Net Neutrality

The internet is really, really great.

The internet, in it's simplest form, allows for people who have very little to feel as though they have everything. That's because they have access to almost anything, via the internet.

The internet could be many things: what it is to me, is a source of information, entertainment, and communication that is better, faster, and more efficient than anything humans have ever had before.

Many people have grown up with that benefit - with that tool. Many people depend on access to the internet to be productive, stable members of society, including myself.

...I don't know how to fully articulate how important equal and untainted access to the internet is.

That's always been one of my weaknesses - effective communication, in person. Taking time to go and start a conversation where there needs to be one, or simply making my point without seeming defensive or overbearing. I know I don't have much influence over the vast majority of the world. That's not at all the issue - my weakness doesn't show up here.

The issue is the writing on the wall. Those who do have the resources and influence can't seem to see it when it matters. The writing says, "internet access is a basic human right." Almost all human beings have some access to electronic technology, and the software that allows us to connect to the internet is a circumstance of the proliferation of that technology. Therefore, by sheer saturation, we all have the right to access the internet, and that access need not favor some over others.

In most of rural America, there is no reliable internet access. Sure, we have satellite technology which helps alleviate that situation, but reliable is the keyword here. Already there is a glaring inequality between those who live in urban and rural areas. Then, to make matters worse, even those in urban areas don't have many choices when it comes to who provides access to the internet.

Net neutrality isn't just about throttling speeds, and choosing favorite outlets over outliers, it's about provisions, access, and market saturation. Investment in internet infrastructure should come at a short-term loss, while the long-term benefits will provide ample reasons to get started now.

If I were an internet provider, I would be putting massive amounts of capital into rural fiber infrastructure, simply because the long-term returns (even at sub-marginal subscriber rates) massively outweigh the loss of profit that is happening due to inactivity, apathy, and general mismanagement.

Let's run a quick case study.

Assuming it costs $13,000 per mile to run a fiber cable (which is already a high estimate), and we want to go from the Pottsboro, TX hub to Highport Marina along highway 289, which is 7 miles, it costs $91,000 to lay the line. Let's round that up to $100k for argument's sake.

Let's also assume there are roughly an average of 10 subscribing customers per mile of line, each paying $100 per month for their internet service. That's $1,000 per month, or $12,000 per year for fiber service to a rural community.

The investment pays for itself after 8 years and 4 months. After that, the subscription pays for maintenance, upgrades, and expansion for that area.

Here's where I think many business leaders get caught up: Where's the profit margin?

The profit margin comes when/if Pottsboro grows into a major urban area, much like what happened in Richardson, Plano, Frisco, McKinney, and even Sherman. The spine of the infrastructure has already been paid for and placed, and now with a solid subscriber base and an expanding potential market, it's much easier to acquire additional capital to pay for more fiber. That's where the profit margin enters into the picture. It's obvious urban areas are more profitable than rural areas, but with the internet, you can't discriminate.

So instead of getting caught up in the mindset of constant profit/growth, I'd like to see leaders make decisions based on merit and long-term provisions.

Which circles us back around to net neutrality. If we allow ourselves to get caught up in making as much money as possible in the short-term, we will erode our source of profit entirely. Future generations will be left with nothing. Why make all of this technological progress if we're just going to throw it all away?

The result of this fight for neutrality should be that even more people have access to the internet, and that all of us should be free to use it fairly and equally as a constitutional right.

Interactive Development

I just completed my first contract with 900Lbs. of Creative. Overall, working there was amazing. The commute to the Bishop Arts District in southwest Dallas was difficult, to say the least. Some days were good, with an optimal 40 minute commute, but most days were about an hour, and at worst being almost two hours. Generally, though, once I was there, I had my own computer and station, skylights, a window, and I would work in Unity on various projects. If I needed to rest, I rested. If I needed to get up and walk around, no one asked questions or was incredulous. There was fresh, cool water and a microwave downstairs, and a fridge and utensils upstairs. Two bathrooms meant the twelve or so of us never really had to wait (or at least, I didn't). Lunch was built into my hours - it was assumed that I would take as short a break as possible to eat, and then get right back to work. No clocking in or out; just a simple excel document. The atmosphere was informal, to put it lightly. That meant, however, that if I had something to say, I was expected to be brutally blunt with it. There were positive and negative aspects about their form of communication, but I preferred it over previous workplaces because I felt like I had a voice, even if the decisions weren't mine to make.

