RB – Page 169 – Richard Bennett

Oh shit! I’m busted!

Ever wonder what the legislators say when they have those little closed-door meetings to discuss tactics in the middle of a bill fight? OK, you probably haven’t, but this is the stuff that fascinates me, and we have a good example on Rough and Tumble today, thanks to a little Progressive Study Group faux pas … Continue reading “Oh shit! I’m busted!”

California law requires a two-thirds majority to pass a budget, and Dems would like to lower the threshold to 55% in order to free themselves of a reliance on Republican votes. In order to amend the constitution, they’re willing to extend the budget crisis indefinitely. This whole discussion, which they thought was secret, was broadcast throughout the Capital yesterday, thanks to a hot microphone in the hearing room they used for their plotting.

The best accounts are in the L. A. Times and in the Frisco Chronicle:

Members of the Assembly Democrats’ progressive caucus were heard making candid, if not intemperate, statements such as one by Los Angeles Assemblyman Fabian Nunez that they may want to “precipitate a crisis” over the budget this year. That might persuade voters to lower the two-thirds vote threshold needed to pass a spending plan, he reasoned.

“It seems to me if there’s going to be a crisis, the crisis should be this year,” Assemblywoman Jackie Goldberg, D-Los Angeles, said during the meeting. “What you do is you show people that you can’t get to this without a 55 percent vote.”

The unintentional broadcast was interrupted when someone informed the group that a microphone was on. “Oh s–,” Goldberg said as the sound was cut.

The Mercury News’ coverage of the hot mike fiasco was bizarre, blaming it on unscrupulous Republicans:

Goldberg criticized Republicans for recording the session and alerting reporters. “That’s the kind of stuff that makes you think there are no ethics in this place,” she said.

See also: Evan Halper and Nancy Vogel in the Los Angeles Times Alexa H. Bluth in the Sacramento Bee David M. Drucker in the Los Angeles Daily News.

Broadband hearings

The House Energy and Commerce committee is holding hearings today on broadband regulation aimed at harmonizing DSL and cable access policies: While these two forms of broadband directly compete in many cities, they are currently regulated in different ways. Phone companies are required to provide Internet service providers non-discriminatory access to their networks, while cable … Continue reading “Broadband hearings”

The House Energy and Commerce committee is holding hearings today on broadband regulation aimed at harmonizing DSL and cable access policies:

While these two forms of broadband directly compete in many cities, they are currently regulated in different ways. Phone companies are required to provide Internet service providers non-discriminatory access to their networks, while cable companies can pick and choose among ISPs.

There is an urban legend that these regulations have something to do with a nefarious plot by the cablecos and telcos to highjack Google results and steer customers to the provider’s preferred sites. This is not true, of course, and the issue is under what conditions independent ISPs can use DSL and cable plants to reach new customers.

Independent ISPs, of course, want to be able to serve customers across the cable company’s lines for a minimal price, but cable companies want to be able to continue dictating terms of such access as they see fit. Telcos would like the same degree of flexibility in their business models that cable companies have.

The public has two interests here, and they don’t necessarily harmonize all that well. On the one hand, we want the choice between DSL and cable Internet to as many homes as possible, which is to say, all of them. We want these services to continue improving over time, which would require the companies to buy more gear from Cisco and friends. And we want the prices low.

At the same time, we want to be able to use ISPs that are more competent and less restrictive than SBC and Comcast, and we want to be able to do that for a reasonable price.

So if we set public policy that cablecos and telcos are only allowed to sell use of their lines for basic packet switching, and that all ISP functions (assigning IP addresses, handling e-mail and Usenet, and providing DNS) have to be unbundled, their profit margin may not be enough to encourage them to buy lots of gear.

On the other hand, how much does it take?

Where the beef is

There’s an interesing article in the Mercury News today on the Argentine obsession with beef: Argentines so revere their country’s 11th Commandment — Thou Shalt Eat Beef — that babies are weaned on steak juice. A curvaceous woman is whistled at and called “a great steak.” Despite recent decades of economic woe, the average Argentine … Continue reading “Where the beef is”

There’s an interesing article in the Mercury News today on the Argentine obsession with beef:

Argentines so revere their country’s 11th Commandment — Thou Shalt Eat Beef — that babies are weaned on steak juice. A curvaceous woman is whistled at and called “a great steak.” Despite recent decades of economic woe, the average Argentine still consumes more than twice as much beef as an American.

Argentina exported so much beef in the early twentieth century that it was one of the world’s ten richest countries, ahead of France even. So if you’d like to help Latin America get its economy back in order, eat more beef.

