Another effect of TOO big to Fail...a monopoly

Does anyone remember when AOL an Internet provider became a fortune 500 company overnight due to everyone using it. The had catchy phrases that were awesome until the 200th time you heard the computer voice tell you. "Welcome", "You Have Mail". and automatic inactivity log offs every 15 minutes. The infamous 56K dial sound logging in with Hissing and other random noises, and then someone gets on the line to make a call and your session is over. There was also a tired pricing system when you first got the demo CD, the gave you Internet session limits. Like 30 free hours for one month, and once the trial period is over your hooked. You have to have the Internet because now you have peoples email address and you cant possibly end those relationships. So AOL charges you like $30 for 20 hours or so and if you went over and you paid in credit cards they would let you go over and charge you extra usage fees much like cell phones now. Then DSL and Cable Internet came out and it wasn't necessary to go through AOL as an Internet provider, especially since it was slow or an additional fee to use it along with your DSL or Cable Internet. The AOL time Warner merger was supposed to revolutionize the industry and bring down the cost of cable and the Internet. Because both of the companies had to go before congress and the FTC and pay some lobbyist to pay some government officials and it was determined that this merger wouldn't violate any antitrust rules that were put in place to protect the citizens and ultimately the consumers. I guess it can be looked at as a win/win for both companies even though the AOL brand failed to bring in income. I thought the times where over that the industry would revert to usage limits to pad their pocket books, but Time Warner is bringing it back in a unabashed manner to screw the very customers who they said they would save money.

Time Warner (NYSE: TWX) Cable has released new pricing for consumption-based Internet billing the company is testing in some areas of the United States. The tiered pricing, which the company plans to roll out in other regions this year, includes unlimited service for $150 a month.

In announcing the new pricing, Landel Hobbs, chief operating officer for Time Warner Cable, said a pay-what-you-use model is the fairest option for customers while generating the revenue needed to cover the rising costs of an insatiable demand for more bandwidth....Hobbs warned that without expensive network upgrades, Internet demand in the United States would outpace capacity within a few years, possibly as soon as 2012....therefore, Time Warner Cable has chosen what it believes is the fairest approach, one that has people pay more if they use more, Hobbs said. The new pricing options included $15 per month for 1 GB of data a month at download speeds of 768 KB per second and upload speeds of 128 KB a second. People using more than their allotment would be charged $2 per gigabyte per month. About 30% of Time Warner Cable customers use less than 1 GB per month. Options for 10 GB, 20 GB, 40 GB, and 60 GB a month also will be available with overage charges of $1 per gigabyte a month. For $75 a month, a customer can get 100 GB a month at download speeds of 10 MB per second and upload speeds of 1 MB.(Informationweek.com)

SO after the congress has appropriated money for years to assist in upgrading the digital networks and using Tax Money to pay for it. Time Warner justifies that since their company fails to be as profitable their board thinks they should be that they need the citizens to pay more for less service after using their tax dollars. That is screwed up on any level you look at it, the government failed to protect the tax payer investment and from a company that violates many aintrust protections that where supposed reviewed by two separate government organizations the legislature and the FTC. For years unlimited service for cable Internet has been significantly less $150 and now Time Warner is going to charge significantly more for less service with no government review. This isn't change, its just the same thing over again. This has all the evidence of being a monopoly.

The 56K melody for your enjoyment

You must Hate Children

At least every week I get in a discussion with someone about the current state of health care in the United States. About half of these conversations immediately turn political, "Obama's health care initiative is going destroy health care." That statement isn't enough everyone who says that statement follows it with the obligatory story from Canada or the UK. " Well my (Family Member) lives in (UK/Canada) and they have to wait for (Weeks, Months, Years) for medical care. If we go to socialized medicine, then we will have to wait forever for medical care. Well its not a particular president's health care initiative I care about, I just care about people having health care. Especially Children, they should not be held responsible based on the decisions that their parents make. Let me discuss some numbers, since they are credible and a quantifiable identifiable gauge of the state of health care.

