Disqus - Latest Comments for bszoka

Re: Federal Agencies Can Easily Manage Settings on Their MySpace Page, but How Should They?

bszoka — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 14:57:28 -0000

Check out Facebook 's government page, "for information about how Governments can best use Facebook"—which Facebook just set up in September. I don't think MySpace has yet set up such a site.
Here's an (incomplete) list of government agencies & officials on Facebook
http://www.facebook.com/government#/government?...

Check out Best Practices: The US Army's Comment Policy at http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=152933... - "We do not allow graphic, obscene, explicit or racial comments or submissions nor do we allow comments that are abusive, hateful or intended to defame anyone or any organization."

Re: Odlyzko on Net Neutrality, Price Discrimination, PrivacyFail, Search & Cloud Neutrality

bszoka — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 18:24:14 -0000

Of course, it's true that if you define the market narrowly enough, it will seem less competitive. But, In all seriousness, what makes you think fiber is a unique market unto itself? You're certainly right that for power users, there's nothing like fiber. But for the vast majority of users, even the relatively slow and high-latency connections of 3G wireless is perfectly adequate for 95% (if not more) of what they do.

Re: Odlyzko on Net Neutrality, Price Discrimination, PrivacyFail, Search & Cloud Neutrality

bszoka — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 17:44:05 -0000

So, how competitive is "competitive enough?" And what makes you so sure that policymakers in the future will continue to draw the line, as you have, at what you would consider "natural monopolies?"

Re: Europeans Obstruct Oracle/Sun Deal

bszoka — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 17:20:46 -0000

Antitrust law should about protecting competition (as a means of enhancing consumer welfare) NOT competitors. But, sadly, I fear you may be correct in your supposition about the EC's motives.

Re: “Internet Freedom”: How Statists Corrupt Our Language

Remixer96 — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 11:55:31 -0000

First, the engagement is always appreciated Berin.

I'll grant you the distinction between glittering generalities and negative terms like cyber-socialism. I was trying to highlight their similar hyperbolic (and polarized) nature rather than their positive or negative tone.

To your point, I would argue that asserting the Internet as a basic right doesn't lead to cyber-socialism any more than asserting water as a basic right leads aqua-socialism. A regulated environment perhaps, but not necessarily communally owned means of production. Profits do still exist in utilities, even if their maneuverability is significantly restricted.

I don't disagree with Adam's and your point that claiming rights like these leads to government intervention with no clear end in sight. Especially at higher and higher network levels, the implications are something that certainly merit consideration. I'm not a fan of positive rights in general, which makes me wary of any argument that starts with them.

However, I still think characterizing that future government intervention as "unlimited control" or socialism without significant support does more harm than good.

Re: “Internet Freedom”: How Statists Corrupt Our Language

bszoka — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 11:14:20 -0000

I appreciate your sensitivity to name-calling, but if asserting that "The Internet" is a basic right isn't cyber-socialism, what is? The implications of that assertion for policy-making are profound: once a new "human right" is asserted, that right will, of course, trump the mere "interests" of those who build the platforms involved—whether that infrastructure exist in the physical world (broadband "pipes & tubes") or in the cloud (services and applications).

A glittering generality is a bright, shiny happy, vague abstraction that commands positive emotional appeal because of its innocuous blandness. To be sure, one could unfairly throw out negative labels, like "cyber-socialism" (although, again, I don't think I'm being unfair), are not "glittering generalities."

Re: Whitehouse.gov Switches to Drupal

bszoka — Sun, 25 Oct 2009 14:44:57 -0000

So does this mean the Republicans will have to use Wordpress just out of red team v. blue team spite?

Re: Broadband as a Human Right (and a short list of other things I am entitled to on your dime)

bszoka — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 16:25:16 -0000

I was referring to our "communist imagery and symbolism."

Re: Broadband as a Human Right (and a short list of other things I am entitled to on your dime)

BD — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 00:07:33 -0000

It's actually not irony at all.

And Adam, by adding a single sentence:

"That seems to be where our current FCC is heading, anyway."

You turned what could have been a semi-funny sarcastic post into another ridiculous slippery slope whinefest of the variety that claims that any attempt to regulate anything must put us on the path to socialism. I get enough of that s*** from cable.

Re: Broadband as a Human Right (and a short list of other things I am entitled to on your dime)

bszoka — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 09:01:53 -0000

Dude, it's IRONY!

Re: Debating the Pace of Progress

bszoka — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 15:08:02 -0000

Scalper!

Re: No, Seriously, U.S. Broadband Competition Sucks

juliansanchez — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 11:09:14 -0000

Oh, d'accord. None of this should be read as a defense of neutrality regulation per se, I just don't want to lean too heavily on a claim about the current adequacy of competitive checks that I'm doubtful would hold up.

Re: No, Seriously, U.S. Broadband Competition Sucks

bszoka — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 10:56:26 -0000

If broadband providers actually did vary their practices geographically in a way that wasn't firmly rooted in the congestion patterns unique to certain areas, I'd say you'd have strong grounds for an antitrust suit—where the standard would be consumer welfare rather than some abstract principle of Neutrality.

Re: No, Seriously, U.S. Broadband Competition Sucks

juliansanchez — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 10:43:17 -0000

Well, remember, the FCC divides it up by zip codes; I doubt the telcos do. They could vary their NMP by *market* -- which is not only possible, it's how they in fact do trials of new congestion management protocols. Whether that make sense will depend on, among other things, on whether they enjoy significant power in their market, not on whether their market has slivers of overlap with zip codes that host more competitive markets. Now, if the point is that coverage need not reach every house in the larger market to generate competitive pressure, of course that's a sound point. But it still doesn't make zip code level measures super helpful.

