Disqus - Latest Comments for Steve_R

Re: Religion and Environmental Responsibility -Part 1

Steve_R — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 01:56:09 -0000

You may want to listen to the Jesus Christ show on KFI radio. It is very good.

It is available through the internet, runs on Sundays, and starts at 9:00 AM Eastern or 6:00AM Pacific.

Re: Religion and Environmental Responsibility -Part 1

Steve_R — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 00:15:08 -0000

Just Browsing. I fully agree that "As caretakers, we are called to take our custodial role seriously and refuse to do things that continue to harm and destroy the beauty and potential invested in this great planet."

I noticed that you had a link to the Washington Post's "On Faith". The Post's "On Faith" column has been a terrible terrible disappointment.

You need to have an Orthodox Christian label.

I'm still running my contest of the oldest religion that has an "official" website. So far I am winning with ZOROASTRIANISM, but then I seem to be the only participant. We need to drum up some enthusiasm for this contest.

Re: AWS-3 Spectrum Plan Version 2.0: Unfiltered, but Still a Train Wreck

Steve_R — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 05:53:14 -0000

Your response allows me to explain what I am getting at. Essentially, I am unclear as to what privatization means in concrete terms. What I have read on this has used abstract language that is short of providing concrete examples. Since I am somewhat conspiratorial, I find the absence of certain concrete examples to be a lack of disclosure for what is being proposed with spectrum privitization.

The spectrum is used by many players. Some of those players include the military, government agencies, police, fire departments, Emergency services. The public already owns the spectrum, therefore these public agencies are entitled to use the spectrum at no expense since they already own it.

I find that the call for privatizing the spectrum, without directly saying so, implies that the spectrum already owned by the public should be sold into private ownership thereby requiring that these agencies would have to buy it back in order to use it. That is ludicrous.

What about the wireless router (if you have one) in your house? Also business band radios. Currently you can use these devices for free. Again, those who seem to advocate privatization don't disclose if that part of the spectrum would remain in public ownership allowing the public to use it for free, or if it would become privatized forcing the public to pay for it. (That is why I raised the toll booth concept in my first response.)

When you use the term "spectrum owners" do you mean as a lessee or as fee owners? Even CATO, from what I read did not make a call for fee ownership.

One major advantage of the lease approach is that companies that do not use the resource loose their rights to use that resource if it is not put do use within a certain period. It is not uncommon for some lessees (who have no intention of using the resource) to buy a bundle of leases in hopes of selling them to other companies. This would be very similar to what patent trolls are doing today. Nevertheless, as you point out, when you buy a lease you should have a certain entitlement of selling/trading that lease.

Re: AWS-3 Spectrum Plan Version 2.0: Unfiltered, but Still a Train Wreck

Steve_R — Sun, 04 Jan 2009 20:42:59 -0000

Thank you for your response, I was responding with an incomplete understanding of how all the elements fit together. Though I support leasing spectrum to private entities, I am very adamant that the spectrum remain in public ownership and that it be managed for the "public good". Hopefully, private enterprise can still flourish in situations where it is constrained by the "public good".

Re: AWS-3 Spectrum Plan Version 2.0: Unfiltered, but Still a Train Wreck

Steve_R — Sun, 04 Jan 2009 02:29:10 -0000

This post essentially reduces to the statement that if something cannot be monetized and placed into private ownership that it should not be allowed to exist. That leaves me unconvinced that the "free model" is somehow wrong.

I will admit to having an incomplete understanding of how all this goes together. In summary, The New York Times article states: "While the language of the ruling has not been made public, it appears that any company that buys the new spectrum will have to leave it open to devices it does not approve or control. If, for instance, Verizon were to buy spectrum, consumers would have to pay Verizon for access to its network but they could use devices of their own choosing on it." (Emphasis added). So it isn't free in the concept of fully free, it is simply free in the sense that you are not charged a toll booth fee to enter the property (the radio spectrum).