On August 31, 2007 The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities a "policy organization..with particular emphasis on the impact of various budget choices on low-income Americans"(CBPP) Published a report entitled "MORE AMERICANS, INCLUDING MORE CHILDREN, NOW LACK HEALTH INSURANCE" Were they reported the amount of Uninsured Americans based on the data provided by the US Census Bureau. Their findings were the following:

-- The percentage of Americans without insurance climbed to 15.8 percent in 2006, above the 15.3 percent level in 2005 and considerably above the 14.1 percent level in 2001. The percentage of Americans without insurance has increased largely because employer-sponsored insurance coverage has continued to erode.
-- The percent of full-time working adults who lack health insurance rose to 17.9 percent in 2006, up from 17.2 percent. The number of full-time working adults who are uninsured climbed by 1.2 million, to 22.0 million.

Their findings in regards to insured children is alarming

-- The number of uninsured children under age 18 rose by 600,000, from 8.05 million in 2005 to 8.66 million in 2006. The percentage of children who lack health insurance also rose from 10.9 percent to 11.7 percent.
-- the number and percentage of children who are uninsured declined from 1999 through 2004, but that trend stopped and began to reverse in 2005
-- From 2004 to 2006, the percentage of children covered by public insurance remained unchanged and thus could not offset the continued reduction in the percentage of children covered by employer-sponsored insurance. The result was an overall reduction in children’s coverage.

The Report from The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities "Poverty Rate and Non-Elderly Median Income, Worst Performance on Record For Any Six Years of Economic Growth"(CBPP) which analyzed the data for the year of 2007 provided by the US Census Bureau. There was an improvement but not much of an improvement.

-- The percentage of children without coverage dropped by 500,000, from 8.66 million in 2006 to 8.15 million in 2007. The percentage of children without coverage dropped from 11.7 percent in 2006 to 11.0 percent

The report also noted:

"last year Congress failed to override a presidential veto of SCHIP legislation that the Congressional Budget Office estimated would have led by 2012 to coverage for nearly 4 million children who otherwise will be uninsured; this means many states likely will be unable to sustain or build upon this progress in 2008."

These are not numbers to be proud of. In 1948 the United Nations General Assembly Adopted and proclaimed by General Assembly resolution 217 A (III)(Universal Decleration of Human Rights) Article 25 section 1 and 2 states the following:

"(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.

(2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection."

This resolution that was adopted in New York City by 51 member countries including the five permanent members of the Security Council- France, the Republic of China, the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom and the United States. In NEW YORK CITY(U.S.A.) By no means is any resolution within the General Assembly Binding, but it should be noted this was in the first two years of the United Nations inception in which Franklin D. Roosevelt and Winston Churchill were credited as the creators. That being said, how are we the country not following essentially our own resolutions in decree. ALL CHILDREN...SHALL ENJOY THE SAME PROTECTION of Article 25 sec 1. If you hate socialized health insurance for kids, then you must hate children. If you hate the idea of socializing medical care because you think its communisim then you are an idiot. At least this has a benifit, its not like you dont have a SOCIAL security number or recieved an education from a Public school, or drivin on PUBLIC roads, or drink from MUNICIPAL water supply. Its all for the social good you idiot. GOOD.

FREE MONEY FREE FRAUD Greg Easterbrook

Gregg Easterbrook a writer for the world wide sports leader ESPN, might be insane when comparing Eli to Peyton Manning. He does have a complete understanding about how much our government cares about YOU! In his recent artilcle where he makes the argument that Eli is better than Peyton, Mr. Easterbrook makes valid points about all the elected politicions esentially commiting fraud by not doing their job and the elected polititions who lack a true backbone(Bailout).

