Friday, November 18, 2005
Picture >1k Words
Thursday, November 17, 2005
WSIS: A phalanx of secret police . . .
. . . (ie scary guys in dark suits) showed up. they filled the hall outside the room, forcing cancellation of the break for fear that we'd not be allowed to re-start . . .And so it goes at Fellow Berkman Fellows' Ethan Zuckerman and Rebecca MacKinnon's Expression Under Repression (flyer.pdf) workshop in Tunis. Story here. Frequent updates here. I sure hope Ethan and Rebecca get home safely.
Technorati Tags: Berkman, F2C, WSIS
Home Town Newspaper Makes Good!
When I was a boy growing up in Woods Hole, it was my duty to deliver the Falmouth Enterprise to subscribers around the Eel Pond every Tuesday and Friday after school. It is still published every Tuesday and Friday.
Eureka! I opened the November 8 issue to find this Editorial, by Managing Editor Janice Walford. Clearly Municipal Wireless has reached a tipping point.
Since the Falmouth Enterprise's website no longer carries this editorial, here it is, word for word.
Eureka! I opened the November 8 issue to find this Editorial, by Managing Editor Janice Walford. Clearly Municipal Wireless has reached a tipping point.
Since the Falmouth Enterprise's website no longer carries this editorial, here it is, word for word.
Reprinted in entirety by permission of The Falmouth Enterprise. The Enterprise's very limited Web site (which only goes back a week, thus does not include this Editorial) is here.
Community Approach to Internet
Just as many families are taking a hard look at their monthly expenses for cell phones, Internet access, and the like, small towns and large cities are also seeking ways to trim their “communications” budgets.
The town of Pepperell, for example, with a population of 11,000, hopes to save $30,000 a year on its Internet access and cell phone bills, which equates to about 60 percent of its communications budget.
This savings will be accomplished by switching from the broadband service, offered by cable and telephone companies, to a wireless computer network, owned and operated by the town.
Pepperell’s system administrator, Den Connors, told Commonwealth magazine that last year he was comparison shopping for cable (wired) modems for the town. After investigating the wireless option, he said, “It became very obvious that it would simply be cheaper for a town the size of Pepperell to go out and install this gear in one shot.”
The total cost is between $120,000 and $130,000, which Mr. Connors says the town expects to recover in about three years.
Pepperell’s wireless network consists of about 30 diamond-shaped boxes containing an antenna and radio transmitter, each the size of a baseball base. Each installation, costing $1,500, is attached to the roof of a municipal building, plus one in the belfry of the historic town hall. Most of the installations are on slender 30-foot poles, similar to cell phone towers. Installation and maintenance on any tower less than 100 feet can be performed by town workers; anything higher than that requires special certification and insurance.
Mr. Connors says the signals bouncing among the boxes provide Internet access to all the buildings at speeds from 10 to 100 times faster than cable- or phone-based access. There’s an automatic data backup system and many of the landline telephones already have been replaced with VOIP (Voice Over Internet Protocol). In the second phase, video cameras and alarm systems will be installed, which will be advantageous to the public safety and public works departments. Mr. Connors says that while cost-effectiveness was the primary goal, the new system also is being well received by employees for its efficiency.
Pepperell is only the second of the 351 communities in Massachusetts to take the wireless route. Malden went wireless for municipal purposes 18 months ago. It has now, according to Commonwealth magazine, launched a citywide network that allows all residents with computers and PDA devices to access municipal and community websites.
Brookline is investigating starting a public and municipal network simultaneously, an approach that also is being eyed by Newton.
Meanwhile, island-wide high speed wireless Internet access is being proposed for Nantucket. Transmitting devices that are small enough to hang from streetlights and telephone poles are part of the plan, in order not to add visual blight.
There are other important considerations, in addition to cost-savings, driving this movement toward municipal wireless.
High speed Internet access is becoming a public necessity, like water, gas, and electricity. Large and small communities are beginning to realize that they have to provide their residents with this service, either in partnership with the private sector or as a public utility. The concept is taking hold in communities from California to Michigan to Vermont. Two examples of the public-private partnerships that are being pursued are Philadelphia and San Francisco. Last month Philadelphia chose Earthlink to build and manage a citywide wireless network, at no cost to taxpayers. Low-income users will be charged $10 a month, other residents $20. Google has offered to make all of San Francisco wireless for free, gaining its revenue from targeting ads to users.
Massachusetts, which likes to bill itself as being on the cutting edge of technology, is obviously lagging behind, just as the United States is trailing far behind Japan and other Asian states in deploying broadband.
As can be seen with the split rate in Philadelphia, there is a need to make Internet access universally affordable, whether it’s in low-income urban neighborhoods or rural communities that are also badly underserved by the private sector. The community Internet approach treats broadband access as a public necessity, not a privilege, according to the freepress.net, a website that has a wealth of information about this emerging trend.
Increased public access is another fine benefit. By using the local networks, towns can offer their residents any number of services, including public safety, political forums, church services, and Internet radio stations.
Many in both the public and private sectors see broadband access as an essential tool for economic growth, health care, and education for all ages. Proponents of affordable wireless broadband say access helps to keep jobs and attract new businesses. It also is an indispensable tool for telecommuting and advances in telemedicine.
It is a given that businesses such as Verizon, Sprint, and AT&T see all this as an invasion on their turf. Once it saw what was afoot in Philadelphia, Verizon reportedly spent more than $3 million to lobby the Pennsylvania state government to pass a bill preventing other cities and towns from offering the same services, unless the phone company has refused to do so. Texas has a blanket prohibition on the public sector entering this field. Florida Governor Jeb Bush signed a law in June that prevents cities and towns from offering broadband if there are competing private services.
A battle also is brewing in Congress, with millions being spent on lobbying to keep the public sector out of this arena. On the side of big businesses is Republican Congressman Pete Sessions of Texas, a former telephone company executive, who introduced legislation similar to the ban in Pennsylvania. On the Senate side, Republican John Ensign of Nevada has introduced the misleadingly named Broadband Investment and Consumer Choice Act. Truly on the side of consumers are Senators John McCain (R-AZ) and Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ), who have introduced legislation giving free rein to cities and towns to offer broadband.
Some competition for the major providers would be healthy, because their track record is dismal when stacked against the progress being made abroad. A recent study shows that the US has dropped to 16th in the percentage of its citizens with access to broadband, lagging behind South Korea, Canada, Israel, and Japan.
The US is the only industrialized state without an explicit national policy for promoting broadband. Until recently, the US led the world in Internet development. Now Japan has shot into the lead, with nearly all Japanese having access to high speed broadband, with an average connection speed 16 times faster than in the US, for about $22 a month.
Writing in Foreign Affairs, in an article called “Down to the Wire,” Thomas Bleha says: “By dislodging the United States from the lead it commanded not so long ago, Japan and its neighbors have positioned themselves to be the first states to reap the benefits of the broadband era: economic growth, increased productivity, technological innovation, and an improved quality of life.”
This is a lesson that needs to be heeded close to home, too.
Technorati Tags: MunicipalNetworks, Press, WiFi, WirelessNetworks, WoodsHole
Quote of Note: Samuel Schmid
"It is, quite frankly, unacceptable for the United Nations to continue to include among its members states which imprison citizens for the sole reason that they have criticized their government on the Internet or in the media."
Samuel Schmid, President of Switzerland, at the opening of the World Summit on Information Society, Tunis, quoted here.
[Andy Carvin has a WSIS blog aggregator here -- Worth Reading.
Samuel Schmid, President of Switzerland, at the opening of the World Summit on Information Society, Tunis, quoted here.
[Andy Carvin has a WSIS blog aggregator here -- Worth Reading.
Technorati Tags: Freedom, WSIS
Wednesday, November 16, 2005
Is Telepocalypse a Good Thing?
What is the meaning of Telepocalypse? Is it the withering away of the telephone companies because network connectivity is so abundant and ubiquitous that there's nothing to sell? Or is it that dark day when the Internet becomes nothing more than TV-with-a-buy-button-on-steroids?
