Monday, September 26, 2005
[TPRC] My take on politics and isen.blog
At TPRC over the last weekend, former FCC Chairman Reed Hundt debated former FCC Chairman Dick Wiley. Hundt was overtly political. It was absolutely clear where he stood. Wiley was significantly more opaque; often it was clear what he was against, but it was hard to understand what he was for. Hundt wore it on his sleeve -- he was all over the Republican Congress for everything from Telecom malfeasance to Energy pork to FEMA follies to Iraq idiocy to Global Warming to US unilateralism and decline. Wiley kept it to telecom, and even then he did not want to say very much.
Hundt is much more my style. I do not agree with Hundt on everything, but I do agree on the major points. At TPRC, Hundt's major point was that if the United States is to remain player in the global economy it must produce goods that people in other countries want. This is not likely to happen in the "atoms" economy, the carbon economy, the raw materials and manufacturing economy -- other countries can clearly mine and manufacture better than the US can. The information economy must be the engine of US growth, but for this to happen, the US must have cheap, ubiquitous broadband. Hundt says communications services should be priced at almost zero, with free voice telephony and broadband priced low enough to not be an unnecessary burden. Hundt says that we should use information systems to free ourselves from dependence on transportation systems (and meanwhile Congress passes a 286 billion subsidy for asphalt and concrete).
Ahem? $286B could wire America with hot and cold running wired and wireless gigabits in every city, town and pasture. This turn of events would put Dick Wiley's law firm, Wiley, Rein and Fielding, and all of its clients out of business. So Wiley kept his remarks narrowly focussed on telecom. He had to. Was he going to say he was deliberately slowing down US economic growth on behalf of his clients? Was he going to say he was helping his clients hold the price of telecom services artificially high? No. Instead he came off as "apolitical" (and angry at Hundt's overt politics). Wiley is not my style.
In the Q & A period, I had a chance to ask a question. I asked, approximately, "Suppose we knew that the Big One (a huge California earthquake) would occur in exactly one year, what would you have the FCC Chairman do? Wiley didn't seem to get it; he said, "Well, it'd take longer than a year to prepare for that." Hundt, on the other hand, had several concrete suggestions. First, he'd accelerate wireless mesh deployment. Then he'd get a satellite emergency long haul network deployed (over existing satellite facilities). And third, he'd ask all the relevant governors, PUC heads, mayors, etc., what their emergency plan was, and keep asking until they drew one up. (The difference in the way Wiley and Hundt was illustrative.)
However, despite my words about Reed Hundt, I do not think Democrats, in general, have any special claim to goodness. Most of them are no better friends of the open Internet than are most Republicans. The best current telecom bill before Congress is the (bipartisan) McCain-Lautenberg Community Broadband Act. And the best friend of the Internet on the Supreme Court appears to be Justice Scalia, a Reagan-nominated conservative. If there is to be a generalization about the two parties, it is that neither is the Internet party.)
isen.blog is not a job. It is a mission. I am not trying to introduce a protocol or grow a company or push a product. Instead, I am trying to save -- and grow -- the Internet, to keep it open, to make it a force for human benefit. This is a political endeavor. And it is connected to other political endeavors; the Internet, as it currently operates, is a tool of free speech and decentralized democracy. The Internet that others envision has other political aims. Therefore, this blog is political. And it is going to stay that way.
So, my conclusion, after much mulling, is that if you do not like the political aspect of isen.blog, you are welcome to not read it. Or, as one commentor pointed out, you're welcome to skip the articles tagged "politics." I hope you won't, but there's nothing to force you to read any of it.
Or maybe you don't like the *direction* of this blog's politics. If that's the case, I'd much prefer that you comment on the politics you disagree with. Let's talk about it! I'm sure I'll learn a lot from your input; the readers of isen.blog are smart people. I've already learned a lot from you. I'd be sorry to see the process weakened by your lack of participation.