Small things like those add up to make the difference between a stuffy, sterile workplace, and a productive, energetic team. I would be happy to work there again.

Now to step back and view the big picture...

You want to get away with paying people pennies on the dollar for their jobs? Expect people to work freely, including, but not limited to, what I've just described. Just like everything else, you get what you pay for. If you pay people less than what they're worth, and pick away at their freedoms, expect high turnover and low productivity. Also, expect an awful client/customer experience. Nothing is worse for a bottom-line than adopting policies that create hostile or repressive work environments.

I've watched my whole life as managers and directors exploit an expanded labor pool (and even take measures to ensure that it keeps expanding), only to compensate stockholders. No reasonable person should actually believe that constant growth is sustainable. There are so many reasons for that, but the overarching idea is that Earth is a zero-sum environment. We are all limited to a specific, finite amount of fresh water, arable land, clean air, and various natural resources. We consume at a maximum rate, while our environment replenishes within a predictable, but limited range. If we consume more than what nature can offer or replenish, our ways of life crumble.

The counter-argument that the quantity of all of these resources are so massive that we will not run out in the foreseeable future is naive and selfish. We shouldn't exploit our resources. We should utilize and sustain them as best we can. Recycling, and the efforts to make packaging biodegradable or recyclable, is what will carry our society into the future safely, and without compromising our environment. Clean energy and fresh water are important, but I feel that the massive amount of unmanageable garbage is a slightly more pressing issue currently. (Ever see Wall-E?) Managing waste is a readily solvable problem, and one that could put a bunch more people to work.

What does any of this have to do with being an interactive developer? Everything. As we move forward as a society, as automation and software removes the need for human labor, we will see a shift from blue-collar physical jobs to white-collar office jobs. Creative jobs, and more bluntly, jobs that don't have a high profitability, will keep our society running smoothly. As more and more people hold creative jobs, and even more technical jobs (like programming), the pay for those people will predictably decrease. That shouldn't happen unless there is also a safety net in the form of either a universal basic income, a huge earned income tax credit, or some similarly stabilizing program. If my wage stagnates, simply because I don't have a STEM degree, and despite the fact that I could, theoretically, complete a master's degree in computer science (if it didn't come at an exorbitant price), I will simply be one of thousands of moderately to highly educated citizens who cannot contribute to our nation's sustainable future.

If I am a case study for the future of our educated middle class, then at every interval I will put forth this kind of informative argument. The large majority of people I know are struggling to find the same balance I am.

Societal Needs - Revisited

A while back I posted about what society needs organized into their respective priorities. In terms of the whole concept, the categories are vague enough to work, but when used to organize specific resources, they tend to breakdown. In summary, I want to simplify the model. Even though doing so seems counter-intuitive, the reasoning is that by simplifying categories which are already vague, each category can be implicitly broken down into their exact components later on. Instead of making many categories that could potentially overlap, fewer categories can end up being more specific.


Needs such as work or purpose can be combined with exercise.
Risk, safety and regulation, and social security can be worked into a tax category (along with income or property taxes).
The need for company, religion (or charity), education, and the arts can be combined into one social category.

The new breakdown reads as follows:



Primary - each primary need must be available as an easily accessible, unpolluted, and temperate function of life.

• Water
• Food
• Shelter

Secondary - although not absolutely necessary, providing for secondary needs allows small groups to exist in one location over a long period of time.

• Clothing
• Work
• Electricity
• Recreation
• Waste

Tertiary - these needs allow for many large groups to coexist with others harmoniously, and for even denser urban areas to function over longer periods of time.

• Goods
• Transportation
• Communication
• Healthcare
• Taxes
• Social
• Savings

Expressed as a budget, with resources allocated to each need, one would use their income to take the difference, and then arrive at their savings.