[Note: This item comes from reader Randall. DLH]

From: Randall Webmail <rvh40@insightbb.com>
Date: December 29, 2008 11:07:18 AM PST
To: johnmacsgroup@yahoogroups.com, dewayne@warpspeed.com
Subject: We knew it was coming …

<http://tech.yahoo.com/news/nf/20081229/tc_nf/63744>

Just by reading this online story, you are part of a groundbreaking trend. According to a new study from the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press released last week, the Internet has passed newspapers as the most popular source for news.

Only television surpassed the Net, with about 70 percent of Americans saying they get most of their national and international news from the ubiquitous box. About 40 percent say they get most of their news from the Net, an increase of 16 percent from September 2007. Newspapers are the main source for about 35 percent.

This is the first time the Net has surpassed newspapers as a source of news.

Driven by Under-30s

As in so many other trends, younger people are the key driver. For Americans younger than 30, about 59 percent get their news online, a dramatic increase from just a year ago, when the figure was 34 percent. The percentage of those under 30 who cited television as their main news source declined 10 percent in the last year.

But television remains popular among the under-30s, with 59 percent also citing television as a primary news source. The wording of the survey allowed respondents to name more than one source for most of their news.

Newspapers actually gained a bit among young people in the last year, going from 23 percent to 28 percent.

Although the Pew study did not cite reasons for the rise of the Net as a news source, some observers have speculated on the causes. These include the ability to find any news source quickly on the Net, at any time, without waiting for its rotation on TV or flipping through a printed newspaper.

Additionally, cutbacks in some areas, such as CNN’s recent decision to eliminate its science, technology and environment unit, have driven subject-specific news consumers to Web-based coverage. However, in-depth coverage of certain areas is still considered a key strength for some newspapers.

[snip]

RSS Feed: <http://www.warpspeed.com/wordpress>

[Note: This item comes from reader Seth Johnson. DLH]

From: Seth Johnson <seth.johnson@RealMeasures.dyndns.org>
Date: December 30, 2008 6:50:01 PM PST
To: dewayne@warpspeed.com
Subject: I posted DPS . . .

It’s a good proposition . . .
Seth

<http://www.change.org/ideas/view/recognize_and_secure_standards_for_the_internet_platform>

Recognize and Secure Standards for the Internet Platform:

Enforce a policy assuring that the term “Internet” be applied to
network offerings that follow the principles of practice generally
embodied in the Internet Protocol.

Innovation can continue in both standards and network offerings, while
providers who wish to offer a general purpose platform based on the
Internet Protocol, may continue to represent the advantages of that
design (such as for interoperability, flexibility and uniform
treatment of traffic flow), without consumer confusion when comparing
with other offerings that may not clearly distinguish their practices
from the standard.

See commentary and proposed legislative language:

<http://dpsproject.com/>
<http://dpsproject.com/legislation.html>

[Note: This item comes from reader Tom Williams. DLH]

From: Tom Williams <Tom@AirNetworking.com>
Date: December 31, 2008 2:35:51 PM PST
To: Dewayne Hendricks <dewayne@warpspeed.com>
Subject: Reason number /N/ to avoid MicroSoft

I’m a dyed-in-the-wool capitalist, but this is a
perfect example of why DRM is, well Evil.
In some ways, I think this is a better anti-Redmond
story than 2008’s $150 “up”-grade to XP.

<http://www.mercurynews.com/breakingnews/ci_11345379>

“Tens of thousands of owners of Microsoft’s Zune
music player were dismayed this morning to discover
that their device had stopped working — in a worldwide
failure that appeared to make consumer electronics
history.”

<Snip>

-Tom Williams

[Note: This item comes from friend Bob Frankston. The link worked just fine for me w/o having to register, etc. DLH]

From: “Bob Frankston” <Bob19-0501@bobf.frankston.com>
Date: December 31, 2008 8:26:53 AM PST
To: “‘Dewayne Hendricks’” <dewayne@warpspeed.com>
Subject: The New Yorker on the economy

I don’t know if you can access the lead piece on the The Talk of the Town. My interpretation is that if you do a static analysis of the economy nothing can work and the rational behavior is to hunker down and save yourself. The problem is that it is a dynamic system that depends on locally irrational behavior … (This is an extract – I’m generally reluctant to make fully copies of copyrighted stuff even if the URL is unlikely to work for many <http://www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/2009/01/05/090105taco_talk_gopnik>)

