Little does anyone remember, but back in the early 1990′s, there was an outcry from internet users across the country over a perceived notion that the  telephone companies were doing everything in their power to disrupt the use of dial-up modems on their networks.  Historically, internet regulation were non-existent or by the seat of the regulators pants. Today, evidence suggests that the Internet was not even recognized as a phenomenon or concern by most regulators until the mid 1990s, when it became obvious it would have a giant impact on the most basic business models. As a result, the rules or actions that can be identified with fair use do not seem to have been framed with the Internet in mind, and the time is ripe for change.

Here at The Lounge, we have been ranting for years that the Money Grubbing  Internet Service Providers be required to provide non discriminatory internet access, guaranteed speed and data access, and to be free from anti-competitive abuses and practices. As online gamers, streamers, and website owners, Lisa and I have experienced a plethora of disruptive practices from our ISP’s including attempts to cap our unlimited data plan, disruption of our online peer-to-peer gaming, and disconnects from our video streaming due to subjective issues such as ‘network congestion’ or ‘provider disruption’ All of this while we paid in excess of $50 a month for unlimited speed and data plans from ISP’s who in the end, gave us limited data and bandwidth while vilifying us as bandwidth hogs. A little history tells the story of why we must insist that ISP’s in some way shape or form take on the look of a ‘common carrier’ of old, and provide  non-discriminatory access to the world wide web.

In 1980,  the FCC ruled that firms that use basic telecommunications services to provide an enhanced service, such as information delivery, are not engaged in the provision of a basic common carrier telecommunications service, or local telephone service. Rather, they are providing an “enhanced” service and, accordingly, are not subject to the direct jurisdiction of the FCC. At the time, a telecommunications common carrier was the term used to describe a provider of telecommunications transmission service that offers its service to the public for a fee and, in contrast to a television station owner or a cable television operator, does not control the content of the information transmitted by its facilities or services. Rather, the carrier’s customer controls the content and the destination of the transmission.

Local and long distance telephone companies operated as common carriers, which historically have had close regulatory scrutiny by both federal and state agencies. The history of common carriage is fundamental to the discussion today. There was a series of FCC decisions that gave customers the right to attach approved devices directly to the network, which has allowed both ISPs and users to attach modems to their phone lines, a necessary precondition for dial-up access.Some observers also point to common carriage regulation as an important internet enabler. Entry by ISPs has been facilitated by common carrier rules which mandate nondiscriminatory access and reasonable rates apply to both the dial-up lines used by individual customers and the telephone network dedicated lines used by many ISPs to connect points of presence to the Internet. In 1997 the FCC affirmedan earlier ruling that the transmission between an end user’s premises and an enhanced service provider’s location in the same calling area would be treated as a local call, rather than as an interstate call, regardless of whether that transmission carries data, an e-mail message, or even  a voice call over the Internet. For the final years of the 20th century, the internet was truly open and free.

Today, this has all changed. The old model service providers like AOL and CompuServe who were among hundreds of providers who sold  services in a competitive market based on a ‘local call’ to a ‘common carrier’. Every day were were bombarded with offers from ISP’s who were willing to provide us with the deal of a lifetime, including free access if we were willing to dial their number. The FCC regulations of unfettered access to the network is what fostered this competition. With the advent of broadband technology, high-speed internet access has become ubiquitous. Today, a typical consumer has little or no choice in his local community in respect to a high-speed or broadband provider. A large majority of consumers are located in area’s where the only provider is the Cable TV company who in turn is the content provider for competing services. This leads to a corporate media dominance not seen since the early days of  Radio and it is quite obvious we need pro-consumer regulation at the provider level.

The simple fact is the  Service Providers have had no incentive to provide pro-consumer services and no need to create equal and unfettered access to data on their broadband networks. This, along with the consolidation of the providers makes regulation even more imperative. The real scary part is that over the last decade, has been a large contraction of  pipes, with only 4 or 5 dominate broadband providers available in the country, and the habit of these providers is to continue to use anti-consumer and disruptive practices to enhance their bottom line. Either way, as long as were are dominated by just a few providers and those providers continue to disrupt the flow of information on their networks, we must force the F.C.C. to regulate these providers for the good of the people.