Martin Geddes recent Telepocalyptic entry makes me think that maybe he is rooting for definition #2. He tries to deconstruct the term, "Network Neutrality," but he imputes far more complexity than is warranted, as if to cast aspersions on the entire concept of network neutrality and all of its adherents. His point?
Network neutrality is simple. It is simply content and application agnosticism. When a network operator deliberately introduces an impairment in their network aimed at specific applications or classes of applications, that violates network neutrality.
Blocking Port 25 violates network neutrality. Introducing upstream jitter deliberately to make third-party VOIP impossible violates network neutrality. Detecting Skype and blocking it violates network neutrality. The broadcast flag violates network neutrality. Capping long downloads to discourage TV over IP violates network neutrality. These fail the content and application agnosticism test. But saying "don't run a server," in a service agreement is not a violation of network neutrality. It is just garden variety discrimination.
It is all about market power. About a year ago I was unhappy when Continental Cablevision blocked my Port 25, and I switched. Thank goodness I could switch, and thank goodness the only other provider available to me was not a blocker. If I could do that among multiple providers, I would be happy. In such cases, the marketplace itself would enforce whatever the marketplace wanted. Then we'd have no worries about Internet freedom. But until that day arrives, the absence of fair use rules for the Internet in the name of a "Free Market" that does not exist simply hastens the day when the Internet ceases being a place for citizens and, instead, becomes TV-on-steroids-with-a-buy-button.
UPDATE: Martin Geddes' reply.
Martin Geddes recent Telepocalyptic entry makes me think that maybe he is rooting for definition #2. He tries to deconstruct the term, "Network Neutrality," but he imputes far more complexity than is warranted, as if to cast aspersions on the entire concept of network neutrality and all of its adherents. His point?
In fact, everything about the Regulatorium that the telcos know, love and play like a Stradivarius messes up freedom of contract, freedom of association and property rights. Franchises mess up these freedoms. CALEA messes up these freedoms. Universal service messes up these freedoms. E-911 messes up these freedoms. Laws against municipal market entry mess up these freedoms. Special access to public rights of way messes up these freedoms. Laws that prohibit non-US companies from buying US telcos mess up these freedoms. Spectrum regulation messes up these freedoms. So why should network neutrality be any different?
Net neutrality messes up freedom of contract, freedom of association, and property rights.
Network neutrality is simple. It is simply content and application agnosticism. When a network operator deliberately introduces an impairment in their network aimed at specific applications or classes of applications, that violates network neutrality.
Blocking Port 25 violates network neutrality. Introducing upstream jitter deliberately to make third-party VOIP impossible violates network neutrality. Detecting Skype and blocking it violates network neutrality. The broadcast flag violates network neutrality. Capping long downloads to discourage TV over IP violates network neutrality. These fail the content and application agnosticism test. But saying "don't run a server," in a service agreement is not a violation of network neutrality. It is just garden variety discrimination.
It is all about market power. About a year ago I was unhappy when Continental Cablevision blocked my Port 25, and I switched. Thank goodness I could switch, and thank goodness the only other provider available to me was not a blocker. If I could do that among multiple providers, I would be happy. In such cases, the marketplace itself would enforce whatever the marketplace wanted. Then we'd have no worries about Internet freedom. But until that day arrives, the absence of fair use rules for the Internet in the name of a "Free Market" that does not exist simply hastens the day when the Internet ceases being a place for citizens and, instead, becomes TV-on-steroids-with-a-buy-button.
UPDATE: Martin Geddes' reply.
Technorati Tags: FCC, NetworkNeutrality, Telepocalypse, Regulatorium
Doc Searls on Saving the Net
Doc's take on Saving the Net from the Pipeholders reads, in part
. . . the bigger enemy is in how all of us understand the Net itself. We have choices there, and those choices may mean life or death for the Net as most of us have known it — and taken it for granted — for the last decade or more.How we understamd the Internet, indeed, how we tell the story of threats to the 'net, is a hard problem. Doc observes:
The Regulatory Environment . . . is where the phone and cable companies have an upper hand, and where they have natural partners among the copyright obsessives in the entertainment industry. All those groups want to kill the Net as we know it. If they have their way, the Net we know is toast.If saving the net is among your concerns, Doc's essay is worth reading.
Technorati Tags: Content-Conduit, DocSearls, F2C, Internet
Saving the Net: Idealism vs. Practicality
Last Wednesday, November 9, the House Energy and Commerce Committee, Subcommittee on Telecommunications and Internet, held a hearing (webcast archive.ram) on the latest discussion draft (.pdf) of the current proposal for the Next Telecom Bill.
Vint Cerf, who could not attend the hearing because he was busy getting the Presidential Medal of Freedom at the White House, sent a letter to the Subcommittee that was read into the record at the hearing. It was so idealistic (and correct) that it has a snowball's chance in the congressional cauldron.
Vint's letter said, in part:
I audited the House hearing on Nov. 9 via Webcast. Representatives Markey and Boucher, the only apparent netheads on the Subcommittee, expressed dismay with weakening of network neutrality rules from Draft 1 (9/15) to Draft 2 (11/3). Both addressed the issue of whether the carriers would reserve enough capacity so the basic BITS (that is, Internet Access) service would usefully support present and future Internet apps, and both expressed concern that carriers might impair (or prevent growth of) their basic BITS offering to favor their VOIP and Video offerings.
Boucher and Markey seemed to be thinking about a rule to mandate that BITS providers would not introduce such impairments. This might be a reasonable compromise EXCEPT that I can't imagine any such rule that would be (a) practically enforceable and (b) light-handed so as not to be subject to pages and pages of FCC regulations, followed by slow-rolling, litigation, weakening by FCC interpretation -- in other words, a replay of the 1996 Act at its worst.
On an Internet that coexists with voice and video carve-outs, carriers operating services with conflicting needs would find themselves in the same untenable bind that the '96 Act's unbundling put the carriers in over the last decade.
In the current situation, the "enshrined" voice and video services come with a well-known business model. The other service, Internet connectivity, when application-neutral, provides an alternate way to get those same services either "for free" or by attracting customer fees to other loci. Both kinds draw on the same network resources. Thus, the carrier will be motivated to favor voice and video rather than the new, self-competitive alternative. If Congress made a rule that would mandate how carriers must treat their BITS service, and the rule's specs deviated from the carrier's perceived business interests, I can only foresee a failed law.
On the other hand, a "lightweight but enforceable neutrality rule . . . to ensure that the Internet continues to thrive," would require significant restructuring (of industry and/or government) to be both lightweight and enforceable. I can't imagine how such a proposal could possibly become law in the current congress!
I sure would like to find a way to make real legislative progress towards that "lightweight but enforceable" rule without making the same mistakes we've already made. But without a constituency for such a rule, I despair.
Suggestions anybody?
Vint Cerf, who could not attend the hearing because he was busy getting the Presidential Medal of Freedom at the White House, sent a letter to the Subcommittee that was read into the record at the hearing. It was so idealistic (and correct) that it has a snowball's chance in the congressional cauldron.
Vint's letter said, in part:
Enshrining a rule that broadly permits network operators to discriminate in favor of certain kinds of services [i.e., Voice telephony and video -- David I] and to potentially interfere with others would . . . not give consumers the broadband Internet our country and economy need.*snip*
As we move to a broadband environment and eliminate century-old non-discrimination requirements, a lightweight but enforceable neutrality rule is needed to ensure that the Internet continues to thrive.He is certainly right, but currently there is currently no congressional constituency for a single Internet, regulated uniformly, without voice and video carve-outs.
I audited the House hearing on Nov. 9 via Webcast. Representatives Markey and Boucher, the only apparent netheads on the Subcommittee, expressed dismay with weakening of network neutrality rules from Draft 1 (9/15) to Draft 2 (11/3). Both addressed the issue of whether the carriers would reserve enough capacity so the basic BITS (that is, Internet Access) service would usefully support present and future Internet apps, and both expressed concern that carriers might impair (or prevent growth of) their basic BITS offering to favor their VOIP and Video offerings.
