Could a centrally maintained wireless infrastructure be good for the USA?

It has been touted by United States President Donald Trump that the 5G wireless system should be followed out and funded by the Government rather than leave it to the wireless Operators to manage. Could this actually be a better course?

If you look our the past rolls outs that were funded by Private business and delve a little you suddenly see that these were actually funded by the Government but after the roll out was completed the consumer, the taxpayer, never saw any benefit.

The original telephone system was rolled out by the private companies but the bulk of the cost was actually born by the tax payer and not by the company, which became a monopoly which was then broken up when the United States Government realized how bad this monopoly was and how anti consumer friendly it really was when there was no competition.

Then came the roll out of cable TV, this again was funded by the taxpayer with heavy subsidies go the cable companies who then proceeded to roll out services and again we suffered from anti-competitive monopolies in regions because these companies didn’t desire to have to compete for customers. Even when broadband was introduced the cable companies and telcos chose not to compete and their pricing merely matched their rivals, in many areas where both existed there was now a duopoly of two companies and if areas were poorly served by just one, for example small towns or villages they were left to rot with neither willing to invest in decent infrastructure that would support service.

Then along case mobile, this time the frequencies were auctioned to the carriers, the trouble is they chose to create a system where interoperability between them was limited devices were commonly locked to the service and in turn the consumer as locked to that service and worse still there was actually whole swathes of the country that barely had phone service, in fact still does not have wireless phone access for anything other than basic phone calls and sometimes nothing at all.

Broadband internet came along, initially 2G through the same system that carried voice followed by more purchased through auction frequencies to give bandwidth for 3G then LTE, but the competition really was not and still is not there. It took a desperate cony T-Mobile and their CEO to take drastic measures which created competition. Still phones are locked to service and roaming rarely happens because many phones are physically locked and rely on carefully chosen network agreements to roam onto those networks in certain areas. For example, I had service with Verizon for many years and found that even in the center of my City there was not just dead spots within the data system but complete dead space where they had no service at all and rural areas that were dead to all voice and data connections, CAN YOU HEAR ME NOW?

As we enter the era of 5G is it. It time that the Government rethinks how the network for 5G shudder be rolled out? Should we leave it to these companies that not only don’t want to work together but also are anticompetitive and who would invest in only those areas where they sold see big returns? Do we want a situation where a “connected” device stops working when you move from one home to another simply because the carrier that it is designed to work with decided it was too costly roll out service to?

I think that Donald Trump really has the right idea, the Government should invest in rolling out the infrastructure for 5G services, make all the bandwidth available for all the companies and then tell the wireless companies that they can lease access to the system and then that way all the wireless companies become the leasing agents and sell devices that operate on the network but all devices can access all spectrum available. The wireless carriers then have to compete on price. It would allow small carriers to enter the market not have to rely on being a Mobile VirtuL Network Operator locked to deals they had to negotiate with a specific carrier or carriers. It would allow consumers to purchase handsets out right and then not have to fight with devices being ‘ocked to a particular carrier and it would allow connected devices to be built that would not have to worry about irate consumers finding their products only work in certain areas.

More importantly it would give allow the government to get a return on the spending rather than just give it to the carriers who then blindly continue on their anticompetitive practices and the airwaves remain the property of the taxpayer.

Sure, we hear all the doomsayers talking about government spying! Let’s remember that it hasn’t stopped the American Government spying on us with the networks being in the hands of these wireless carriers and broadband operators. It would simply be business as usual, the only difference is that the roll out would be far wider spread and without the omission of various places simply because it was not economical to push service to that area or for the service provider to charge horrendous fees simply to make the connection.

Eisenhower had his job creation around the Interstate Highway System maybe it’s time that Donald Trump had his Internet Highway System…


Is Donald’s Trump plan more about reigning in the more outspoken in politics?

Is it possible to that Trump has an agenda with his selections for cabinet etc.

Some people, the snowflakes of the world especially, are angry and irate at the choices that are being made by Donald Trump but it almost seems like an agenda.

I have never believed that Donald Trump is as bad as people want to portray him, in fact most of what he says is more like the drunk uncle or the crazy aunt at the party that blurts crap out and just rolls with it.

Every single choice he has made has drawn the ire of those sensitive little souls angry that Hillary Clinton lost the election.  To be quite honest he seems to have more of an agenda and it’s not so much about who he is picking but rather why he is picking these people.

Is his choice purely based on these people being extremist?  No.  It’s because the best way of dealing with those that are outspoken and extremist is to get them where they are permanently in the public eye and he can control them and rein them in.

At believe that much of what was said by Donald Trump was purely to get the conservative vote and many of the policies that he suggested he would implement were specifically to attract the vote.

He got far more of the Latino vote than anyone would care to admit,  I know many Liberal voting Latino’s that voted for Donald Trump and even in California the Win for Hillary Clinton was not sweeping and there was a huge chunk of those votes were Latino and it was the Latino’s that paid and did the immigration process in the correct way paying all the fee’s and becoming legal residents or Naturalized as Citizens and it offends them that illegal immigrants were being pandered to by Hillary’s campaign.

As for me, I chose to vote for neither, I felt I couldn’t vote for Donald Trump and I certainly could not vote of Hillary Clinton so, like many I choice to vote for neither, none of their policies moved me.

