Disqus - Latest Comments for mwendy

Re: Advancing Technology Transitions by Protecting Consumers, Competition and Public Safety in an IP-World | FCC.gov

mwendy — Fri, 10 Jul 2015 15:39:00 -0000

This looks a lot like wholesale rate / open access regulation a la section 251 '96 Act. Are we going to see rate / access regulation of broadband at the wholesale? Is this the new unbundling?

Re: Influencing the Internet from inside and out

mwendy — Wed, 07 Jan 2015 10:49:23 -0000

Sohn, the former (and some might suppose, present) Google-sponsored lobbyist has steered the FCC toward a regressive, anti-labor Net Neutrality that will harm Americans: http://mediafreedom.org/201...

Re: Exploring New Ideas for Protecting and Promoting the Open Internet | FCC.gov

mwendy — Tue, 23 Sep 2014 09:01:09 -0000

Hybrid, 706 or Title II all leads down the same road - FCC micromanagement of the entire Internet ecosystem. Thanks, Silicon Valley. Think you'll never be in the cross-hairs? Think again. We all lose, however.

Re: Safeguarding Free Speech in the Digital Age

mwendy — Wed, 09 Jul 2014 13:46:50 -0000

Simple? What is Free Press' simple position? Applying telephone regulation - including price controls, open access, forbearance, etc. etc. - to arrive at your simple "solution"? It took Barbara van Schewick more than a hour to explain what "simple" Net neutrality was to a congressional audience yesterday...and she still didn't reach to the specifics of your "simple" idea,Tim. Geesh.

Re: Comcast again

mwendy — Mon, 24 Mar 2014 08:40:59 -0000

Commercial trucks on the public interstate are inspected and regulated for what, and how much, they can carry. Regardless, Comcast is a private entity, and should be allowed to do what it wants with its private property.

Re: Internet companies seek replacement for net neutrality

mwendy — Sun, 19 Jan 2014 11:09:01 -0000

"If we don’t have rules that continue the free commerce and keep a level playing field, it’s definitely going to hurt the small business guy," [said Brian Sutter].

It's the free part in the above statement (among other matters) that companies want to better address. The subsidy to the edge is not sustainable. Nor is it morally acceptable.

Re: Senate confirms two to U.S. Trade Representative's office - The Hill's On The Money

mwendy — Fri, 08 Nov 2013 11:37:35 -0000

Good comment. Totally agreed, Brett. She and her donors have profited handsomely, privately gaining by "protecting" the pubic interest. I have written about this often over the years as here: http://mediafreedom.org/201...

Re: What if Verizon succeeds in killing the Internet?

mwendy — Tue, 24 Sep 2013 08:50:48 -0000

This article is pompatus, absurd, lacking in reason or facts.

Re: High-stakes decision on net neutrality looms for next FCC chairman

mwendy — Sun, 24 Mar 2013 10:11:51 -0000

Over "whether AND how to reinstate them"? How' bout putting an OR in there instead. The market is policed in an open source manner. Maybe the next Chairman will see that, and work case by case if there are problems that occur instead of implementing 19th Century regulations for 21st Century networks.

Do we want our next Chairman making this call? "Hello, ITU, this is the FCC. Say, can you tell me a bit about regulating the Internet?"

No.

Re: Senate plans joint hearing on Obama's cybersecurity order

mwendy — Thu, 28 Feb 2013 15:25:14 -0000

Some believe the President's order must be undone through limited legislation that places the private sector in the lead role of policing the networks: http://mediafreedom.org/201...

Re: Hey, Don’t Forget about Internet Access in the U.S.

mwendy — Thu, 13 Dec 2012 20:32:05 -0000

Rural telcos / comms cos aren't delivering broadband? There're 1,556 of them in the US doing just that. 99% of America has at least one viable, facilities-based broadband option. Remember POTS? Just one provider, and one flavor? Well, now in most all of America, users have broadband choice between cable, DSL, FiOS, coax / fiber hybrid, wireless, broadband over powerline and satellite. That happened essentially through deregulation. Not heavy-handed regs as proposed by Susan Crawford.