To explain my position in greater detail. The FCC is entitled to LEASE radio spectrum, not sell it. The usage of the leased spectrum can be exclusive. Overall, free market competition (that uses radio spectrum) should be based on competition over who has the best products, customer service, etc. and not the ability to erect toll booths to collect tolls for access to the spectrum.

The post states: "to blanket the nation with free wireless broadband (as defined by the FCC) would mean less spectrum available for more robust services." I fail to see how the free wireless broadband would be either less or more robust. According to the Times article it would seem that the same equipment would be used, though it would not be designed in a restrictive proprietary manner. Seems to be a bit presumptuous to declare the "free model" approach dead before it has even been tested.

The post states: "That way, all business models will get a fair shake," If that is the case why not give the "free model" a chance at success? Isn't it a business model too? Nothing like a real experiment to see if it works or not. If it does not work, then you would have a case for re-auctioning the spectrum as you are proposing.

PS: No network managed by either the government or private enterprise should be filtered.

Re: At Chamber of Commerce Event, IP Attachés Take Hard-Line Position On Overseas IP Enforcement

Steve_R — Thu, 01 Jan 2009 19:55:43 -0000

Thanks very much E_F. I posted a response, but then I noticed that I had not hit the "reply" button. Oh well. Against Monopoly is a good site that I also frequent.

Re: At Chamber of Commerce Event, IP Attachés Take Hard-Line Position On Overseas IP Enforcement

Steve_R — Thu, 01 Jan 2009 19:16:59 -0000

Thanks E_F. I've been dropping comments there too. One of recent posts Attact of the Invisible Hand of the Free Market is particularly good.

Re: Real Regulators

Steve_R — Wed, 31 Dec 2008 16:55:17 -0000

First, CNBC a couple of days ago referenced Greenspan, so let me get this Greenspan quote out of the way. The New York Times had the following article: Greenspan Concedes Error on Regulation. In that article, the Times writes:

"But on Thursday, almost three years after stepping down as chairman of the Federal Reserve, a humbled Mr. Greenspan admitted that he had put too much faith in the self-correcting power of free markets and had failed to anticipate the self-destructive power of wanton mortgage lending.

“Those of us who have looked to the self-interest of lending institutions to protect shareholders’ equity, myself included, are in a state of shocked disbelief,” he told the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No one likes regulation and I won't claim that regulation will solve all ills. My fundamental concern and what I am reacting too is the fact that regulators are automatically portrayed as incompetent boorish villains without examining the potential that some of the sacred concepts of the free-market may actually be flawed.

Over at TechDirt, I wrote: "So if the private sector creates financial instruments that exist outside of the regulatory environment, that are structurally flawed, that are not transparent, and are not properly vetted resulting in many companies like Bear Stearns vaporizing it is somehow the fault of regulators?"

Regulations may be considered an impediment to the free market, but it does NOT make people do things that would be contrary to free-market principles. The corporate executives who brought down our financial financial system did so in a willful manner. It is time for those who wish for an unfettered free market to examine how to "control" behavior that can destroy the system. Braden Cox wrote: "Remember being in grade school when a classmate’s rabble rousing would ruin it for everybody, and the teacher would hold back the class from going to recess? The other students would moan and groan and justifiably feel that punishing the entire class for one person’s misdeeds was unfair."

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On net neutrality we have the incessant whining "don't regulate us, trust us". I fully agree with Tim's statement concerning the pitfalls of regulation: "New regulations inevitably come with unintended consequences. Indeed, today's network neutrality debate is strikingly similar to the debate that produced the first modern regulatory agency, the Interstate Commerce Commission. Unfortunately, rather than protecting consumers from the railroads, the ICC protected the railroads from competition by erecting new barriers to entry in the surface transportation marketplace."

The problem I have is that those who do not want regulation do not seem to want to provide you with a commitment that they will operate the net in a neutral manner. We simply are provided with vague references that the magical black box of the free market will somehow take care of things. But we already know that the free market is subject to failure. If someone says they do not want oversight and you ask for a guarantee but they refuse - would you trust them? There is a free market solution, the ISPs could offer a code of conduct.