Bob Frankston

…. In “It’s a Wonderful Life,” George Bailey’s Building & Loan is, let us recall, the reckless banker of Bedford Falls, giving what would now be called subprime mortgages to people like Mr. Martini, who would be better off renting. And it is mean, miserable old Mr. Potter who berates Bailey for the practice. “And what does that get us?” Potter asks. “A discontented, lazy rabble instead of a thrifty working class.” But George’s answer speaks to the larger emotional notion of what makes economies work and what economies are for: “Doesn’t it make them better citizens? Doesn’t it make them better customers? . . . Just remember this, Mr. Potter, that this rabble you’re talking about . . . they do most of the working and paying and living and dying in this community. Well, is it too much to have them work and pay and live and die in a couple of decent rooms and a bath?”

What we missed in holiday seasons past is that Potter, snarling and bald, was right. George was making a lot of imprudent loans. But George was right, too. Prudence is a virtue, but it’s not a precondition for prosperity, or a practical cure for hard times. When George and Uncle Billy prevent a run on the bank by urging people to withdraw not all the money they had invested in the Building & Loan but just what they need to tide them over, he is persuading them to act not as rational-economic man but as social-emotional man. What makes Bedford Falls thrive is people feeling good about its future. George Bailey is a Capraesque Keynesian through and through, encouraging consumption rather than thrift, and hope rooted in the common purpose rather than fear rooted in the impoverishment of capital. (For the past few years, of course, Potter’s grandson has been living in Tribeca and slicing up Bedford Falls mortgages into tranches for sale in Düsseldorf, while George’s granddaughter has been running the Costco outside Bedford Falls, but the lesson is the same.)

[snip]

December 30, 2008

Itineraries
Internet Use Grows at Meetings, as Do Challenges
By MARTHA C. WHITE
<http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/30/business/30internet.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&pagewanted=all>

Until recently, travelers attending conferences or trade shows had simple Internet needs. They would check e-mail messages and maybe look up information on the Web or connect to the home office.

Now, meetings are likely to include streaming video and online interaction. And back in their rooms, travelers are downloading movies and logging onto peer-to-peer networks.

Event organizers and hotels and conference centers are struggling to keep up and prevent Internet gridlock. “We’ve known for a long time that bandwidth was going to be an issue in hotels,” said Don O’Neal, a hotel technology consultant.

Erika Powell, a meeting planner for Global Knowledge, a company that provides software training to corporate clients, said she was recently forced to move an event because the hotel’s Internet connection could not keep up with her group’s demands.

“On Monday, we started getting reports that the Internet was very slow and they weren’t able to access the labs,” she said. “We communicated with the facility to find out what the problem was, but they were at a loss.” Ms. Powell said she had to pull up stakes and relocate her students to another nearby hotel in the middle of the week so their training could be completed without slowdowns.

[snip]

[Note: This comment comes from friend Bob Frankston. DLH]

From: “Bob Frankston” <Bob19-0501@bobf.frankston.com>
Date: December 28, 2008 9:20:24 PM PST
To: “‘Dewayne Hendricks’” <dewayne@warpspeed.com>
Subject: RE: [Dewayne-Net] Re: Newsweek: Lawrence Lessig: Reboot the FCC

Can’t we get past this silly dichotomy of regulate yes/no when the answer is to address the fundamental dysfunction? For that matter can we also stop using words like “broadband” because they are far too ambiguous to allow a useful discussion.

While I take a different approach in http://frankston.com/?name=OCA I see Lessig’s proposal more in lines of antitrust than net neutrality. We have a structural problem that is outside the context of traditional antitrust which is limited to existing market definitions [caveat – IANAL]. We need a mechanism to address dysfunctional couplings of distinct markets – in this case physical infrastructure and what we do with it.

In the current situation the incumbents have complete control over threatening innovation. We can dictate innovation but we must address such structural impediments.

Unfortunately the very definition of the FCC embodies this dysfunction – we need a stronger term than “reboot” since the term implies restarting from the same code (regulations). Better to just put it to bed and move on.

[Note: This comment comes from reader Brett Glass. DLH]

From: Brett Glass <brett@lariat.net>

Date: December 28, 2008 1:59:25 PM PST

To: “Dewayne Hendricks” <dewayne@warpspeed.com>

Subject: Lawrence Lessig: Reboot the FCC

Larry Lessig writes:

President Obama should get Congress to shut down the FCC and similar

vestigial regulators, which put stability and special interests

above the public good. In their place, Congress should create

something we could call the Innovation Environment Protection Agency

(iEPA), charged with a simple founding mission: “minimal

intervention to maximize innovation.” The iEPA’s core purpose would

be to protect innovation from its two historical enemies excessive

government favors, and excessive private monopoly power.