Of Course They Vote for More Subsidies, They Themselves Are Subsidized

In the spring, as a dozen Democratic and Republican officeholders were crisscrossing the country campaigning for presidential nominations yet still receiving taxpayer money for jobs they were making no pretense of performing, TMQ declared there should be a federal resign-to-run law. Several states now have resign-to-run laws: They prevent officeholders from taking tax-funded salaries while not doing their jobs. Why is it assumed that saying the words, "I am running for president" makes it OK for a senator to pull in $200,000 or so per year in pay and benefits, yet perform no duties? If you told your employer you would not perform your duties for a year because you were running for president, yet still expected full pay, your employer would say two words that are not "Merry Christmas." Now we're down to four White House-seeking freeloaders, and both parties look bad. All three senators are billing the federal taxpayer to self-promote around the clock; the governor is billing her state's taxpayers to self-promote around the clock. Either presidential candidates should be required to resign to run, or at least anyone who declares for the presidency or vice presidency should have his or her public salaries and benefits suspended.[ESPN Oct, 7, 2008]

What, No Subsidies for Rum-Soaked Wool?

"SENATE ADDS SWEETNERS TO BAILOUT BILL was a standard headline last week. Oh, so
it's not enough to give away $700 billion of taxpayers' money, we've got to add sweeteners! Special-interest groups across the spectrum tacked wish-list items onto the bailout bill, which also passed the House and became law with George W. Bush's signature. Some $100 billion in business and upper-middle-class tax breaks were added, along with tax favors or direct subsidies for solar power, wool marketing, subway maintenance, Puerto Rican rum sales, "motorsports racing track" facilities, and investing in the District of Columbia (already among the most heavily subsidized place on Earth; Alaska, which consistently ranks first or second in federal spending per capita, may be the most subsidized -- scan down to "Alaska" in this study), tax breaks for farmers, eligibility of foreign banks for U.S. bailouts, tax favors for people who won money from the Exxon Valdez lawsuit, subsidies for "certain wooden arrows used by children" -- the list goes on. Scan the bill for the word "wool," for example. It's the noise of the lambs! What started as a $700 billion bailout could easily cost taxpayers $850 billion, and every penny of it borrowed from our children.

Three points need to be made about the bailout legislation. First, conservatives in the House torpedoed the initial bill, calling it too expensive at $700 billion, then voted for the second version, bloated to $850 billion. Now there's a profile in courage! Second, the bill was originally three pages -- and grew to 451 pages as enacted, as giveaway after giveaway was tacked on. The United States Constitution and all amendments is about 20 pages; it takes 451 pages to legislate a bank recovery payment? Super-long legislation is both inherently too complex and litigation-prone -- last year's Warner-Lieberman greenhouse gas regulation bill, which almost passed the Senate, was 491 pages -- and invites giveaways. In a brief, straightforward bill, a tacked-on special-interest favor stands out and looks embarrassing to the sponsor. In a gigantic laundry-list bill with hundreds of pages of special favors, none stand out. Everybody else's constituent is getting a handout, where's mine? Proposal: Congressional legislation should be limited to the word length of the United States Constitution. If Congress can't say something in fewer words than the Framers required to found the country, then Congress shouldn't say anything.

Third, why do members of the national legislature give away your money as fast as it can be borrowed? Because they want campaign donations. Polls show Americans don't like the idea of public funding for House and Senate elections, because it seems like a giveaway. But the public already funds congressional elections, just in an incredibly overpriced, inefficient way. Members of the House and Senate give away billions of dollars in subsidies and tax breaks to special-interest groups, in order to get back thousands of dollars in campaign donations. The $150 billion or so in sweetheart handouts in the bailout legislation will probably result in several million additional dollars given to House and Senate members as campaign donations. It would be far, far cheaper for taxpayers just to fund congressional campaigns! Suppose the public funded each House race at $1 million (435 races every second year) split between the parties, and each Senate race at $5 million split (roughly 34 races every second year), then banned campaign contributions. (Skip whether the Supreme Court would allow the latter, this is a thought experiment.) The cost would be about $600 million every second year, when there are national elections. That's peanuts compared to the amounts House and Senate incumbents give away to PAC-backed lobbies in order to inspire campaign donations. Federal financing of House and Senate races would save the public tens, if not hundreds, of billions of dollars. "
[ESPN, Greg Easterbrook, Oct, 7]