blog

Network Neutrality is a complicated issue. At its core, however, proponents suggest legislation requiring that Internet access providers not give priority to any traffic on the net, and serve packets on a first-come, first-served basis. Opponents of Network Neutrality say that smart networks give priority to certain kinds of traffic, i.e. faster connections for government, mail, health, etc., and slower traffic for peer-to-peer transactions, downloading, etc.

In terms of transportation, those who choose to move faster take toll roads and use air travel. Those who do not are left to their own devices; foot travel, bicycle, transit, and freeways. Exceptions exist for emergency services. Police, ambulance, and fire may all exceed legal speed limits.

There are many natural comparisons one can draw between roads and Internet infrastructure. However, the biggest difference is that Internet infrastructure is typically owned by private companies, whereas most roads are owned by taxpayers. Roads exist to serve the greater good, and since nearly everyone uses them, their cost is shared. In the same way, the Internet serves a greater good; the spread of information, independent news, and funny videos.

For being mostly privately owned, it’s amazing the Internet is still as neutral as it is! What if all of our roads were privately owned? Would they be in better or worse shape? Would rural access roads even exist!? So far, all of these telecommunications companies have played nice, building networks and using technology that works together. And the Internet works in such a way that small businesses can contribute, too.

But now, where a handful of companies serve millions of customers at once, limiting access could affect a great deal of people. A tiered system of access could make conducting business more expensive for industries depending on high speed Internet, and impossible to afford for small businesses or the proprietors of small websites. But would that be a smart move for an ISP?

Some argue that network neutrality legislation is unnecessary, and I am inclined to agree with them. What would be the point of limiting access to a tool whose power derives from its universality? Anyone limiting access limits the scope of the tool.

The problem of Mr. Brownback’s answer to my query is not that he opposes network neutrality. It’s that he pits Online Content Providers against Access Providers. These are not competitors, and in fact, have been working together since the start of this technology. I pay for Internet access to publish a blog, just like I’d pay for ink and paper if I wanted to print a magazine. The Internet exists because people use it as a means to an end – to publish, communicate, and share. It is not the proprietary invention of a corporation or individual. Any regulation of the Internet should weigh in favor of its users and content makers.

But Mr. Brownback’s letter begs the question that should be asked of our lawmakers: what is the most important part of the Internet – the content, or the cables?

Pay close attention to the parts I set in bold.

———————————————-

Dear Mr. Fundenberger:

Thank you for your recent correspondence regarding Internet neutrality. There is no better guide for making tough decisions than hearing from the people whom I serve.

Broadband Internet availability is changing the face of American communications. Such high speed access to the Internet spurs increased investment, choice, and innovation in the telecommunications marketplace. Broadband deployment also transforms the quality of life for all Americans – for instance, with broadband capability, rural consumers will be able to access long-distance learning, on-demand entertainment, and tele-medicine for the first time.

As you may know, several groups have sought legislation to regulate or even prohibit fees that may be sought by broadband companies from content providers for the high-speed transmission of content over the Internet. I believe that this so-called ‘network neutrality’ legislation would be anything but neutral, punishing broadband access providers for innovation and competition. In fact, it is due to the absence of heavy-handed government regulation that the Internet has grown and innovated freely and rapidly.

Moreover, broadband access providers — our nation’s telephone, cable television, and wireless companies — are spending billions of dollars to deploy broadband, and have plans to spend billions more on the next generation of broadband networks. These investments include new technologies that will greatly improve everyone’s Internet experience, further empowering our ability to use it for entertainment, political, religious, and educational purposes. Given the investment by broadband providers in creating and maintaining Internet infrastructure, it is reasonable for them to request that content providers pay their fair share for the services they use.

Innovation and competition, unmarred by excessive government regulation, have created a vibrant Internet for all Americans. In this context, network neutrality would penalize broadband access providers for making major improvements to the Internet and would reward online content providers who demand regulation in order to tip the scales of Internet competition in their favor. Rest assured that as this issue continues to be addressed in the Senate, I will keep your thoughts in mind.

Again, thank you for taking the time to contact me about this important issue. Please do not hesitate to contact me in the future.

Sincerely,

Sam Brownback
United States Senator

A scarf is a handmade symbol of love. One person makes a scarf for another. It’s a gift of time, thoughtfulness, and dedication.