But later in the same essay, Lessig advocates “network neutrality”

regulation, which would prevent innovation (such as the innovative

traffic management techniques which my own ISP uses to maintain

quality of service while keeping prices reasonable) and force small,

independent, and wireless ISPs out of business. This, in turn, would

give telcos and cable companies monopoly or duopoly power in the

broadband sphere.

One can only wonder at such an obvious contradiction. Mr. Lessig seems

to be saying, “Don’t regulate… unless I feel strongly about an issue

and want you to. Or unless regulation is favored by one of the large

corporate donors to my ‘Center for the Internet and Society’ at

Stanford, such as Google.” (*)

–Brett Glass

(*) Google has provided a great deal of support to Lessig’s center at

Stanford, including at least one lump sum donation of $2M.

RSS Feed: <http://www.warpspeed.com/wordpress>

[Note: This comment comes from friend Charlie Brown. DLH]

From: Charles Brown <cbrown@flyingcircuit.com>
Date: December 30, 2008 12:21:55 PM PST
To: Dewayne Hendricks <dewayne@warpspeed.com>
Subject: Re: [Dewayne-Net] Re: Newsweek: Lawrence Lessig: Reboot the FCC

On Dec 28, 2008, at 7:45 PM, Dewayne Hendricks wrote:

[Note: This comment comes from reader Brett Glass. DLH]

From: Brett Glass <brett@lariat.net>

Date: December 28, 2008 1:59:25 PM PST

To: “Dewayne Hendricks” <dewayne@warpspeed.com>

Subject: Lawrence Lessig: Reboot the FCC

Larry Lessig writes:

President Obama should get Congress to shut down the FCC and similar vestigial regulators, which put stability and special interests above the public good. In their place, Congress should create something we could call the Innovation Environment Protection Agency (iEPA), charged with a simple founding mission: “minimal intervention to maximize innovation.” The iEPA’s core purpose would be to protect innovation from its two historical enemies excessive government favors, and excessive private monopoly power.

But later in the same essay, Lessig advocates “network neutrality” regulation, which would prevent innovation (such as the innovative traffic management techniques which my own ISP uses to maintain quality of service while keeping prices reasonable) and force small, independent, and wireless ISPs out of business. This, in turn, would give telcos and cable companies monopoly or duopoly power in the broadband sphere.

I was thinking the same thing and assumed he was proposing to keep the Net Neutrality debate around to keep the duopoly at bay. The duopoly could easily make your services uncompetitive by raising your connectivity/backbone prices at will, subsidize your competition, subsidize pricing to compete directly (a classic ATT maneuver), restrict or refuse access; squeeze you out of existence. They have lots of anti-competitive weapons in their bag and would be free to do whatever they wanted. I believe that you mentioned before that they were doing just that in your area, regardless of existing regulation, such as it is.

Is Net Neutrality necessary with a shut down FCC and a benign iEPA? Is it relevant at that point or?

For the Common Law proponents like me, I need to remind myself that the courts are clueless when it comes to technology issues and tend to buy-off on anything presented to their subjective taste.   I’ve seen it first-hand and it is a capricious process, to put it kindly. What we need, simultaneously with the dismantling of the FCC, are Common Law technology courts. That would have an additional benefit for technology companies that find themselves subject to what passes as “justice” today in a legal system where entrepreneurs are typically at a distinct disadvantage. Patent and copyright suits would go to these “technology courts” as well and defang the PTO in the process, which is out of control.   It’s not perfect but at least there is a long history of precedent in Common Law and it can provide the headroom for the law to breathe and try to catch-up, and would give the lawyers something productive to do. At the Federal, State and Municipal levels there are judges and lawyers deciding and presenting issues for you and I for which they are unqualified. State and Municipal judges are often elected, which creates corruption and the very least, an inherent bias in the process. Some lawyers tell me the same is true for many Federal judges, especially prior to their life-time appointments.

