Mobile Adsense

Thursday, May 15, 2014

Net Neutrality - Life in The Fast Lane (For a Price)

Net Neutrality. What the heck? What is this junk and why do people care about it? What in the world is the FCC and why do I care?

Alright...let's break this down into segments that are easy to digest.

FCC = Federal Communications Committee - This is basically a government organization that sort of polices the ethics of communication in our nation. It's what assumes to allow certain things to happen for companies and individuals to communicate.

Net Neutrality = Our ability to access sites and information being open and having equal opportunity to all people and all companies. This means you can watch videos, skype, blog, play Xbox live, add modems, and use the internet in a way that is of your choosing, hampered by only your own ability to access.

SO WHAT ARE THE RULES?

1. Transparency: That all ISPs must transparently disclose to their subscribers and users all relevant information as to the policies that govern their network
2. No Blocking: That no legal content may be blocked
3. No Unreasonable Discrimination: That ISPs may not act in a commercially unreasonable manner to harm the Internet, including favoring the traffic from an affiliated entity.
http://www.fcc.gov/guides/open-internet

So what is all of the hub-bub about then? This sounds like stuff that is pretty reasonable and regular. I mean, we do want things to be good for everyone right?

The problem is the consequences.

WHAT ARE THE CONSEQUENCES?

The legislation conflicts with a few simple statements:

1 - Comcast just bought out Time Warner Cable (TWC) and now owns 31 million subscribers. (by comparison the next runner up is At&T with about 17 Million and below this isn't worth mentioning)

2 - Coverage in the US is largely by the top two companies (Previously TWC and Comcast) http://www.broadbandmap.gov/number-of-providers - but they are now a single company, so the majority of coverage is offered not only by one company but it is mostly available THROUGH one company now.

3 - The new regulations allow ISP's to charge different money to companies like Facebook, Youtube, Hulu, Netflix, Skype, etc. for the volume of their service required for their site. In this case if, say YouTube pays an extra fee their site gets the speed needed, but if say Vimeo does not then videos on Vimeo will run so slow that the website will crash.

4 - The regulations don't stay with the companies specifically. That is to say, if your phone has the cool video call option, but it uses an ISP service to do that, the ISP now has a right to charge you as a consumer of that faster data, an extra price for that service.

DIAL IT DOWN AND KEEP IT SIMPLE 

Internet Service Providers (ISP's) are basically now allowed to charge more for smooth access to sites. In most cases this will be passed onto the company that offers the service (Hulu, Netflix, Skype, Facebook, etc.). There are some rare cases where you might have an ISP (AT&T) who enables your phone where they can charge you more for the faster access that FaceTime requires - i.e. charge you a "FaceTime Fee" essentially, although I'm sure they wouldn't call it that directly.

Consequently, when these service companies get fees, they will pass those fees onto their users. What this does is create a fast and slow lane for the internet. There will be blazing fast speeds and access to all of the information so long as you pay up to the almighty ISP that wants to charge you for it. In this case, you are likely in an area that only offers Comcast now, since AT&T has a very spotty broadband network and Comcast just bought TWC.

The short of this is that Comcast will basically now have the right to charge more money for access to sites that require faster usage - never mind that you are already paying them for a "faster connection" in the first place. Since they operate over 50% of the market and own the availability to much more than that with their availability, it's unlikely that even AT&T can oppose them, and will likely follow suit.

The end result is that we as consumers will be given slower internet with less ability to see places like Reddit, Facebook, Skype, Twitter, and so on unless we pay a fee. So when your kid wants to go to the internet and get information for a paper, you should make sure they don't need to get anything that would require a bigger or faster connection, or you'll pay more money. If you don't, they won't have the information...so what happens to their grades?

Remember when you could research a paper online? Gone unless you pay.

Remember when you could video connect with people? Gone unless you pay.

Remember when you could watch videos to educate yourself? Gone unless you pay.

Remember when you could exchange ideas with people abroad? Gone unless you pay.

Who will you pay? Most of us - Comcast. Others - AT&T.

Today is the day that Net Neutrality suffered a huge blow and with the open element to the FCC over the next few months we need to DEMAND that these fast and slow lanes are not allowed.

