These are skilled people with diverse interests and even more diverse points of view. Three are college professors. Also writing for S&R have been or are an Hispanic activist from Texas; a foreign affairs writer who specializes in nuclear deproliferation issues and civilian casualties resulting from armed conflict; a gay staff cartoonist; a management consultant specializing in organizational behavior whose clients include 20 percent of the Fortune 500; an ex-pat South African economist; three experts in popular culture; a former director of the Berkeley Stage Company and statistical demographer for the U.S. Census Bureau; a professional stage actor; two stay-at-moms; a photographer; and occasional guest columnists.

However, we all share one trait: We are volunteers. We don’t get paid. We have other lives, other responsibilities, other people dependent on us to make a living. As business models go, ours sucks. Modest ad income and passing the hat means S&R remains a labor of love. But can love be a sustaining force for the online medium in the absence of profit?

In the Beginning of Blogging, it was all so exciting. Thrilling, even. Putting up a post, watching the stats, seeing who read your work, where they were — and how many read your stuff. Generate those hits. Yeah. That was heady stuff.

Is it still?

Most individual and group blogs are dependent on volunteers. It’s rare that a Huffington Post can raise $37 million to sustain the enterprise. (Of course, HuffPo has “volunteers” too, doesn’t it?)

The print newspaper industry continues to collapse in terms of revenue, profitability, and numbers of paid, professional journalists. So the dominant use of volunteers to inaugurate and maintain sites featuring commentary and/or advocacy journalism becomes an increasingly important public-interest issue.

Most S&R writers are ideologically progressive but rarely hew to party lines. As the S&R mission statement says:

Scholars & Rogues is a diverse band of thinkers, social analysts, activists, grousers, jesters, and troublemakers. We’re different in many ways, but we share a general belief in progress, a conviction that smarter is better, and a passionate distaste for convention.

That statement mirrors the intent of many capable bloggers. Many (but perhaps not most) bloggers seek to simply make things better. We have particular issues or problems that occupy our blogging attention. We are exceedingly dependent, though, on the research of others (those paid professional journalists whose stories we link to) to support points made in our posts.

But those posts, which leaven “objective” journalism with (usually lucid) commentary, add substance to debates of public interest. Yet the majority of bloggers are not paid for their work. What will become of community blogs such as S&R as the corps of volunteers 1) lose interest, 2) lose access to reliable, verifiable information produced by journalists, 3) lose equal access to the Web as politicians favor corporate control of the Internet or 4) just need to spend more time at the day job in a bad economy to make ends meet?

Note that newspapers, in the early days of online news Web sites, had links where volunteers could post community news. Now, that didn’t work out so well, did it? Let’s hope community blogs fare better.

Volunteerism is the principle means of support for community blogs such as S&R. Many such blogs, blogs populated by smart, capable people (see our blogroll), no doubt face the same pressure the volunteers at S&R do: Keep pumpin’ out the posts. Keep the conversation going. Keep the debate fresh and focused. But it’s difficult, as a volunteer, to pump out as many posts as I’d like. (I do like to get eight hours’ sleep each night.)

At some point, as B.B. King would sing, “The thrill is gone.” I hope most of us aren’t there yet, but it’s increasingly a problem faced by those bloggers who believe in candid, civil, and common-sense conversations in the public sphere — yet have family and job responsibilities elsewhere.

The response? The USA PATRIOT Act. It authorized expanded powers for US intelligence and law enforcement agencies including surveillance capabilities, broadened the definition of “terrorism”, increased border security and gave the Treasury the ability to stop money laundering the world over.

But its authority is so broad that it can lend itself to abuse. It gives power to wiretap and spy on law-abiding American citizens including monitoring what they read at the library, “sneak and peek”  without a warrant, and access to medical and financial records. Plus, this large bill was being quickly pushed through Congress without giving it full consideration or even being read by those voting on it.

Now imagine if almost every Democratic member of Congress voted against the Act based on those reasons. Or perhaps they didn’t trust this new, untested administration to do what is right. Or maybe they did it to just make a point about party unity. Would there be a public outcry? Would the pundits say that the opposition party did not grasp the enormity of the situation and that in this moment of peril it is better to “shoot first and ask questions later”? With the great danger the country is in, would it be better to err on the side of giving too much power to the government to deal with the crisis than too little?

Remember your mental answers to those questions as I change the circumstances slightly.

Let’s zoom back to the present day. The national and world economies have never been in as bad shape since the Great Depression. We have been losing a half a million jobs a month since the election and now 4.81 million people collect unemployment benefits, the highest number in at least 40 years. Consumer confidence is at a 29-year low. The Dow has lost a quarter of its value since September. The financial sector has $1.17 trillion in defaulted loans on its books which lead to a 12.4% reduction in housing prices. 1 in 9 US homes are now vacant.

The response? The $787 billion economic recovery package. It offers the largest tax cut in US history,  $272 billion for the working class. $58 billion to jump-start green energy infrastructure and another $90 billion to shore up traditional infrastructure – from bridges to roads to levees and transit. There’s $100 billion to boost welfare and unemployment, $112 billion for health care in Medicare, electronic medial records and preventative care. And then there’s billions for school reconstruction, greening federal buildings, Head Start, buying foreclosed homes, and laying down broadband for the entire country.

But this is a big bill. At a heft of over 1000 pages it has the biggest price tag of any stimulus bill ever debated in Congress. And that debate didn’t include many Republicans; only the very moderate got to influence the bill significantly while the more conservative members got their ideas heard out but never implemented. But this bill is so large it would fundamentally change the size and scope of the government’s influence in American lives. And like the PATRIOT Act, this thing blazed through Congress and no one had a chance to read it all.

Now the Republicans had their equivalent of the PATRIOT Act sitting in front of them. So what would they do? What if almost every Republican member of Congress voted against the Act based on the above reasons? Or perhaps they didn’t trust this new, untested administration to do what is right. Or maybe they did it to just make a point about party unity. Would there be a public outcry? Would the pundits say that the opposition party did not grasp the enormity of the situation and that in this moment of peril it is better to “shoot first and ask questions later”? With the great danger the country is in, would it be better to err on the side of giving too much power to the government to deal with the crisis than too little?

Some might balk at equating 9/11 with the current economic crisis. But its impact and reach are very similar. There was a lot of talk about going into the depths of another Great Depression, but the institutions and foundations laid down after the Great Depression would prevent that great of a collapse. Just like there was a lot of talk about 9/11 being another Pearl Harbor, but we were then facing a coalition of highly militarized, fascist countries actively attacking America and invading its allies.   Now we are facing a small number of fanatics with light arms. You can compare the two by type but not size.

Let me put it in an SAT equation:

Pearl Harbor : 9/11 :: Great Depression : today’s major recession

Our country has faced worse in the past and it is entirely within our capabilities to deal with our present crises. And while the Democrats were willing to take on 9/11 on the Republicans’ terms, the Republicans aren’t willing to tackle this economic crisis with the Democrats holding the reins. Every single House Republican voted against this bill along with all but three Senators. This is either because the Republicans don’t appreciate the dire straits that we are in, they had issues about the substance of the bill and way that it was pushed through, or they are more concerned with with their party than their country. My guess that it is a little of all three.

Part 2 this week.

In his New York Times column, “Bits, Bands and Books,” Paul Krugman compares publishing to music, in which downloading has forced musicians to make their money touring and selling ancillary products: “Indeed, if e-books become the norm, the publishing industry as we know it may wither away. Books may end up serving mainly as promotional material for authors’ other activities, such as live readings with paid admission. Well, if it was good enough for Charles Dickens, I guess it’s good enough for me.” Paying good money to hear authors read in the digital age? Yeah, like that’s gonna happen.

