Net Neutrality- The internet, the electronic frontier, the World Wide Web, and a series of tubes.

Everyone who is reading this has communicated using the internet. Yes, you, with that mouse in your hand and your eyes moving on a screen. You are looking at the projection of light that creates letters that create words, which form sentences, which represent ideas, which appear in your brain. The internet allows a world wide access to content and the most powerful communication network in human history. Any student knows the worth of the internet, from when you check your Twitter, watch Netflix on a rainy day, or save your grade by using Spark Notes.

Connection to this telecommunication hive has become a necessity in the modern world, residing in the age of information. Businesses rely on the internet for corporate infrastructure; it has gone far beyond simple online buying and selling (e-commerce). Stocks are traded on the online world; shipments are organized and monitored on a global scale.

Revolutions in Egypt, Libya, Syria, Ukraine, and Venezuela are organized using peer-to-peer communication. Nations like China, Cuba, Russia, and North Korea feel threatened by this power so much that they censor sites and prevent accesses to parts of the internet from their citizens. YouTube entertains hundreds of millions. Khan Academy offers free education to anyone who can connect to it. Wikipedia contains a summary of all human knowledge.

Connection to this mass communication network is imperative to obtain the full value of living in the modern developed world.


In the United States, access to this network is primarily given through the use of Internet Service Providers (ISPs).  These are usually privately owned telecommunication and telephone companies such as Comcast and AT&T. These companies offer connection to the world’s largest communication network for a price.
Normally, a customer pays the ISP for the base connection, allowing access to the internet, and every site on it equally.

However there is a growing fear that broadband providers are going to start restricting access to particular cites, unless the customer pays a fee. This brings up the issue known as Net Neutrality, which is “the principle that ISPs should treat all data on the internet equally, not discriminating or charging by user, content, site, platform, application, type of attached equipment, and modes of communication.” The term was coined by Columbia media law professor Tim Wu.

The idea of the internet can be presented as a series of interconnecting tubes, each one leading to new sites, by using a common browser service such as Google Chrome, Internet Explorer, or Firefox.  The idea of Net Neutrality is that, once a customer pays for connection to the internet, they should be allowed to access any site. There is a growing fear that ISPs will start blocking individual sites, unless the customer pays an extra charge for those sites.

This will create site packages, much like channel packages in television services, where you have access to particular channels, and the cost of the service increasing as you add channels, each having a particular value. Similarly, the customer will pay for access to a number of certain sites, rather than the full access to the open network that currently is the internet. Sites would also have to pay broadband providers to allow usage on their networks. This would mean that sites and companies could effectively out-bid one another for better access, and a wider audience.

On February 23, 2014, Netflix announced a deal with Comcast, the largest ISP in The New York Times announced this as “a milestone in the history of the Internet, where content providers like Netflix generally have not had to pay for access to the customers of a broadband provider.” This sets a precedent which other companies may follow.

In 2010 the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) began the Net Neutrality rulemaking process. The FCC was placed in charge of regulating internet activity, namely, in Federal Communications Commission v. Pacifica Foundation, to “Shield children from potentially offensive material, and ensure that unwanted speech does not enter one's home.”  This ruling removed the FCCs power to effectively enforce any sort of regulation on restricted service to customers.  The FCC tried to issue an “Open Internet Order” in which was “ to clarify high-level, flexible rules of the road for broadband to ensure that no one—not the government and not the companies that provide broadband service—can restrict innovation on the Internet.” However the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia on January 14, 2014 in Verizon vs. FCC rejected the bulk of the Open Internet Order declaring it a threat to internet innovation and openness. It was decided that no government agency had the authority to issue regulations on the internet, unless expressly granted in law, which the FCC is limited in ability.


The Courts will most likely support the precedent set in Verizon vs. FCC, unless legislation was passed in congress in support of Net Neutrality. This is unlikely to happen, as large broadband service providers will lobby against any such action.

