March 2010 – Page 3 – purple motes

U.S. telephone companies' reported costs

U.S. incumbent local-exchange telephone companies’ average cost per loop has risen equivalent to 1.9% per year from 1988 to 2007. That’s a 0.4% reduction per year in real (inflation-adjusted) terms.[1] In contrast, computing costs and storage costs have probably been falling more than 40% per year in real terms over the past two decades. Thus telephone companies’ cost growth has been roughly an order of magnitude worse than that computing and storage cost trends.

Narrower telephone company cost categories have shown only slightly better cost trends. Over the past two decades, telephone company network operations expenses and corporate operating expenses have fallen 2.6% and 1.5% per year in real terms, respectively.[2] Network operations and corporate operations are general administrative functions for which information technology typically is crucial. But large cost-performance improvements in information technology are not apparent in these telephone company cost accounts.

Reported telephone company network structure shows little indication of technological change. The number of central office switches per telephone company state-specific service area (study areas or COSAs) has decreased little since the mid-1990s. The number of switched access telephone lines per switch has increased little since the mid-1990s. These indicators of network structure show no evidence of increasingly powerful network switchers / routers.

Switching technology in fact has gotten so powerful that it’s not described in relation to telephone service. Cisco’s recently announced router, the CRS-3, has capacity equivalent to routing simultaneous video calls for every man, woman and child in China. All U.S. telephone calls wouldn’t be noticed within this one router’s switching capacity.

Telephone companies’ network operations costs far exceed this router’s cost. According to Cisco, the price of the CRS-3 starts at $90,000. U.S. telephone companies’ annual reported network operating expenses are about 73 thousand times as large as that price. Costs other than than technological costs of providing telephone service account for most of telephone companies’ costs.

The particular organization of businesses and markets can generate large costs. For example, in the mid-1990s, annual advertising and marketing expenses for U.S. long-distance telephone services were comparable to the total capital budget for building a new national, high-capacity network.

With a different organization of communications companies and communications markets, telephone service costs could look like email service costs.

* * * * *

Data: U.S. telcos non-traffic-sensitive costs and network structure, 1988-2007 (Excel version)

Notes:

[1] These figures are for non-traffic-sensitive costs per loop as defined under regulations for determining high-cost loop subsidies. See 47 CFR 36, Subpart F. Incumbent local exchange telephone companies (ILECs) are local exchange telephone companies that provided service prior to 1996.

[2] Network operations expenses are the costs reported in account 6530 as defined in 47 CFR 32.6530. Corporate operating expenses are costs reported in accounts 6710 and 6720, as defined in 47 CFR 32.6710 and 47 CRF 32.6720. Again, these figures are for ILECs only.

the paternity information economy

Biological paternity is highly significant biologically. Because Darwinian evolution depends on biological paternity, evolved patterns of behavior, such as parental care, are likely to be sensitive to biological paternity. Moreover, biological paternity is increasingly relevant to health care screening and treatment. Most men in most cultures express concern for biological paternity.

Biological paternity also has considerable socially constructed significance. In many jurisdictions, biological paternity can entail large, government-determined parental payments (“child support payments”) legally enforced with the threat of imprisonment.[1] Biological paternity doesn’t legally matter for the paternity of a cuckolded husband or a duped lover once paternity has already been legally attributed to him. Biological paternity, irrespective of the circumstances, determines government-determined parental payments only when those payments aren’t already established. Legal determination of biological paternity isn’t direct toward providing justice based on truth. It’s directed toward extracting money from men.

In seeking government-determined parental payments under U.S. case law, the mere fact of biological paternity trumps misrepresentation and fraud in sexual relations. Here are uncontested facts of Dubay v. Wells (2007):

In the fall of 2004, Dubay and Wells became involved in a romantic relationship. At that time, Dubay informed Wells that he had no interest in becoming a father. In response, Wells told Dubay that she was infertile and that, as an extra layer of protection, she was using contraception. Dubay, in reliance on these assurances, participated in a consensual sexual relationship with Wells.