In a Washington Post article, “Heavy Internet Users Targeted,” Cecilia Kang writes: “Roger Entner, a senior vice president at Nielsen IAG, said about 5 to 10 percent of peer-to-peer users — those who directly exchange files with other users — gobble up about 50 percent of all Internet bandwidth. Time Warner Cable is trying a different approach with a test that will charge customers more for larger volumes of data and faster Internet access.” But, Entner said: “Flat rate and unlimited service is an endgame move. When you go to that kind of rate structure, you can’t go back.” How do they do this in other countries

In a Wired article, “15th Anniversary: The Brian Eno Evolution,” Steven Leckart quotes the groundbreaking musician who pioneered ambient music: “I’ve noticed two things: If you make something that is the right slowness, people are very happy to slow themselves down to meet it. And if you accompany that with music which is the right quietness, people are happy to quiet themselves down to listen to it. I dispute the assumption that everyone’s attention span is getting shorter: I find people are begging for experiences that are longer and slower, less ‘dramatic’ and more sensual.”

In an Esquire article, “You’d Make a Good President,” the usually fatuous Chuck Klosterman finally has a good idea. He comments on a British program for the 2012 London Olympics called “Sporting Giants,” which rounds up tall people, regardless of experience, to compete in sports, like rowing and volleyball, that benefit from height: “So, what if we changed the way we hired people? What if instead of having people attempt to select and pursue careers, employers advertised for blind characteristics? What if they analyzed the nature of specialized jobs, figured out which qualities were most central to success, and then recruited people who possessed those specific abilities?”

Sports
In a Boston Herald article, “David Tyree’s job may be in danger,” Vinny DiTrani writes of the Superbowl hero, who faces stiff competition for his job: “Yes, as bizarre as it may appear, the man who arguably made the best play in Super Bowl history could be scuffling to make the team this summer — if his knee allows him to scuffle at all. Imagine the furor if the Giants announce they have cut one of their biggest heroes from their incredible championship run.”

How good is basketball coach Phil Jackson, winner of nine championship? Sure he’s coached some of the greatest players in the game such as Michael Jordan and Kobe Bryan. But, as Steve Aschburner writes in “Shadowboxing with a ghost” at Sports Illustrated.com, “In seven-plus seasons with Jackson, Jordan won six times. He went 0-7 without him. With Pippen, it was six in nine and 0-8. Shaq won three titles in five seasons with Jackson vs. one in 11 years without him. Bryant? He went 0-3 before Jackson got to L.A. and 0-1 without him in 2005, but has three in seven seasons with him, aiming for four in eight.”

In “Answering the Call,” an article in the US Naval Institute magazine Proceedings, the great pitcher Bob Feller writes: “I once told a newspaper reporter that the bombing attack we lived through on the Alabama had been the most exciting 13 hours of my life. After that, I said, the pinstriped perils of Yankee Stadium seemed trivial.” (NB: The rest of the article is pretty corny.)

Appendix
What parent coaching kids hasn’t experienced this? Roger Armstrong, a commenter to Peter King’s “Monday Morning Quarterback Mailbag” on Sports Illustrated, writes: “I coach 12-year-old girls softball. How do you get them to stop daydreaming out in centerfield? I have five girls I rotate in the outfield and four of them are daydreamers. During practice yesterday I asked one girl to stop chasing butterflies, her reply was. ‘It isn’t a butterfly, it is a dragonfly.’” King’s response: “There’s a great difference between 9- and 10-year-olds and older girls, at least from what I’ve found. The young kids are exceedingly coachable.”

Red State uber-crackers Jackie and Dunlap on former press secretary Scott McClellan’s new book, “What Happened”: “A lot of animosity between McClellan and Rove. In their minds there’s room for only one pasty, white, doughy know-it-all in the White House.”

From a Google group: “Have any other listmembers noticed that American Westerns (books and movies) seem to be talking about people suffering from PTSD? . . . There was this phenomenon of Civil War veterans with no prospects in their home towns going west. . . . The James Gang came out of Quantrill’s raiders. A lot of the acting out that we see on Westerns seems to be people with PTSD (though people at the time called it ‘Soldier’s Heart’). And when did Westerns really become popular? After the two World Wars when the US was flooded with people with PTSD they couldn’t talk about.”

A Wisconsin daily newspaper, whose readers have been increasingly shedding it, has now shed a significant expense — newsprint. The Capital Times of Madison, whose circulation has fallen from more than 40,000 to 18,000, said “-30-” to its printing press. It has become an online information enterprise around the Madison.com portal.

The 90-year-old newspaper — one of two serving Madison under a joint operating agreement — will only publish a tabloid-sized edition twice per week carrying some news, opinion and a weekly arts, entertainment and culture section. It will be distributed in its home-delivered partner paper, the Wisconsin State Journal.

It’s a dicey move, but critics like me have said for years that the Web-only newspaper will see its day come (which does not mean we have argued that online-only is a good idea). So what does this end-of-print mean for Madison and beyond?

Capital Newspapers Inc. owns both the formerly evening Cap Times and the morning Wisconsin State Journal (as well as 18 other newspapers and several niche publications in 17 counties). Revenue shared equally between the Cap Times and the State Journal has allowed the Cap Times to withstand shrinking circulation without severe cuts in staff. It remains an influential liberal paper, contrasted with the more conservative State Journal. Not surprisingly, the State Journal reported that it had “succeeded in garnering most of The Capital Times’s former subscribers and will see its average daily circulation rise from 89,000 to at least 104,000 …”

About 20 jobs will be lost at the Cap Times and another 20 in the printing and distribution divisions of Capital Newspapers.

Here’s what the paper’s editor, Paul Fanlund, thinks:

To become a “CNN.com for Madison,” The Capital Times will have reporters posting breaking news items to its Web site seven days a week, 18 hours a day, Fanlund said. The Web site will also be hiring a staff member to improve its visual and audio content, he said.

“I absolutely believe the Internet is the future, ” Fanlund said.

But many challenges exist for the remaining staffers (who had little warning of the change) who would presumaby provide that ’round-the-clock coverage, according to Sue Robinson of the University of Wisconsin-Madison:

The introduction of new technologies to a staff that hitherto has not had much training across media platforms. The welcoming of citizen interaction within the production process. The 24/7 wire-service-like deadline. What it means to maintain objectivity as a journalist who must be heard and seen in their audio recordings or video formats. There is a going to be a significant adjustment period, no doubt, and at the end of it, the CapTimes’ newsroom culture will be altered in a fairly fundamental way.

Given the content of the real CNN.com, why would Mr. Fanlund want the Cap Times to be a local version of that? That seems to be an inappropriate frame to be imposed on a local readership by a local journalism entity. Is that the only model Mr. Fanlund has to present to serve Cap Times readers? He “absolutely believes” the Internet is future. But how does he intend to articulate that future?

And consequences for the Cap Times‘ readers?

Who will reading the Cap Times online? It had only 18,000 loyal hard-copy readers. Most appear to have drifted to the State Journal.

A reader of an Internet “newspaper” such as the Cap Times must have an Internet connection, preferably broadband, and sufficient income to pay for that connection. But the latter does not guarantee the former. That’s because broadband access is not universal, particularly in rural areas where newspapers are delivered. (Well, used to be. Many newspaper are cutting back on widespread circulation because of delivery costs.)

About 57 percent of the nation’s approximately 105 million households have broadband access, according to an S&R interview with Andy King of Website Optimization, publisher of the monthly Bandwidth Report. (Those households average about 2.6 people.)

Of those 18,000 loyal Cap Times print subscribers, how many have broadband access to retain their relationships with the newspaper? If locally oriented newspapers wish to succeed as online enterprises, they need to assure their local advertisers of eyeballs on the papers’ Web sites. Without much wider broadband coverage, how can they do that? That’s why I’ve argued for a broadband version of the Rural Electrification Act.