So, the only thing left to stop the broadband service providers from gaining ground is public opinion. These companies don’t want to upset consumers, who are the ones who pay for the service. If they feel that restrictions on site access may cause a drop in company revenue rather than a rise, they will not move in that direction. It is up to the market base consumer to decide if they are willing to be content with possible restrictions on sites by broadband providers.

An Argument for Free Higher Education in the United States

As the fall semester comes to an end, many high school seniors are submitting college applications and receiving admission decisions. Many students check their emails and mailboxes every day for that one document that is going to change their entire lives. While admission to a college is a step to a successful life, one major hurdle aims to make it impossible for students to reach their goals: student loans.

It is not breaking news to any parent that college tuition is rising, and that is only the beginning. If a person wants to attend a university out of their home state, with tuition, housing, student fees, books, and other institutional fees, they are looking at upwards of $50,000 a year. Most parents and students get federal student loans to cover most of the cost of college, which while beneficial at first, can be a jail sentence later in life.

Federal student loans seem to be a great choice for a person looking to attend college. Their low interest rates make them stand out against those from private banks. However, it was recently released that the federal government is profiting from the debt of young adults looking to get an education. The government made $41 billion dollars from the interest of student loans in 2013, which is more money than any company made in the world besides Apple and Exxon Mobil. They also stick around if you happen to go into bankruptcy, meaning you still have to pay them off even if you have no money to pay them off with.

The biggest hindrance to come to mind when one thinks of a free college education would be the cost to the government. Luckily, the United States can most definitely afford it. If the federal government were to pool together the money it would have used for student loans, grants, and state grants, it could easily be able to pay for a bachelor’s degree for anyone who wants one. The money would not only pay for tuition, but also books and housing, which combined can be higher than the tuition.

The middle class is hurt the most by high tuition fees, which creates an economic disaster. A large, relatively affluent middle class is the backbone to the economy, but the United States has an ever shrinking one that is becoming poorer every year. Free higher education would allow for middle class families to spend the money they would have spent on college on other things that stimulate economic growth. Once a student graduates, with no debt to hold them down, they would be able to instantly start spending the money they earn, stimulating the economy even more.

The demand for free higher education has been very quiet in America, but that is changing. Americans are being drowned in ridiculous debt that is in all ways unnecessary, and once they wake up and realize that they should not be indebted to the government for a higher education, real change will take place. That change will finally put America back on the path to prosperity.

http://money.cnn.com/2012/10/24/pf/college/public-college-tuition/
http://blog.nj.com/njv_editorial_page/2013/08/college_for_free_america_can_a.html

Running out of room

Crowded classrooms are slowly becoming the unfortunate norm for public schools across the nation. Once, teaching was done in a small one-room school house, now it is done in mass building complexes, but you still have students elbowing each other when writing essays. With teachers being furloughed and cut, the ratio of students-per-staff is becoming frighteningly high, coming close to 30:1 in some school districts, rather than the optimal 15:1.


The problem is overpopulation. The number of students keeps increasing at an astounding rate. The United States, being the third most populated nation in the world, and holding a growth rate of about 0.65% for those school-age, is quickly starting to feel the negative effects of a high birth and low mortality rates. The overall population is rising at a rate which the infrastructure, entitlement, and other government departments can not keep up with.  

While most agree that simply lowing the number of students in the class room won't cause an automatic change in the scores and information learned by the students, it will, however, allow teachers to take on more effective strategies for the students in the classroom by "dropping lecture-style approaches and providing more frequent feedback and interaction." The instructors will be able to give more personalized time to each student, and not have spend a significant amount of time getting the class under control. 

However lowering class sizes will raise the cost of education, by hiring more teachers, expanding building space, and providing classroom materials. With the poor economic conditions, and lack of qualified instructors. This will be difficult for State governments to fit into their budgets, due to demand for funding in other areas, such as medicaid and medicare.
It is not just the youth of the nation that are starting to feel overcrowding problems, and reforms are needed in entitlement, education, healthcare, housing, and infrastructure to keep up with the growing population.      