One can only wonder at such an obvious contradiction. Mr. Lessig seems to be saying, “Don’t regulate… unless I feel strongly about an issue and want you to. Or unless regulation is favored by one of the large corporate donors to my ‘Center for the Internet and Society’ at Stanford, such as Google.” (*)

With the FCC gone the game is changed for everyone. If the citizenry have a champion, and it doesn’t have to be Google, then the entrepreneurs and communities with access to open spectrum are beholding to none, including Congress. They will get the job done. The local dynamic kicks-in if we can accept the proposition that communications services are a utility. Utilities are typically provided by local operators and answerable to their local customers. Why should broadband access be any different?   As a local issue, the citizens have direct and participatory influence with their local representatives, which would tend to mitigate the cash from K Street in DC and state capitols – votes vs. cash. And it is also a great opportunity for Google and its ilk if they approach it in terms of “branding” by making substantive socio-economic contributions that are also good business. This scenario would tend to neutralize the hegemony of dominant companies who may tempted to cut a deal and play oligopoly/monopoly.

Consider that the telcos/cellcos are already starting to roll-up the hot spot business. The capital cost of entry must be accessible by local businesses like yours Brett. Businesses that are locally owned and operated would tend to provide a better service and be more responsive to the market than any telco/cellco competitor could ever match. As it is now, they control your cost and pricing via interconnect and your bandwidth via the regulatorium. They still control what you can offer in terms of broadband services if the FCC is gone. You might take a spectrum analyzer out into your market and let people know how much spectrum is laying fallow and unused in your market.

With the FCC gone the lobbying game would change but the cash would still be rolling into K Street. There would still be a lucrative future for ex-politicians lobbying Congress. It seems to me that as long as NN is out there, however one chooses to define it, it’s a viable weapon in the political context. The duopoly is not going to roll over and play dead when the FCC is gone. They will do whatever Wall Street tells them is best for them. It seems to me that NN is useful to be there in the background as a wild card to counteract the anti-competitive practices that will certainly follow. The incumbents will move faster than the required equipment and capital can be put together for the proposed alternative.

I am not defending what Mr. Lessig is proposing or even that I necessarily agree with his and other views on NN, as I understand them. There are many NN perspectives which seem to be subjective and also evolving, and he is capable of speaking for himself in that regard. I am saying that “blowing up the FCC” is a darn good start; even essential. One could also argue that it could also set an example for the country in terms of industrial policy. If done with a little vision and common sense – good leadership and a light hand – it would take a bite out of corruption, increase GDP and local employment, enable technical innovation in an area where we have been falling behind, provide services customers never dreamed of having, and provide a model for innovation for other industries that are dying by a thousand cuts.

There is plenty of spectrum available for this purpose; plenty.

Charlie

[Note: I heard the Kindle is sold out until Feb. DLH]

Product Review: Amazon Kindle
by DarkSyde
Sun Dec 28, 2008 at 04:00:06 PM PST
<http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/12/28/1906/4328/883/677450>

The Amazon Kindle
Cost $ 359.00 full retail
Availability: Alternates between low in stock and sold out

A few weeks ago Mrs. DS proudly handed me my ‘main’ Christmas gift. I tore the wrapping paper off with careless, well conditioned abandon to find a smallish, white gizmo with a little screen and a miniature keyboard. I asked what it was. She beamed as she told me ‘books,’ and then added excitedly, “All of ‘em!”

The Amazon Kindle (Wiki) is a portable, rechargeable e-book reader — with embedded wireless access to an electronic library full of e-books — made to look, feel, and read like a real book. I found it pulls it off, mostly, but a few criticisms remain.

In the midst of a sharp recession, the reader’s price makes it attractive to only those with disposable income and appropriate for only the more voracious reader. While hundreds of thousands of books are available at no cost, more recent books and bestsellers out in hard and paper back cost from around 3 to 12 dollars. It can subscribe to some major online dailies like newspapers and websites. There are some e-book networks developing that work for a flat fee; badly needed if this format is going to takeoff. A dozen purchases a month could add up fast.

[snip]

[Note: This item comes from Dave Farber's IP list. I'm in agreement with Dave's comment here. Biz as usual in the Beltway! DLH]

From: David Farber <dave@farber.net>
Date: December 30, 2008 4:20:50 PM PST
Subject: [IP] $Multi-billion Broadband stimulus decisions imminent

“The team is mostly policy people and extraordinarily capable but mostly non-technical.” WHY?? The best way of solving this is to have highly technical people included who can say, as I said often at the FCC, as Chief Technologist,   to pleadings by companies to the Chairman, “you are not telling it correctly? “

Dave Farber

Begin forwarded message:

From: Dave Burstein <daveb@dslprime.com>
Date: December 30, 2008 5:19:16 PM EST
To: dave@farber.net, <xyzzy@warpspeed.com>
Subject: $Multi-billion Broadband stimulus decisions imminent

Folks

Broadband decisions involving literally $tens of billions will be made in the next three weeks, possibly the most important opportunity in the next decade. One of the fiber groups was told to get everything in by next Monday.