Without wider, affordable broadband access, the newspaper industry becomes complicit in a subtle form of redlining. That’s a practice commonly thought of in terms of refusing mortgages or insurance based on geography. But a newspaper’s decision to go online may in fact practice discrimination based not on geographic location but on the presence or absence of broadband. Access is generally found in densely populated areas. Rural areas require greater expense to provide broadband with less opportunity to generate revenue for the provider. If a newspaper drops its print edition and goes online, what happens to the rural subscriber without broadband access?

What would the journalism be like in an online enterprise focused on its broadband readers? Because newspapers, or online “papers,” are so starved for revenue, it’s likely that their energies will be focused on the wants and needs of an urban, affluent, probably mostly Caucasian population. That may make for a healthier balance sheet, but that’s not necessarily healthy for a readership left behind by the switch to online publication.

Newspapers have seen their financial ability to produce a marketable product eroded by revenue losses and gutted by staff cuts in response to those losses. Yet newspaper managers want their decreased staffs to adjust happily to a greater burden producing more (and innovative) news products. That has consequences, according to John Morton, who writes about the newspaper business for the American Journalism Review. In “Enough is Enough,” he says:

Still, even small newspapers are cutting back. I recently had an e-mail colloquy with an editor of a small-town daily in the Southwest. He loves his town and his newspaper, but he is troubled by a significant reduction in his staff at the same time his publisher is urging him to develop new editorial products to gain more readers and advertising.

“How am I supposed to do this?” he asked; he wondered if I knew how other small-town editors had coped in similar circumstances. I had little comfort to offer. I told him that his staff, in addition to the traditional burden of paltry pay, would now have the additional burden of being overworked. Editors at large dailies have the same problem, but at least they are able to spread the burden over a larger number of staffers. When the entire staff has ten or twelve people, there is much less running room.

Says Editor & Publisher’s Joe Strupp about the Cap Times‘ decision:

It’s not a surprise because the Web has become such a major factor for newspapers and I think clearly the way they’re going to survive is do more and more on the Web. That doesn’t necessarily mean everyone’s going to go Web only in the next five to 10 years.

But has the Web become a major financial factor yet for newspapers? No, says Mr. Morton:

Newspaper executives point to the Internet as the future of newspapers, arguing that a combination of online and print products will assure newspapers of a profitable future. Yet last year newspaper Internet revenue amounted to only 7 percent or so of total advertising. Moreover, growth in Internet revenue, which in earlier years had been 30 to 40 percent a year, has dropped to about 20 percent.

What this portends is that a successful Internet-print future will be a long time coming. And if newspapers embark on this future with lesser journalistic products, less circulation, less standing in their markets, the profits of the future likely will be much less than newspapers are accustomed to.

This is the economic and journalistic sea into which the managers of The Capital Times have leapt, perhaps blindly, perhaps too optimistically.

Let’s check back in a year and see how they — and their readers — are doing.

Why would Cicconi make such claims? As Ars Technica astutely notes, AT&T has every interest to push bandwith-throttling tactics like those used by Comcast in its blocking of BitTorrent, because like Comcast, AT&T’s supposed high-speed Internet offering relies upon existing network connections, rather than building true fiber-optic cable to the home as Verizon is doing with FiOS–and is prey to the same bandwith restrictions and infrastructure problems as a result, when it’s not literally blowing up in people’s faces.

What Verizon gets–and what AT&T, Comcast, and much of the cable/telecom duopolies fail to understand–is that only with heavy infrastructure investment and network buildouts will we be able to bring real high-speed broadband to the country. Companies that place short-term profits over long-term gains are constantly looking to squeeze every last customer dollar out of existing networks that they can before putting up the money to build out new connections. As a result, “network management”–what you and I call throttling or cutting customers off–is becoming more and more commonplace.

P2P service Vuze has taken the debate a step further, by developing a user plugin that enables them to measure traffic-shaping efforts and analyze the data. Vuze recently published their first report detailing their initial findings, and the conclusions are interesting indeed–Vuze claims that Comcast’s traffic-shaping efforts are widespread, and that they’re hardly the sole offenders.

Of course, it’s important to take Vuze’s findings with a few shakerfuls of salt–they are a P2P service, after all, so it’s in their interests to counteract any network-controlling techniques that would hinder their business. And who’s to say whether or not the app is designed to give back exactly the kind of data they want to publicize? Still, even with the necessary skepticism attached, the central question remains–what if they’re right?

And it’s not just happening to Internet traffic as well. Today a report came out detailing how Comcast, apparently unsatisfied with their reputation as the boogiemen of net neutrality, are compressing high-definition television signals into the bandwith of analog signals, rather than investing in infrastructure upgrades to deliver real HD images to the viewer. The result:

“It kind of looked like they took the standard definition and just blew it up,” said Swanson, a 33-year-old graphic designer and videographer who subscribes to Comcast Corp.’s TV service. “I couldn’t really tell if what I was seeing was really better than what I saw on regular television.”

This sums up so much of how American communications conglomerates have swindled the public over the years by feeding us crappy second-rate service that we pay through the nose for, because there are often no other options for service in our residential area. And don’t think Verizon is a prize just because they get the message about true fiber-to-the-home buildouts. This is the same company that deliberately redirects Internet searches to its own home pages, blocked text messages from NARAL, and (lest we forget) aided and abetted the NSA in spying on American citizens illegally. Wow, that’s real competition there.

This week the Senate Commerce Committee is holding a hearing on no less than the future of the Internet itself, and net neutrality supporter Senator John Kerry has taken the opportunity to solicit feedback from citizens concerned about the unchecked power of corporations to subtly warp and twist Internet access to suit their purposes–or simply to save themselves a few bucks while we fall further and further behind in real broadband development. Don’t forget that many of those bucks will go to buying off Senators and Congressmen to ensure that their agendas are fulfilled on Capitol Hill. If you don’t believe me, ask John “Straight Talk” McCain–his infamous “friend” Vicki Iseman was a hard-charging telecommunications lobbyist:

Iseman, 40, who joined the Arlington-based firm of Alcalde & Fay as a secretary and rose to partner within a few years, often touted her access to the chairman of the Senate commerce committee as she worked on behalf of clients such as Cablevision, EchoStar and Tribune Broadcasting, according to several other lobbyists who spoke on the condition of anonymity…In the years that McCain chaired the commerce committee, Iseman lobbied for Lowell W. “Bud” Paxson, the head of what used to be Paxson Communications, now Ion Media Networks, and was involved in a successful lobbying campaign to persuade McCain and other members of Congress to send letters to the Federal Communications Commission on behalf of Paxson.

We’re in the middle of a shadow war over control of the Internet, and the people who matter the most–you and I–need to make our voices heard over the clamor of lobbyists, paid flacks, and pundits. The Internet is a public good that was built with your tax dollars. We need to employ basic principles to build real networks. If we don’t, our Internet future will be compressed, distorted, and not quite like the real thing–too much noise, too little signal, and too much cost for too little benefit.

We can do better than that. We must do better than that.

According to the folks who run broadbandreports.com — the most informative site I’ve found yet on this subject (and one which also took note of the relevance of Adlai Stevenson’s famous quote) — this is because “we lack a comprehensive national broadband strategy of any kind.” Instead, we leave such decisions and initiatives to big corporations and utility companies, neither of whom the Dubya administration wants to offend.

Our actual national strategy, says broadbandreports.com, “consists of paying broadband lip service only during political campaigns, implementing flimsy policies aimed solely at protecting the revenues of the largest operators, then issuing reports that pat ourselves on the back for a job well done.”