Hundt is much more my style. I do not agree with Hundt on everything, but I do agree on the major points. At TPRC, Hundt's major point was that if the United States is to remain player in the global economy it must produce goods that people in other countries want. This is not likely to happen in the "atoms" economy, the carbon economy, the raw materials and manufacturing economy -- other countries can clearly mine and manufacture better than the US can. The information economy must be the engine of US growth, but for this to happen, the US must have cheap, ubiquitous broadband. Hundt says communications services should be priced at almost zero, with free voice telephony and broadband priced low enough to not be an unnecessary burden. Hundt says that we should use information systems to free ourselves from dependence on transportation systems (and meanwhile Congress passes a 286 billion subsidy for asphalt and concrete).
Ahem? $286B could wire America with hot and cold running wired and wireless gigabits in every city, town and pasture. This turn of events would put Dick Wiley's law firm, Wiley, Rein and Fielding, and all of its clients out of business. So Wiley kept his remarks narrowly focussed on telecom. He had to. Was he going to say he was deliberately slowing down US economic growth on behalf of his clients? Was he going to say he was helping his clients hold the price of telecom services artificially high? No. Instead he came off as "apolitical" (and angry at Hundt's overt politics). Wiley is not my style.
In the Q & A period, I had a chance to ask a question. I asked, approximately, "Suppose we knew that the Big One (a huge California earthquake) would occur in exactly one year, what would you have the FCC Chairman do? Wiley didn't seem to get it; he said, "Well, it'd take longer than a year to prepare for that." Hundt, on the other hand, had several concrete suggestions. First, he'd accelerate wireless mesh deployment. Then he'd get a satellite emergency long haul network deployed (over existing satellite facilities). And third, he'd ask all the relevant governors, PUC heads, mayors, etc., what their emergency plan was, and keep asking until they drew one up. (The difference in the way Wiley and Hundt was illustrative.)
However, despite my words about Reed Hundt, I do not think Democrats, in general, have any special claim to goodness. Most of them are no better friends of the open Internet than are most Republicans. The best current telecom bill before Congress is the (bipartisan) McCain-Lautenberg Community Broadband Act. And the best friend of the Internet on the Supreme Court appears to be Justice Scalia, a Reagan-nominated conservative. If there is to be a generalization about the two parties, it is that neither is the Internet party.)
isen.blog is not a job. It is a mission. I am not trying to introduce a protocol or grow a company or push a product. Instead, I am trying to save -- and grow -- the Internet, to keep it open, to make it a force for human benefit. This is a political endeavor. And it is connected to other political endeavors; the Internet, as it currently operates, is a tool of free speech and decentralized democracy. The Internet that others envision has other political aims. Therefore, this blog is political. And it is going to stay that way.
So, my conclusion, after much mulling, is that if you do not like the political aspect of isen.blog, you are welcome to not read it. Or, as one commentor pointed out, you're welcome to skip the articles tagged "politics." I hope you won't, but there's nothing to force you to read any of it.
Or maybe you don't like the *direction* of this blog's politics. If that's the case, I'd much prefer that you comment on the politics you disagree with. Let's talk about it! I'm sure I'll learn a lot from your input; the readers of isen.blog are smart people. I've already learned a lot from you. I'd be sorry to see the process weakened by your lack of participation.
Technorati Tags: Politics, TPRC
Comments:
Hi, all,
Democracies have been very rare in the history of mankind. When ours was crafted for us, there had not been a major democratic nation on the face of the globe for 2000 years.
Once created, democracies tend not to last. It appears that free people vote to give up their freedoms to a strong man who promises to take care of them.
Summarizing, neither God nor Nature owe the United States of America a democracy, and democracies are lost when the people living under them voluntarily give them away.
Recently, Americans have voted to relinquish their freedoms in return for heightened security that never materialized. The politically sophisticated have practiced demagoguery on the less sophisticated.
