From time to time it is worth a look at how well we may be doing. The above is an interesting chart. It is the total real estate loans issued by month and the annualized growth rate by month. One can see the collapse period but for the last eighteen months we have been doing quite well. This may be one of the best signs of late, of course unless you live in San Francisco!
In the summer of 1974 while at MIT I got a group of local minority students to help on a radar problem at Logan Airport. We were to examine the issue of airport surface traffic control and my group of students were what I had to help me out. They were sharp, dedicated and hard workers. The following summer, 1975, MIT formalized a program called MITES. It is not in its 40th year.
In the late 80s and early 90s I worked again with MITES bringing a half dozen or more students down to New York to work with me at NYNEX (now Verizon). They were great! They went on to Medicine, Investment Banking and Entrepreneurial start ups.
This is an amazing program and I am happy to have played a small role along the way. I still see the former students and from time to time get together. I have seen families grow and careers expand. Of all the programs at MIT this is clearly one of the most productive.
I just read a piece which discussed the Internet as being a human right. Rousseau would even be surprised. Human rights do change with time, for example we do have "free" telephone service to those who cannot afford it. But Internet access is a bit more complex. It is available at your local library, if you have one, and at all Starbucks I would guess. Most hotel lobbies have it as well. But you have to possess a device which can access the Internet. Is that part of the right.
FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler said in a speech today that "broadband should be available to everyone everywhere." Wheeler: If slow speeds are enough, why do you heavily promote faster service? The FCC was created in 1934 with the mandate
to ensure universal access to telephone service at reasonable prices.
Today there is a "Universal Service Fund" to subsidize access to
Internet and other communications services but no strict requirement
that everyone in the US be offered broadband. Availability varies widely
throughout the country, with many rural customers lacking fast, reliable Internet service.
I wrote extensively on Universal Service some twenty years ago, as the FCC was considering expanding it to wireless. A United Nations report in 2011
said disconnecting people from the Internet is a human rights
violation. Vint Cerf, who co-created the networking technology that made
the Internet possible, wrote
that Internet access is not a human right, arguing that "technology is
an enabler of rights, not a right itself... at one time if you didn’t
have a horse it was hard to make a living. But the important right in
that case was the right to make a living, not the right to a horse.
Today, if I were granted a right to have a horse, I’m not sure where I
would put it."
Universal Service was focused on a survival issue, the poor and elderly needing access to emergency care. Internet access is dramatically different. It is Facebook and Twitter, the benefit to humanity being marginal at best.
Thus one should ask why we should pay for this service, what is the societal benefit? My position of some twenty years ago seems to remain the same.
There are two contrasting media outlets which discuss their country's interests. China Daily is for China and RT for Russia. RT seems always to find the most extreme example of US actions and always finds a way to condemn the US. China Daily on the other hand is a window to China and is somewhat even handed.
A recent piece by China Daily is worthy of reading. It describes actions by the US with China during WW II. The article states: Top-secret military documents from World War II have revealed the
depth and strength of the alliance between China and the United States
against Imperial Japan, as well as joint efforts to rescue downed US
pilots. The cache of intelligence documents, detailing a number of daring
missions, is on display at Jianchuan Museum in Anren, Sichuan province. More than 1,100 documents and other artifacts were donated by the
family of Major Richard Hill (1908-92), a US military intelligence
officer who coordinated the rescue of 46 US pilots shot down over
occupied China. Fan Jianchuan, who owns the museum, said he is passionate about
bringing the largely forgotten story of US-China collaboration to life
for a new generation, and that the path to future peace and friendship
lies in these wartime ties.
The fact was that the US and China did cooperate greatly during WW II and this was an added dimension that we all too often forget.
On the other hand we should always re-read Mahan as well as Bywater to best understand the Pacific as a region of potential military conflict. China is unlike Japan, it is economically self sufficient and has access to resources that it deems necessary. However control of the seas is as critical to China as it was to Japan.