There is evidence of this. When it comes to broadband access, the minions of President George W. Bush, in a strategy that might actually work in Iraq, tend to declare victory, pull out and go home. Even the bureaucracy that is supposed to administer the universal provision of broadband for Americans is obscure: the National Telecommunications and Information Administration, part of the Department of Commerce.

At the end of 2007, Dubya’s sidemen, rather than assess the dismal situation, simply issued a release that said Bush’s goal “to achieve universal broadband” has now been met.

“Today’s report shows the nation’s broadband success story,” burbled Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez. “The broadband policies put in place by the president have created a competitive environment to foster innovation and provide effective technologies.”

Dubya’s people officially claimed broadband access is now available in 99 percent of the nation’s zip codes — a boast much disputed by competent apolitical researchers and just about anybody I could find who posted blogs or “total crap” comments following this dubious claim. If it is, it can only be afforded by wealthy users in many of them.

Dr. Denny’s advice that news companies should urge Congress for government-assisted broadband access outside the big cities is certainly merited, and one that should be self-evident for publishers.

This is just the tip of the iceberg, as Hanchette revisits some important 20th Century policy debates that inform our current predicament in ways the Bushies, Big Telecom and the FCC (a wholly owned subsidiary of AT&T) aren’t going anywhere near. Read the rest here.

Once Hillary was in the Senate, Goodman reports, “When the overhaul bill came up for reauthorization, Sandra Chapin, a former welfare recipient affiliated with a coalition called Welfare Made a Difference, lobbied Congress to allow more women to attend college while they received aid. Mrs. Clinton ‘wouldn’t have anything to do with it,’ Ms. Chapin said.”

In a Chicago Tribune article, “Study: Earners high, low think they belong to middle class,” John Keilman and Deborah Horan write: “A new report by the Pew Research Center finds that [most] people, no matter where they fall on the economic spectrum, believe they’re in some way part of the middle class.” [Emphasis added]

At USA Gold Michael Kosares reports on the “Golden Gut Check“: “. . . fundamental trends suggest that the gold market may be moving from a period of general scarcity to outright shortages. . . . A shortage raises the possibility that investors who have yet to purchase gold (or plan to purchase more) might be crowded out of the market by major financial institutions and mining firms intent on squaring their physical short positions.” Calling all alchemists!

Internet pioneer David Farber told the New York Times, “If you are looking at broadband, we have a lot of problems. We are slow as molasses in deploying the next generation.” According to a report sponsored by the World Economic Forum, though, the US actually ranks fourth in Internet service behind Denmark, Sweden and Switzerland. It seems broadband is only one of 68 criteria the report uses.

Making a good living has always been one of the reasons young people decide to become doctors. Is that true of our best medical minds as well? Natasha Singer reports for the New York Times: “Seniors accepted in 2007 as residents in dermatology and two other appearance-related fields — plastic surgery and otolaryngology (ear, nose and throat doctors, some of whom perform facial cosmetic surgery) — had the highest median medical-board scores and the highest percentage of members in the medical honor society among 18 specialties.” Okay, our best doctors are nipping and tucking. So what if you die prematurely? Isn’t leaving a good-looking corpse at least as important as a long life?

In her Time magazine piece, “Help for Sex Starved Wives,” at Andrea Sachs reports: “We discovered in the survey, and it bears itself out in my practice, that the person with the lower sex drive controls the sexual relationship, not out of a need to manipulate or control, but because they have veto power. . . . There’s an unspoken agreement: the person with the lower desire expects his or her spouse to accept it, not complain about it, and also to be monogamous. . . . an unfair and unworkable arrangement.”

At AlterNet’s blog section, the Peek, Katie Halper writes: “I had always thought that lesbian porn was the most universal porn, the porn most likely to achieve world peace [!] by bringing together various populations, by uniting (at least some) lesbians, straight men, straight women, and trans who enjoyed lesbian porn.” Until, that is, some of her female friends admitted to a taste for gay male porn. At least it’s neatly symmetrical to men liking girl-on-girl porn. [Emphasis added.]

The memoirs of one of the twentieth century’s most important novelists has been published in England. In his London Review of Books piece, “Whisky and Soda Man,” Thomas Jones writes: “It seems likely that Miracles of Life will be Ballard’s last book. In the brief concluding chapter, little more than a page long, he says that in June 2006 he was diagnosed with advanced prostate cancer that had spread to his bones.” For those to whom the name JG Ballard doesn’t ring a bell, think “Empire of the Sun” and “Crash.”

Appendix:
Top legal blog Balkinization ran a post on the report that “dozens of top-secret talks and meetings in the White House, the most senior Bush administration officials discussed and approved specific details of how high-value al Qaeda suspects would be interrogated by the Central Intelligence Agency.” It received the following comment.

“Appalling. Again. Supposing they imagined themselves to be Saving Civilization, what can their idea of civilization be?”
felix culpa : 11:26 PM

But what should a new business model for an industry whose principal product is journalism look like?

It would have to recognize several new — and old — realities.

• Any new business model must generate profit.

There’s no way around this. Journalism is best sustained within a for-profit frame. A company that engages in newspaper journalism as a product is not supported by government (unlike public television) nor should it be. The same holds for commercial broadcast journalism as well. To provide news, the company must make a profit to attract investors and secure the resources to collect, report and transmit that news. A non-profit model cannot immediately match the breadth and depth of news reporting that a healthy democracy of more than 300 million citizens requires.

The industry’s nosedive to lower revenues and reduced circulation has been predicated on an ill-fated imperative: maintain the current level of profit (about 16 percent) to retain and placate short-term institutional investors. That’s unsustainable, but news corporations refuse to confront that reality.

Still, arguments about public service as a moral imperative to maintain that healthy democracy, etc., while sounding grand, must take a back seat to the fiscal imperative. A news company must earn adequate profit to be able to tell better stories.

The industry must revisit its relationships with its investors, its consumers and its advertisers to determine what level of profit is appropriate, necessary and feasible for investors as the industry seeks to provide better stories to consumers and better service to advertisers. But there must be profit to enable large-scale collection and dissemination of meaningful news stories.

For long-term gain, there will be short-term pain. It takes money, and lots of it, to tell better stories in quantity.

• Find a technological panacea that will recapture some revenue from newspaper advertising’s Big Three: classified “help wanted” and “articles for sale” ads, and classified and display ads for real estate and motor vehicles.

These are the significant revenue sources the news companies have lost to non-news, online enterprises. Those ads have all but vanished from print newspaper pages. Online ad revenue for news companies is increasing, but it remains a small share of overall revenue. Still, news companies continue to delude themselves that online ad revenue is the immediate future. But that revenue is not increasing fast enough to rescue the current, faltering business model.

Advertising’s Big Three have migrated in bulk online. If the journalism business seeks to revitalize its content, it must find a way to recapture some of that principal advertising revenue it has lost. Without new and recaptured revenue streams, the journalism industry will not be able to produce better stories for people to read to produce the increase in eyeballs — and the proof of greater return on investment — that advertisers demand. (Can you say “vicious cycle”?)

• The business model must produce a greater quantity of a higher quality of journalism.

Currently too many people (young and old alike) who would like to work in journalism think newspapers are dying. They think they’d have to be nuts to go into a business that believes 60-hour weeks without overtime should be a normal routine for an entry-level salary of about $27,000.

If the business of journalism is to survive, a better product is necessary. That means better compensation for journalists and support staff — and hiring more of them. It means more money spent on continual training. It means news companies must work to achieve better relationships with and provide greater financial and instructive support to journalism education. The industry needs to improve the skills and breadth of general knowledge of journalists.

The industry needs a better product than it now produces. If the industry seeks to survive on the viability of journalism as content, it must invest to improve its product and its value for consumers, advertisers and investors alike.