Preying on extant prejudice is the opposite of political leadership. Leadership requires teaching people something new so that we all can do something different. Demagoguery uses whatever is there already. It is devoid of policy and serves primarily to seize power. The reactive nature of the present Executive Branch (to 911, to a storm) reflects the lack of policy and the lack of leadership in a group interested mostly in seizing power.
Exploiting what is there is not the same as achieving what you do not have.
At a time when the politically sophisticated are exploiting the unsophisticated, a special burden falls on the millions of professional people who publish in the thousands of professional journals, belong to the hundreds of professional societies, and read David Isenberg's blog.
Let's look at other isenblog posts.
"Funny how the word 'politics' has such negative connotations. It is as if 'democracy' is one thing and 'politics' another. What crap. If you are a citizen in a democracy you have a DUTY to practice politics." --Frisky070802
The politics of communications belongs in this blog, and we all know it.
"Access and other issues (privacy for one) are tied to politics" --Steve Crandall
"A free market tends toward monopolistic practice, especially in this industry, so policies need to be developed and advanced that help control that concentration of power." --Frank Paynter http://sandhill.typepad.com/
"Politics is the #1 weapon used by teleco incumbents to defend their bottleneck control over Internet access. Let them disarm first." --Daniel
Yet some with telecom and IT experience that exceeds mine have argued for no political discussion. We all owe it to them and each other not to vent, not to waste everyone's time, not to fill these pages with information that any Goggle search will provide.
That said, let us now look at the line between non-political and political behavior that so many find hard to cross.
Those of us who have been around the block have all watched members of their professional societies and others argue against any political position-taking by their organizations. What exactly is this line that people do not want to cross?
The line between purely professional activity and speaking out politically is the line between engaging your energies to climb a social hierarchy defined by a group, and the decision to act as an individual at the risk of group standing.
The neural systems beneath these social skillsets (group vs one-on-one) are probably separate in man, as their double dissociation in diseases like autism and bipolar disorder suggest. One skillset builds towards social standing and power (but not necessarily great discovery or original achievement) and the other supports strong marriage, parenting, and leadership in intimate groups under pressure (combat, business startups, hot research labs). So some of you will not wish to risk group standing that is so important and slow to acquire, while others will not appreciate the loss of what was never important to begin with and will advocate advocacy.
A little acceptance of isenblog diversity and self-insight goes a long way. Yes, there are simple cowards and rationalizers out there, but I don't think many whose lives play that theme-with-variations over and over have joined us here.
I hope you will join me in asking David to fulfill the role which the Founding Fathers entrusted to all the country's citizens by teaching us the politics of telecom. These politics can stifle the contributions all of us wish our industry to make to the country, the globe, and human civilization (yes, we will sell 650 million cellphones this year--'05--, so we may indeed think about our impact on global civilization). Should the decline of the United States deepen, I hope some of you will join me in asking David to widen the circle of light he casts over the broad political landscape.
Communication is social, and the distribution of information is political because information brings power. If you can't be excited and proud to be in this industry today, then for God's sake, get off those standards committees and live a little. --jerry nelson
Democracies have been very rare in the history of mankind. When ours was crafted for us, there had not been a major democratic nation on the face of the globe for 2000 years.
Once created, democracies tend not to last. It appears that free people vote to give up their freedoms to a strong man who promises to take care of them.
Summarizing, neither God nor Nature owe the United States of America a democracy, and democracies are lost when the people living under them voluntarily give them away.
Recently, Americans have voted to relinquish their freedoms in return for heightened security that never materialized. The politically sophisticated have practiced demagoguery on the less sophisticated.
Preying on extant prejudice is the opposite of political leadership. Leadership requires teaching people something new so that we all can do something different. Demagoguery uses whatever is there already. It is devoid of policy and serves primarily to seize power. The reactive nature of the present Executive Branch (to 911, to a storm) reflects the lack of policy and the lack of leadership in a group interested mostly in seizing power.