Shouting “Fire” in a Crowded Airplane

The best commentary I’ve seen on the John Gilmore airline delaying stunt was left in tin-foil hat wearer Larry Lessig’s comments by Seth Finkelstein: I’ve finally figured out what bothers me so much about this. In effect, Gilmore was doing a millionaire’s version of trolling. Exactly. To the idle rich Gilmore, airline security is a … Continue reading “Shouting “Fire” in a Crowded Airplane”

The best commentary I’ve seen on the John Gilmore airline delaying stunt was left in tin-foil hat wearer Larry Lessig’s comments by Seth Finkelstein:

I’ve finally figured out what bothers me so much about this.

In effect, Gilmore was doing a millionaire’s version of trolling.

Exactly. To the idle rich Gilmore, airline security is a big, fat, joke, but to the people who fly airplanes every day, it’s a reality that they confront every day of their working lives.

Millionaires who delay flights carrying hundreds of people in order to get attention are enough to make me return to the Bolshevik values of my youth and advocate eating the rich, or at least taxing them into poverty. This stunt — reminiscent of a Woody Harrelson protest that shut down the Golden Gate Bridge for several hours, preventing ambulances from reaching hospitals and fathers from being present for the birth of their babies — is on the wrong issue in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Stunt-master John Gilmore was a co-founder of the EFF, a civil liberties organization that’s never done anything of value for any of the sufferers of the major civil liberties threats of the last decade, which should come as no surprise.

UPDATE: Prompted by the Gilmore stunt, Reason magazine rushes an article on civil liberties by Brian Doherty onto their web site (note: this is a correction), which attempts to explain why the government wants a picture ID from all airline passengers:

As you check in, your biometrically encoded national ID (a perennial legislative favorite, though not in active play at the moment) is scanned and your identity is checked against every available database the government can access, public and private. This will likely include, among many others:

…

? the “deadbeat dad” database (a poster child for the inevitable mission creep of all government databases, it has already expanded in just a few years to be used to track down student loan deadbeats and unemployment cheats);

The “deadbeat dad” database Doherty mentions is the “National Newhire Registry”, to which all employers are required to report all newhires, whether they’re child support debtors or not, so cross-referencing this database to airline passengers would be a meaningless exercise. The government wants to know if people on the “do not fly” terrorist watch list are boarding planes, and to do this they need to know who’s flying.

Civil libertarians who like to complain about the maltreatment of terrorists and the idle rich have been silent about the government’s systematic, monthly scans of all bank records and utility accounts for those with names similar to those of known child support debtors. Why is that?

ANOTHER UPDATE: There is also a federal law to the effect that child support debtors lose their passports when they get $5000 behind, which the INS enforces, so once again, Doherty’s “mission creep” argument goes nowhere.

The Famous Fat Guy

CNN.com is pitching The Fat Guy Scott Chaffin’s weekend bidness: Buck’s on the Brazos — located in Rainbow, Texas, on the banks of the Brazos River — offers two-room canvas tents secured on wooden platforms. Each $100 a night tent has a ceiling fan, electricity and a queen sized bed. The site provides grills, utensils, … Continue reading “The Famous Fat Guy”

CNN.com is pitching The Fat Guy Scott Chaffin’s weekend bidness:

Buck’s on the Brazos — located in Rainbow, Texas, on the banks of the Brazos River — offers two-room canvas tents secured on wooden platforms. Each $100 a night tent has a ceiling fan, electricity and a queen sized bed. The site provides grills, utensils, charcoal, towels, linens, chairs and tables.

Scott Chaffin, who owns and operates Buck’s on the Brazos, said that popular outings like antiquing, golfing and visiting the nearby Fossil Rim Wildlife Park delight the luxury campers who visit his year-round facility.

Better check out Buck’s before he gets uppity and starts putting on airs.

Short profile

Howard Finemand on Howard Dean: Howard Dean is a simmering teakettle of emotion, aspiration and edge. In these wrought-up times, it’s a persona that has considerable appeal to the grass roots of the Democratic Party, if not, as yet, to the nation at large. It’s made him a celebrity on the Internet, where his Web-based … Continue reading “Short profile”

Howard Finemand on Howard Dean:

Howard Dean is a simmering teakettle of emotion, aspiration and edge. In these wrought-up times, it’s a persona that has considerable appeal to the grass roots of the Democratic Party, if not, as yet, to the nation at large. It’s made him a celebrity on the Internet, where his Web-based efforts are changing the face of campaigning. As governor of Vermont, he was known for his chesty confrontations. As an early foe of war in Iraq, he made acerbic comments that now look prescient. But Dean’s aura of disdain can cause him problems, too. His attacks on Democratic presidential rivals are delivered with all the grace and humor of a fedora-wearing hit man

Except for the “prescient” part, it’s right on.