Unfortunately, that even seems too repressive to them. Essentially, we are being left with a situation where the ISPs can act in an arbitrary capricious manner where the consumer would have not rights. If I am to be treated this way then I would like to see them regulated.

Re: At Chamber of Commerce Event, IP Attachés Take Hard-Line Position On Overseas IP Enforcement

Steve_R — Wed, 31 Dec 2008 00:34:52 -0000

Mike, it would be good to know what you mean by a basic copyright that should be protected through enforcement.

A basic problem with copyright that I have is that we have a moving target, the copyright of today is much more onerous than the copyright of yesterday. For example, we have region coding for DVD's and the music industry is claiming that if you transfer a file from a CD to a computer that that is piracy. These are all legitimate uses as far as I am concerned.

To phrase my comment a bit differently, copyright holders are actively "stealing" the property rights that are normally acquired by a person when that person buys a product like a CD. Furthermore, the copyright holders are buying favorable legislation at the Congressional supermarket to extort even more property rights for themselves. Ironically, this creates a situation where we have ever more pirates because what was legal today will no longer legal tomorrow.

Re: At Chamber of Commerce Event, IP Attachés Take Hard-Line Position On Overseas IP Enforcement

Steve_R — Mon, 29 Dec 2008 06:12:34 -0000

Ah, but now we get into the issue of whether or not a companies assertion of copyright ownership is legitimate. Over the past several years we have seen companies aggrandizing their property rights by depriving the consumer of their property rights. This has been done through the passage of laws some would consider illegitimate since they were passed by Congress through corporate lobbying. Fair Use comes to mind as an example of corporations attempting to eliminate that consumer property right.

If one is a pure free-market advocate who does not want government regulation; to be logically consistent, then one needs a business model that can survive these market flaws. Lets reverse the situation through a mental example, if the customer buys (licenses) a product and it does not function as advertised, then the customer should be able to have the government "arrest" the corporation for theft.

Yes, I realize that this an absurd example, but it points out that if a corporation is entitled to government "protection" then the consumer should have equal entitled to "protection". Federal Trade Commission (FTC) comes to mind as an example. How many contributors to this forum support the FTC? Very few I suspect.

Re: At Chamber of Commerce Event, IP Attachés Take Hard-Line Position On Overseas IP Enforcement

Steve_R — Sun, 28 Dec 2008 22:58:21 -0000

Amazing, here we have a website devoted to reducing government regulation and eliminating the incestuous relationship between the regulator and the regulated; and we actually have a post that promotes both through corporatism! (In popular usage)

What concerns me with the so called protection of intellectual property is how abstract and nebulous the concept is. Exactly what are we trying to protect, in concrete understandable terms?

For example, I would not have a problem with stopping those who are producing counterfeit products. However, if someone is producing something that looks similar, in some subjective manner, to a product that a US company is producing, well that is the free market in action. Governments, should not act as corporate proxies to restrain free market competition.

Re: Real Regulators

Steve_R — Thu, 25 Dec 2008 19:35:57 -0000

First, I wish everyone a great Christmas and happy Hannukah.

Yes, I was being facetious.

As with Madoff, his ability to avoid regulation is equivalent to operating in an unregulated environment. Instead, I could have used the used the creation of the "innovative" collateralized debt obligations (CDO) as an example of a free market pitfall since these financial instruments were faulty in their structure. So one can say that the private sector in the creation of these instruments was: "incompetent, technically confused".

I do agree with you that regulation has its own pitfalls where people assume that they are protected by the regulatory system. The Madoff affairs was reported to regulators and they failed to act.

After commenting, I was finally able to tract down a video on CNBC where Larry Kudlow discusses regulation. To me this was a very good panel discussion where Larry who normally calls for less and less regulation speaks of the necessity for a least some minimal regulation. The call by Larry for some minimal regulation on CNBC has been a recent development resulting from our the financial meltdown. It's interesting to see some of his panelist respond in great surprise: "I can't believe you said that Larry!"