Even the oldest members of our population feel the problems with population age gaps and shifts. 
Soon the generation dubbed the "baby boomers" (Persons being born between years 1946 and 1964) will be entering retirement age, causing a strain on the social security and healthcare systems. This is also greeted by the fact that "echo boomers" (The subsequent generations from the baby boomers) are too few to be able to properly support their parents generation.  Finally the "Millennials," are too few to support the echo boomers. This causes several problems:
First of all, there will be a massive strain on the social security system, with more citizens entering retirement than being active members of the labor force. 
If we raise the retirement age to combat this, it will cause wide spread unemployment due to the aged population remaining in the workforce, leaving those recently graduating college jobless with a mound of student debt. 

Another strain will be on the healthcare system, as the elderly do tend to be at a much higher risk of health problems then the younger generations. While it will be a golden age for the pharmaceutical companies, Medicare will be stretched thin. 

Lastly, the youth voice in politics will largely be ignored. By virtue of shear numbers, the elderly will be able to sway elected officials on the local, state, and federal numbers.  The AARP(American Association of Retired Persons) is one of the largest interest groups in the nation, which actively lobbies to the government to ""provide a wide range of unique benefits, special products, and services for our members" and identifies itself as "a nonprofit, nonpartisan membership organization for people age 50 and over ... dedicated to enhancing quality of life for all as we age." 

While AARP has generated an immense amount of progress into increasing the quality of life for seniors, it does detract voice and power away from the youth-based interest groups, who are few in number, and low in financial power. 

This problem should concern us all, as we will all be elderly one day. The changes to healthcare and entitlement programs to seniors need to be made now before the programs in place reach critical mass. Several solutions have been suggested including, increasing immigration of working aged persons, allowing more money into the tax system to help provide for those who need it.  Also, reform of private saving and pensions has been a rising concentration, allowing corporations and business to take on more responsibility for their workers after retirement. 
   

The population problem isn't unique to the United States. Population levels are reaching a critical point worldwide. Several nations, notably China and India have attempted the use of sterilization and laws restricting familial growth, including China's infamous one-child policy. These controversial measures have not had the kind of impact hoped, as both nations populations are still growing beyond control.

Government sponsored advertisement favoring the One-Child policy in China  

Equal opportunity and rights movements have found that the increased education and raised social status of women has reduced population growth. This is because when women have better economic opportunities and are able to enter the skilled labor force as something other than homemakers, they reduce the number of children they have. This has been seen as a preferable alternative to reduce overpopulation, but women's rights movements are slow to gain support in traditionalist and conservative cultures.   

Around the world, the growing population produces increased amounts of waste, stretches the food and water supplies, and creates unemployment and overcrowding. There is no easy solution to the population problem, but that doesn't mean it can be ignored.

What do you think Woodland? What can be done at the global, national, and even individual levels to help alleviate this issue?














http://www.howmany.org/big_picture.php
http://www.aarp.org/?CMP=KNC-360I-google-CPA&HBX_PK=aarp.&utm_source=Google&utm_medium=cpc&utm_term=aarp%2E&utm_campaign=G-Branded&360cid=SI_118856046_11414244393_1
http://www.census.gov/popclock/
http://www.edweek.org/ew/issues/class-size/

Digging a ditch of debt

Student loan debt now exceeds credit card debt as the nation's second largest form of debt, only being surpassed by home mortgages.


College is quickly becoming a growing expense for students. With high tuition rates, as well as the costs of books, dorm rooms, meals, and other living expenses in college, students are looking frantically for scholarships and loans to be able to afford an education needed to succeed later in life. Even the best and brightest often find themselves working out the math for the interest on the bank loans.