Boucher and Markey seemed to be thinking about a rule to mandate that BITS providers would not introduce such impairments. This might be a reasonable compromise EXCEPT that I can't imagine any such rule that would be (a) practically enforceable and (b) light-handed so as not to be subject to pages and pages of FCC regulations, followed by slow-rolling, litigation, weakening by FCC interpretation -- in other words, a replay of the 1996 Act at its worst.
On an Internet that coexists with voice and video carve-outs, carriers operating services with conflicting needs would find themselves in the same untenable bind that the '96 Act's unbundling put the carriers in over the last decade.
In the current situation, the "enshrined" voice and video services come with a well-known business model. The other service, Internet connectivity, when application-neutral, provides an alternate way to get those same services either "for free" or by attracting customer fees to other loci. Both kinds draw on the same network resources. Thus, the carrier will be motivated to favor voice and video rather than the new, self-competitive alternative. If Congress made a rule that would mandate how carriers must treat their BITS service, and the rule's specs deviated from the carrier's perceived business interests, I can only foresee a failed law.
On the other hand, a "lightweight but enforceable neutrality rule . . . to ensure that the Internet continues to thrive," would require significant restructuring (of industry and/or government) to be both lightweight and enforceable. I can't imagine how such a proposal could possibly become law in the current congress!
I sure would like to find a way to make real legislative progress towards that "lightweight but enforceable" rule without making the same mistakes we've already made. But without a constituency for such a rule, I despair.
Suggestions anybody?
Technorati Tags: F2C, NetworkNeutrality, OpenAccess, Regulatorium, VintCerf
Saturday, November 12, 2005
Book review
Duane Bowker quotes Dorothy Parker, writing, "This is not a novel to be tossed aside lightly. It should be thrown with great force":
Michael Crichton, State of Fear [Fiction. I picture the author going to his publisher to say he'd like to write a book ranting against soft-headed wanker environmentalists. His publisher, in his best Dr. Evil voice, asks Crichton, "can they be EVIL, ILL-TEMPERED environmentalists?" The fiction in this book is really, really bad...I mean worse than Lost World bad, and I didn't think that was possible. The non-fiction segments, which are a large portion of the book, present arguments and data against the most simplistic interpretations of global warming. His point is well taken that there are a lot of unknowns in our understanding of the global climate and that things are certainly more complex than they are often portrayed in the mass media. But comparing environmentalism to eugenics? PLEASE!!! To quote Dorothy Parker: "This is not a novel to be tossed aside lightly. It should be thrown with great force." On second thought, do the right thing and recycle it.]
Wednesday, November 09, 2005
Berkman Spiffs Up Online Presence
As a relatively new Berkman Fellow, I'm delighted to report that the Berkman Center for Internet and Society has gone a long way towards "eating its own dog food," in the last several weeks. The Berkman home page has become a hot source of recent news and upcoming events. A Berkman blog aggregator lists Berkman bloggers and re-blogs the most recent posts from the Berkman community. I've added a Berk-stuff heading to my own blog's sidebar.
Even better, if you're a Berkman guest, or if you're walking past 1587 Mass Ave, or if you're a Berkperson and Harvard's network is down (at five nines, Harvard would already owe me several centuries), you can use Radio Free Berkman, our open Wi-Fi hotspot, as easily as you can use the hotspot in your local cafe. As readers of Code and Other Laws of Cyberspace know, in most cases, "you cannot connect your machine to the net at Harvard unless your machine is registered -- licensed, approved, verified" (p.26). So Radio Free Berkman is an important step, maybe even a bellweather.
Kudos to the hard-working staff of the Berkman Center for the hard work behind all these improvements!
Even better, if you're a Berkman guest, or if you're walking past 1587 Mass Ave, or if you're a Berkperson and Harvard's network is down (at five nines, Harvard would already owe me several centuries), you can use Radio Free Berkman, our open Wi-Fi hotspot, as easily as you can use the hotspot in your local cafe. As readers of Code and Other Laws of Cyberspace know, in most cases, "you cannot connect your machine to the net at Harvard unless your machine is registered -- licensed, approved, verified" (p.26). So Radio Free Berkman is an important step, maybe even a bellweather.
Kudos to the hard-working staff of the Berkman Center for the hard work behind all these improvements!
Sunday, November 06, 2005
Making Wi-Fi Illegal in Westchester County
Aldon Hynes wrote to point out that open Wi-Fi hotspots would be illegal in Westchester County under a proposed new law that could go into effect "early next year." An article in news.com says
Wow. Without this essential legislation
The draft proposal offered this week would compel all "commercial businesses" with an open wireless access point to have a "network gateway server" outfitted with a software or hardware firewall . . . The proposed law has two prongs: First, "public Internet access" may not be provided without a network gateway server equipped with a firewall. Second, any business or home office that stores personal information also must install such a firewall-outfitted server even if its wireless connection is encrypted and not open to the public. All such businesses would be required to register with the county within 90 days.
Let's get behind this progressive legislation right now, before it is too late and our Confidential Data is stolen by Evil Hackers using Open Wi-Fi. Call SUSAN TOLCHIN (914) 995-2932 and LYNNE BEDELL (914) 995-3106 (the contacts listed in County Executive Spano's statement) to express your support for this vital law.
". . . somebody parked in the street or sitting in a neighboring building could hack into the network and steal your most confidential data," County Executive Andy Spano said in a statement.
Technorati Tags: F2C, Stupidity, WiFi
Saturday, November 05, 2005
Susan Crawford joins ICANN Board
ICANN has announced that Susan Crawford is joining ICANN's Board. No matter what you think of ICANN one thing is certain, Susan will make it better. Susan writes
I'm going to need [my blog readers'] help over the next three years. I'll do my best to keep the lines of communication open, and I'll be urging ICANN to do better at explaining its limited mission to the world and opening its processes to view.Congratulations Susan. Congratulations ICANN.
Technorati Tags: ICANN, SusanCrawford
Friday, November 04, 2005
More R&D from AT&T and MCI mergers? No way.
I'm at the annual Marconi Foundation Symposium, where Gordon Moore, Bob Lucky, Jack Goldman (founder of Xerox PARC), Len Kleinrock, Whit Diffie, and other founders of our field are bemoaning the demise of (mostly U.S.) telecommunications R&D.
Amid this concern with R&D, the FCC press release (.doc) approving Verizon-MCI and AT&T-SBC mergers says
Amid this concern with R&D, the FCC press release (.doc) approving Verizon-MCI and AT&T-SBC mergers says
. . . the mergers will give the companies increased economies of scale and scope, which should [should? -- DI] increase their incentives and resources to engage in basic research and development.I'll eat my hat if duopoly scale and scope alone actually yields more research. I think the new telco giants need a bigger bone to chase, such as rate of return regulation that gives them a financial reward for increasing the expense side of the ledger. That'd be back to the future.
Technorati Tags: AT&T, MCI, SBC, Science, USLosingLead, Verizon
Tuesday, November 01, 2005
Quote of Note: Ed Whitacre
Everybody who cares has probably seen this already, but it is a milestone (on the road to . . . well at least there's no hint of good intentions here) so here it is:
Why should they be allowed to use my pipes [for 'free']? . . . The Internet can't be free in that sense, because we and the cable companies have made an investment and for a Google or Yahoo! or Vonage or anybody to expect to use these pipes [for] free is nuts!SBC (soon to be AT&T) CEO Ed Whitacre in Business Week, November 7, 2005. Link
Technorati Tags: F2C, NetworkNeutrality, OpenAccess, ParadoxoftheBestNetwork
Monday, October 31, 2005
FCC publishes Net "Freedoms"
Washington, D.C. – The Federal Communications Commission today adopted a policy statement that outlines four principles to encourage broadband deployment and preserve and promote the open and interconnected nature of public Internet: (1) consumers are entitled to access the lawful Internet content of their choice; (2) consumers are entitled to run applications and services of their choice, subject to the needs of law enforcement; (3) consumers are entitled to connect their choice of legal devices that do not harm the network; and (4) consumers are entitled to competition among network providers, application and service providers, and content providers. Although the Commission did not adopt rules in this regard, it will incorporate these principles into its ongoing policymaking activities. All of these principles are subject to reasonable network management.The needs of law enforcement, legal devices, no harm to the network, consumers, reasonable network management . . . we network users, we get the picture.