The parties’ relationship later deteriorated. Shortly thereafter, and much to Dubay’s surprise, Wells informed Dubay that she was pregnant, allegedly with Dubay’s child. Wells chose to carry the child to term and the child, EGW, was born on an unspecified date in 2005. During the pregnancy and birth of the child, Dubay was consistently clear about his desire not to be a father.[2]

Michigan imposed government-determined parental payments on Dubay. Dubay argued that government-determined parental payments discriminate against men, who lack effective opportunities to receive the protection of child abandonment and child adoption laws when confronted with unplanned parenthood. All the way up to the U.S. Court of Appeals, courts rejected Dubay’s claim. They consistently ruled that sexually discriminatory treatment with respect to government-imposed parental payments is not unequal under law. Under such a legal regime, sexual intercourse that generates a pregnancy that a woman chooses not to abort has large financial implications for men.

The great importance of biological paternity biologically and under child-support law has not produced an efficient paternity information economy. Available evidence indicates that, in high-income countries, men falsely regard roughly 5% of children to be their own biological children. While hospitals take great care to ensure newborn babies are not switched among mothers, hospitals do not routinely check paternity to ensure that men have accurate knowledge about their biological paternity. DNA testing for determining biological paternity is cheap and has a very low error rate. But hospitals do not regularly offer this service in conjunction with child delivery and newborn care services.

Moreover, government-determined parental payments are regularly imposed without DNA testing for biological paternity. Government-determined parental payments are large, long-term, monthly payments. Changing the level of payment in response to changes in a man’s financial situation, such as loss of job, requires a time-consuming, difficult legal procedure. Nonetheless, paternity testing is not required before imposing government-determined parental payments. In most jurisdictions, a married man is liable for government-determined parental payments for his wife’s child even if the child is a product of his wife’s extra-marital sexual activity.[3] In many jurisdictions in the U.S., more than half of government-determined parental payments are imposed through default judgments.[4] DNA testing provides highly accurate determinations of biological paternity. Default judgments, in contrast, provide a highly faulty indication of paternity.

Making paternity information universally accessible to the relevant men could be done easily as a matter of law. First, hospitals could be required to offer, as part of child delivery services, a paternity test to any man signing a birth certificate. Men not wanting true knowledge about their biological relation to the child before signing a birth certificate might be required to pursue a legal procedure similar to that currently required for lowering the level of government-determined parental payments in circumstances of job loss. Moreover, a paternity test could be required before imposing any government-determined parental payment. Such laws would contribute greatly to making paternity information accurate and universally accessible.

Legal developments, in contrast, have tended to suppress possibilities for men to acquire true knowledge of their paternity. Consider, for example, the U.K.’s Human Tissues Act of 2004. Suppose that an unwed woman has parental custody of a child too young to consent legally to a DNA test. Suppose a man with a reasonable basis for believing that he might be the biological father of the child currently does not have parental responsibility for the child. The Human Tissues Act criminalizes the man taking a strand of the child’s hair, without the mother’s consent, for the purpose of testing his paternity of the child. Under the Act, punishment for knowledge-seeking of this type is a fine or imprisonment of up to three years, or both. That’s harsh punishment for a man seeking highly important knowledge.

Biological paternity is socially valued only as a means for making a man pay child support when a child-support payer cannot otherwise be established. That peculiar paternity information economy seems to reflect fundamental sex differences in communications.

* * * * *

Notes:

[1] “Government-determined parental payments” more clearly describes the relevant payments than does “child support payments.” The level of the payments depends primarily on the adults’ incomes, not on the child’s needs. The payments are made to the parent (usually the mother), not the child. The recipient of the payment has no legal obligation to spend the payment on the child. No accounting for the spending of the payment is required under law.

The most important form of child support is undoubtedly freely given love for a child and personal attention to the child. Such child support differs greatly from government-determined parental payments. Sanctions for not paying government-determined parental payments include imprisonment, garnishing wages, revoking a driver’s license, revoking a business licenses, and refusing to issue a passport. Imprisoning a parent for not paying government-determined parental payments makes it much more difficult for that parent to provide child support in the form of love and person attention to the child.