In a recent article in Backchannel an attorney whose opinions in my opinion lack any insight into fundamental technical and operational factors opines on broadband in NH. Some ten years ago I spent a few years trying to do broadband in over 20 towns in New Hampshire. I have a home in New Hampshire and I got to know every street in these towns. All one has to do is examine some cases we presented on our web site. We did years of work examining every street and every market. More than likely we got to know the state better than most Presidential candidates. From Nashua to Colebrook.
Now the author states: Why? Because New Hampshire, our nation’s 42nd most populous state, has
lousy connectivity. The FCC defines high-speed Internet access to be 25
Mbps down/3 Mbps up these days, and more than a third of the rural
population in New Hampshire (most of which votes Republican,
by the way) can’t buy that kind of connection at any price. Fewer than
one out of every six urban New Hampshire residents can buy that
connection even if they want it: the wire just doesn’t exist in their
Why the poor connectivity. All you have to do is look at the paper I wrote after the attempt to build out fiber. I stated:
This paper presents one of the most significant costs of
implementing a broadband service but at the same time one of the least analyzed
component in that process, franchising. Simply stated, for a town as small as a
few thousand households, the time it takes to obtain a franchise under the best
of circumstances is often well in excess of one year and the amount of labor
includes often two or more people dedicated to that effort plus other costs such
as legal, engineering and other costs. If the incumbent decides to fight, the
process may take longer. The municipalities always want to increase their
returns so the process becomes an escalation of demands and delays. For towns of
say 2,000 households, as the author demonstrates by specific ca se studies,
costs of $400,000 to $500,000 are not unrealistic. This means readily an additional
cost of $250 per HH or at 25% penetration, $1,000 per HH. In contrast the capital
required to deliver broadband in such a community is $1,500 per HH. Thus the franchise
costs are approaching the capital costs per HH in many communities. This
clearly becomes a dramatic if hidden element but also becomes a real but
avoidable barrier to entry for any and all new broadband entrants. This paper
details these costs and others and makes suggestions to remedy them.
Namely, the towns themselves, in my experience and my opinion, were one of the greatest road blocks. Add to that was the influence the cable companies had in trying to stop any fiber build.
Overall the piece fails in my opinion to understand the complexity of New Hampshire politics. The towns may want fiber but the way they go about it is the most significant obstacle. It would really help to understand the record and not make statements which serve a political agenda.
Unfortunately I have the distinct disadvantage of experience. Politics does not.
Terry has spent most of his career in industry, half in corporate executive positions, and half involved in his start ups. He started on the Faculty and Staff at MIT in 1967 and was there until 1975, and he had returned to MIT from 2005 to 2012 to assist groups of doctoral and post doc students. Terry has focused on a broad set of industries from cable, to satellite, wireless, and even health care software and medical imaging. Terry has published extensively in a broad set of areas as well as having written several books. Terry's view is that of an entrepreneur who has built companies in over twenty countries.
Copyright 2008-2015 Terrence P McGarty all rights reserved.
NOTE: This blog contains personal opinions of the author and is not meant in any manner to provide professional advice, medical advice, financial advice. Reliance on any of the opinions contained herein is done at the risk of the user.
All documents and materials on this web site are the copyrighted property of Terrence P McGarty, the "Author", and can be used solely for individual purposes. The Author also does not represent in any manner or fashion that the documents and information contained herein can be used other than for expressing the opinions of the Author. Any use made and actions resulting directly or otherwise from any of the documents, information, strategies, or data or otherwise is the sole responsibility of the user and The Author expressly takes no liability for any direct or indirect losses resulting from the use or reliance upon any of the Author's opinions as herein expressed. There is no representation by The Author, express or otherwise, that the materials contained herein are investment advice, business advice, legal advice, medical advice or in any way should be relied upon by anyone for any purpose. The Author does not provide any financial, investment, medical, legal or similar advice on this website or in its publications or related sites.