There is a little covered report out that shows that the lack of sunspots can be directly related to ‘Climate Change’ here on earth.

Meteorologist Anthony Watts, who runs a climate data auditing site, says the sunspot numbers are another indication the “sun’s dynamo” is idling. According to Watts, the effect of sunspots on TSI (total solar irradiance) is negligible, but the reduction in the solar magnetosphere affects cloud formation here on Earth, which in turn modulates climate.

This theory was originally proposed by physicist Henrik Svensmark, who has published a number of scientific papers on the subject. Last year Svensmark’s “SKY” experiment claimed to have proven that galactic cosmic rays — which the sun’s magnetic field partially shields the Earth from — increase the formation of molecular clusters that promote cloud growth. Svensmark, who recently published a book on the theory, says the relationship is a larger factor in climate change than greenhouse gases.

Gas Turbine Plants

Gas Turbine Power Plant

Back in the late 1990′s the Southern Companies and later Mirant  proposed and won approval for a new Gas Turbine plant with cooling towers to be located at Bowline Point in Haverstraw New York. This plant, called the Bowline Point 3 Generating Plant was actually started and construction was halted only after Mirant went bankrupt, post Enron. Additional Mirant generating capacity was also shuttered when the Lovett Coal fired plant was closed due to the lack of coal scrubbing technology. In total, there has been a net loss of power production in the Hudson Valley over the last decade and replacement power must be identified before Indian Point can be decommissioned.  In broad outlines, here is a working proposal.

The Concept

The Governor and the State of New York would investigate a Public/Private partnership to replace approximately 2000 KW hrs being produced at the Indian Point Nuclear Power plant with 2200 KW hrs. of electricity generated using gas turbines to be constructed at a location such as Bowline Point in Haverstraw. The concept would utilize gas produced in the Southern Tier of New York and transported via the Millennium pipeline to 3 newly constructed gas turbine generators in the Hudson Valley. The plants would utilize cooling towers instead of river intakes, and would would effectively replace the Indian Point generating capacity.

The Grid

Location of the Plants

As many already know, the largest impediment to electrical generation is the proximity of the power source to the consumer. Indian Point Plant, in Buchanan, New York is some 37 miles north of New York City on the East Bank of the Hudson. The Bowline plant is five miles south and diagonally across the river from this plant and is already on the grid. A minimum amount of infrastructure work would be needed to bring a new plant on line.

The River

Cooling Towers

The Indian Point and Bowline Point plants now use river intakes to cool the reactors and make steam, trapping aquatic life in screens on the river,  while discharging this heated water back into the river causing other issues. The New Gas Turbines would use cooling towers instead of river discharges to cool the water, and limit the intake exposure by recycling more of the needed water. This would help considerably in the health of the Hudson’s ecosystem.

The Pipeline

Millennium Pipeline

The State of New York has now become a major player in the production and distribution of Natural Gas. There are many upstate taxpayers that now have an express interest of getting the gas they own to market. There are opportunities now for the State and Local governments to work together to bring this gas to market and I feel that under the current economic conditions, the time is ripe to promote the use of local Natural Gas production.

The Location

Bowline Point

Bowline Point is located in the Town of Haverstraw New York, on the west shore of the Hudson River. It is now the location of 2 gas/oil fired generating plants built between 1970-1972. These high cost plants rarely operate, typically during peak demand. Now owned by GenOn, the location was approved in the late 1990′s for a gas turbine plant with cooling towers.

In closing, we call on the Governor and the State Legislature to investigate the replacement of the Nuclear Power generated at the Indian Point Nuclear Power Plant with new natural gas plants to be sited in the Hudson Valley of New York. We call on the Governor to use the gas produced in the State of New York and transported via the Millennium Pipeline to a location such as Bowline Point in Haverstraw, and to use incentives such as tax concessions and partnerships to make this relationship a reality. We also call on Environmental Activists to explore our solutions and to take ownership of the capacity debate, because the only way to close Indian Point is to replace the production and to replace it in a location that is near the same end users. Bowline Point can really fit the bill.