Re: Hey, Don’t Forget about Internet Access in the U.S.

mwendy — Thu, 13 Dec 2012 13:15:05 -0000

We see just how innovative the REA is. Rural electric coops are just now getting smart meters. This is a bad model to promote technological leadership.

Re: Hey, Don’t Forget about Internet Access in the U.S.

mwendy — Thu, 13 Dec 2012 13:13:04 -0000

Ms. Crawford's own long-held assertions - i.e., that Internet network providers must be regulated like telephone companies - have not gone unnoticed at the ITU / WCIT. There, they debate that very issue, working to hogtie Internet providers with 19th Century rules, regs and mindsets. Net Neutrality, of which this is a part, opened the door to this ITU discussion, as Commissioner Robert McDowell has oft-noted. Crawford is complicit; her doublespeak cannot erase this sad fact.

Re: Federal appeals court upholds injunction against ivi

mwendy — Wed, 29 Aug 2012 13:14:40 -0000

From a previous ruling: "As plaintiffs argue, defendants’ view of Section 111 essentially means that anyone with a computer, Internet connection, and TV antenna can become a “cable system” for purposes of Section 111. It cannot be seriously argued that this is what Congress intended."

ivi and its supporters want all of the benefits without the obligations.

Re: More Challenges to the Lessig-Zittrain-Wu Thesis

mwendy — Sun, 27 Feb 2011 16:51:02 -0000

I guess the Wu's of the world may also believe in adaptability, too - "Hey, let's pass Net Neutrality regulations...and people / markets will just adapt to them." Of course, so do the regulators and competitors, and others that seek to capture segments of the marketplace or public interest.

Re: The Real Internet Censors: Unaccountable ISPs?

mwendy — Mon, 14 Feb 2011 12:52:09 -0000

Network providers are America's great unsung moral actors, as I have blogged on here:

http://mediafreedom.org/201...

Re: “Special 301 Watchlist” Threatens Open-Source Software

mwendy — Mon, 01 Mar 2010 11:56:57 -0000

I've been in that very office, and they do recognize it. That said, IIPA's underlying reasoning remains sound - it's the "ask" (i.e, if a country "prefers" FOSS, they should go on the Special 301) that's not sound. Of course, that's jack. A government preference (for any type of software) is just a bad policy choice, not a reason to get perp-walked on the 301.

Re: “Special 301 Watchlist” Threatens Open-Source Software

mwendy — Mon, 01 Mar 2010 11:47:27 -0000

Some policy makers get the idea that what they do in a procurement sense affects the marketplace - akin to monopsony. They are part of the marketplace, albeit a very large and growing part; they do not produce goods and services on their own. This is why the software preference debate (or the muni-provided telecom networks debate) is so important. Governments play a role in, and inform (potentially distort), the marketplace. The government's procurement girth has real, significant effect.

Re: “Special 301 Watchlist” Threatens Open-Source Software

mwendy — Mon, 01 Mar 2010 11:39:34 -0000

The free market is built on the rule of law, which provides certainty to market participants. It does not guarantee outcomes, but rather provides the standard by which individual conduct may be measured and directed. The rest is up to the market participants themselves.

Re: “Special 301 Watchlist” Threatens Open-Source Software

mwendy — Mon, 01 Mar 2010 11:35:38 -0000

Believe me, Tim, with Big Blue's (and others') "help" / lobbying in writing the Special 301 Report, it does not say "Country "x", don't acquire FOSS." It does say, however, don't steal IP.

Re: “Special 301 Watchlist” Threatens Open-Source Software

mwendy — Mon, 01 Mar 2010 11:31:07 -0000

Look. That's not what 301 is about. It doesn't say "x" model is better than any other. It's about stealing IP.