Friday, May 9, 2014

Denying Climate Disruption Is Outrageous

The recent debate about global warming has got to be the most ridiculous thing I've heard of in a long while. People are making claims that it's all about political agenda and making money and I just shake my head. 
The reason for the research and the money that keeps going toward it is because deniers don't understand it. This is the same reason why the names keep changing. The overall concept is that what we are emitting in to the atmosphere at alarming rates is causing a distortion or an unwanted change in the way our ecosystem naturally evolves over time.
CHANGES IN THE CONCEPT OVER TIME
Originally this was called "Global warming", because one of the biggest effects was warming of the poles which we know to be happening (http://ocean.si.edu/ocean-photos/ice-melt-poles;http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2013/12/14/global_warming_ice_loss_continues.html;http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2012/11/29/ice-melt-global-warming/1736457/;http://www.worldwatch.org/melting-earths-ice-cover-reaches-new-high;http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-north-pole-is-melting/) but then deniers said ignorant things like, "well how come the winter here was so cold then if it's global warming?!"
So we adjusted it to say that it was "Climate Change" to illustrate other effects of this problem. The idea of climate change is that we are experiencing altogether warmer temperatures, but also that the seasons naturally make a shift to adjust with this. For this reason, winter starts later and lasts longer and summer starts later and lasts longer. We are noticing that the seasons we experience normally are now beginning to shift (http://www.livescience.com/5296-timing-seasons-changing.htmlhttp://www.livescience.com/19679-climate-change-seasons-shift-mismatch.htmlhttp://earthairwaves.kunm.org/2012/04/03/scientists-push-to-change-timing-of-seasons/http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/5749560/Climate-change-shifting-seasons-is-causing-widespread-hunger.html) in a way that causes problems for certain places of established people. Deniers then said that it wasn't changing the climate any more or less than it was before and that all of the changes we see happen naturally whether humans were polluting the atmosphere or not (which is a wild assumption because we know that every action has an equal and opposite reaction (law of motion) everywhere in nature and closed systems naturally push for equilibrium and that increases entropy (law of thermodynamics)...but I digress...)
So now the people arguing for the epidemic have again relabeled it as "Climate Disruption" so as to illuminate how it's specifically caused by our industry and pollution (https://www2.ucar.edu/climate/faq/how-much-has-global-temperature-risen-last-100-yearshttp://co2now.org/current-co2/co2-now/annual-co2.html;http://geospatial.blogs.com/.a/6a00d83476d35153ef015439106c90970c-800wi;http://www.mext.go.jp/b_menu/hakusho/image/hpag200001/fb1010003.gifhttp://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/A-Look-at-World-Energy-Consumption-Over-the-Last-200-Years.html) and now naysayers are trying to argue that the scientists are lying to us and creating conspiracies about things. There are people actually trying to argue that the polar caps are increasing in ice despite the absolute non-truth of this.
WHAT THE HECK DOES CO2 HAVE TO DO WITH IT?
We are putting more CO2 in the air than ever before. To say this doesn't change the system is outrageous. You can't put more of something into a system without changing the way it works. If I take air out of the tires on your car and put in pudding it will function differently.
Moreover, the trends for polar caps melting is certain. We know this is certainly more than before because when we drill down in the ice and find ice from 12,000 years ago and test it, the CO2 levels are much lower and the thickness of ice that dates there is much thicker, meaning it was there longer and for a bigger area.
The conclusion of the data is that CO2 at lower levels is directly related to the ice being there and we are currently pushing the system to higher CO2 Levels.
If the earth had trees that grew nearly uninhibitedly before humans and then when we had the industrial revolution we started raping our land of trees and spewing unprecedented levels of CO2 into the atmosphere, what would lead you to think that we aren't changing the system? Furthermore, since it's obvious that we ARE changing the system, what makes you think that it wouldn't make the system worse if the system naturally uses trees to get rid of CO2and yet we are eliminating them and introducing copious volumes of it?
Carbon Dioxide is a "greenhouse gas" not because of some mysterious guess we are making. We have observed it absorbing heat rays since 1861. What happens is that it allows short wave radiation (the sun waves) to pass through, but the infrared waves given off of the earths surface by the sun (long wave radiation) is absorbed by carbon dioxide. You can literally test this in a lab anywhere in the world. The carbon dioxide then emits this radiation in all directions and a good portion of that is spewed back into the atmosphere and is unable to change. The increase in this longwave radiation heats up the earth and causes changes in high and low pressure systems causing more storms and melting at the poles. (http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-co2-enhanced-greenhouse-effect-intermediate.htm)
Don't believe that we are having more storms and that they are worse? 
We have had several hurricanes that hit America in 2013 alone
The prevalence of tropical storm/hurricane weather has increased dramatically:

Ike 2008 was Category 4 and made landfall as a Cat 4 (Sept 7, 2008) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricane_Ike
Karl 2010 was Category 3 and made landfall as a cat 3 (Sep 17, 2010)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricane_Karl_(2010)
Irene 2011 was category 3 and made landfall as a cat 3 (Aug 22, 2011) (also the 11th costliest in history for America) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricane_Irene
Sandy 2012 was Category 3 and made landfall as a Cat 3 (Oct 26,2012) (also the 2nd costliest for lives and money for America) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricane_Sandy
If they are more frequent and higher severity it's only a matter of time.
CONCLUSION
The real reason we are even putting money into fighting for the science is because the conspiracy theorists have a loud voice that is stopping progress. Whatever you want to call the epidemic (Global Warming, Climate Change, Climate Disruption) doesn't change that it's happening and that we are observing direct effects. Don't be a denier just because you like the conspiracy bandwagon. It's funny how when oil prices skyrocket you have the same people claiming big oil is a conspiracy, but when you have people arguing for low emissions and the atmosphere now the green fuels people are a conspiracy.

How about we are just messing up the planet and need to change things?