Pandering at a new level

The most recent comment from the Howard Dean campaign staff at the Lawrence Lessig blog reaches a whole new level of pandering: We’re all big Lessig fans on the Internet Team, and it has been, as many have said, an historic week. Lessig quotes EFF founder Mitch Kapor as saying “Architecture is politics.” For me, … Continue reading “Pandering at a new level”

The most recent comment from the Howard Dean campaign staff at the Lawrence Lessig blog reaches a whole new level of pandering:

We’re all big Lessig fans on the Internet Team, and it has been, as many have said, an historic week. Lessig quotes EFF founder Mitch Kapor as saying “Architecture is politics.” For me, what is so powerful about this campaign is how the Internet is completely changing the architecture of politics. We talk alot about how the energy and momentum is bottom-up, but I think what sometimes gets lost is how the innovation is bottom-up and person-to-person as well (or e2e as Lessig might say).

So we see that technology now enables politicians to do the same sleazy things in entirely new and innovative ways, and that’s progress.

In the last election, voters were asked by exit pollsters whether they were regular users of the Internet. Here’s how they answered:

Regular User of Internet All… Gore… Bush… Buchanan Nader

Yes 64% 47% 49% 1% 3%

No 36% 51% 46% 1% 2%

It appears that George W. Bush is our first Internet president.

Synergy

This is cute: TiVo Inc. subscribers will be able to program their digital video recorders remotely by logging on to America Online under a new service TiVo and AOL plan to announce today. One of the coolest things about Replay is the ability it gives its customers to program recording lists on the web, so … Continue reading “Synergy”

This is cute:

TiVo Inc. subscribers will be able to program their digital video recorders remotely by logging on to America Online under a new service TiVo and AOL plan to announce today.

One of the coolest things about Replay is the ability it gives its customers to program recording lists on the web, so it’s nice to see TiVo catching-up, and it’s also smart of them to cultivate their AOL connection:

So maybe what AOL/Time-Warner needs to do is forget about the Internet and broadband, and get themselves some nice Tivo-type property to really make the synergy work. Then they can upgrade the book value of their “good will” instead of sending out bad vibes and like, bumming everybody out, you know.

…as somebody said.

The Open Internet

Joe Lieberman has a moderately interesting paper on his web site called Growing the Innovation Economy: A New Strategy For A New Prosperity that deals with Internet openness in broad terms: Ensure that the Internet continues to provide an open platform for innovation: The Internet is different from the phone network and radio and broadcast … Continue reading “The Open Internet”

Joe Lieberman has a moderately interesting paper on his web site called Growing the Innovation Economy: A New Strategy For A New Prosperity that deals with Internet openness in broad terms:

Ensure that the Internet continues to provide an open platform for innovation: The Internet is different from the phone network and radio and broadcast television in important ways. It is easier for individuals and small organizations to be producers as well as consumers of information. The Internet allows for “many to many” communication as opposed to the “one to many” communication of broadcast television. Innovation can occur at the edge of the network. A student, an independent software developer, or a small high-tech company can come up with an idea for a new application, protocol, or kind of content. If enough people find it useful or worthwhile, this idea can spread like wildfire. Even as the Internet evolves, it important to ensure that it continues to provide an open platform for rapid and decentralized innovation, and for the exchange of ideas.

It seems sensible enough, praising the Internet, entrepreneurship, and openness, and there’s nothing to which I would take exception in any of it.

Unfortunately, the tortuously confused Larry Lessig posted this excerpt to his blog, somehow managing to read it as an endorsement of the dubious “end-to-end” architecture that’s spawned a whole cargo cult of misguided followers:

End to End has gone presidential.

So now I’m getting email from people wanting me to comment on Lessig’s reasoning in his book The Future of Ideas. I haven’t read Lessig’s tome, and I doubt I will unless somebody pays me to review it, but I nonetheless tried to accommodate my correspondent by posting this explanation:

I don?t doubt that Lessig means well, but he frankly doesn?t know what he?s talking about. There is a legitimate, if obscure, fear in some quarters that ISPs may someday censor specific types of content, either in their customer?s interest or in their own economic interests. Porn filters, for example, discriminate based on content, but many customers would consider this a value-added service and it?s not worth getting excited about.

But let?s take it a step further, and suppose that an ISP filters video packets, ostensibly because it wants to control your video experience through its ownership of your cable TV franchise. This would be a bad thing, of course, and I don?t argue otherwise.

But the question we have to ask as network architects is whether there?s any relationship between the Internet?s present or future architecture and this sort of censorship, and the answer to that is clearly no. Video packets are easy to identify on the net because they?re carried by a limited set of protocols and clearly marked; a censor doesn?t care whether the marking is at the IP layer or at the RTP layer or at the UDP layer; they each have a signature, and unless they?re encrypted, they can be found.