Re: Real Regulators

Steve_R — Wed, 24 Dec 2008 17:06:38 -0000

Yes the regulators failed. But to go on and state that " Too many advocates of regulation seem to have never considered the possibility that the FCC bureaucrats in charge of making these decisions at any point in time might be lazy, incompetent, technically confused, or biased in favor of industry incumbents." does not get into the nuances of how to operate the internet in an equitable manner under free market precepts.

It has been well documented that the ISP and telcos have euphemistically undertaken "traffic management" and that this has not been done in an open and transparent manner. Tim's statement can be re-written "Too many anti-regulation advocates never consider the possibility that the ISPs in charge of making these decisions at any point in time might act contrary to net-neutrality concepts for the sole purpose of maximizing their corporate profits through opaque business practices that abuse the customers."

Usually, the claim is made that the consumer will quickly discover the abuse and that market pressures will reign in companies so that they will once again operate within the idyllic principles of the free market. The anecdotal evidence unfortunately is that this is a naive and utopian concept. The Madoff affair scheme has evidently gone on for decades and the automotive industry has been failing for decades. In fact, the automotive corporate executive have apparently been operating their companies in an "incompetent, technically confused" manner. Now, in the "best" traditions of the free market, these corporate executives are now groveling to the government to bail them out of their incompetence. So the executives of our automotive and financial industries who have claimed to operate on free market principles, instead of accepting responsiblity for their failed actions now want socialism.

My intent is not to defend the regulators, it is to point out that the free-market does not magically act in an instantaneous manner to correct market failures. Those who claim that the lack of regulation is nirvana are deluding themselves.

In a perverse sense, one can say that the Madoff affair is really a reflection of what would happen to our economy without regulation. After all Madoff succesfully avoided regulation!!! So the Medoff anolgy, while it points to bad regulators also serves as an example of the pitfalls of the unregulated free market.

Re: Bandwidth, Storewidth, and Net Neutrality

Steve_R — Wed, 17 Dec 2008 02:25:57 -0000

in his testimony George Gilder wrote:
"Asian broadband also proves there was no Internet "bubble." Today, Korea runs over the net between a three and five times larger share of its economy than we do. Riding the bus to work, Koreans watch television news and exchange video mail over their mobile phones. They enjoy full-motion video education and entertainment in their homes. Many of the dot-coms that failed in America due to the lack of robust broadband links are thriving in Korea. Consider that by this time next year Verizon Wireless’s 38 million customers will enjoy faster Internet access via their mobile phones than through their Verizon DSL connections to their homes. Only the most severe disincentives to invest could have yielded such a result, which defies the laws of physics. The American Internet "bubble" was actually a crisis of policy."

I have a question, Why do these countries have better internet then we do?

To me the deployment of a known technology reflects the free-will of the corporation not the drag of regulation. So if the technology is not deployed, it is the result of a purposeful management decision by the corporate leaders. The auto industry for example swore it could not meet emission standards, the Japanese just did it. Now the American auto industry is on the verge of bankruptcy begging for a handout at taxpayer expense. George Gilder, in the quote above, fails to make a logical connection to demonstrate how our regulatory environment hinders the internet in the US when compared to the Asian internet. So is the corporate whining on network neutrality regulation simply rehash of the auto industry's failed prostrations?

The lesson is clear, if the Asian internet is superior we need to look at what they are doing correctly and then we need to adapt their model for here. Whining about regulation gets us nowhere.

Re: Media Deconsolidation (Part 24): I Read the News Today, Oh Boy

Steve_R — Thu, 11 Dec 2008 19:54:37 -0000

The demise of the media business seems to be a hot topic, can't even escape it during the lunch hour. CNBC Video Media Buying Binge

Re: Media Deconsolidation (Part 24): I Read the News Today, Oh Boy

Steve_R — Thu, 11 Dec 2008 16:21:01 -0000

Yet another article from the NY Times Where Is the Expedia of Local News?

