DISQUS

I think Tim is correct in at least one regard - alternatives (more) are good. And, though I don't think he uses the magic words, broadband wireless in the so-called "White Spaces" does hold immense promise for one such alternative - if only the FCC could get the frequencies approved for use more quickly.

The OPEC hyperbole is a poke in the eye - red meat for the NY Times (and the Free Pressers, and the MoveOn.Orgs and the Soros-wannabes, etc.).

Agreed with Hance.

I'd say that we need to better support "core innovation" (in this case - the outlay of more fiber or other b-band facilities), shearing it away from the political stuff happening in Congress and at the Commission. It works with Lessig's (et al) "innovation at the edges" concept in that you don't get edgy innovation unless you have core innovation, too. In other words, you can't separate the two.

SAG - this assumes there's a "problem" in the first place.

Good presentation here, even with the facts.

Adam hits it, especially with his last paragpah. According to Lessig et al, "innovation at the edges" is all that really matters.

Lessig fails to admit that much of that edgy innovation couldn't have occured without bedrock innovation in the first instance. It informs the entire dynamic of the ICT industry - co-existence; bedrock working with edgy - this tension, of which "proprietary" innovation represents no small part, must be allowed to flourish.

Sadly, at least from the rhetoric (and there's been much)NN believers - as well as others associated with that unruly group - would prefer that things "proprietary" and its underlying incetive system simply disappear.

I would agree with Rusty's last line if in "voices" he/she meant the competitive dynamic prsented by Google, etc. and its effect on boosting broadband. That to me seem far more preferable than government mandated access regimes (which represents their main approach of late).

The evolution of technology (there's at least 6 different ways to get broadband into and out of households) works daily to boost broadband penetration. Info services - which face little direct regulation by the FCC - has gone a long way toward promoting the technological response. It works.

I find it odd that some call for 1930's Style New Deal regulatory models to seek answers for 21st Century "problems." What grows now ain't your father's internet - thankfully.

Have faith. Be patient. The new Internet now blossoms, and it will continue to do so where it isn't smothered by New Deal access regimes.

The ad hominem gets a little tiring. It masks harder arguments to deal with - stuff that is gray, not black- and-white. It seems to me that the underlying group/event which spurred this posting has thrived on creating the black-and-white to stir up the troops. Gray arguments don't fit that bill; they confuse the rank-and-file.

Sure, innovation at the edges is good. But the answer toward broadband deployment remains much more nuanced - and interdependent - than let on to by Larry's not-so bon mots.

I had a similar epiphany ealrier this year on a trip from my in-laws in Miami to my parents in Boca.

To the point: Family-tow, my young daughters in need of lunch, and strongly vocalizing their desires, we stopped at a fast food restuarant drive-thru, hoping to expedite the process. No deal. I ditch and go into the establishment, which resulted in an even longer wait.

I thought - wow, how can a business stay in business if it does this stuff? The answer - it won't for long if it continues with the delays. It's called "fast food" for at least one reason.

It'll simply go out of business - self-correction.

Having more time on my hands than I had intended, I thought how this relates to government and regulations. It seems to me that the "self-correction" mechanism has at least a four-year time frame, best case scenario. Sadly, regulations have a tendency to stay on the books rather than dissapear. Thus, it seems to me that the "self-correction" mechanism - something of great import in market dynamics - is certainly not a primary (or any) goal of regulations and regulators, as noted in insightful Solveig's piece.