Re: No, Seriously, U.S. Broadband Competition Sucks

bszoka — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 09:09:33 -0000

Bingo, Jerry!

In fact, if what we're most concerned about is network management practices (NMP), the dynamic Jerry describes would likely operate on a much larger level: If Comcast's NMP are the same across its entire system, then Comcast has to take into account competition in those areas where there are four (or more) competitors, and competitive pressure is likely to deter Comcast from engagement in the kind of NMP that most concern advocates of net neutrality mandates: "censorship" of speech and blocking services that compete with its own offerings or those of its affiliates (e.g., VOIP or online video).

Even if it were technologically possible to vary NMP significantly even with a single zip code (or at least from one to another), Comcast would pretty silly if its NMP in areas where no broadband competition existed were markedly different from those where competition was fierce.

Re: Class and Gov 2.0

bszoka — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 15:07:59 -0000

I think we need to distinguish between two separate issues here: bandwidth and interface. For instance, government agencies could use short online videos like those currently available on the FTC's OnGuardOnline.gov about online security and privacy tips to communicate more effectively to those whose literacy level might make them uncomfortable with longer text articles. An even better example of effective communication through video is Google's privacy channel. Of course, while these interfaces may be more accessible to the the "socioeconomically disadvantaged," they also require greater bandwidth. It's worth noting that a Pew survey conducted in July about wireless use found that "The high level of activity among African Americans on mobile devices helps offset lower levels of access tools that have been traditional onramps to the internet, namely desktop computers, laptops, and home broadband connections." It's noteworthy that 29% of African-Americans access the Internet on a handheld (only barely lower than the nationwide average of 32%), but of course, that still means 71% don't. Still, it does seem that iPhone-class devices will be the most likely adoption path for minorities. YouTube one simple interface to make more effective use of this high-bandwidth medium. These numbers don't eliminate the need to find other ways to make better use of less capable cell phones for e-Government, but they should make us optimistic about mobile computing erasing the "digital divide."

Re: Internet Safety Month, Part 8: Social Networking Safety

bszoka — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 14:18:25 -0000

Re: Wireless Innovation is Alive & Well: Two New Reports Set the Record Straight

bszoka — Sun, 11 Oct 2009 19:06:50 -0000

Wow, the HHI numbers are really amazing! I can't wait to see how those who damn the U.S. wireless industry as oligpolistic attempt to square their rhetoric with reality.

Re: Video of my Second Life Discussion about Government’s Place in Virtual Worlds

bszoka — Sat, 10 Oct 2009 18:57:34 -0000

Wow, Adam, how'd you get that avatar to look so much like you? He moves in the same vaguely robotic way you do!

Re: Nanny State Says: “Shhhhh! That Commercial is Too Loud!”

Steve_R — Sat, 10 Oct 2009 14:32:21 -0000

Berin, Good Response.

Re: Nanny State Says: “Shhhhh! That Commercial is Too Loud!”

bszoka — Sat, 10 Oct 2009 09:56:54 -0000

Robb, you are correct that: "The ad industry sometimes is a race to the bottom where the most obtrusive and annoying." That's precisely what I meant when I said that "“Noisy or strident” advertising is just another example of the 'tragedy of the commons' at work."

So, yes, the answer is regulation, if by "regulation" we mean setting rules for use of the commons so that there won't be this race to the bottom of each advertiser trying to go louder than the others, each of them bearing only a fraction of the cost of increased ad-skipping or ad-deafness on the part of consumers.

The question is whether we think the FCC will really do a better job than self-regulation by industry and, if so, whether this advantage is worth the costs I outline above. I'm skeptical. Again, the television industry has a strong incentive to fix this problem on their own, so if they're finally on the verge of adopting self-regulation, why not wait and see how that develops?

Re: My Net Neutrality Debate with Public Knowledge

bszoka — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 09:02:39 -0000

Brett, thanks but I'm not in the business of dismissing those I disagree with on the basis of motive. I have no reason to question Art's sincerity any more than he should have to question mine. We have a genuine conflict of visions here and, while I think he's profoundly wrong, I respect him on an intellectual level.

This is a bit like the debate over the role that campaign finance plays in politics. While I'm sure there are politicians whose views follow donations, the causality works in the opposite direction in probably the vast majority of cases: Donors give to a candidate whose views they like. In the case of non-profit advocacy organizations, I'm even more inclined to assume that views are genuinely held and not merely intended to advance the interests of a particular company or sector (although I'm sure that does happen). We get grief at PFF all the time for drawing support from a broad range of companies (including Google), as if all our talk of cyber-libertarian principle were just a smokescreen for prostitution to whatever corporate interest paid us the most. It just doesn't work that way—not at PFF and, I assume, not at PK.

As far as Google is concerned, I think their current support for net neutrality mandates will backfire in a major way for them as the principle of neutrality mandates for gatekeepers who control "access" to a "critical" bottleneck is extended from ISPs to search, etc.

Re: Humor: “Social Media Guru” Video

bszoka — Mon, 05 Oct 2009 09:40:51 -0000

Brilliant, Markham! I especially like the self-help message at the end.

Re: Sidewiki as Sunstein’s electronic sidewalks

bszoka — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 10:20:19 -0000

Jerry, you're right to applaud Google for creating the sidwalks forum on its own. Truly, this is the market at its best.

But let's not underestimate the grief Google is going to get for this. Rather than mollifying the Sunsteins of the world in their calls for a "Fairness Doctrine for the Internet", I suspect that Google's innovation will only increase calls for government control over that sidewalk. Google will be attacked as the "gatekeeper" of that sidewalk for exercising "private censorship" just as they are now for "search bias."

Re: Humbling the Mighty: How the Internet’s Media Abundance Killed the News Embargo

bszoka — Sat, 26 Sep 2009 14:36:17 -0000

You tell 'em, Satan!