Link.pdf
Technorati Tags: F2C, KevinMartin
Sunday, October 30, 2005
"Coddled Corporate Giants" retarding US Broadband
Rob Berger reports on Dewayne-Net Technology List that a Salon article entitled, Free American Broadband!, when it first appeared on October 17, had the following sub-title:
*** UPDATE: Read the whole article free here. Thanks, Esme! ***
The article is in Salon Premium, so, in the event that you don't subscribe, here are the first few paragraphs:
Coddled corporate giants make broadband in the U.S. slower and more expensive than elsewhere. But Community Internet projects -- and a competitive market -- offer a solution.It disappeared! It was replaced with a much more boring lead-in . . . something about France.
*** UPDATE: Read the whole article free here. Thanks, Esme! ***
The article is in Salon Premium, so, in the event that you don't subscribe, here are the first few paragraphs:
Next time you sit down to pay your cable-modem
or DSL bill, consider this: Most Japanese consumers can get an
Internet connection that's 16 times faster than the typical
American DSL line for a mere $22 per month.
Across the globe, it's the same story. In France, DSL service
that is 10 times faster than the typical United States
connection; 100 TV channels and unlimited telephone service cost
only $38 per month. In South Korea, super-fast connections are
common for less than $30 per month. Places as diverse as
Finland, Canada and Hong Kong all have much faster Internet
connections at a lower cost than what is available here. In
fact, since 2001, the U.S. has slipped from fourth to 16th in
the world in broadband use per capita. While other countries are
taking advantage of the technological, business and education
opportunities of the broadband era, America remains lost in
transition.
How did this happen? Why has the U.S. fallen so far behind the
rest of its economic peers? The answer is simple. These nations
all have something the U.S. lacks: a national broadband policy,
one that actively encourages competition among providers,
leading to lower consumer prices and better service.
Instead, the U.S. has a handful of unelected and unaccountable
corporate giants that control our vital telecommunications
infrastructure. This has led not only to a digital divide
between the U.S. and the rest of the advanced world but to one
inside the U.S. itself. Currently, broadband services in America
remain unavailable for many living in rural and poorer urban
areas, and remain slow and expensive for those who do have
access.
Technorati Tags: Broadband, Broadband-per-capita, USLosingLead
What was the Cogent-Level3 dispute about?
My previous posting on the Cogent-Level3 peering dispute attracted some very interesting comments by somebody known to me only as Shaitaangul. He or she seemed to know a lot, but was very, very pro-Level3 (and anti-Cogent). After filtering out the invective (e.g., Cogent CEO Dave Schaeffer, "is a charlatan and master of hyperbole who makes absurd statements . . . ") it seems to me that if Cogent was guilty of something, it was simply "disruptive pricing."
Further, they do seem to have settled amicably by adjusting the terms of their peering agreement.
Does anybody have any better take on the substance of the Level3-Cogent dispute? What was it all about?
Further, they do seem to have settled amicably by adjusting the terms of their peering agreement.
Does anybody have any better take on the substance of the Level3-Cogent dispute? What was it all about?
Technorati Tags: Cogent, Level3, peering
Saturday, October 29, 2005
Another pic of the Succotash concert
Here's Joe Weed and Marty Kendall in the first set of last week's Succotash Reunion concert.
There are more great pics of the concert at photographer Steve Southard's website.
Technorati Tags: JoeWeed, Music
Friday, October 28, 2005
Level3 and Cogent End Peering Dispute!
Congratulations to Cogent's Dave Schaeffer and Level3's Jim Crowe for putting first things first! Their peering dispute seems to be resolved. [Cogent statement] [Level3 statement]
Last October 7, when Level3 abruptly ended its peering arrangement with Cogent in a business dispute, leaving customers in the lurch, I was puzzled. I've spent enough time with Crowe and Schaeffer to respect both of them deeply. Why would they let a silly business dispute blow up into an event that might potentially weaken the whole Internet?
Last week, Daniel Berninger kindly invited me to help draft a letter expressing our concern for the effect of such acts on the health of the Internet. Our aim was to get a bunch of important Internet architects, builders, users and policy people to sign it. We were going to release it on Monday, November 7; Jim Crowe had threatened to escalate on November 9th. We didn't want to twist anybody's arm or dictate business terms, but we did want to focus some sunshine (and maybe a little heat) on the process, give voice to customer frustration, and advocate for 'net goodness.
Fortunately, we didn't need to revise our letter beyond Draft 0.3.1!
But I did want to share the last version of the letter we were working on:
Last October 7, when Level3 abruptly ended its peering arrangement with Cogent in a business dispute, leaving customers in the lurch, I was puzzled. I've spent enough time with Crowe and Schaeffer to respect both of them deeply. Why would they let a silly business dispute blow up into an event that might potentially weaken the whole Internet?
Last week, Daniel Berninger kindly invited me to help draft a letter expressing our concern for the effect of such acts on the health of the Internet. Our aim was to get a bunch of important Internet architects, builders, users and policy people to sign it. We were going to release it on Monday, November 7; Jim Crowe had threatened to escalate on November 9th. We didn't want to twist anybody's arm or dictate business terms, but we did want to focus some sunshine (and maybe a little heat) on the process, give voice to customer frustration, and advocate for 'net goodness.
Fortunately, we didn't need to revise our letter beyond Draft 0.3.1!
But I did want to share the last version of the letter we were working on:
Mr. Crowe:In the process, I sure learned a lot about peering, for example, from Susan Crawford's blog post on Why De-Peering Matters. And Dan and I (mostly Dan) put together a nice FAQ which said, in part,
Mr Schaeffer:
De-peering threatens the universal connectivity of the Internet. We ask that Level 3 and Cogent resolve their dispute without de-peering their networks.
Universal Internet connectivity is in your larger interest and ours. Peering is necessary for universal connectivity, which is an essential component of the more-faster-cheaper-better virtuous circle that powers info tech industry growth, expands the Internet's usefulness to everybody, and puts more traffic on the Internet to grow carrier revenues.
Light-handed Internet regulation and governance is in your interests and ours. But as de-peering disrupts both Level 3 and Cogent end users, people are beginning to demand heavier regulation via US, EU, and/or UN based intervention. Renewed de-peering, such as that announced by Level3 for November 9, will make such demands louder. In addition, de-peering might set a dangerous precedent for the behavior of even larger carriers.
Therefore, we ask that Level3 and Cogent consider other ways to resolve the current dispute in ways that do not threaten the well-being of the Internet as a whole.
Yours truly,
The consolidation of backbone providers with the acquisition of AT&T and MCI by SBC and Verizon threatens more scarcity and rising prices . . . the loss of settlement free peering among Tier 1 providers threatens to reduce inter network performance and raise costs that get passed on to end users. The Internet ecosystem will suffer to the extent a toll collecting ethic replaces the value creation mode of competition.and
The decisions of Level 3 and Cogent will affect more than just their direct customers. The resolution of this peering dispute has important implications for everyone presently benefiting from the role of settlement free peering.But Jim Crowe, himself, actually said it best. Here are his own words from year 2000 in contemplation of a Worldcom-Sprint merger:
"The free, open and competitively neutral interconnection of competing networks is the real key to competition. In the emerging Internet industry, interconnection is called 'peering'. Whatever you call it, it is the single most important gatekeeper to competition. It lets information flow unimpeded from one company's network to another's, allowing users of one network to communicate with users of another network.
"We have consistently told the Justice Department, the European Commission, the FCC and others, that competition in communications . . . depends on open, cost effective and non-discriminatory connection of the networks of competing companies.
snip
"We at Level 3 believe that open and fair interconnection is just as important to the development of a competitive Internet backbone industry as it was to the development of the competitive telephone services market."I'm glad Jim and Dave exercised wisdom and perspective in this matter. We have more important Internet threats to worry about!
Technorati Tags: Cogent, DontBeEvil, Internet, Level3, peering
Thursday, October 27, 2005
The Wisdom (and Stupidity) of Crowds
If James Surowiecki's "Wisdom of Crowds" hypothesis is correct, the market would never have sudden reversals, we'd always elect the best public officials, and the most long-term-successful politicians would always follow the polls. Right?