With the big players dying, who will take their place?
Saul Hansell writes "Indeed, the bad news for anyone who actually likes reading about where they live is that no one seems to be able to develop an online version of the local paper–including local papers."

Re: Obama Transition Team Seeks Public Comment on Space Solar Power

Steve_R — Thu, 11 Dec 2008 01:01:33 -0000

A potential issue that has not been incorporated into our national energy discussion is Heat Pollution.

Basically, our energy needs are dependent on the number of people and our standard of living. A by-product of energy use is waste heat. The more people and the higher our standard of living, the more waste heat we generate.

Nuclear Power and the harnessing of space power will add to our ambient heat (global warming). For instance, if we "import" solar energy from space, we will either need a way to increase radiation back into space or to decrease the amount of solar energy falling on the Earth. If we don't the temperature of the Earth will rise.

Global warming may not simply the result of "greenhouse gases", global warming could be the result of burning million of years of stored energy (oil, gas, coal) and releasing it as waste heat. The belief that global warming is simply caused by "greenhouse gases" may be a simplistic thought that has captured the public attention.

Please note these are anecdotal thoughts and are not based on any particular research. Additionally, I am not opposed to nuclear power or space solar power. As for "global warming" I am waiting for more definitive data. Assertions that global warming is the result of greenhouse gases may be simply a politically correct band wagon, My point is that we need to take a closer look at the roll of waste heat. We may be surprised..

Re: Telecom Collapse

Steve_R — Thu, 04 Dec 2008 21:19:32 -0000

While it is possible that regulation could have an adverse effect, however it really does not matter if your customers are leaving.

Embarq Cuts Jobs. More Trouble Ahead For Telcos
Om Malik writes "The company lost about 170,000 landlines in the most recent quarter."
He also wrote:"As I’ve said before, the biggest problem for phone companies is that they’re losing voice customers at a rapid clip -– either to cable operators or to wireless. Many believe that uncertainty regarding the economy is making people pick a wireless-only option — a theory supported by robust growth in the wireless additions at Verizon (1.5 million net new subscribers) and AT&T Wireless (1.3 million net new subscribers)."
Based on a quick Google education, I did not see anyone else attempting to attribute the decline in telecom to regulation. This seems to be a case of a dying industry doing what dying industries do, go out of business.
----------------------------------------------------------------
PS: The following NY Times Article article was staring me right in the face and I didn't see it!!!! :)
AT&T Plans to Cut 12,000 Jobs
"The company is being pulled by two currents at once. Not only is the recession leading businesses and consumers to curtail spending, but a long-term trend in the telecom industry is also at play. AT&T, which provides local phone coverage in California, Texas and 20 other states, has been losing many landline customers to wireless services. In the last quarter, AT&T basic voice lines in service dropped 11 percent."

Re: What Will It Take to Stop File Sharing?

Steve_R — Thu, 04 Dec 2008 20:14:56 -0000

"If we’re going to hold ISPs liable for the actions of their anonymous users, the practical result will be dramatically fewer ISPs willing to take that risk."

Holding ISPs liable points to an extremely serious concern. By what right does person (corporation) A have to force another person (corporation) B to protect A's personal/corporate property. NONE.

Not only do you not have a personal right to force a third person to protect your property, but we have the whole issue of due process. If someone goes to an ISP and demands that the ISP filter XXXX, how is the ISP to know if the assertion is even valid? Suppose it is not valid, how would the wronged party obtain redress?

Finally, this is the slippery slope. If we establish that ISP's have a responsibility to protect corporation X then why not corporation Z, then why not "Save the Children, INC". There will be no end. As you note: "there’s just no way to stop it without shredding our civil liberties in the process"

Re: Telecom Collapse

Steve_R — Thu, 04 Dec 2008 17:16:21 -0000

The pending collapse of land line telecoms is perhaps more complicated than discussed and may really have little to do with "regulation". First, I need to state that my comments are on casual observation and I have NO expertise on telecom regulation.

