Disqus - Latest Comments for mwendy

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

mwendy — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 21:20:44 -0000

I have three b-band pipes available to my house. I can switch. That's risky stuff - if even it were two. Last mile represents some of the most expensive investment, and one which should have a high reward.

What gets me is that some provider who pays simple access to a NAP or POP in some far away location - let's say San Jose - gets access to me in Alexandria, VA. And they don't have to worry about any of the research or risk it took to wire me up. They pay once (or relatively little in re value) and then get to "fly" to some highly desirable / valuable locations (like my zip) with little additional investment or risk. What a deal!

I don't advocate an access charge regime like with POTs, but one should have sympathy and some understanding for those that are doing some heavy lifting here at the last mile. You don't have a network without that risk.

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

mwendy — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 15:51:32 -0000

Some very smart people wrote the FCC's Net Neut NPRM. Yet, it reveals a pacuity of factual underpinning to guide its conclusion for more regulation. Madison River + Comcast + some vague concerns about choking off free speech by gatekeepers on the Internet = prophylaxis regulation to save us from ourselves.

Regulations represent the commons into which one can easily litter without fear of having to internalize those costs. Smart people, being who they are, think that they can always stay ahead of the slippery slope. It rarely comes to pass. Exceptions, loopholes, new mandates continue almost unabated - the CFR grows like a weed.

Detente demands that the regulators stop, too.

Re: Paranormal Legislative Activity?

mwendy — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 15:55:49 -0000

Hilarious. Sad. I put it on my FB page. Thanks, Jim.

Re: Whitehouse.gov Switches to Drupal

mwendy — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 14:36:09 -0000

I think one can conceptualize and develop in both models - open source and proprietary. We see it daily. I don't think open source has a monopoly on the conceptualization process.

That said, for some parts of the open source ecosystem - such as for GPL licenses - the model may have an edge on the proprietary model in that where accessed through skilled technicians, one can see the underlying instructions / code. Thus, in terms of those who can plausibly access the instructions versus closed systems, the potential to conceptualize based on that access might be greater.

But, who knows?

It seems impossible to make any generalizations on this. Ideas also find generation through selfish, moral means. Private property - i.e., proprietary ownership and access - has proven to be one of the greatest wealth and public benefit generating forces man has ever seen.

Re: Whitehouse.gov Switches to Drupal

mwendy — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 13:39:34 -0000

Roger, it seems to me that while open source can be a good way to develop products and services - the latter (i.e., development of products and services), no matter how it occurs, is where true value lies. Conceptualizing - heck, we do that all day. Ideas, if one wants to base risk models on them, must result in other than the ether.

Re: Net Neutrality, Slippery Slopes & High-Tech Mutually Assured Destruction

mwendy — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 16:36:54 -0000

Agreed, Jim. Anything that touches the network is the network. Bingo - FCC takes all. You're not paranoid. It's the nature of regulation. It cannot be tamed or contained.

Re: Surprises in the Open Internet NPRM

mwendy — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 16:32:01 -0000

I was riffing off of Hance's 2nd-to-last paragraph. I haven't had time to parse the NPRM yet. It's an NPRM, and notice has been given - it wouldn't be weird to see a 214-like process in this instance. I think you left a piece of that line off: "Providers would not be required to seek a declaratory...but they or others would be free to do so". Comments might turn this around. In fact, competitors might want this because most any facility that gets placed on to a network could affect management practices (to their detriment). They'd want to know for a variety of reasons.

Re: Surprises in the Open Internet NPRM

mwendy — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 13:04:15 -0000

FCC pre-approval. Sort of like Section 214(a) - extension (or sale) of lines. Now, there's a great way to promote innovation.

I feel like I have stepped back to 1934.

Re: Net Neutrality, Slippery Slopes & High-Tech Mutually Assured Destruction

mwendy — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 12:46:03 -0000

Excellent piece, guys.

I am reminded of the simplicity of Section 230(b)(2) of the '96 Act (yes I think like this sometimes), which seems to be lost in this debate - that is, "...to preserve the vibrant and competitive free market that presently exists for the Internet...unfettered by Federal or State regulation."

I see the Interconnection requirements for incumbents in Section 251(c)(2)(C) as particularly disturbing somehow - the so-called, provide facilities / functionality at least at parity requirement. Moving into platforms and underlying applications / design / functionality, this concept, in your scenario, could find easy extension into search engines, cache-ing architecture, chip design, etc. of dominant platforms and technology...well beyond incumbent communications providers.

Welcome to our brave new world of expropriation and confiscation.

Re: The Dangers of Government-Subsidized News

mwendy — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 09:47:41 -0000

The story has larger implications, of course. It reflects a facile tool the government uses to hook beneficiaries through secure dependency, and then control their output. TV is the most obvious example. But, it is a lesson for the coming healthcare plan / options - you take Uncle Sam's benefit, you take the strings, too. As Peggy Noonan writes, "the overseers" will not be content to leave your behavior - things that affect the network costs of healthcare - off the table. Put down that single malt now!

Big government. Big drugs...really.

Re: George Ou & Bret Swanson on Berkman Broadband Report

mwendy — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 12:26:04 -0000

I have a bigger question. If the FCC used one of the RBOCs consultants to perform the agency's analysis function, wouldn't that raise some red flags? Let's say, NERA writes this report instead - the choice of the author has likely predetermined the answer. And, I think in this instance, we see the same.