Technorati Tags: statistics, stories
Tuesday, October 25, 2005
F2C: Right to Broadband
In an article entitled Should you have a right to broadband? author Charles Cooper writes
Thanks to Jim Baller for the initial link!
Think the video iPod will revolutionize the world? Think again. If you don't have a good broadband connection to download content, you're just looking at an overpriced paperweight. Google Earth may be fascinating, but you still need access to the Internet to view its pretty pictures. You get the point. But it's more than just the Internet. The big change on the horizon is the move to enshrine access to a broadband connection as a basic right of citizenship . . . Ultimately, the question boils down to whether you believe that broadband is so important that it should get treated like a public utility, in the much the same way as water or power.And he mentions an interesting experiment I never heard of before:
Can the localities take the lead? In [the U.S.] there's nothing to rival the Associazione Nazionale Piccoli Comuni d'Italia, an Italian association of small towns that has adopted a plan to promote the adoption of Wi-Fi and wireless technology. That's helped even isolated burgs--like the village of Chamois, deep in the Italian Alps--offer wireless access to its residents.Anybody know anything about the Associazione Nazionale Piccoli Comuni d'Italia? I'd like to learn more!
Thanks to Jim Baller for the initial link!
Technorati Tags: Broadband, F2C
Monday, October 24, 2005
Pictures of Succotash Concert
Steve Southard, the guy who shouted out, "Hey some guy on the East Coast blogged this concert," meaning me, took some nice pictures of the event. Here's one:
L to R, that's Joe Weed, Beverly Smith, Vince Flores, Steve Kritzer and Bruce Bowers.
When you go to Steve's website to see the rest of the pictures, check out how many different instruments each band member holds from pic to pic.
L to R, that's Joe Weed, Beverly Smith, Vince Flores, Steve Kritzer and Bruce Bowers.
When you go to Steve's website to see the rest of the pictures, check out how many different instruments each band member holds from pic to pic.
Judith Miller (NY Times) is the worst blogger stereotype
This morning, Jeff Jarvis joined me at the Paso Robles Hampton Inn breakfast bar. He wasn't actually there; he was on the tube over the coffee machine. He looked just like the picture on his blog. He was saying something like:
Judith Miller did all the things that bloggers are stereotyped as doing. She had an agenda. She hid her real motives. She was not under editorial control. She got things wrong. She painted an incomplete picture . . .The above is a paraphrase, but it is correct in spirit.
Technorati Tags: JeffJarvis
Saturday, October 22, 2005
The Succotash Reunion Concert
It was absolutely worth every mile I came to hear it!
In the first half of the evening, the individual band members each played two or three numbers on their own or in small ensembles. I've been meaning to write about how, with good performers, you get to know about their lives and their spheres, but I don't know how to do it without descending into cliche. It happened last night.
For me, every performer's mini-set was delightful and revealing. The standouts, for me, were the harmonies of Beverly Smith and Carl Jones, the amazing fiddlework of Joe Weed and Bruce Bowers, the inspiring personality of Bruce Bowers, the jazzy and expressive singing of Marty Kendall (Joe Weed's wife) backed by Joe and guitarist Steve Palazzo, Bruce Bowers' daughter Jasmine's Latino piano playing (who we'll hear more from, I am *sure*), and the Silk Road work of bassist Vince Flores.
Then, in the second half, they played ensemble, as Succotash. Despite -- and perhaps because of -- their 30-year hiatus, they were just, just, just, . . . great. Jaw-droppingly good. Surprising. Multi-talented. A team. A whole greater than the sum of their amazing parts. And they had fun. And they swang and sang and played and smiled. Highlight: just about every song. Maybe the "Never on Sunday" theme. Maybe "The Handsome Cabin Boy." Maybe the song about the circle closing again. It was deeply emotional -- joyful, mostly.
The music of the evening ranged from singer-songwriter-folk to European Cafe to roots jazz to swing to Bach to Celtic. Many of the songs were brand new to me.
The audience was special too. I kept looking at the "Occupancy 60 Persons" sign and seeing "55 MPH". I met a woman who had waitressed at the venue where Succotash used to hold down Friday and Saturday nights every week for two years. She couldn't stop smiling all night. I met a hero of mine, harmonica genius Norton Buffalo. I didn't know most of the folks, but many of them knew each other, and for many it was their own personal reunion. I had merely flown in from Connecticut to see the event . . .
It was special, special night. If they do it again in 30 years, I'll be there. But it was obvious to me that they should not wait near that long.
In the first half of the evening, the individual band members each played two or three numbers on their own or in small ensembles. I've been meaning to write about how, with good performers, you get to know about their lives and their spheres, but I don't know how to do it without descending into cliche. It happened last night.
For me, every performer's mini-set was delightful and revealing. The standouts, for me, were the harmonies of Beverly Smith and Carl Jones, the amazing fiddlework of Joe Weed and Bruce Bowers, the inspiring personality of Bruce Bowers, the jazzy and expressive singing of Marty Kendall (Joe Weed's wife) backed by Joe and guitarist Steve Palazzo, Bruce Bowers' daughter Jasmine's Latino piano playing (who we'll hear more from, I am *sure*), and the Silk Road work of bassist Vince Flores.
Then, in the second half, they played ensemble, as Succotash. Despite -- and perhaps because of -- their 30-year hiatus, they were just, just, just, . . . great. Jaw-droppingly good. Surprising. Multi-talented. A team. A whole greater than the sum of their amazing parts. And they had fun. And they swang and sang and played and smiled. Highlight: just about every song. Maybe the "Never on Sunday" theme. Maybe "The Handsome Cabin Boy." Maybe the song about the circle closing again. It was deeply emotional -- joyful, mostly.
The music of the evening ranged from singer-songwriter-folk to European Cafe to roots jazz to swing to Bach to Celtic. Many of the songs were brand new to me.
The audience was special too. I kept looking at the "Occupancy 60 Persons" sign and seeing "55 MPH". I met a woman who had waitressed at the venue where Succotash used to hold down Friday and Saturday nights every week for two years. She couldn't stop smiling all night. I met a hero of mine, harmonica genius Norton Buffalo. I didn't know most of the folks, but many of them knew each other, and for many it was their own personal reunion. I had merely flown in from Connecticut to see the event . . .
It was special, special night. If they do it again in 30 years, I'll be there. But it was obvious to me that they should not wait near that long.
Technorati Tags: JoeWeed, Music
Friday, October 21, 2005
Where there's a will . . .
I'll be going to the Joe Weed & Succotash reunion concert tonight after all . . . off to the airport!
Technorati Tags: JoeWeed, Music
Wednesday, October 19, 2005
Double agent in double sendup
WSIS Blog Aggregator
Here's a WSIS blog aggregator for bloggers covering the WSIS Tunis Round. Good stuff. The Tunis meetings run November 16-18. A fair number of Berkman people are going. Not me, but I'll be reading the blogs, especially Ethan's and Rebecca's.
Technorati Tags: Berkman, EthanZuckerman, RebeccaMacKinnon, WSIS
Tuesday, October 11, 2005
Freedom to Connect is Political
Martin Geddes, not always right but never to be taken lightly, perhaps with judgment distorted by the impending birth of * Geddes Jr. II, writes:
Why do you, personally, care about [Freedom of the Network]? Telecom isn’t the only industry with distribution bottlenecks, significant market power, and cross-subsidy between the stages of production. Just look at how baked beans are positioned in supermarket shelves. Manufacturers in the UK pay the supermarkets to buy prime positions. Yet telecom incites such great passion in intelligent people. Baked beans don’t. What’s going on?After a couple of weeks attempting to give economic underpinnings to the phrase, I think he's got a point.
I think I’ve finally worked out why. It’s David Isenberg’s elephant in the corner — what he ambiguously calls Freedom to Connect. Most of these arguments attempt to build a logical economic thesis about why we do or don’t have the correct balance between price discrimination, competition and common carriage. But it increasingly misses the point. We sense there’s a deeper, more troubling, aspect to getting cut off from part of the conversation.