Simply put, the new model should recognize that better compensation and improved working environments could produce a more skilled and more motivated work force. It takes seasoned, well-trained, properly compensated journalists to tell better stories. And the industry needs an improved product — better stories — to justify claims on old and new revenue streams.

• The model must confront the related issues of “free” and “social networking.”

The younger readers the industry seeks to attract today — and is failing to do so — expects the content, the news product, to be free.

If the industry intends to charge what this important demographic now gets free, it must convince that part of its audience that the content has new, added value and can be delivered in a timely manner and through a means of the individual reader’s choosing.

That’s important. Social networking through the Facebooks and YouTubes of this world have woven a culture of pass-along and free content into the very demographic the news industry says it wants to claim as customers. This demographic, a continually changing 18- to 30-years-old constituency, has adopted information-seeking and -sharing habits that the journalism business has blithely ignored for quite some time. Simply having an online presence via a Web site is insufficient for this demographic.

The means of delivery of content has become almost as important to this younger and technologically obsessive demographic as the content itself. A new business model has to think beyond mere repurposing (medium-dependent revision) of content. It must provide content of sufficient value to this segment of the audience to encourage its members to accept paying for it and to want to demonstrably circulate more of it (along with attached advertising) to other readers or viewers.

All demographic segments of the audience, including this advertiser-prized one, want better stories and brain-dead easy ways to acquire and share them. That also means newspapers must confront blogging — whether to, how to, why, and definition of measures indicating effectiveness. Blogs are a principal means that the industry’s desired demographic obtains and shares news. Newspapers have yet to fully develop adept, adaptable and financially and journalistically productive approaches to their own blogging capacity.

• Newspaper companies must decide what to do with their print product.

Some newspapers have begun to abandon the print product — but by abandoning readers. They have withdrawn from widespread regional (and rural) circulation to core areas around large municipal centers. This, too, is a short-sighted means to cut expenses. An industry that abandons customers is extraordinarily misled by its managers.

But how does this relate to keeping or killing dead-tree newspapers? Responsible corporate leaders will seek to retain readers — the customers — and acquire new ones. If a decision is made to abandon the print paper for an online version only, then newspapers should lobby for a broadband version of the Rural Electrification Act of 1936. The means to reach more readers must accompany a decision to go-it-online. Broadband must have broad, affordable reach to encompass the whole of a society. News companies should lobby Congress for government-assisted and -encouraged broadband access throughout rural America.

It is unthinkable for an industry that has its origins in defending its readers as their adversary to government to abandon those readers just because their location is geographically problematic. The public service mission of journalism ought to rule here. An industry engaged in journalism can’t be allowed to leave people behind.

• If the new business model decrees abandoning the print newspaper, its online or multimedia replacement must retain the journalistic responsibility of being the “paper of record.”

The maxim that journalism is the first, rough draft of history grew from newspapers’ legal and cultural roles as “papers of record.”

Someone has to keep track of society’s daily significant occurrences. Someone has to keep track of government meetings, deliberations and actions. Someone has to maintain a daily police log, a record of court proceedings, real-estate filings and such. Someone has to publish required “legal notices.” Few bloggers will keep track of the endless budget meetings and other factors influencing local property tax increases.

That’s what journalism does. A paper of record manned by experienced journalists does these important tasks. A new business model must allow that role of “paper of record” to remain firmly in journalism’s hands.

• Under a new business model, journalism must reconnect with what it has lost through more than a decade of slashing newsroom jobs. It must revitalize local reporting.

Read your local paper (or view its Web site). What’s not there that was a decade ago, two decades ago? Do you miss it? As newspapers have slashed reporting and support staffs, the ability to cover local news as competently and completely as in the past has diminished significantly.

Only the easier stories remain — the accidents, the fires, the crimes, the interesting government meetings versus the boring but complex, important ones. And sports. Has sports become the largest section of your local paper? Twenty years ago, it probably wasn’t.

News companies must find a way to reconnect with local issues, local concerns, local interests. They ought to do this in self-interest: Well-done local news breeds local advertising dollars.

Journalism is controlled by corporations whose principal motivation today is certainly not journalism as a public service but some truncated form of journalism that maximizes short-term profit.

It’s important to differentiate between journalism and the news business. Journalism represents an activity inherent in a functioning democracy that acts as a watchdog, that defends readers (and viewers and listeners), and that holds governments and corporations accountable for their actions. (Journalism even ought to entertain!) That’s the trade-off for protection against government interference provided by the First Amendment.

For journalism to retain its important democratic role, it needs a home. Ironically, that home must be a better-functioning and profitable news industry.

• • •

Understanding how the media industry works and why it works that way is a principal reason Scholars and Rogues was founded. Much of our dialogue here centers on the role of the media in social, economic, political and cultural transformation.

S&R invites commenters into this critical conversation about how the media industry ought to be shaped, why that must happen effectively and what consequences may occur if it does not. Please let us know what you think.

Comcast’s spokespersons admitted it paid people to do the same for a hearing on the company’s actions regarding its interference with peer-to-peer file-sharing services such as BitTorrent. The placeholders not only held spots in line, but also crowded into the hearing itself, preventing more than 100 attendees — many of whom had come to speak against Comcast — from getting inside.

This is, quite simply put, one of the lowest things I’ve ever seen. Was Comcast so unsure of its position that it had to stack the deck by paying homeless guys and gofers to fill up seats and cheer on command?

SaveTheInternet.com has a video up of the whole sordid affair:

Click here to view the embedded video.

It’s a very old-school action from what is absolutely an old-school company. Comcast and those like them are brick-and-mortar monopolists who are trying to take control of the Internet for their own profit. How can you expect them to play fair and freely with content that passes through their “pipes,” when they are willing to cheat at something as elemental as the right of public assembly and discourse?

I’m sure Sam will point out how utterly stupid Comcast was to try a tactic like this, not realizing they’d get caught–as if they couldn’t conceive their opposition would have access to resources that could dig this story up and get it on the front pages, where it belongs. Again, a very old-school attitude from an old-school company.

Companies like Comcast need to learn and be reminded in no uncertain terms that the Internet does not belong to them. It’s a public utility, built with tax dollars for the public good, and to establish free flow of communication among the public. If we don’t hold them accountable, the Internet of the future will operate very much like Comcast did at this FCC hearing–the people who pay will get the best seats in the house.

Of course, the company hasn’t actually come out and said it so plainly, any more than they’ll admit they cancel customer accounts for hitting undisclosed bandwith caps. Instead, as Mike Masnick notes, they’re using “weasel language” that implies their intent without being so precise as to be caught.

Let’s compare and contrast. From Comcast’s terms of service, Section III, “Network Management And Consumption:”

How does Comcast manage its network?

Comcast uses various tools and techniques to manage its network, deliver the Service, and ensure compliance with this Policy and the Subscriber Agreement. These tools and techniques are dynamic, like the network and its usage, and can and do change frequently. For example, these network management activities may include (i) identifying spam and preventing its delivery to customer e-mail accounts, (ii) detecting malicious Internet traffic and preventing the distribution of viruses or other harmful code or content, (iii) temporarily delaying peer-to-peer sessions (or sessions using other applications or protocols) during periods of high network congestion, (iv) limiting the number of peer-to-peer sessions during periods of high network congestion, and (v) using other tools and techniques that Comcast may be required to implement in order to meet its goal of delivering the best possible broadband Internet experience to all of its customers.

From Comcast’s selection of high-speed Internet packages:

Get on the fast track…fast! With Comcast High-Speed Internet, you’ll enjoy the most amazing online experience. Powered by Comcast’s advanced fiber-optic network, you’ll love the thrill of blazing-fast speeds. Speeds way faster than DSL from the phone company! * And with Comcast’s innovative PowerBoost® technology, activities like downloading videos, movies, music and games or uploading photos go even faster.