Of course, as Tim Lee points out, FOSS can drive success in the marketplace, though no model guarantees it. Look at Red Hat, Sun, Oracle, IBM, Apple, even Microsoft. They recognize and exploit the model to their shareholder's interests, as well as society's interest.

I also understand the loss-leader approach to many of these sub-models (companies noted above). I use WordPress. It's a great, "free" product. You know, I just experienced how they monetize that otherwise free offering. I just had to upgrade space so I could put this song on my blog page: http://polisonic.wordpress..... That cost about $18 bucks for the year / 5 gigs. And it's worth every penny.

Any country is free to choose what they want. Though software costs are generally less than 10% of the TCO, for countries working to mandate free, well they get about a 10% bump, and then freedom, of course.

Re: “Special 301 Watchlist” Threatens Open-Source Software

mwendy — Mon, 01 Mar 2010 11:13:23 -0000

I don't disagree with the ability of companies like Red Hat to profit. They provide great services. They should make money. Doubtless, other similar companies in far away lands profit, too, from a FOSS business model. I think that's good (of course, this present discussion is not about the 301 Report, which makes no judgment on the viability or preference of any certain business model. That "Special report" is about stealing - who, where, how. BRIC nations, plus Canada, among others, from last year's report).

The end-goal should be - "what is the best, most cost-effective software / IT to provide government services to citizens?" Indigenous firms can do whatever they want to meet that goal - FOSS, proprietary, hybrid. A full range of options. But, government software preferences short-circuit that goal, placing the "wisdom" of regulators over the marketplace.

Now, we gripe here when government spending hits 25% of GDP - a big chunk, in an OECD nation at that. $70 billion gets spent on federal IT procurement this year. In developing nations, the percentage of government spending to GDP is generally far higher. And, that's a powerful signal, because for many such markets, the government is the only game in town. So, when a preference - de jure, especially - gets put in place, depending on which side of the puzzle you sit, well, you can be SOL if you don't follow that model / preference.

I know all the arguments on why "x" software is better than others. Who cares. They're nonsense. My preference is we let the marketplace sort this out with as few distortions as possible from clairvoyant government officials.

Re: “Special 301 Watchlist” Threatens Open-Source Software

mwendy — Mon, 01 Mar 2010 09:50:03 -0000

Patents are ways of protecting the incentives to create. No one claims the system is perfect. But the fundamental idea still holds true. That balance is being worked out in Congress, the PTO, the EPO, etc. The question remains - how do you promote people to create very complex things, with very complex ideas, at great cost? IPR.

When I can wall someone off of my idea / innovation (patent), or expression (copyright), it's going to bring me to the table. "Section 8" software (like Section 8 housing) could likely result if no IPR existed. Who's want to take the risk without some assurance of ROI - only saints and software good Samaritans.

If I have a good idea, I do not want society telling me I am compelled, for its interest, to cough up the goods. That's involuntary servitude, and we know where that leads.

Re: “Special 301 Watchlist” Threatens Open-Source Software

mwendy — Mon, 01 Mar 2010 09:35:39 -0000

Tell me, Tim, how does it work? I gather that programmers, and the people that fund them, are immune from economic signals - especially where government procurements of software are involved. I gather they don't care about IPR - even GPL-built software, which relies on copyright / copyleft (IPR) to enforce author / donor rights downstream.

My point above is about government preference laws / rules - which have, thankfully, been beaten back most everywhere they've been introduced. They're a jip all the way around when they limit choice - they jip administrators, taxpayers, and the industry creating the stuff we desire.

Re: “Special 301 Watchlist” Threatens Open-Source Software

mwendy — Sun, 28 Feb 2010 21:52:16 -0000

I reiterate - I don't have a problem with FOSS. There's plenty of good stuff on the market for people / companies / countries to choose from. I do have a problem, however, with people stealing ideas, and free-riding off that risk. Now, this can occur in an FOSS environment just as easily as it can occur in a proprietary environment - no single development has an advantage in that regard. But, as the 301 Report admonishes, stealing ain't the way.