Whilst nebulous and fluffy, it’s all about democracy. The rest is post hoc rationalization . . . my thesis is that we are underestimating the importance of this political (as opposed to economic) side of the debate.
The sense of indignation you feel inside you when you hear about port blocking is because you sense the loss that those customer are enduring. You and I have come to realize that if you don’t have access, you aren’t able to fully participate in society any more in some non-trivial way.
Technorati Tags: F2C, Politics
Friday, October 07, 2005
Verizon's net more open than Clearwire's
Talk about burying the lead! Somebody who edits his own work has a fool for an editor.
The surprise in the preceding story is that Verizon, despite having vastly more market power than Clearwire, has much more reasonable less unreasonable terms of service.
The surprise in the preceding story is that Verizon, despite having vastly more market power than Clearwire, has much more reasonable less unreasonable terms of service.
Technorati Tags: F2C, NetworkNeutrality, OpenAccess, Telco
Thursday, October 06, 2005
Clearwire decides what traffic types are acceptable
I'm tracking down Ray Gifford's blogged statement that Clearwire has explicitly declared its "right" to block third-party applications like Vonage. Indeed, even after Madison River, Clearwire apparently did actually block Vonage VOIP calls for a time, according to News.com. Gifford quotes some suggestive statements from Clearwire's Terms of Service, but the smoking gun is in Clearwire's Acceptable Use Policy:
There's nothing like this language in Verizon's Internet Access Terms of Service (which includes its Acceptable Use Policy) governing my own FIOS service. There's the usual vague language about excessive amounts of traffic, but -- gratifyingly -- nothing about blocking based on type of traffic. Furthermore, at TPRC a couple of weeks ago, Dennis Weller, Verizon's Chief Economist, said (from the audience, during a Q&A) that Verizon had no plans to block based on content type. I wonder, how is Verizon so all-fired resistant to temptation when its cash cow is at stake?
The tone of Clearwire's Acceptable Use Policy differs markedly from Verizon's. Clearwire attempts to extend the law and become a surrogate for it through language like this
Meanwhile Clearwire even prohibits its customers from using its service . . .
To protect its customers and its network Clearwire may, without limitation, block and allow traffic types as we see fit at any time.My recent column in VON Magazine, entitled, Error: Application Not Recognized, explains why blocking on content type is particularly pernicious. (In brief, "application awareness" is today's reactionary way of preserving yesterday's single-purpose networking companies.)
There's nothing like this language in Verizon's Internet Access Terms of Service (which includes its Acceptable Use Policy) governing my own FIOS service. There's the usual vague language about excessive amounts of traffic, but -- gratifyingly -- nothing about blocking based on type of traffic. Furthermore, at TPRC a couple of weeks ago, Dennis Weller, Verizon's Chief Economist, said (from the audience, during a Q&A) that Verizon had no plans to block based on content type. I wonder, how is Verizon so all-fired resistant to temptation when its cash cow is at stake?
The tone of Clearwire's Acceptable Use Policy differs markedly from Verizon's. Clearwire attempts to extend the law and become a surrogate for it through language like this
. . . you may not use the Service for any unlawful or abusive purpose, in any way that could damage, disable, overburden, or impair any Clearwire property, or in any way that directly or indirectly interferes with or disrupts our network or adversely affects another’s use or enjoyment of any Service . . .Whereas Verizon is happy to trust its customers to have responsible behavior; check this!
. . . you may have access to information, which may be sexually explicit, obscene or offensive, or otherwise unsuitable or objectionable, especially for children under the age of eighteen (18) years old. You agree to supervise usage of the Service by any minors who use your account to access the Service. Verizon is not responsible for access by any users, you, or minors, to objectionable or offensive information or data.Clearwire takes the role of policeman. Verizon says, "Hey, you're on your own out there . . ."
Meanwhile Clearwire even prohibits its customers from using its service . . .
. . . to store or collect, or attempt to store or collect, personal information about third parties without their prior knowledge and consent.So if you look up your friend's phone number without, uh, calling your friend first to find out if you can look up her number, you're in violation. This one will find every user in violation every day. One can only hope that Clearwire's desire to have some customers outweighs its desire to keep its network unsullied. With ISPs like Clearwire, (I never thought I'd say this, but) I'm glad I'm Verizon's customer.
Technorati Tags: Clearwire, Content-Conduit, F2C, NetworkNeutrality, Clearwire, Verizon, TPRC, VOIP
Picture > 1kwords
From Jurgan Usman and Kevin Moore's weekly "Telecom Battle Update," Oct 5, 2005 (.pdf sent via email -- email authors for more info . . .)
Technorati Tags: Cableco, Duopoly, Telco
Wednesday, October 05, 2005
Quote of Note: Gavin Newsom
"It is to me a fundamental right to have access universally to information . . . This is a civil rights issue as much as anything else."
San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom, currently reviewing 24 bids to build a San Francisco wireless network, quoted here.
Thanks to Saul "Doctor Strangecode" Aguiar for pointing this out!
San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom, currently reviewing 24 bids to build a San Francisco wireless network, quoted here.
Thanks to Saul "Doctor Strangecode" Aguiar for pointing this out!
Technorati Tags: F2C, MunicipalNetworks, WiFi
Great Music in Silicon Valley
Sure wish I could be on the West Coast for the reunion of Succotash, Joe Weed's acoustic band from the 1970s. Joe writes:
All of the original 1976 members of "Succotash" -- Bruce Bowers, Vince Flores, Steve Kritzer, Beverly Smith, and Joe Weed -- will perform a reunion concert on Friday, October 21, at 8:00PM, at the Espresso Garden Cafe, 814 S. Bascom Ave, San Jose, CA 95128. Tickets are $18.00 in advance, and $20 at the door. Tickets can be ordered from joe@highlandpublishing.com, or by phone at (408)353-5494.Joe Weed is one of the most delightful practitioners of the art of American music. Do yourself a big favor and go. Let me know how you like it!
Technorati Tags: JoeWeed, Music
Friday, September 30, 2005
[TPRC] The Right to Communicate and the Freedom to Connect
At TPRC last weekend, I met Carolyn Cunningham, a PhD student at UT Austin and author of "The Right to Communicate: Democracy and the Digital Divide," which includes a survey of the Right to Communicate. Cunningham traces the Right to Communicate back to (John) Locke's notion of Natural Rights as expressed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Just as the Right to Privacy is not explicit in the U.S. Constitution, neither is the Right to Communicate in the Universal Declaration. And just as the Right to Privacy is established by at least five of the U.S. Constitution's first ten amendments (first, third, fourth, fifth and ninth), so, says Cunningham, is the Right to Communicate strongly implied by Articles 19, 27 and others. However, case law and scholarly thinking around the Universal Declaration, a much newer document, is not nearly as deep, hence the Right to Communicate is not nearly as well-established.
The Right to Communicate is still being actively defined. Cunningham sent me several links to currently active Right to Communicate advocates, including CRIS: Communication Rights in Information Society and The World Forum on Communication Rights.
Is The Right to Communicate the same thing as Freedom to Connect? I'm thinking about it, and I'm still learning, but my gut says that the Freedom to Connect is much more narrowly defined. The stuff I've read on The Right to Communicate does not seem to draw a distinction between the physical layer and content. CRIS seems to lump pipe and pageant, connection and culture, wire and writings, antenna and art, together under the Right to Communicate.
Lumping layers can lead to trouble, and it apparently has; an abstract on Women's Human Rights: Violence Against Women, Pornography and ICT (Information and Communications Technologies) asks some very difficult questions. The URL for the full text behind the abstract, however, leads to "Error/Kernel (20) Module Not Found" (as of 9/30/05). I can only imagine the disputes behind this. Layers have their purpose.
So for now, I will read the Right to Communicate literature with great interest. But my assumption, until proven otherwise, is that the Right to Communicate is only loosely joined to, and far less prescriptive than, the Freedom to Connect.