[2] Dubay v. Wells, et. al., No. 06-2107, U.S. Court of Appeals, 6’th District, decided Nov. 6, 2007. This was an appeal of Dubay v. Wells, Case Number 06-11016-BC, U.S. District Court, East District of Michigan, Northern Division, decided July 17, 2006. The latter decision declared Dubay’s claim “frivolous, unreasonable, and without foundation.” The decision also declared, “If chivalry is not dead, its viability is gravely imperiled by the plaintiff in this case.” Further underscoring its frivolous judgment, the Court required Dubay to pay the state’s attorney fees. Because the case apparently was serious enough to attract participation from the Attorney General of Michigan, the state’s attorney fees were probably considerable.

[3] The article that unfairly presented Carnell Smith’s situation also inaccurately described relevant statistics.

[4] In California in March, 2000, 71% of child support obligors with arrears had at least one child support order established by default judgment. Among child support orders issued in California in 1999, 68% were entered by default judgment. See Elaine Sorensen, Heather Koball, Kate Pomper, and Chava Zibman, “Examining Child Support Arrears in California: The Collectibility Study,” March 2003. Urban Institute, Prepared for the California Dept. of Child Support Services, p. Report 5-10. Less detailed data show considerable variations in “default order rates,” including rates above 50% in the states of Washington and Arizona. See Paul Legler, “Low-Income Fathers and Child Support: Starting Off on the Right Track,” Final Report, Jan. 30, 2003, Policy Studies Inc., p. 15.

Wednesday's flowers

yellow spidery flowers against blue sky

transversal poetics confronts modern art

The Corkinhorn Gallery’s current exhibition, Painting Transversally, rides the frontiers of literary criticism and literary theory to raise profound questions for modern art. Painting Traversally violently interrogates modern arts’ failure to become post-modern. It complicates the relationship between art object and art consumer and implicates mass media and corporate America in the symbolic commercialization and dissignification / dissemination of art impulses.

I found this marvelous little gallery just south of the Phillips Collection. I would describe it further, but I don’t have time right now. Here’s my favorite piece, Masterwork in Bluish.

Masterwork in Bluish

visitor information kiosks in a smartphone era

public kiosk Public touch-screen visitor information kiosks provide information and directions for local businesses and local attractions. However, by providing access to highly developed, commonly used web services, smart phones now offer better, more up-to-date, local information and directions. To serve visitors and to promote local economic development, public kiosks must offer something that smart phones don’t.

An obvious possibility is a much larger screen and fancier interactive technology. The Official NYC Information Center in Midtown Manhattan has large Interactive Map Tables. The Center’s website explains:

By moving the disc across the touch-screen tables, you can explore a large interactive map of the five boroughs. When categories of interest like “Museums & Galleries” or “Dining” are selected, flags pop up all over the map with relevant matches. Flags can then be touched to open up a box with a description, info and photos for each place. You can also browse special sections, like “Free Attractions” or Just Ask The Locals,™ which gives recommendations from famous New Yorkers. Save your favorite sites to the disc, and then take it over to the Disc Reader for the Video Wall, where you can use a custom itinerary flyover to virtually soar above an incredibly detailed three-dimensional Google Earth map of the City highlighting the spots you’ve picked out. [see also video demonstration]

The Center seems designed to be a tourist attraction in itself. Whether the Center is a complement or substitute for a real-life tour isn’t quite clear. But surely its technology is too expensive and spatially infeasible to duplicate across many kiosk locations. Moreover, for the practical task of getting local information and directions, even this technology probably isn’t as useful as a smart phone in hand.

While persons use smart phones to get information that they seek, public tourist kiosks could seek attention from passers-by. Public tourist kiosks could function as digital signage showing text, images, and short videos. Such public tourists kiosks would be designed not for walk-up viewing, but to communicate at a distance. Commercial digital signage typically has a narrow range of content serving a specific interest. Public tourist kiosks could be digital signage with a wider mix of content serving a wider range of purposes, including furthering the style and symbolic tone of the local area.

A good community process for generating content for public tourist kiosks would help to give them public authority. Residents could continually vote online to select among items in a time-stream of events, business promotions, and entertainment to be offered on the public tourist kiosks. Tools for decentralized submission and rating of content, along with technologies for authenticating, validating, and moderating use, are rapidly being developed on the web. Appropriately connected to the Internet, public tourist kiosks could draw upon such technology to determine on an ongoing basis the content that they display.