If you have important, well researched data do send it over to them ASAP. I verified to my satisfaction a study from CTIA that estimates $20B would provide near-ubiquitous 3G/4G wireless, including nearly all the 6-8M homes who can’t get service today. Since the companies have some of that in their budget already, even a 25% subsidy would be well under $5B and perhaps a good place to put the money. On the other hand, I evaluated how much deployments of DSL, cable and fiber could be increased in 6 and 18 months. I also prepared well-sourced estimates of how much the carriers would build with and without the stimulus. This is particularly important because many of the tax credit etc. proposals might give most of the money to companies for deployments already budgeted and underway. No one wants this, but what I hear about the House Finance committee proposal would do just that.

The beggars in business suits are swarming like never before, and what they are telling the decisionmakers is wildly contradictory and often absolutely false. The team is mostly policy people and extraordinarily capable but mostly non-technical. On policy, they understand the issues better than almost anyone else; think many times before sending them opinion they probably heard before.

But if you have solid technical or financial data that applies, I think they’d be glad to receive it. Emphasize the data, and get what’s crucial in the first paragraph in terms clear to a very busy person.

I’m happy to share what I know and point people in the right direction if you’re not familiar with the process. Several have current emails on their sites.
The corporate lobbying on this is massive, and public spirited comments I hope can counter some of that.

Dave Burstein
Editor, DSL Prime, DOCSIS Report, & Fiber News
Author, with Jennie Bourne Web Video: Making It Great, Getting It Noticed (Peachpit, 2008) and DSL, A Tech Brief (Wiley, 2002)

[Note: This comment comes from reader Randall. DLH]

From: Randall <rvh40@insightbb.com>
Date: December 29, 2008 9:51:22 AM PST
To: Dewayne Hendricks <dewayne@warpspeed.com>
Cc: cbrown@flyingcircuit.com
Subject: Re: [Dewayne-Net] Obama’s Secretary of Earmarks

On Dec 29, 2008, at 12:11 PM, Dewayne Hendricks wrote:

[Note: This item comes from friend Charlie Brown. DLH]

From: Charles Brown <cbrown@flyingcircuit.com>

Date: December 26, 2008 11:28:25 AM PST

To: Dewayne Hendricks <dewayne@warpspeed.com>

Subject: Obama’s Secretary of Earmarks

Perhaps the riots and violence in Greece are just the beginning of what is coming our way. It’s beginning to feel like 1968 again, worldwide.

Nothing to worry about.

-==-==-

December 29, 2008
McClatchy-Tribune Information Services
<http://www.military.com/news/article/study-dod-may-act-on-us-civil-
unrest.html?ESRC=eb.nl>

A U.S. Army War College report warns an economic crisis in the United
States could lead to massive civil unrest and the need to call on the
military to restore order.

Retired Army Lt. Col. Nathan Freir wrote the report “Known Unknowns:
Unconventional Strategic Shocks in Defense Strategy Development,”
which the Army think tank in Carlisle, Pa., recently released.

“Widespread civil violence inside the United States would force the
defense establishment to reorient priorities … to defend basic
domestic order and human security,” the report said, in case of
“unforeseen economic collapse,” “pervasive public health
emergencies,” and “catastrophic natural and human disasters,” among
other possible crises.

The report also suggests the new (Barack Obama) administration could
face a “strategic shock” within the first eight months in office.

Fort Bliss spokeswoman Jean Offutt said the Army post is not involved
in any recent talks about a potential military response to civil unrest.

The report become a hot Internet item after Phoenix police told the
Phoenix Business Journal they’re prepared to deal with such an event,
and the International Monetary Fund’s managing director, Dominique
Strauss-Khan, said social unrest could spread to advanced countries
if the global economic crisis worsens.

Javier Sambrano, spokes-man for the El Paso Police Department, said
city police have trained for years so they can address any
contingency, but not with the military.

“The police (department) trains on an ongoing basis as part of its
Mobile Field Force Training,” Sambrano said. “As a result, the police
will be able to respond to emergency situations, such as looting or a
big civil unrest. The police (department) does not train with Soldiers.”

[snip]