Exploiting what is there is not the same as achieving what you do not have.
At a time when the politically sophisticated are exploiting the unsophisticated, a special burden falls on the millions of professional people who publish in the thousands of professional journals, belong to the hundreds of professional societies, and read David Isenberg's blog.
Let's look at other isenblog posts.
"Funny how the word 'politics' has such negative connotations. It is as if 'democracy' is one thing and 'politics' another. What crap. If you are a citizen in a democracy you have a DUTY to practice politics." --Frisky070802
The politics of communications belongs in this blog, and we all know it.
"Access and other issues (privacy for one) are tied to politics" --Steve Crandall
"A free market tends toward monopolistic practice, especially in this industry, so policies need to be developed and advanced that help control that concentration of power." --Frank Paynter http://sandhill.typepad.com/
"Politics is the #1 weapon used by teleco incumbents to defend their bottleneck control over Internet access. Let them disarm first." --Daniel
Yet some with telecom and IT experience that exceeds mine have argued for no political discussion. We all owe it to them and each other not to vent, not to waste everyone's time, not to fill these pages with information that any Goggle search will provide.
That said, let us now look at the line between non-political and political behavior that so many find hard to cross.
Those of us who have been around the block have all watched members of their professional societies and others argue against any political position-taking by their organizations. What exactly is this line that people do not want to cross?
The line between purely professional activity and speaking out politically is the line between engaging your energies to climb a social hierarchy defined by a group, and the decision to act as an individual at the risk of group standing.
The neural systems beneath these social skillsets (group vs one-on-one) are probably separate in man, as their double dissociation in diseases like autism and bipolar disorder suggest. One skillset builds towards social standing and power (but not necessarily great discovery or original achievement) and the other supports strong marriage, parenting, and leadership in intimate groups under pressure (combat, business startups, hot research labs). So some of you will not wish to risk group standing that is so important and slow to acquire, while others will not appreciate the loss of what was never important to begin with and will advocate advocacy.
A little acceptance of isenblog diversity and self-insight goes a long way. Yes, there are simple cowards and rationalizers out there, but I don't think many whose lives play that theme-with-variations over and over have joined us here.
I hope you will join me in asking David to fulfill the role which the Founding Fathers entrusted to all the country's citizens by teaching us the politics of telecom. These politics can stifle the contributions all of us wish our industry to make to the country, the globe, and human civilization (yes, we will sell 650 million cellphones this year--'05--, so we may indeed think about our impact on global civilization). Should the decline of the United States deepen, I hope some of you will join me in asking David to widen the circle of light he casts over the broad political landscape.
Communication is social, and the distribution of information is political because information brings power. If you can't be excited and proud to be in this industry today, then for God's sake, get off those standards committees and live a little. --jerry nelson
David:
OK, you asked for input about Politics and isen.blog.
First and foremost, it's YOUR blog. You should do what you feel is needed and useful.
I read isen.blog for the amazing insights you can bring to bear from your personal knowledge, insights, but also your incredible ecosystem.
I too chafe at the buffoon and his cronies that are wreaking havoc in the guise of "leading" the US. But unlike you, I don't feel particularly empowered to do much about it. Yes, I believe the election was stolen and all form of malfeasance is afoot, but there's going to have to be more of a sense of outrage from many more of our fellow citizens before much can be done.
Instead, I've dedicated myself to insuring that the Internet finds its way into all the places it's unlikely to be if left to the "big guys". (For the first time ever, I'm now getting paid regularly for it.) I feel that my best contribution is to, in at least some small way, ENABLE all those, such as yourself, who can find passion within themselves to effectively express a sense of outrage and inspire others to do the right things by there continuing to be a viable Internet for you all to use... everywhere you might want to be using it.