Just as the Right to Privacy is not explicit in the U.S. Constitution, neither is the Right to Communicate in the Universal Declaration. And just as the Right to Privacy is established by at least five of the U.S. Constitution's first ten amendments (first, third, fourth, fifth and ninth), so, says Cunningham, is the Right to Communicate strongly implied by Articles 19, 27 and others. However, case law and scholarly thinking around the Universal Declaration, a much newer document, is not nearly as deep, hence the Right to Communicate is not nearly as well-established.
The Right to Communicate is still being actively defined. Cunningham sent me several links to currently active Right to Communicate advocates, including CRIS: Communication Rights in Information Society and The World Forum on Communication Rights.
Is The Right to Communicate the same thing as Freedom to Connect? I'm thinking about it, and I'm still learning, but my gut says that the Freedom to Connect is much more narrowly defined. The stuff I've read on The Right to Communicate does not seem to draw a distinction between the physical layer and content. CRIS seems to lump pipe and pageant, connection and culture, wire and writings, antenna and art, together under the Right to Communicate.
Lumping layers can lead to trouble, and it apparently has; an abstract on Women's Human Rights: Violence Against Women, Pornography and ICT (Information and Communications Technologies) asks some very difficult questions. The URL for the full text behind the abstract, however, leads to "Error/Kernel (20) Module Not Found" (as of 9/30/05). I can only imagine the disputes behind this. Layers have their purpose.
So for now, I will read the Right to Communicate literature with great interest. But my assumption, until proven otherwise, is that the Right to Communicate is only loosely joined to, and far less prescriptive than, the Freedom to Connect.
Technorati Tags: F2C, Right2Communicate, TPRC
Thursday, September 29, 2005
Quote of Note: John Greenly
"When we started our Wi-Fi project, the incumbent sent in a truck and started laying fiber. They said it was just a coincidence."
John Greenly, Wireless Services Manager, Lompoc Connect, City of Lompoc, CA at Esme Vos' Muniwireless meeting.
"Same thing in Hermosa Beach."
Michael Keegan, City Council Member, Hermosa Beach, CA.
Ah, competition.
John Greenly, Wireless Services Manager, Lompoc Connect, City of Lompoc, CA at Esme Vos' Muniwireless meeting.
"Same thing in Hermosa Beach."
Michael Keegan, City Council Member, Hermosa Beach, CA.
Ah, competition.
Technorati Tags: Competition, EsmeVos, MunicipalNetworks, WiFi
Tuesday, September 27, 2005
Project Censored's top 25 stories of the year
The original source for this info is Project Censored itself.
I am sorry if this posting is "too political" for some of my readers. I am posting it because stories like these fly in the face of Internet ethics like openness, transparency and completeness. Take Story #1, for example; today open government, tomorrow it takes little imagination to see that what's being eliminated threatens the Internet as we know it.
Besides, doncha just wanna know this stuff?
[Update: Links fixed. Apologies for the initial hasty, untested posting. Thanks Frisky070802.]
I am sorry if this posting is "too political" for some of my readers. I am posting it because stories like these fly in the face of Internet ethics like openness, transparency and completeness. Take Story #1, for example; today open government, tomorrow it takes little imagination to see that what's being eliminated threatens the Internet as we know it.
Besides, doncha just wanna know this stuff?
[Update: Links fixed. Apologies for the initial hasty, untested posting. Thanks Frisky070802.]
#1 Bush Administration Moves to Eliminate Open Government
#2 Media Coverage Fails on Iraq: Fallujah and the Civilian Deathtoll
#3 Another Year of Distorted Election Coverage
#4 Surveillance Society Quietly Moves In
#5 U.S. Uses Tsunami to Military Advantage in Southeast Asia
#6 The Real Oil for Food Scam
#7 Journalists Face Unprecedented Dangers to Life and Livelihood
#8 Iraqi Farmers Threatened By Bremer's Mandates
#9 Iran's New Oil Trade System Challenges U.S. Currency
#10 Mountaintop Removal Threatens Ecosystem and Economy
#11 Universal Mental Screening Program Usurps Parental Rights
#12 Military in Iraq Contracts Human Rights Violators
#13 Rich Countries Fail to Live up to Global Pledges
#14 Corporations Win Big on Tort Reform, Justice Suffers
#15 Conservative Plan to Override Academic Freedom in the Classroom
#16 U.S. Plans for Hemispheric Integration Include Canada
#17 U.S. Uses South American Military Bases to Expand Control of the Region
#18 Little Known Stock Fraud Could Weaken U.S. Economy
#19 Child Wards of the State Used in AIDS Experiments
#20 American Indians Sue for Resources; Compensation Provided to Others
#21 New Immigration Plan Favors Business Over People
#22 Nanotechnology Offers Exciting Possibilities But Health Effects Need Scrutiny
#23 Plight of Palestinian Child Detainees Highlights Global Problem
#24 Ethiopian Indigenous Victims of Corporate and Government Resource Aspirations
#25 Homeland Security Was Designed to Fail
Technorati Tags: Politics, Press
Monday, September 26, 2005
[TPRC] My take on politics and isen.blog
At TPRC over the last weekend, former FCC Chairman Reed Hundt debated former FCC Chairman Dick Wiley. Hundt was overtly political. It was absolutely clear where he stood. Wiley was significantly more opaque; often it was clear what he was against, but it was hard to understand what he was for. Hundt wore it on his sleeve -- he was all over the Republican Congress for everything from Telecom malfeasance to Energy pork to FEMA follies to Iraq idiocy to Global Warming to US unilateralism and decline. Wiley kept it to telecom, and even then he did not want to say very much.
Hundt is much more my style. I do not agree with Hundt on everything, but I do agree on the major points. At TPRC, Hundt's major point was that if the United States is to remain player in the global economy it must produce goods that people in other countries want. This is not likely to happen in the "atoms" economy, the carbon economy, the raw materials and manufacturing economy -- other countries can clearly mine and manufacture better than the US can. The information economy must be the engine of US growth, but for this to happen, the US must have cheap, ubiquitous broadband. Hundt says communications services should be priced at almost zero, with free voice telephony and broadband priced low enough to not be an unnecessary burden. Hundt says that we should use information systems to free ourselves from dependence on transportation systems (and meanwhile Congress passes a 286 billion subsidy for asphalt and concrete).
Ahem? $286B could wire America with hot and cold running wired and wireless gigabits in every city, town and pasture. This turn of events would put Dick Wiley's law firm, Wiley, Rein and Fielding, and all of its clients out of business. So Wiley kept his remarks narrowly focussed on telecom. He had to. Was he going to say he was deliberately slowing down US economic growth on behalf of his clients? Was he going to say he was helping his clients hold the price of telecom services artificially high? No. Instead he came off as "apolitical" (and angry at Hundt's overt politics). Wiley is not my style.
In the Q & A period, I had a chance to ask a question. I asked, approximately, "Suppose we knew that the Big One (a huge California earthquake) would occur in exactly one year, what would you have the FCC Chairman do? Wiley didn't seem to get it; he said, "Well, it'd take longer than a year to prepare for that." Hundt, on the other hand, had several concrete suggestions. First, he'd accelerate wireless mesh deployment. Then he'd get a satellite emergency long haul network deployed (over existing satellite facilities). And third, he'd ask all the relevant governors, PUC heads, mayors, etc., what their emergency plan was, and keep asking until they drew one up. (The difference in the way Wiley and Hundt was illustrative.)
However, despite my words about Reed Hundt, I do not think Democrats, in general, have any special claim to goodness. Most of them are no better friends of the open Internet than are most Republicans. The best current telecom bill before Congress is the (bipartisan) McCain-Lautenberg Community Broadband Act. And the best friend of the Internet on the Supreme Court appears to be Justice Scalia, a Reagan-nominated conservative. If there is to be a generalization about the two parties, it is that neither is the Internet party.)
isen.blog is not a job. It is a mission. I am not trying to introduce a protocol or grow a company or push a product. Instead, I am trying to save -- and grow -- the Internet, to keep it open, to make it a force for human benefit. This is a political endeavor. And it is connected to other political endeavors; the Internet, as it currently operates, is a tool of free speech and decentralized democracy. The Internet that others envision has other political aims. Therefore, this blog is political. And it is going to stay that way.