So, isn't this really a waste of our tax dollars? We knew when Berkman was chosen by the agency, that it would get this answer. They could have saved $500-or-so Large as a result by just having Susan Crawford write the durned thing.

Re: George Ou & Bret Swanson on Berkman Broadband Report

mwendy — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 10:35:47 -0000

The Net Neuts are asking for Title 2-like subsidies for their content dissemination. They want the network effect without taking the risk to build it themselves. Is there an entitlement to a privately-created network effect, especially when no demonstrable harm has yet resulted from those who own that network effect? No.

Re: Preparing to Pounce: D.C. angles for another industry

mwendy — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 11:57:06 -0000

Nice analysis, Bret. Odd that the FCC outsourced this study. Perhaps to make it easier to throw it under the bus (not)?

Sadly, we knew the outcome before their first ballpoint ran dry: open access / Title 2 "copper regulation" must occur for the Internet to thrive further.

What a waste of taxpayer dollars.

Re: Internet Companies’ Bogus Plea for Regulation

mwendy — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 11:45:04 -0000

Agreed. The Net Neuts appear to be pushing so-called "fin-syn" like regulations onto largely unregulated ISP facilities and infrastructure. This overly-prohylactic approach will stifle innovation and roll-out of needed transport.

Re: IAB’s Brilliant Open Letter to the FTC on Blogger Rules

mwendy — Sun, 18 Oct 2009 09:25:53 -0000

We should let the speaker police him / herself, aided further by a vibrant marketplace of ideas and information. The fact the one might get busted by others should be enough to police the "brand" that is the individual blogger. There is enough information on the web and elsewhere to keep people honest.

Re: Congratulations, Adam Thierer!

mwendy — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 15:06:08 -0000

Congrats, Adam!

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

mwendy — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 12:03:00 -0000

No, sorry, it's not.

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

mwendy — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 11:23:20 -0000

Brad, by "spreading broadband" you mean expropriating access of unregulated, privately-owned facilities through government law or rule, right? In other words, taking their property. Sounds fishy (socialist?) to me - especially given that there isn't a problem.

FDR's 2nd Bill of Rights on Steroids! Let the Rights collision begin.

Re: Debating the Pace of Progress

mwendy — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 15:21:18 -0000

Agreed with this - Jim's statement, that is. We've seen a lot of growth borne of risk-taking and innovation. For nearly 11,000 years incomes remained stagnant. Capitalism, and, for some, its uncomfortable volaitility, have inarguably lead to better lives, lifting literally hundreds of millions out of poverty. The ongoing tread of technology has played no small role in this development.

Re: The Chicken Littles of Broadband

mwendy — Sat, 10 Oct 2009 17:37:12 -0000

We all benefit from multiple public policies - we are not enslaved or confiscated as a result.

They serve the public by taking risk and rolling out those pipes that, well, the companies who employ your advocacy could roll out themselves but choose instead to freeload upon.

I see your point, however. You're interested in the grand re-distribution. Short-sighted stuff, dude. Who's going to come to develop the next generation of innovation when elites like you want to expropriate others' hard-earned risk?

No one.

Thankfully,the pipes aren't community property - still. That's why they work.

Re: The Chicken Littles of Broadband

mwendy — Sat, 10 Oct 2009 14:56:18 -0000

You're asking for the Internet equivalent of the now defunct "fin-syn" rules, all without the public interest hook of the grant of airwaves. It's a regulatory non-sequitur, of course. They won't work in this context.

Inarguably, self-interest, which you seem to decry, has advanced the Internet. That's how those fat pipes (filled with content) made it out there in the first place. Unregulated risk that some shouldered.

They own the grocery store. Why shouldn't they be allowed to decide what gets stocked? Go build your own grocery store, Jeff.

Re: What I Don’t Get about the FTC’s New Blogger Guidelines

mwendy — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 16:41:16 -0000

I'm not familiar with the process by which one files such a claim. I guess it would have to conform to the APA - sort of like a petition to the FTC. Or, the FTC does it on its own. Does anyone know - or is it, they know it when they see it?

Re: What I Don’t Get about the FTC’s New Blogger Guidelines

mwendy — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 10:26:39 -0000

Shouldn't the reputation of the blogger be enough to "police" this? If he / she puts smack out into the blogosphere, aren't there enough voices to smack that smack down?

"Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech..." How far we've come. Policymakers append a compelling or substantial state interest to the questioned speech, then "narrowly tailor" a speech rule, and the 1st Amendment's clear limitation gets read out of the Constitution. I know, this game has been going on for some time. That doesn't make it right.

Wonder where our buddies at the "Free Press" are on this?

Re: The Chicken Littles of Broadband

mwendy — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 12:24:37 -0000

Jeff, it's not in their interest to close the Internet. I challenge you to be denied any of the Net Neutrality four freedoms right now. You know full well that they're guidlines, with virtually no weight in law. Inter-modal competition has played a vital role in this - more than you care to give credit.

Re: Neutrality for thee, but not for me

mwendy — Mon, 05 Oct 2009 15:00:23 -0000

Agreed. Look, I'd prefer that if we're going to see Change here - if Congress wants to apply the copper Title II regime to Broadband - then have the guts to do so and legislate accordingly, recorded votes and all. The least desirable action would be to overturn Computer III via a slippery NPRM (though I'm one that does believe that the FCC has the organic authority to do so if they go through proper APA process).

Bottom line - the market ain't broke. So, don't go fixing it, FCC.