With the private sector pulling out of the market after seeing significant losses, the federal government is forced to step forward as the largest creditor of student loans. JPMorgan Chase, one of the oldest and largest banking firms in the nation, ceased its student loan program after no longer seeing "any meaningful growth in the private student lending market." 

While student loans differ depending on the creditor, most require payments to begin after the student graduates. This presents a problem, because as students are often searching for a job, a home, and are starting their new lives right after graduation. The loans create a burden on young adults, causing their circumstances to become critical, leading to even more debt and financial ruin.

This creates a paradoxical situation for students. Should they seek higher and higher levels of education to be able to pay off the student loans accumulated? Or seek lower level degrees, pay off the loans from those, then go back to school later in life?
It is ultimately up to the student to consider the value of the degree received against the cost of the loans required to pay for it. Remember, accumulated interest is added when calculating loan payments and overall cost. 

Where you go to college can also have an impact on student debt. Some colleges offer on campus work to keep cost down, and some states offer scholarship programs to help pay for residents who choose to go to in state college, such as the HOPE scholarship program in Georgia. Prestigious and higher ranked colleges have higher tuition rates. Prospective students going to higher level universities should weigh the amount payed against the quality of the education they will receive. 










http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-09-05/business/41798769_1_private-student-loans-federal-loans-flexible-repayment-plans

Minimum Wage Worries

"Millions of California's hourly workers will become among of the best paid in the country next year under a new minimum wage law enacted Wednesday." - Melanie Hicken, CNN Money.

"Washington already has the nation's highest state minimum wage at $9.19 an hour. Now, there's a push in Seattle, at least, to make it $15" - Donna Gordon Blankinship, Huffington Post

As teens, many of us find ourselves at the lowest levels of employment. Starting out with no past experience and an unfinished education makes it difficult, if not impossible, for our labor to be competitive in a job market where many adults have trouble finding employment. If a teen is lucky enough to have the time, and ability, for employment, they are usually rewarded with the lowest possible form of pay- minimum wage.

For several years, lawmakers have contemplated raising the minimum wage. Several states, most notably California and Washington, have taken progressive steps forward in this endeavor. In other states, however, minimum wage workers rely on the federally mandated $7.25 an hour.

(researched and published from The Washington Post)


President Obama recently made a proposal to raise the Federal minimum wage to $9. Other Democrats have proposed plans to raise it to $15 to cover inflation rates that have occurred since 1970, but this is unlikely to make any traction in the 113th congress, as it is controlled by Republicans in the House of Representatives.

Caroline Fairchild from The Huffington Post claims that the minimum wage "is still a far cry from what workers really deserve." She supports a raise to $21.72, citing a study by The Center for Economic and Policy Research that claims minimum wage has not stayed up to date with the rising cost of living, and economic inflation.

Others, such as Michael Saltsman from Forbes warn against raising minimum wage, as it would cause a higher rate of unemployment, less hours, which "leads to less take-home pay rather than more."
He argues against the point regarding inflation rates, claiming that because inflation rates rise and fall, "a minimum wage that truly kept up with inflation since its inception in 1938 would only be $4.12 today—not the current $7.25."

Most minimum wage workers tend to be young, unmarried, and still in school. They must face their first house and car payments, pay off their student loans, work to climb the corporate ladder, and study hard to succeed. While it would be a great boost to those who would keep their employment if the minimum wage was to rise, others would find themselves working less hours, or without any employment at all. This would create even greater income inequality among teens. The job market would become even more competitive, and that $7.25 sure would start looking appealing when you don't have a job at all.

So what do you think Woodland? What do you think the Federal Minimum Wage should be?











http://www.bls.gov/cps/minwage2012.htm

http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2013/04/17/the-record-is-clear-minimum-wage-hikes-destroy-jobs/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/13/minimum-wage-productivity_n_2680639.html

http://money.cnn.com/2013/09/25/news/california-minimum-wage/index.html?iid=SF_E_River

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/19/seattle-minimum-wage-campaign-washington_n_3778980.html