It's amusing that the highly tarnished "pots" (the Cable, Telco and Wireless monopolies) are calling the ideologically disadvantaged "kettles" black.
Separation of Content and Infrastructure is the only true way to introduce and develop competition for Access and for Content presentation.
Reasonable access at reasonable prices ensures that diversified Content finds it's voice: Changing monopolistically-generated and subsidy-supported Infrastructure pipelines into competitive access gateways is absolutely necessary.
Cable, Telco and Wireless have to "spin off" their Content(programming, ISPs, Premium and Pay-per-view , other) into separately owned and managed companies so that Content providers can compete.
Content providers will have to offer combinations of programming using both metered and tiered usage business models that will guarantee lower competitive prices for consumers and business, and many, many more Content products and services.
If the FCC (with the FTC's genuinely offered input) fails to lead the way to Separation of Content and Infrastructure, we'll know who's been "persuaded" by lobbying, contributions and other pressures to again make the American Business and Consumer the victims in another regulatory rape by ideologues.
Monday, November 23, 2009
Saturday, June 20, 2009
Thursday, June 11, 2009
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)