So when Donald Trump chooses someone for one position or another and everyone cries out I just say to myself, “It’s just another extremist that he is able to control and reign in”.  Whether I am correct or not is irrelevant.  I just know that regardless of the propaganda against him that he is not going to lock people up for disagreeing and is not going to roll back laws and much of what he said he would do was rhetoric just like Barack Obama’s rhetoric and promises that he never kept,  Guatamano Bay is not closed after 8 years, other promises were never kept and we can’t just blame Congress for everything that is just ignorant.


Facebook won the Election for Trump

Donald Trump was smart, very smart!

This may get me chastised by many but it is a very smart man that utilizes social media to pull in voters and convert them than waste money on advertising. He utilized Facebook and while Facebook itself didn’t participate, heck it was blamed for fake news and anti-Trump biasing, it made a great platform for fund raising and Facebook, according to the trump campaign was responsible for the bulk of the fund raising.

It is important to remember that regardless of our political leanings we have to admire anyone that can run a campaign and win against the odds.  He really raised funds on the sly using methods that others wouldn’t use and utilized social media to the extreme in the process.

Most of what he was doing could be called, in hindsight taking into account some of the back tracking he has done in the past few days with reversals of his statements, grandstanding.  He knows how to manipulate people and while many people say he is not a politician he knew how to make blunt statements that were totally unexpected but were designed to impart that tiny seed of doubt about Hillary Clinton.

All you need to do is create the smoke and people will find the fire, even if that fire is not actually there and Donald Trump during the campaign was exceptional at doing so.  Let’s face it, he really learned much of this from Hillary’s failed Presidential nominational campaign in 2008 where she utilized or allowed another’s to utilize the creating of smoke and letting others create a fire to go along with that smoke allowing her to stay ‘clean’.  Many still believe her campaign created the seed that grew into the Barack Obama Birther movement but this has been refuted by many because it was started by one of her supporters, allegedly.

I may not agree with everything that Donald Trump said, I may not agree with everything that any politician says, personally I think they are all narcissistic assholes promoting their own personal agendas while claiming to do it for ‘the people’ and some may claim that the campaign was vicious or dirty but really it wasn’t any worse than any other campaign.  I didn’t weep for Hillary’s failure, I didn’t have a happy dance for Donald’s success, I just, as everyone else should, get on with life and let the politicians get on with making a mess of the country like they have Since before April 19th 1775.

All I know is that I am busy trying to batten down the hatches as the tidal wave of economic collapse that is starting to affect China and has been simmering for several years in the rest of the Western World builds.  If you want an indicator of how bad things are, Long Beach docks are reducing employment levels and business has been slow all year for inward and outward traffic.  It’s in the tea leaves and regardless of who would have been elected the economic collapse is on the cards…



Why California Secession would be a bad thing for the Democratic Party and a Great thing for the GOP

While Seceding from the Union for California would really make very little difference to the people of California, in fact the state as a separate country would possibly reap more money from taxation than it does as a member state of the USA.

The one thing that it would be bad for is Democratic Party.  Removing 55 votes from the Electoral College that is for the most part always a Democratic block vote of 55 would almost certainly guarantee that every election would be won by the Republican Party, essentially making it a one Party County.

The other things to remember is that militarily California will be in a situation where it will be without Armed Forces, they can hardly co-opt any military located in California and hardly demand military hardware. Nice as it may be it is something that just won’t happen, a Republican Government may be happy to eradicate those 55 electoral college votes but they are not going to do any favors, could California end up with a huge military spending debt or will they announce themselves as being a “Neutral Country” in the same way that Switzerland is with a token force of Navy, Airforce and Military for internal peacekeeping or for rescue needs or policing the borders?

I personally am against CALEXIT, simply because the spurring action has been this lost election and as a backlash against the electing of Donald Trump as our next President.   Would it be unfair for Republican voters in California to be separated from the rest of the USA regardless of how they vote by a majority of people that are angry at something that their Republican vote never had a bearing on.

Would the separation of California from the rest of the United States of America be no different from the families in North Korea that were forcibly separate from family in South Korea purely because they happened to live above the 52 parallel?  After all, California would have to issue Citizenship papers and people living in California would lose their right to travel to the USA and borders would be put up.

If California was to secede, would there be a free travel agreement with the rest of the USA, after all, there are many that live in Oregon, Nevada and Arizona whom all travel and I’m sure the transit is in both directions with commutes between the two.

I’m sure that as a separate country California could focus on Solar Energy, with Elon Musk’s solar investment and Battery Bank technology it would make California potentially able to reduce their Fossil fuel consumption and extra oil could be imported direct to the State though the production the state has remaining would likely, with a focus on more electric vehicles and charging stations alongside public transport, become less of a dependency.   Most of California is lucky enough to live where we receive enough strong sunlight even in winter months to at least massively reduce dependency over time.

So while California would basically be all fine, with a strong economy that can support it as an Independant country the real loser would be the Democrats in the rest of the USA that would lose any chance of there being another Democrat President,  that would be unforgivable but again something that everyone would have to live with or in this case live without.

I will always remain a proponent of Proportional Representation of the Electoral College where the block vote is split between the top two on a proportional basis giving a fairer distribution representative of voters and means that those in a minority party when it comes to the big two parties would still have a voice and means that there is a bigger likelihood that those that don’t bother voting would vote where their vote would actually count for something in their state, not just states like California but states where they are always a GOP help state during presidential elections.  Wouldn’t a push towards something like this where each state has it’s own popular vote represented in the college representing both parties.  It would show a far narrower win in the Electoral College but would be far fairer for all in all states without huge states with a big base of either Democrat or Republican drowning out the voices of those states with smaller populations.

Anyway, enough politics,  two posts is more than enough for a lifetime for me.