The combination of time, thoughtfulness, and dedication is a gift that could lift Topeka State Hospital out of dilapidation.

I’ve grown up visiting these grounds, exploring the fields, and admiring and photographing the buildings. Biddle is a particular favorite of mine. Its architecture is less prominent than that of Center Building, but it is a much larger building. It is built of red brick; solid, unchanging. Its grand windows bathe the interior halls in light.

What a fantastic place this could be: a learning center, full of classrooms; a retreat center, with conference halls and individual suites; even a busy office building on a magnificent campus.

Unfortunately, it hasn’t been maintained. This sturdy, 75-year-old mammoth has been all but abandoned.

It is an infantesimal step to tie a scarf around a tree in front of the building. It’s not a gift of money, or construction, or renovation labor. But it is a small gift of love. I love these buildings, and it pains my heart to see them waste.

www.rethinktopeka.com

For more than half my trips to work in the last year, I have bicycled to work. Given the region’s temperate climate, this requires planning.

For a snowy commute, You must be prepared:

1. Full fenders: The snow will melt. Melted snow mixes with dirt and sand, and becomes a nasty by-product.
2. Tires: In deep snow, a tire that will “plow” is the most useful.
3. Braking distance is significantly increased. Plan ahead.
4. Waterproof clothing: Snow melts quickly after landing on a warm surface (your body).
   Consider shoes, gaiters/chaps, and waterproof or water-shedding pants. I sometimes wear stretchy polyester soccer pants over my jeans. They absorb moisture and dry quickly.
5. Facemask + Ski Goggles: A balaclava-and-goggle combination is a strong defense against extremely cold conditions.
6. Gloves that afford control and warmth are the best. Sheepskin mittens, or choppers, are very warm, but limit articulated control for braking or shifting.

Today, I did not plan well. I had a soggy ride to work. I love riding fixed-gear in the snow, but the fully-fendered touring bike would have been a better choice.

There is a certain peace that comes with frequent bike commuting. Propelling yourself by your own energy and strength is both limiting and liberating; limiting because you cannot breach a certain speed or rate of acceleration; and liberating because a bicycle can go anywhere, and your “fuel” can cost as much or as little as you like. It is limiting still because you can carry only so much; and liberating in that when you ride, you don’t have much with you.

Finally, there is a peace that comes with appreciating a climate. It is inconsistent. It is sometimes physically uncomfortable. But it is always beautiful. From pouring rain to brilliant sun, the weather is an incomprehensibly strong force with which everyone must reckon.

Last winter, after a four-inch snowfall, my girlfriend Ashley and my friend Tavio and I biked to the mall for amusement. It took us two hours to travel the four or five miles to get there, amidst all the falls and snowball-throwing stops. On the way back, after eating more than 30 pieces of pizza at CiCi’s, we were discussing our weather preferences. Tavio, who commutes solely via bike and does not have a car, said it best, “I just love weather.”

By Tim Hrenchir. Republished from the Topeka Capital-Journal

In designing future street projects, the city staff should integrate and implement “Complete Streets” concepts targeted at making roadways safe and accessible for everyone, including bicyclists and pedestrians, the Topeka City Council decided Tuesday night.

The council voted 8-1 to approve a resolution sponsored by Councilman Larry Wolgast that changed city policy by directing the staff to make that move to the extent financially feasible. The measure also made it the city’s goal to adequately finance the policy’s implementation.

The outcome of Tuesday’s vote “shows we are progressive and moving forward,” Wolgast told the council.

“The important point is that our transportation plan will be designed not for moving vehicles as quickly as possible, but by taking into consideration all who use streets,” he said.

Councilman Jack Woelfel, the sole dissenter, said he wasn’t opposed to Complete Streets concepts but didn’t fully understand them. Woelfel also said he thought the proposal left too many unanswered questions and wasn’t specific enough, particularly about finances.

Wolgast told council members how a consultant brought to Topeka as part of the Heartland Visioning process earlier this year explained how cities nationwide were working to implement Complete Streets concepts.

“The Complete Streets policy will direct city planners and engineers to consistently design with all users in mind, including drivers, public transportation riders, pedestrians and bicyclists, as well as older people, children and people with disabilities,” he said.