What I do know is that the land line business is declining in favor of cell phones and that the telecoms are splitting themselves into cellphone providers and land line providers. Recently Sprint spun off Embarq as a new land line company.

Regarding the NY Times Deal Book Article, Hawaiian Telcom Files for Bankruptcy the times wrote: "Long known as Hawaiian Tel, it turned to Verizon Hawaii when its parent, GTE, merged with the Bell Atlantic Corporation to form Verizon Communications. Carlyle renamed it Hawaiian Telcom."

What I am getting at is that when a telecom divests itself of the land based phone service we may have a situation where the "new" land based company is really a financially "dead" company just waiting to fail because it has been given all the "bad" financial stuff by the parent. Do, I have proof? NO.

Traditional Land based telecom is dying. but before we blame the death on oppressive regulation we need to take a look at the financial structure of the spun off companies such as Embarq and Hawaiian Telcom. Additionally, these companies are losing customers, which means less revenue. Their demise may simply be a result of market evolution where regulation is "irrelevant".

Re: Checking Costs

Steve_R — Sun, 30 Nov 2008 22:39:27 -0000

A corporation could literally not operate if it had to run its affairs according to the way that the federal government is forced to work.. Incompetence is really an EEO employer and not limited to the government.

Have you read the news lately?. Currently the list of private companies that cannot operate because of self-serving management is exploding. Regretfully, none of these executives seem to be being held accountable for running their corporations into the ground. Few CEOs are even making an attempt to appear remorseful by giving up their so-called bonuses, They are essentially milking their companies dry.

What is distressing is that that these executives, to maximize their compensation,have been oblivious to the fact that they are destroying our economic system. I don't think the free-market is supposed to operate that way.

Re: Beware the Era of Financial Regulation and its Spillover onto Tech Companies

Steve_R — Wed, 26 Nov 2008 13:18:13 -0000

Braden, great summary: "Remember being in grade school when a classmate’s rabble rousing would ruin it for everybody, and the teacher would hold back the class from going to recess?" The financial industry abused it's freedom to act without regulation. Soon the proverbial axe will fall and the financial industry will suffer greater regulation. If the tech industry wants to avoid regulation, act responsibly even if that means somewhat less "flexibility" or "innovation", which have evolved to become code words for abusive opaque business practices.

Re: Will Traditional OTA Broadcast Networks Go Cable-Exclusive?

Steve_R — Sun, 23 Nov 2008 19:28:01 -0000

The electricity used for broadcasting must cost big $$. Print media, as you have written, is moving away from distributing content though hard copies and placing the content instead on websites. Seems like the broadcasters are faced with the same issue. Distributing content via cable, I would expect, would be cheaper and more efficient than using a tower. Additionally, distributing content by cable allows the broadcaster to have a world wide audience. Broadcasting will probably survive until advertising revenues are no longer able to support it. Just think of all that spectrum becoming available!!!!

Re: Net Neutrality, Free Speech, and Tim Lee’s New Paper

Steve_R — Fri, 21 Nov 2008 02:13:11 -0000

Same here. My response to you hasn't shown up.I guess Disqus doesn't want to get anyone upset.

Re: Net Neutrality, Free Speech, and Tim Lee’s New Paper

Steve_R — Fri, 21 Nov 2008 01:00:54 -0000

Ok, they have a right to protect their legal rights, but there are limits to that right. Their quest to protect their so called rights does not entitle them through the ISP to inspect my packets. Furthermore this violates due process. By analogy, they believe that they have a right to break into my house at their whim and search it just on the arbitrary belief that they may find something.

Or to use another analogy, you should not be able to force a third party who just happens to be standing on the street corner to "protect" your property. If the content industry can somehow coerce the "third" party ISP to "protect" their so-called property rights, the concept of net neutrality will be a sham.

Furthermore, if it is OK to inspect packets for the benefit of one special interest group for acts that may considered illegal, it doesn't take much of an imagination to see it expanded to other acts considered illegal in order to "save the children". It's a slippery slope.