One of these things is not like the others.
For Comcast to come out and say that their network may be something less than “blazing fast” is the kiss of marketing death, but at the same time, in the wake of their impending FCC investigation, they have to give themselves at least some legalistic CYA to ensure they can’t be held accountable by angry customers, consumer activists, or Capitol Hill. Thus this song-and-dance. As Andy Patrizio and Masnick have noted, the “reasonable network management” phrase is the same language used by the FCC itself, a clear signal that the company is trying to appease Kevin Martin in his never-ending war on cable.

I recommend reading Free Press’ Marvin Ammori’s awesome analysis of this seemingly innocuous change, in which he deconstructs their legalese down to the essence–that they are too cheap to build out a more advanced network to handle the demands their customer base is placing on it (which happens when you’re an essential monopoly in many regions), so they’re instead throttling their customers’ Internet access and calling that “reasonable network management.”

Enjoy that blazing-fast 3mbps speed!

On this issue, as with many others (such as their opposition to net neutrality), the two giants of the telecom industry have been largely buddy-buddy. Both of them stand to lose millions in damages from lawsuits brought against them for their actions, before even getting into the bad publicity the case has already caused. It’s easy to forget that these two companies are (at least in a technical sense) competitors, and don’t always pursue the same goals in the same way.

Case in point:

I’ve written recently about AT&T’s desire to filter Internet traffic for illegal or copyrighted content, and how this may dovetail with the Bush regime’s plans to spy on the Internet in greater detail. Yesterday, Verizon’s Tom Tauke told the New York Times‘ Saul Hansell that his company, essentially, would not be getting down like that:

He said the company’s view combines a concern for the privacy of its customers with self interest. It may be costly for it to get into the business of policing the traffic on its network. Indeed, phone companies have largely spent a century trying not to be liable for what people say over their lines. “We generally are reluctant to get into the business of examining content that flows across our networks and taking some action as a result of that content,” he said.

This is probably the closest any Verizon rep will ever get to admitting that discriminating in favor of or against Internet content is a bad idea, and that companies who build and host the “pipes” shouldn’t worry about what travels through them. Now, as Matt Browner-Hamlin astutely notes, Verizon didn’t start suddenly giving a damn about customer privacy, as much as they don’t want to be on the hook for enabling copyright violations, in addition to their potential liabilities from illegal spying lawsuits. That’s a lot of dough, even for a company with as much cash in the bank as Verizon.

Verizon also has less to worry about in terms of a bandwith crunch that might lead to content filtering and bandwith metering solutions toyed with by AT&T, Time Warner Cable, and Comcast. Verizon’s high-powered FiOS service is built on a direct fiber cable to the home (FTTH for short), whereas AT&T’s competing high-speed service, U-Verse, relies on traditional telephone copper wires for the “last mile” connection to subscribers. Verizon, so far, has been winning the all-important connection speed battle, as well as many more overall customers than U-Verse.

But a buildout of this magnitude costs money, and even with Verizon’s deliberate targeting of FiOS to wealthy suburban communities (redlining lower-income and multi-dwelling units) and massive phone rate increases, it’s still going to take a decent chunk out of Verizon’s stock price to make FiOS profitable. This is actually one reason for the corporation’s initial support of tiered pricing for Internet service and content favoring–they wanted to gouge money from content providers in order to subsidize their buildouts.

And having to play Internet traffic cop, with all the liabilities that may bring, could potentially cost Verizon more than it can handle. Better to continue playing the “dumb pipe” and let the money roll in. This, then, begs the question–why is AT&T pushing forward with its plans when Verizon is not? Is AT&T getting preferential treatment or subsidization from the government if it offers itself up as a content policeman for Hollywood and Washington both?

I don’t have an answer to that. But this is one of the many issues that consumers and activists need to keep an eye on relating to these two companies, both of whom are intimately intertwined with the activities of our government at the highest levels, even as they’re waging a quiet, unseen war for control over the hearts and minds–and wallets and bandwith–of America’s communications.

This leads me to the excellent paper authored by Sascha Meinrath on how the concept of net neutrality needs to be incorporated and expanded into a larger vision of Internet freedom.

Meinrath’s paper (available as a free download, and which I found via the indispensable Natasha Chart) studies the landscape of America’s decrepit and costly broadband offerings in exhaustive detail. He hits all the right marks–the $750 million buildout of “dark fiber” connections that go largely unused, the billions in subsidies given to major telecom companies with no discernible return for the taxpayer, and the current efforts of both telecoms, government, and media companies to restrict, choke, and narrow access to information in order to preserve both their business models and their primacy of content providing.

As Meinrath notes:

From the reemergence of telecommunications giant AT&T to current efforts by FCC Chairman Kevin Martin to re-open media ownership proceedings, fewer players are gaining massive market share, creating increasingly vertically and horizontally integrated corporations with the potential to dominate entire market sectors (Kushnick, 1999; McChesney, 1999). The current Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regulatory environment fails to spur technological innovation and has retarded expansion of digital inclusion efforts (Cooper, 2004). Instead, the FCC has fostered a decades-long market environment fraught with pricing and geographical discrimination as well as overpriced, substandard telecommunications services (Slotten, 2000)…

Meinrath’s solution is a ten-point plan that recasts the Internet as a global public utility rather than a private enterprise commodity. I’ll translate his points for the tech-phobic among you:

1. Requires Common Carriage. (Every market player has access to the Internet, from public networks to private companies)

2. Is Open Architecture and Supports Open Source Driver Development. (You can use any hardware you want…)

3. Is Open Protocol and Open Standard. (…and any software you want.)

4. Supports an End-to-End Architecture (i.e., is based upon a “dumb network”). (Prevents governmental and corporate attempts to block or prioritize traffic.)

5. Is Private (e.g., no back doors, deep packet inspection, etc.). (No spying allowed!)

6. Is Application-Neutral. (See #2 and #3.)

7. Is Low-Latency and First-In/First-Out (i.e., requires adequate capacity). (Requires carriers to eschew “artificial scarcity” by using all the cables and connections they buy for at least basic access.)

8. Is Interoperable. (Works effectively across the nation and the world.)

9. Is Business Model Neutral. (Enables both public-sector and private-sector innovation.)

10. Is Run by its Users (i.e., is internationally representative and non-Amerocentric). (Self-explanatory.)

Meinrath’s plan doesn’t have all the answers, but he does a marvelous job of providing context and a larger vision for how we can not only rebuild America’s position as a true technological and social innovator in the realm of the Internet, but how this can be expanded into a truly globe-spanning connective system that’s “neutral, democratic, and efficient.” Highly recommended.

And if you’re so inclined, you can go back and read my principles for America’s Internet future, which addresses a lot of similar points, and a few Meinrath doesn’t. Just sayin’.

CNet’s Declan McCullagh and Anne Broache sent 10 technology-oriented questions to the candidates, discussing net neutrality, Internet taxation, REAL ID, wiretapping, and other issues, and CNet has published the answers as part of their Technology Voter’s Guide. After the jump, we’ll take a closer look at who answered (and who didn’t), and what they said.

So far, the guide has answers from Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Ron Paul and John McCain, with John Edwards and Chris Dodd’s answers still to come. It’s worth noting that none of the frontrunner Republican candidates answered this questionnaire–not Romney, Giuliani, or Huckabee. On the Dem side, Neither Biden nor Richardson have a realistic chance of winning the nomination at this point, nor have either of them made technology innovation a primary focus of their campaigns, so their failing to answer is understandable, if regrettable. (Note that CNet apparently didn’t bother to include Dennis Kucinich or Mike Gravel.)