I started reading isen.blog for the best insights in the telecom industry. Though that line of commentary has markedly decreased, it's still well worth reading - I learn a lot. But I confess that I mostly tune out / skip over the posts that express overt politics (where I don't see any direct relationship to telecom or Internet.)
But that's just me; I'm trying to spend most of my working time on my particular mission.
Thanks,
Steve
OK, you asked for input about Politics and isen.blog.
First and foremost, it's YOUR blog. You should do what you feel is needed and useful.
I read isen.blog for the amazing insights you can bring to bear from your personal knowledge, insights, but also your incredible ecosystem.
I too chafe at the buffoon and his cronies that are wreaking havoc in the guise of "leading" the US. But unlike you, I don't feel particularly empowered to do much about it. Yes, I believe the election was stolen and all form of malfeasance is afoot, but there's going to have to be more of a sense of outrage from many more of our fellow citizens before much can be done.
Instead, I've dedicated myself to insuring that the Internet finds its way into all the places it's unlikely to be if left to the "big guys". (For the first time ever, I'm now getting paid regularly for it.) I feel that my best contribution is to, in at least some small way, ENABLE all those, such as yourself, who can find passion within themselves to effectively express a sense of outrage and inspire others to do the right things by there continuing to be a viable Internet for you all to use... everywhere you might want to be using it.
I started reading isen.blog for the best insights in the telecom industry. Though that line of commentary has markedly decreased, it's still well worth reading - I learn a lot. But I confess that I mostly tune out / skip over the posts that express overt politics (where I don't see any direct relationship to telecom or Internet.)
But that's just me; I'm trying to spend most of my working time on my particular mission.
Thanks,
Steve
The only thing I don't read here David, is your defense of your right to say what the hell you like.
I come here because I respect your experience and intelligence, if you think its worth saying, I think its worth reading, I'll probably learn something, except for the defense of political language, if you feel you have to defend that, the net, and America, has MUCH bigger problems than broadband policy.
Continue to give them hell.
I come here because I respect your experience and intelligence, if you think its worth saying, I think its worth reading, I'll probably learn something, except for the defense of political language, if you feel you have to defend that, the net, and America, has MUCH bigger problems than broadband policy.
Continue to give them hell.
" if the United States is to remain player in the global economy it must produce goods that people in other countries want. "
Why should the United States be the player in the global economy?
Let's change the statment in :
"If the United States is to remain in the global economy it must produce goods that people in other countries want."
Which too is partially correct.
We all think that the consumer is the King, the one who ultimately decides what the producer has to offer.
But we are AWFULLY wrong.
Since some time the consmer is USED to produce a healty economy.
They create sick people in order to have a healty economy.
The good and uccesful mass market product IS NOT what people want, but WHAT the producer MAKES people wanting.
There is a general, subtle, psycological brainwashing that goes under the name of "commercial".
The old type of commercial mostly explained what a product was and could offer.
The commercial of today has nothing to do with the product, but mostly with the "need" of it.
You buy a new portable phone because you THINK you need that model.
Who of us, at least once in his life bought something and later thought:
why did I buy it?
Patrizia
http://woip.blogspot.com
Post a Comment
Why should the United States be the player in the global economy?
Let's change the statment in :
"If the United States is to remain in the global economy it must produce goods that people in other countries want."
Which too is partially correct.
We all think that the consumer is the King, the one who ultimately decides what the producer has to offer.
But we are AWFULLY wrong.
Since some time the consmer is USED to produce a healty economy.
They create sick people in order to have a healty economy.
The good and uccesful mass market product IS NOT what people want, but WHAT the producer MAKES people wanting.
There is a general, subtle, psycological brainwashing that goes under the name of "commercial".
The old type of commercial mostly explained what a product was and could offer.
The commercial of today has nothing to do with the product, but mostly with the "need" of it.
You buy a new portable phone because you THINK you need that model.
Who of us, at least once in his life bought something and later thought:
why did I buy it?
Patrizia
http://woip.blogspot.com