Now the question has to be asked as to whether the Internet?s current architecture can hope to compete with cable TV and DBS as a practical alternative for carrying audio and video data, and whether this should be a goal. In the early days of IP, it clearly wasn?t a goal and therefore an architecture was developed that blocked transport layer access to the isochronous services in the data link and medium access control protocols that would make it practical. This architecture now has the effect of keeping the voice and data networks separate, to the advantage of telcos and cablecos who would like to bill you extra for providing voice and video services.

So far from advocating an architecture that frees the consumer from the big media and telephone companies, the end-to-end cargo cultists are promoting the exact thing that keeps them dependent, and they do so out of ignorance of the technical issues in network architecture.

To put it simply, you wouldn?t trust me to explain constitutional law to you, so why would you trust someone with Lessig?s background to explain my business, network architecture, to you?

If you want a robust Internet that’s capable of carrying voice and video as well as data, you have to abandon end-to-end architecture and go with a smarter network layer; this doesn’t mean you have to abandon openness, because openness and end-to-end aren’t related.

OK?

Hail the Panderer-in-Chief

Presidential candidate Howard (“Shorty”) Dean took a break from a day of heavy pandering to minorities, in which he bravely condemned racial profiling at meetings of La Raza and the NAACP, to reach out to Lawrence Lessig’s blog audience with a strong denunciation of Big Media: The Internet might soon be the last place where … Continue reading “Hail the Panderer-in-Chief”

The Internet might soon be the last place where open dialogue occurs. One of the most dangerous things that has happened in the past few years is the deregulation of media ownership rules that began in 1996. Michael Powell and the Bush FCC are continuing that assault today (see the June 2nd ruling).

The danger of relaxing media ownership rules became clear to me when I saw what happened with the Dixie Chicks. But there?s an even bigger danger in the future, on the Internet. The FCC recently ruled that cable and phone based broadband providers be classified as information rather than telecommunications services. This is the first step in a process that could allow Internet providers to arbitrarily limit the content that users can access. The phone and cable industries could have the power to discriminate against content that they don?t control or– even worse– simply don?t like.

The media conglomerates now dominate almost half of the markets around the country, meaning Americans get less independent and frequently less dependable news, views and information. James Madison and Thomas Jefferson spoke of the fear that economic power would one day try to seize political power. No consolidated economic power has more opportunity to do this than the consolidated power of media.

Of course, it’s good that candidates for office are willing to stick their heads above ground to meet and greet potential voters on the Internet. But the usual routine of telling each audience what you think they want to hear isn’t going to cut it in this medium (you can ask Trent Lott and Howell Raines about that.) Dean copied his post to his own blog, and censored critical remarks from the comments section. Here’s one that was censored:

Good pandering, Dr. Dean, you?ve clearly done your homework, and I respect that.

Concentrations of economic power certainly are a threat to democracy, as we?ve learned in California where we face a huge budget crisis because our elected officials are beholden to the unions, trial lawyers, and casinos who elected them, so I?m glad you?re on the case, and you?ll have my support when you take on these special interests.

Other threats to democracy that have been identified by scholars include the awareness of the majority that they can vote themselves the contents of the treasury (Earned Income Tax Credit, for example) and a potential descent into tyranny predicted by Plato as politicians appeal to the baser passions of the majority. I?m glad you?re on to that one, too.

Under the strict regulation of media ownership we had 20 years ago, the regime to which you?d like to return, we could only get television news from three networks, all of which had exactly the same, elitist, left-of-center, Ivy League orientation. Deregulation brought us Murdoch, the only news organization with a different spin. As you would clearly like to shut down the Murdoch empire, you?re actually an advocate of less diversity of opinion in the media.

Bravo for you – choice is confusing, and it?s much better to have a Big Brother in Washington telling us how to think.

Speaking of censorship, the Dixie Chicks are actually doing fine, selling lots of (copyrighted) records and selling out their concerts, but that right-wing fascist Michael Savage is getting what he deserves, don?t you think? Richard Bennett

Oddly enough, the censors didn’t delete the responses to this comment, which should prove to the skeptical that it was in fact deleted.

So do you trust a guy who practices this kind of censorship on a puny little blog to regulate media with the kind of sweeping powers he says he wants, where he can decide which company is small enough to own each and every single media outlet in each and every market? That’s one of the things you have to decide as a voter as the campaign progresses.

Regular User of Internet	All…	Gore…	Bush…	Buchanan	Nader
Yes	64%	47%	49%	1%	3%
No	36%	51%	46%	1%	2%