I urge everyone interested to read each questionnaire in depth, but here’re brief summaries:

John McCain favors a very hands-off, pro-market approach to technology issues. He opposes net neutrality laws and government actions to increase broadband development. He claims to oppose illegal wiretapping, but defers the question of retroactive immunity for telecom companies to following the “process” of investigating what they did. He supports REAL ID, opposes Internet taxation, is a strong proponent of greater regulation of social networking sites against sexual predators, and would favor expansion of H1-B visas for skilled immigrants according to “market conditions.”

Ron Paul, as you might expect, is pretty much anti-everything that would increase government activity with regard to technology. He’s against net neutrality legislation, and opposes REAL ID, warrantless wiretapping, regulation of social networking sites, governmental retention of data records from ISPs, and supports a permanent Internet tax ban and expansion of the H1-B program.

Hillary Clinton sees a much more central role for government in spurring broadband development and adoption, including offering tax incentives for building new connections in rural areas and improving the FCC’s data collection efforts on broadband penetration. She evinces strong support for net neutrality, tends to favor stronger laws against copyright infringement and tracking sex offenders, and supports expanding the H1-B visa program and extending the moratorium on Internet taxation.

Barack Obama supports full broadband availability for all Americans, and wants reformation of the Universal Service Fund as well as tax incentives and grants in order to spur development and ensure the money is spent right. In his words, he will “take a backseat to no one in his support of net neutrality,” and opposes warrantless wiretapping and retroactive immunity, as well as REAL ID. Obama advocates a stronger look at privacy policies and legislation for companies that trade in the sharing of information, prefers shifting a focus towards funding law enforcement over targeting social networking sites for sex offenders, and wants America to turn out more skilled workers with IT abilities (especially among minorities) in order to compete with H1-B holders.

As a thumbnail analysis, all of the candidates have responded in manners consistent with their positions, even if their positions aren’t always consistent.

McCain’s “hands off” attitude toward the Internet seems grounded in his very cushy relationship with certain telecom lobbyists, and is at odds with his “Protect the children!” attitude about social networking sites and willingness to support governmental intrusions into American lives in the name of “security.”

Paul’s answers are consistent with his Libertarian leanings–if it’s from the government, he wants it gone. I respect his cohesive policy framework, even if his attitude about net neutrality and broadband development is dead wrong.

Clinton’s answers are a frustrating mix of progressive innovation and regressive corporatism to me. While I think she’s on point with providing incentives towards broadband development, her support of expanding the H1-B visa program strikes a sour note when you consider how many American IT professionals are out of work, having been outsourced or replaced by foreign nationals working at lower pay.

Obama’s answers are the most forward-thinking for me, especially when he makes a point of addressing how our education system is not only failing minorities in general, but specifically in technology and tech-related areas, and that we can’t rely on foreign workers to fill that gap forever. And to this date, no candidate has eclipsed him on the net neutrality issue that I can see.

Overall, I’m unsurprised at these answers, but glad to have them in concrete to refer to for the future. I’ll publish a follow-up post next week once Edwards’ and Dodd’s positions are live. This is a welcome and necessary look at how our potential leaders have (or don’t have) a handle on some extremely relevant issues of technology that affect us all.

Emerging markets represent the next frontier for broadband, with some analysts estimating that nearly one-fifth of the world’s population will have broadband access of some kind by the end of 2008. Think about that. Nearly one in every six people across the entire planet will be able to use the Internet far more richly than dial-up could ever allow. That’s immeasurable potential for creating, consuming, and contributing content.

Meanwhile, fully half of America’s citizens do not have any broadband access. As Benton Foundation head Charles Benton noted, the deadline set by President Bush to achieve nationwide broadband availability for all Americans has long since passed, with little to show for it. Quoth Benton:

“Claiming that our nation’s broadband deployment is on track when millions are disconnected and America is falling further behind is a little like standing on a flight deck and claiming ‘mission accomplished.’ The facts just don’t support it.”

As I detailed in my statement of principles for America’s broadband future,  low-income and middle-income Americans are being deprived of the chance to partake in that glorious engine of creation and commerce that is the Internet. Imagine all the jobs, ideas, and participation we’re losing–all the art, creation, and vision that isn’t happening because thousands of families and communities are stuck with snail-paced Internet access.  Hell, even if it’s just to look at porn and silly Web comics, people should still have the option to choose broadband, and not be denied it by default.

The front-runner Democratic candidates have all correctly tied lack ofbroadband access to America’s failing leadership in innovation, and have put forth policies to address this to one level or another. (Here’re statements from Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and John Edwards–Obama has the clearest and most detailed policy platform on this issue that I can see.) This is probably too wonky a topic to make it into the forefront of a debate, but then again, who would have thought the issue of net neutrality would have been such a front-burner issue?

Americans recognize that we’re lagging behind in our broadband access, and we want change. Countries like Taiwan are making it happen, and we can adopt their successes to the unique challenges America faces in order to give everyone the chance to make full use of the Internet, and share their innovations and ideas with the world.

Simply put, we can’t afford not to.

It’s been fairly widely known that this was a goal of current FCC chair Kevin Martin for some time–a corporatist who has been generally laissez-faire towards every aspect of consolidation of media (except for the cable industry), Martin never met a merger or buyout he didn’t like. What was not widely known, but should come as no surprise, is that the FCC vote had the full support of the Bush regime. From my article:

Martin, however, has the backing of the White House to pursue the media consolidation changes. Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez wrote Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid warning him that the Bush administration would fight any “attempt to delay or overturn these revised rules by legislative means.” Martin, a former Bush campaign operative whose wife Cathie has worked for both Bush and Vice-President Dick Cheney, has aggressively pursued a conservative, free-market agenda since succeeding Michael Powell to become FCC chair in 2005.

Gutierrez wouldn’t tip the White House’s hand like that unless he was sure this was a signal they wanted to send–that the Bush/Cheney brigade is firmly in favor of what purports to be a massive corporate welfare giveaway to big media companies:

To stop a merger in the top 20 markets under Martin’s scheme, the burden of proof would rest with those opposing the deal. They would have to show that the proposed combination didn’t meet these criteria. Outside the top 20 markets, the burden of proof would rest with a company’s lawyers, but the companies would control all the information and could make promises that would be almost impossible to enforce. Average citizens don’t have the resources to prove whether companies will increase news a little bit, and they would have a hard time accounting for claims of “financial distress. “

This naked power grab by the corporatist wing of the Bush administration even has many Republicans cringing–so much so that they have joined forces with Democrats to push legislation opposing the new rules until more study is made of their potential effects. In the House, Dave Reichert (no friend to the netroots or progressives) is joining Jay Inslee (who co-sponsored legislation to protect Internet radio) to block the new rules from taking effect. Twenty-five Senators wrote Martin imploring him to reconsider his decision, and it’s a rare day when you can see Ted “Tubes” Stevens and Russ Feingold agreeing on a damn thing. Byron Dorgan, another signer, has his own Senate bill pending that commands support from the odd couple of Barack Obama and Trent Lott.

Let’s pause a moment to consider this. When Trent Lott and Ted Stevens are opposing your plan, you may want to consider a reassessment. It’s also worth noting that the Senate letter was signed by all four Democrats running for President–Biden, Clinton, Dodd, and Obama–indicating that this is an issue that’s not going to fade in the primary battles.

Kevin Martin has used every Christmas since his appointment to run through decisions that would benefit big corporations at the public expense–last year was the megamerger of AT&T and BellSouth, and this year it’s the consolidation rule. He, like Bush, knows he has limited time left in his role before a new administration takes over, and wants to ensure as many giveaways as he can before he’s booted.

