stupendous accomplishments as a country and as a society before the modern era of "leverage."
In so many ways the effect of socially responsible regulation that protects and encourages free-markets has been positive, while minimizing the damage to investors-and taxpayers- that greed can engender.
That's a mouthful. Here's what it means.
When free-market capitalists seek the highest rate of return on their capital, they invent new investment products to enhance their ROI, and as it turns out, in either unregulated financial markets, hedge funds, or in financial institutions and products whose managers, and financial markets overseers, just didn't "see" the risks developing.
As in the current mortgage derivatives markets, and recently commodities markets, this packaging of investment products requires the leverage of debt to enhance the ROI. In fact, leverage through debt is the ONLY way to maximize the spectacular rates of return desired by risk-oriented investors. For some, however, the concept of risk has been somehow transmuted from high risk to euphemisms like Collateralized Debt Obligations, Swaps, Derivatives, and others.
As these products were developed, and downstreamed to second, third, even fourth-level removed investors, so was the risk. Banks and Mortgage lenders wanted to originate loans, package them in some way, make their fees and return to the dining table-mortgage markets-for another round of feasting. That's one brand of Unfettered Capitalism
But the process eventually had to allow the risk to present itself, which it did when the ARM's reset; when the No-doc and Alt-A mortgages given to people who were not qualified, who could barely afford the initial 4 1/2 percent rate on over-priced housing, and who gave up the ghost when housing started to flatten, then decline under the wight of foreclosures, overpriced housing with no buyers, and more problems.
Worse, many of these home buyers initially saw their housing value rise by double digits in the 2004-2005-2006 period and were encouraged to take out second mortgages, home-equity loans and lines of credit which they used for cars, vacations and more.
Hence the current freeze in housing liquidity, and general liquidity overall, because new loans can't be originated, older loans can't be resold or redeemed, are in default or foreclosure, and banks don't trust each other to repay the loans normally used to finance their day-to-day business. The downstream investors can't get their money either; the investment banks, the lenders can't and won't redeem these obligations, as they promised, their value is so suspect that hardly anyone is willing to buy such debt, or sell it and take the almost certain heavy loss that risk-based pricing would incur.
Capitalist markets exploit the opportunities in the system, and so in the interest of society in general, must be regulated to the degree necessary so as not to allow greed to hurt consumers and organizations which seek advantage beyond what they have at risk of their own money.
What does this mean?
When individuals and institutions generate risk beyond the invested capital of their owners and stockholders; when society inadvertently and unknowingly joins in the risk because the investors have used leverage to enhance the reward on their own capital, that creates an unacceptable risk for the everyday investor and consumer (read taxpayer). That's the Economic Anarchy referred to above.
Now, necessarily, comes Economic Socialism.
I hesitate to use the word Socialism, but it aptly describes a process in which society's interests and active participation in the capital markets process overrides the joy and society-building effects of investor-driven capitalism; the process of investing at risk to build value, create companies, industries and jobs that increase our standard of living, and improve society.
Therein lies the conflict; the tug of war between dog-eat-dog, free market competitive systems, and the desire for a society which benefits the most people, offering opportunity and achievement.
Therein also lies the opportunity for Millennium Capitalism; a New Order of free markets in which investing in human Capital offers rewards commensurate with the risk; where achievement-oriented infrastructure is created with an eye towards getting high rates of return on Human Capital. Who takes this risk, underwrites this approach? A democratically structured government, elected by it's Citizens to marshall the resources necessary.
Obviously, a new type of capitalism is needed; less a Keynesian type of laissez-faire economics in which the unseen hand of the free marketplace rewards risk-takers appropriately for good decisions, or not, for bad ones, more a minimum oversight and infrastructure process which necessitates the levels of capital needed to offer the public financial products and services, improve the standard of living for all.
This is accomplished through regulation of the process in which capital is raised and deployed; how it is invested, and now, importantly, leveraged. New capital ratios for financial institutions must be employed, maybe even limiting the current types of "leveraged" investing at 20-1, even 30-1 employed in some packaged financial instruments, and commodities trading. Hedge funds, as well as others, must have certain levels of available capital to meet redemptions; can't deploy more leveraged risk than the capital base will insure, and other regulatory measures that insure that risk is borne by the investors and institutions that engage in it.
What does this mean?
For instance, if commodities trading only permitted "cash" contracts, there would be no leveraged risk, either on the upside or downside. Investors who really believe oil, or gold, or copper or wheat is going to rise or fall could "bet" accordingly. Investor/users of commodities like manufacturers, food processors, refiners, wouldn't have more capital at risk that the contracts they own; alternatively, since some amount of leverage would create greater liquidity, and greater risk, limiting the margin to 2-1, or even five to one, would mitigate the possibility of cascading failures dragging taxpayers into the risk matrix with the investors.
The proof? In the modern era, equity risk capital has declined as a percentage of total invested capital, including debt. The leverage of debt, and risk, at all levels-government, state, local, corporate, investor, even pension funds-has steadily increased.
We can see how the effect of allowing irresponsible investor-dominated markets, leveraged by unregulated debt, puts society at risk.
We want and admire the free market system that has given so many entrepreneurs and investors the opportunity to create companies, and profit from them.
A little more financial industry economic oversight, well-researched, and dedicated to preserving a capitalist society, may be a good, even necessary thing.
If it has the effect of limiting the "shoot the moon" rates of return that speculators and others gain through marketplace leverage and a "game the system" attitude, so be it.
It's a small price for continuing prosperity, and a system which encourages investment.
And, for those who are tempted to say that the notable and successive failures don't argue in favor of Economic Socialism, remember we managed stupendous accomplishments as a country and as a society before the modern era of "leverage."
In so many ways the effect of socially responsible regulation that protects and encourages free-markets has been positive, while minimizing the damage to investors-and taxpayers- that greed can engender.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)