The council heard support for Wolgast’s proposal expressed Tuesday by six speakers, including representatives of the Community Resources Council and the Greater Topeka Chamber of Commerce.

Another advocate, Karl Fundenberger, told the council thousands die crossing roadways nationally each year due to poor design features.

He said: “Streets are not for moving cars. They’re for moving people.”

Joseph Ledbetter, who also addressed the council on the matter, asked members to make sure that money from a half-cent sales tax that took effect Oct. 1 doesn’t help pay for Complete Streets improvements.

City manager Norton Bonaparte said that won’t happen. He noted that the council earlier this month approved capital improvement plans calling for the city to borrow $100,000 through general obligation bonds in each of the next five years to pay to incorporate Complete Streets design elements into projects the city carries out using revenue from the half-cent tax.

The council also approved a 2010 legislative agenda consisting of eight provisions that include asking for the continued operation of the Kansas Neurological Institute, which a state commission has recommended closing, and supporting “continued development of the Capitol complex and state operations in downtown Topeka.”

Three other provisions of the approved agenda were targeted at helping the Topeka Metropolitan Transit Authority.

Council members voted 8-1 to approve that agenda. Councilman John Alcala dissented, saying he thought it had been “overloaded” with too many issues.

Also, Mayor Bill Bunten cast a vote as the city’s governing body:

• Voted 10-0 to approve Alcala’s motion to defer action on a proposed zoning change regarding property at 1236 S.W. Garfield Ave. Alcala said the deferral would give the city attorney’s office time to provide the council an opinion on the extent of participation in voting and discussion on the matter that should be permitted for Councilwoman Deborah Swank, who previously spoke about it before the Topeka Planning Commission.

• Voted 10-0 to amend the city’s zoning code to clarify that only fences within parks may exceed the city’s 4-foot height requirement in a front yard.

The first farms were subsistence farms. Families grew enough to sustain themselves, and made planting decisions based on their projected needs for the coming year. They used draft animals, compost, manure, and manual tools to cultivate their plots, and rotated crops to preserve the soil’s nutrients.

Only in the last hundred years have grocery stores existed.  They arose from general stores and trading posts — a natural place of exchange along trade routes.

But the food trade in this country has become gluttonous:

Americans spend a smaller share of their disposable income on food than citizens of any other country and choose from an average of 50,000 different food products on a typical outing to the supermarket. In 1994, the food supply provided an estimated 3,800 calories per person per day, enough to supply every American with more than one and a half times their average daily energy needs. (USDA)

Our system has become so efficient that industry now provides a gross excess of food. We throw away almost 1/4th of the food we buy, despite eating more than we need to and exercising less than we ought to.

Perhaps Ayn Rand was right, when in Atlas Shrugged, she suggested that the ideal society operated on pure capitalism, where producers of value bartered for goods and services they needed. Fiscal wealth was so insignificant that in her novel, a solid gold sculpture was the central fixture in her utopia.

What if the supermarket were more like the romanticized Diagon Alley in the Harry Potter films? Or even the true markets of London hundreds of years ago, complete with mixed-use development? Producers of value — craft — produced and sold goods locally in their shops (above which they dwelled), while farmers brought the excess produce of their toil into the city for exchange.

A system like this is limiting. It suggests a diet devoid of bananas, oranges, halibut, and saffron. But can we not grow spices in our windowsills? Can we not catch fish in our own state lakes and ponds? Do not fruit trees flower in Kansas?

It is radical to suggest that we should all survive on subsistence farming, or local agriculture, or barter systems. But more radical is my belief that maybe we could.

Here’s the plan:

Feel free to add to it if there’s something missing!

After throwing my chain and unintentionally flat-spotting my brand new tire on a high-speed, 50-foot skid the other day, I decided it was time to make another chain tensioner for the forward-facing dropouts on my newer fixed-gear bike.

Here was my first attempt.  I used two eye-bolts, a bracket, and two nuts on the first one.  But that involved a lot of work any time I needed to remove the rear wheel.  And the two eye-bolts took up lots of space on the axle.  So, why not go with just one?

And it totally works! The bracket was an L-shaped one with a single hole on each side.  The shorter side was sawed off so it would fit behind the axle.  And the bracket sits on the relatively flat part of the dropout (where the original derailleur tensioners stuck out).