So, my conclusion, after much mulling, is that if you do not like the political aspect of isen.blog, you are welcome to not read it. Or, as one commentor pointed out, you're welcome to skip the articles tagged "politics." I hope you won't, but there's nothing to force you to read any of it.
Or maybe you don't like the *direction* of this blog's politics. If that's the case, I'd much prefer that you comment on the politics you disagree with. Let's talk about it! I'm sure I'll learn a lot from your input; the readers of isen.blog are smart people. I've already learned a lot from you. I'd be sorry to see the process weakened by your lack of participation.
Hundt is much more my style. I do not agree with Hundt on everything, but I do agree on the major points. At TPRC, Hundt's major point was that if the United States is to remain player in the global economy it must produce goods that people in other countries want. This is not likely to happen in the "atoms" economy, the carbon economy, the raw materials and manufacturing economy -- other countries can clearly mine and manufacture better than the US can. The information economy must be the engine of US growth, but for this to happen, the US must have cheap, ubiquitous broadband. Hundt says communications services should be priced at almost zero, with free voice telephony and broadband priced low enough to not be an unnecessary burden. Hundt says that we should use information systems to free ourselves from dependence on transportation systems (and meanwhile Congress passes a 286 billion subsidy for asphalt and concrete).
Ahem? $286B could wire America with hot and cold running wired and wireless gigabits in every city, town and pasture. This turn of events would put Dick Wiley's law firm, Wiley, Rein and Fielding, and all of its clients out of business. So Wiley kept his remarks narrowly focussed on telecom. He had to. Was he going to say he was deliberately slowing down US economic growth on behalf of his clients? Was he going to say he was helping his clients hold the price of telecom services artificially high? No. Instead he came off as "apolitical" (and angry at Hundt's overt politics). Wiley is not my style.
In the Q & A period, I had a chance to ask a question. I asked, approximately, "Suppose we knew that the Big One (a huge California earthquake) would occur in exactly one year, what would you have the FCC Chairman do? Wiley didn't seem to get it; he said, "Well, it'd take longer than a year to prepare for that." Hundt, on the other hand, had several concrete suggestions. First, he'd accelerate wireless mesh deployment. Then he'd get a satellite emergency long haul network deployed (over existing satellite facilities). And third, he'd ask all the relevant governors, PUC heads, mayors, etc., what their emergency plan was, and keep asking until they drew one up. (The difference in the way Wiley and Hundt was illustrative.)
However, despite my words about Reed Hundt, I do not think Democrats, in general, have any special claim to goodness. Most of them are no better friends of the open Internet than are most Republicans. The best current telecom bill before Congress is the (bipartisan) McCain-Lautenberg Community Broadband Act. And the best friend of the Internet on the Supreme Court appears to be Justice Scalia, a Reagan-nominated conservative. If there is to be a generalization about the two parties, it is that neither is the Internet party.)
isen.blog is not a job. It is a mission. I am not trying to introduce a protocol or grow a company or push a product. Instead, I am trying to save -- and grow -- the Internet, to keep it open, to make it a force for human benefit. This is a political endeavor. And it is connected to other political endeavors; the Internet, as it currently operates, is a tool of free speech and decentralized democracy. The Internet that others envision has other political aims. Therefore, this blog is political. And it is going to stay that way.
So, my conclusion, after much mulling, is that if you do not like the political aspect of isen.blog, you are welcome to not read it. Or, as one commentor pointed out, you're welcome to skip the articles tagged "politics." I hope you won't, but there's nothing to force you to read any of it.
Or maybe you don't like the *direction* of this blog's politics. If that's the case, I'd much prefer that you comment on the politics you disagree with. Let's talk about it! I'm sure I'll learn a lot from your input; the readers of isen.blog are smart people. I've already learned a lot from you. I'd be sorry to see the process weakened by your lack of participation.
Technorati Tags: Politics, TPRC
More on Politics and isen.blog
Martin Geddes (whose opinion is always worth considering) cuts to the quick of it when he writes:
Well, as I once noted, the stupid network inherently embodies certain political attititudes and beliefs. So if you stop writing about politics, you'll have to write about crochet or birdwatching instead.
On the other hand, I do think you lose favour with otherwise "friendly" readers by including stuff that isn't related to telecom. Particularly when all the ills of the world get heaped on a cerain G. W. B.
Technorati Tags: Politics, Stupid Network
Wednesday, September 21, 2005
Politics on isen.blog?
Today Henry Sinnreich, the Godfather of SIP at MCI, told me I should leave overt politics out of this blog. His point was that we have plenty enough work to do to get the network right.
What do *you* think?
What do *you* think?
Technorati Tags: Politics
Block that app
Damn network users, always interfering with the operation of networks. They run applications that use bandwidth. They choose "free" instead of "paid." This must stop. Doug Mohoney writes
LAST WEEK, Verso Technologies (www.verso.com) announced the rollout of a "carrier-grade applications filter" that can block so-called bandwidth drains such as Skype, P2P messaging, streaming media, and instant messaging.David Weinberger, who called this to my attention, writes,
. . . it's free and people like it, hence it must die.Clearly the best network is one that has no users and supports no apps.
Technorati Tags: F2C, IntelligentNetwork, WalledGardens
Monday, September 19, 2005
Regulation destroys competition
At the August 5, 2005 meeting of the FCC, following the Supreme Court's decision that cable modem connectivity is an information service, the FCC leveled (lowered) the playing field by declaring that DSL, too, is an information service. These decisions remove the common carrier obligation of the line owner to share -- non-carrier ISPs like Earthlink are left to twist slowly in the wind. The industry is, for all intents, re-verticalized.
The central idea of the Telecom Act of 1996 -- that competition would replace regulation -- is all but dead. Regulation has systematically fought competition since 1996. Regulation has won.
The last two areas of potential competition, municipal networks and multimodalism, are being reduced to struggling also-rans. (Muni networks are under attack on every front, and the Powell drive for multimodal facilities-based competition isn't getting the emphasis it deserves in the Martin FCC.)
At least FCC Commissioner Copps realized the enormity of the experiment the FCC is doing. On August 5, he wrote
Thanks to Francois Menard, writing on the Cybertelecom list, for pointing me to this.
The central idea of the Telecom Act of 1996 -- that competition would replace regulation -- is all but dead. Regulation has systematically fought competition since 1996. Regulation has won.
The last two areas of potential competition, municipal networks and multimodalism, are being reduced to struggling also-rans. (Muni networks are under attack on every front, and the Powell drive for multimodal facilities-based competition isn't getting the emphasis it deserves in the Martin FCC.)
At least FCC Commissioner Copps realized the enormity of the experiment the FCC is doing. On August 5, he wrote
I objected strenuously to [the FCC's] original reclassification of cable modem and our tentative reclassification of wireline broadband. But the Supreme Court['s Brand X decision] has fundamentally changed the legal landscape . . . The handwriting is on the wall. DSL will be reclassified . . . [T]oday . . . we take the dramatic step of reclassifying DSL in order to spur broadband deployment and to help consumers. I want us to test that proposition a year from now. If by next year consumers have more broadband options, lower prices, higher speeds and better services, maybe this proposition holds true. If our broadband take-rate reverses course and the United States begins to climb up the ladder of broadband penetration rather than falling further behind so many other nations, then we’ll have something to crow about . . . I hope next year the Commission will put its money where its mouth is and check to see if its theory yields real world results for American consumers. And if it doesn’t achieve these results, I hope we’ll admit it. I plan to keep tabs.Certainly the FCC has the authority to revisit its decision; it is a reasonable interpretation of law. But if they do, I'll be very surprised. I'm afraid that Copps is living in a reality-based fantasy world.
Thanks to Francois Menard, writing on the Cybertelecom list, for pointing me to this.
Technorati Tags: BrandX, Broadband, Content-Conduit, F2C, FCC
Friday, September 16, 2005
Picture >1kword
For those reading this with RSS, paste this into your browser:
http://www.economist.com/printedition/displayCover.cfm?url=/images/20050917/20050917issuecovUS400.jpg
or http://tinyurl.com/db7zl
Thanks to Lee Dryburgh for alerting me to this!
