Thank Verizon for this mess.

Net Neutrality

The FCC did not want to upset the telecoms so it created a watered down version of Title II classifying it as a information service. The republicans liked this since they said it gave the telecoms the ability to adapt in a rapidly changing market. But the telecoms did not use the watered down rules to do anything but make us pay more for a poor service. The FCC hoped they would invest their profits into upgrading their network equipment but it just did not happen. They are a corporations and their primary purpose is to maximize the financial gain for their shareholders. Usually a company has to balance the cost of their product/service on a free demand curve. The demand curve of a monopoly or oligopoly is very different from a free market. They control the market so they can force you to pay more than a free market will allow. Therefore we have laws for monopoly or oligopoly so they don't abuse their market power.

It's not like Verizon does not know what Title II is they are a phone company and they live by the regulations. The watered down regulations where not good enough so they sued. The judge said in the results of the Verizon case that the FCC should have used Title II. Tom Wheeler is upset because POTUS and four million Americans asked him to move to adopt Title II, and he feels bad that a few lobbyist (of which he used to be one) will be upset. Tom Wheeler makes so much money he paid to make hard decisions. May be he should resign and state he has a conflict of interest.

The Oligopoly's don't like it, sure they don't like it but when you have monopoly power and historically have abused it by raising prices and not investing in infrastructure over profits. Can you be surprised that the countries asked for the laws of the land be applied properly. But may be in today's American the laws of the land don't apply to everyone.

So why does POTUS have to make a public statement to a person he appointed as a public (Tom Wheeler). That a good question for Tom Wheeler.

Can you live without an eight hundred dollar smartphone

I've posted some anti Apple stuff in the past but I've come to believe that if people love their smartphones as much as Apple fans do, then its worth it to them the nearly thousand dollars of final cost. It's like somebody who drives an Audi people will pay for what they want (i don't get it but they probably would hate my Prius each to their own).

Do you need an eight hundred dollar phone. It's amazing how we love our smartphone, at lunch today I was out walking. As I past people they were not talking, or shopping but fully engaged in their smart phone. Playing games, email, text etc. I would be a hypocrite judging them since I've been addicted to computer technology for over thirty five years. I heard a story from a co worker whose family members saw somebody murdered on a bus in East Asia for their phone proves just how important these devices have become.

Google has been working hard to bring smartphones to the masses. They have good profit reasons to do this but these are powerful tools to bring knowledge to every corner of the world. They have fully functional phones for a hundred dollars. My Moto G is great and it is just a little bit more. These phones have caused the recent market shrinkage by Samsung as their end.

These are amazing tools they can be leveraged by somebody who may not have reliable power or water. Smart people will used them to learn how to fish rather than buy fish. But as with any tool somebody can use a screwdriver to fix a car or stab their neighbor. Phones make the world a smaller place, spreading knowledge and advance mankind.

If I write a game tomorrow and drop it on the Google store it, could be being played somebody half a world away (though probably not without good marketing). The eight hundred dollar phone is first world issue. The hundred dollar (or $25 dollar smart phone tomorrow) is changing the world. Knowledge is free to travel around world.