Subscribe to RSS
Posts Tagged ‘politics’
Net Neutrality – be careful what you wish for
As retribution for Martin Geddes and in the name of “what goes around comes around” for Google, in the irony of ironies, it is now AT&T claiming Google is violating Net Neutrality laws. Tell me you didn’t see that coming.
We also have Carl Ford asking “can the concept of ‘open’ be governed?” (see http://apps.calliflower.com/conf/show/58623)
Martin Geddes has long argued that Net Neutrality regulation is unenforceable and technologically naive – essentially that it will come back to bite you in the ass – and here it has.
You can’t expect a law to only apply to the bad guys.
This is what I’d call playing to the teleco’s strengths – if it’s one thing they know how to do, it’s lawyering up. They probably love all this “Net Neutrality” talk because they know how to manipulate the game in their favor.
As I’ve said in the past, Net Neutrality needs a dictionary and the root of the problem is lack of competition, lack of consumer choice for broadband provider. If there’s going to be new legislation, it should be focused on that problem, as was done in the UK and France, rather than trying to define and then enforce supposed rules about “Net Neutrality”.
Palin – really?
Haven’t we already tried putting an inexperienced and ethically challenged Governor of a big-oil state into the White House? How’s that working out for us? Lest we forget, have a gander at these:
- The List of Bush’s Lies and Policy Failures
- The List of Bush Scandals
- List of people pardoned by George W. Bush
- Bush’s Impeachable Offenses (in five parts as of April 2007)
- US General Accuses Bush Administration of War Crimes
- Eight of the most defining issues of George W. Bush’s presidency
It’s official – I’m supporting Barak Obama
For the record, and for what it’s worth, I’m backing Barak Obama in the 2008 presidential campaign. Those that know me, know I’m not a cheerleader for the democratic nor republican parties, in general.
This is the first time in quite a while that I feel like I’m doing more than just picking the least evil. I might be drinking the kool-aid, but I’m impressed with him. In fact, there are issues on which I differ from the candidate, but I can overlook some of these because I’m starting to trust the essence of the man.
He voted against the war when it was considered by most to be political suicide to do so. To me, this shows the kind of bravery and conviction that this country needs.
Clinton shows her colors
Ms. Clinton has clearly showed us what to expect from a Clinton II presidency. She is taking a page out of the “big lie” book with her “new math” assertions that she is ahead in the “popular vote.” Is this really what we want in our next leader? We’ve had eight years of this kind of deceit, propaganda and manipulation – and it hasn’t worked out too well for us – haven’t we had enough of it by now?
Obama Promises Net Neutrality
According to ExtemeVoIP, presidential candidate Barack Obama has committed to supporting network neutrality. If elected to the White House next year, he says he will impose network neutrality mandates on broadband providers such as AT&T and Comcast.
Obama said, if elected, he would appoint only pro-network neutrality Federal Communications Commission members. “I want to maintain that basic principle in how the Internet functions and as president I’m going to make sure that is the principle that my FCC commissioners are applying as we move forward,” he said.
I think one of the issues is whether any politician’s definition of “network neutrality” is the same as ours. It’s easy to say, just like “No child left behind”, but what does it really mean?
Don’t forget that the supposedly “net friendly” Michael Powell always claimed competition was not a “problem”, that there was plenty of competition and consumer choice in broadband, and therefore there is no need for FCC mandated “line sharing”.
Obama and Sen. Hillary Clinton are co-sponsors of legislation introduced in the Senate by Byron Dorgan, D-S.D., and Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, a bill in the name of “network neutrality” but also would allow broadband providers to create tiered pricing as long as there is “equal access to each tier.”
More historical perspective on net neutrality
As the politics of the Internet have shifted over the past several years away from discussions of monopoly (or duopoly) control of the last mile (or first mile), the more it becomes clear to me that the telcos have achieved a powerful win.
By even making the debate be about “net neutrality” the very nature of the war has changed, for the worse (worse for us, better for the telcos).
Let’s look again at the history of the net here. Nobody forced the telcos at gunpoint to offer Internet service. In fact, the telcos were late to the party. But now that they have squeezed out all the competition that actually DID want to offer DSL service (such as CLECS), the incumbents now cry foul, that it’s “not fair”, that they can’t make enough money on Internet service. Boo hoo.
Those with knowledge of the history of local telephone service have seen this before. They first squeeze the competition out and then declare that they need to raise rates to make money. Except this time, it’s not quite so easy, because they have not squeezed out their only remaining rival for Internet access services: the cable companies. So the poor telcos actually have to offer competitive pricing. Yipes. That hurts. That’s not a Telco’s core competency and they aren’t accustomed to having to.
So of course they turn to what they do know – the legal and political systems. And for the most part, the net luminti have fallen right in their trap, pawns in the telco’s game.
What the telcos and their political allies managed to achieve by shifting this debate to one framed around “net neutrality” is let everyone forget that nobody forced the telcos to go into the Internet service business and nobody is forcing them to stay in it. If it’s bad business, get out. If it’s really that bad, nobody else will want to offer it either. Oh but wait, maybe they know somebody else might actually WANT the business (such as all those companies they squeezed out before to create this monopoly mess we’re in now).
So which is it? Is Internet service a bad business or a money maker? If it’s bad, then why are they fighting so hard to be in the business? If it’s good, why are they fighting so hard to tell everyone how bad it is?
FBI asks for broad expansion of wiretapping laws
As I predicted, the FBI has asked for new laws to facilitate broad snooping at broadband internet service provider facilities. The first question is what will this mean for end-to-end encryption. The FBI wants to force Vonage, 8×8, AT&T, and other broadband telephone providers to enable easy wiretapping, but what about pure P2P systems like Skype (and even peer-to-peer SIP)? How will they force end-users to provide easy wiretapping of themselves? When will the government outlaw encryption, so that only the outlaws will have encryption?
From FBI adds to wiretap wish list:
If the FBI’s request is enacted, it will be very expensive. And, more importantly, my argument is that it doesn’t really help solve the real problem either. Why aren’t the existing laws enough? What’s wrong with getting a warrant and going to a particular service provider and getting the data they need? In fact, they already have greatly expanded wiretapping powers as part of the USA Patriot Act so they don’t even need court approval in many situations as things are now.
So to me, it looks like a lot of money wasted for no practical benefit. It will have little effect on real criminals since they can just use encryption and they will be the only ones using encryption if encryption is made illegal.
One potential positive side-effect of this kind of regulation is to push more functionality to the edge. If service providers cannot introduce new products to fill needs for users due to bureaucratic governmental red-tape, users will buy edge-devices to fill those needs (as they did for home routers).
Plan for ‘terror market’ scraped before it got off the ground
On Monday, the Pentagon announced a highly controversial plan for a terror futures market (see news story) that immediately drew harsh criticism. Accordind to AP “[Sen. Ron] Wyden said $600,000 has been spent on the program so far and the Pentagon plans to spend an additional $149,000 this year. The Pentagon has requested $3 million for the program for next year and $5 million for the following year.”
The crazy idea involved “setting up a stock-market style system in which investors would bet on terror attacks, assassinations and other events in the Middle East. Defense officials hope to gain intelligence and useful predictions while investors who guessed right would win profits.”
Today, CNN is reporting that the plan has been cancelled, shortly after Tom Daschle denounced the program on the senate floor as “an incentive actually to commit acts of terrorism” and calling the program a “plan to trade in death.”
The whole thing is just surreal.
