Disqus - Latest Comments for mwendy

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

RogerJH — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 13:51:55 -0000

As I understand it, open source is an asset or commodity that can be used for free. I agree that value cannot be realized without development, but conceptualizing is the essential first step. Without that, you have nothing. If you consider how a country like the US or UK is going to compete with China or India, it is in the generation of ideas, and its concomitant value-add. Such ideas can then be developed (for lower cost), adding to value.

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

jerrybrito — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 16:07:57 -0000

mwendy (and anyone else): Maybe I'm blind, but I don't see in the NPRM where it specifies pre-approval. In fact, para. 134 seems to state the opposite, that the Commission will not require declaratory rulings before an ISP can deploy a network management practice. In the enforcement section of the NPRM (starting at para. 175) it foresees post-hoc adjudications, not pre-approvals. Am I missing anything? Thanks! -JB

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)

dm — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 11:58:47 -0000

Twaddle.

Brad can speak for himself, but I think the word you're looking for isn't "socialism", it's "investment".

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

chesterj1 — Sat, 10 Oct 2009 15:39:33 -0000

They may be private carriers, but they have benefited from multiple public policies (esp. at FCC). Phone and cable broadband network access companies must serve the larger public interest. If they don't desire to operate their monopolistically-secured broadband pipelines under an open Internet regime, they should divest. The real truth here is that they wish to extend to the digital medium the same dominance/control they have had for decades with either voice or multichannel programming. And the Internet is also the public square--not the grocer. The pipes are community property.

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: The Chicken Littles of Broadband

chesterj1 — Sat, 10 Oct 2009 11:31:16 -0000

We aren't saying it would `close the Internet.' We are discussing a business model which reverses Internet 'gravity' and where favored (big $) apps and interests are placed always at the head of the digital que. It's bring the shelf slotting system of grocery stores to the online world. There are other related factors, of course, such as paid search and related placements. But advancing some services over others because the cable/telco landlord received extra payments helps transform the Internet into something that doesn't advance freedom online.

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?