<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"><channel><title>Disqus - Latest Comments for drewclark</title><link xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" rel="http://api.friendfeed.com/2008/03#sup" href="http://disqus.com/sup/all.sup#usercomments-62634f26" type="application/json"/><link>http://disqus.com/people/drewclark/</link><description></description><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Thu, 29 Jan 2009 15:20:08 -0000</lastBuildDate><item><title>Re: Google&amp;#8217;s MeasurementLab.net Now Makes Network Management Transparent—So Why Mandate Net Neutrality?</title><link>http://techliberation.com/2009/01/29/googles-measurementlabnet-now-makes-network-management-transparent%e2%80%94so-why-mandate-net-neutrality/#comment-5657102</link><description>I'm glad to see that this issue is finally gaining some traction in the broader world. &lt;a href="http://BroadbandCensus.com" rel="nofollow"&gt;BroadbandCensus.com&lt;/a&gt; has been using the Network Diagnostic Tool of Internet2 since January 2008 as a means of comparing actual internet speeds with those promised by carriers. &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;The speed tests of individual broadband users are all made publicly available on &lt;a href="http://BroadbandCensus.com" rel="nofollow"&gt;BroadbandCensus.com&lt;/a&gt; under a Creative Commons license. &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;The goal of the Broadband Census is to use transparency and public accountability to allow consumers to understand the speeds, prices, availability, reliability and competition in the local broadband marketplace. It sounds as though Google and the New America Foundation have a similar transparency-based motivation.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;See my story about the launch at &lt;a href="http://broadbandcensus.com/blog/?p=1301" rel="nofollow"&gt;http://broadbandcensus.com/blog/?p=1301&lt;/a&gt;, or Take the Broadband Census at &lt;a href="http://broadbandcensus.com/census/form" rel="nofollow"&gt;http://broadbandcensus.com/census/form&lt;/a&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">drewclark</dc:creator><pubDate>Thu, 29 Jan 2009 15:20:08 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Supreme Court oral arguments in FCC v. Fox (General Thoughts)</title><link>http://techliberation.com/2008/11/04/supreme-court-oral-arguments-in-fcc-v-fox-general-thoughts/#comment-3493800</link><description>Journalists are allowed to bring in notepads, Adam. They don't have a view, though, as they are sequestered behind the curtains.</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">drewclark</dc:creator><pubDate>Tue, 04 Nov 2008 16:23:32 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Special Election Day Telecom Blog Post and News Report</title><link>http://techliberation.com/2008/11/04/special-election-day-telecom-blog-post-and-news-report/#comment-3493071</link><description>Steve, I wish I had been clearer (it was a quick post) in my observation on the need to discuss property-based usage of the airwaves -- whether that "property" is held by a private party, by a spectrum manager (who could sublease and re-allocate its use to others on a minute-by-minute basis), or by the public at large, through the government. (I do think that there is a good case for a "Central Park" in the airwaves.)&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;True, I may have been reflecting an assumption that cleared spectrum would be more useful than Swiss-cheesy spectrum. However, I am getting tired of hearing about how this debate is between Google and the broadcasters. The reality of the debate is that it is between those who feel that the spectrum is best used in the bits and pieces that are there, because of the broadcast television allotments; and those who feel that there are indeed politically achievable ways to get everyone to the most economically efficient result.</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">drewclark</dc:creator><pubDate>Tue, 04 Nov 2008 15:40:44 -0000</pubDate></item></channel></rss>