But the public interest and the need for free, diverse, and competitive information flow should not be held hostage to the political whims of a guy like Martin. The Internet is a viable alternative to typical news outlets, but it shouldn’t be the only alternative–and keep in mind, the same corporate titans who want control of television and newspapers break bread with those who want control of the Web. A diverse, powerful, and competitive local media is essential to an informed, aware, and active populace–and if you believe that “all politics is local,” you need that for real change to ever take place.

Sign the petition to support Congress’ efforts to protect diverse local media, and deliver a nice lump of coal to the stockings of Bush, Cheney, and Martin this holiday season. Then tell your friends!

First came the announcement that Google’s much-heralded online storage service, GDrive, is lurching towards a launch. This isn’t really as big a deal as it may seem–as the Ars Technica article notes, Microsoft, Apple, and AOL already have online storage services–but Google will undoubtedly trump those offerings through sheer size and interconnectedness with other apps like Docs, Picasa, etc. For those who support the concept of the Internet as auxiliary brain, GDrive will no doubt be manna from heaven to those who want complete open access to their work from any platform.

Of course, putting the entire contents of your hard drive online using Google could mean that you’re essentially giving Google free license to use your work as it sees fit, but thanks in no small part to the efforts of people like my fellow scholarly rogue Brian, Google has clarified that it will not try to pwnz0r documents or files you upload to its services. Still, I don’t plan to use GDrive any time in the near future–I like my brain nice and offline, thanks muchly.

Even more interesting is Verizon Wireless’ announcement that starting in 2008, it will open its wireless network to all devices and software that meet its technical standards. Given that Verizon has staunchly favored the “walled garden” approach and has been a devout foe of net neutrality and wireless interoperability, this is a road-to-Damascus moment that puts even Mark Halperin’s mea culpa to shame (so to speak).

The big unknown here is the “technical standards” Verizon will be putting forth. How open will those standards truly be? What kind of hitches and “gotchas” will be in there? It’s definitely going to require a fine-tooth comb to go over Verizon’s proposals and make sure they’re being truthful–after all, this is the company that claimed it offered “unlimited wireless broadband” that was anything but unlimited.

Still, this is a huge step forward and a big gauntlet toss at the other carriers. Will AT&T finally unlock the iPhone in response? Will phones be made that can work on both GSM and CDMA carriers? These are all questions that can be legitimately asked now, and will be demanding answers–that’s how big this move is.

It’s truly a strange day when one of the hoariest of the old communication titans upstages the new king of the hill, and I can’t wait to see what happens next.

But yesterday Obama sharpened his attempt to secure support in the geek tech crowd with an ambitious proposal outlining his presidential technology policy.

The proposal begins by reaffirming Obama’s support for net neutrality, using some particularly strong language that condemns the telecom duopoly and our overall sad state of American broadband development:

Because most Americans only have a choice of only one or two broadband carriers, carriers are tempted to impose a toll charge on content and services, discriminating against websites that are unwilling to pay for equal treatment. This could create a two-tier Internet in which websites with the best relationships with network providers can get the fastest access to consumers, while all competing websites remain in a slower lane. Such a result would threaten innovation, the open tradition and architecture of the Internet, and competition among content and backbone providers. It would also threaten the equality of speech through which the Internet has begun to transform American political and cultural discourse.

Nice stuff–the kind of thing you’d expect myself or Matt Stoller to say. Of particular interest to me as well was the section discussing how technology can endanger privacy and what Obama plans to do to address that:

• To ensure that powerful databases containing information on Americans that are necessary tools in the fight against terrorism are not misused for other purposes, Barack Obama supports restrictions on how information may be used and technology safeguards to verify how the information has actually been used.

• Obama supports updating surveillance laws and ensuring that law enforcement investigations andintelligence-gathering relating to U.S. citizens are done only under the rule of law.
• Obama will also work to provide robust protection against misuses of particularly sensitive kinds of information, such as e-health records and location data that do not fit comfortably within sector-specific privacy laws.
• Obama will increase the Federal Trade Commission’s enforcement budget and will step up international cooperation to track down cyber-criminals so that U.S. law enforcement can better prevent and punish spam, spyware, telemarketing and phishing intrusions into the privacy of American homes and computers.

I’d like to see the Obama campaign directly address the fact that government agencies are turning to corporate partners to act as proxies in developing “data shadows” that contain comprehensive profiles on people. While safeguards and restrictions are nice, Obama should be confronting the question of why these vast treasure troves exist in the first place–and why big business is so keen to turn it over to big government at the first opportunity. Still, it’s a good start.

Probably the most ambitious part of the proposal is Obama’s push for a much more transparent government, where the public would not only have the opportunity to view rulemaking and legislation, but actively participate in the process through usage of the Internet to foster communication and “knowledge transfer.” Obama also puts forth the idea to appoint a nationwide Chief Technology Officer, which makes sense to me–too much of our technological development, particularly in the area of Internet and broadband creation, is spread out among too many agencies, with too many conflicting rules and jurisdictional struggles.

There’s a lot more in the proposal, and I urge you to give it a read. Ars Technica’s Jon Stokes’ review notes that much of the open government policy may not make it past the realities of backroom-deal politicking, and that anti-government libertarians may have a collective shit fit at the amount of government interest-and involvement-this sort of policy plan will require, as well as many areas in which Obama’s lofty rhetoric may not be supported by serious substance. On the other hand, Matt Stoller, who has been harshly critical of Obama in the past, is now much closer to becoming a believer thanks to this document.

As a tech geek myself, detailed policy positions on things like broadband development and the Internet future are to me what spinach is to Popeye, and it delights me to see one of the Big 3 Democrats addressing these issues so openly. At a time when the political discourse sinks ever lower and is dominated by hot-button issues like immigration, the need to discuss technology issues and advance new ideas has never been more important.

Not only that, advancing America’s technology can open up new cultural, social, and economic vistas for everyone–but only if they have the access. As I said in my broadband for America manifesto, the digital divide needs to be bridged if everyone is to take advantage of the potential the Internet offers. Obama has come through on challenging FCC chair Kevin Martin on his plans to relax rules against media consolidation, and has supported legislation demanding better data on broadband adoption, so he’s got some cred to back up the hype.

Obama isn’t breaking tremendous new ground here–as was noted during his press-the-flesh session at Google, much of what he proposes is already being done on the state level, and has been advanced by others before. But he’s actually developing a coherent framework for tech issues, building many good ideas into a cohesive whole–something he has NOT done until now. If he can meld the coherency of this idea with his overall manifesto of change–and back it up with strong answers to the tough questions, not to mention applying that coherency to other areas–he might make a believer out of me too.

As a practical matter, in circumstances involving classified intelligence activities, a corporation will typically not know enough about the underlying circumstances and operations to make informed judgments about legality. Moreover, for an initiative like the terrorist surveillance program — which the Office of Legal Counsel made clear was based on the Congressional authorization for the use of military force and the president’s war powers under the Constitution — a telephone company simply has no expertise in the relevant legal issues.

Simply put, this is horseshit of the first order.

As Google, Vonage and the city of Chicago can tell you, the major telecoms are stuffed full of well-paid lawyers of all stripes (many with former Hill experience) that will happily sue a problem into oblivion if they can’t buy it or break it. Don’t forget the case of William Barr, Verizon’s head legal counsel, friend to both Reagan and Bush 41, and hater of all things FISA-related. And Ashcroft is hardly the only litigator or pol to exchange public service for hefty paychecks as a lobbyist for telecom causes.

Put simply, if a layperson like myself with no–that’s NO–legal expertise beyond a college course in constitutional law can figure out that these programs were illegal, so too can these people. As the ACLU’s legislative director, Caroline Frederickson, said in a conference call today, the idea that they couldn’t figure this out is “preposterous.” “These guys know the law better than much of the government,” Frederickson said. “I don’t think this ’slipped past’ anyone.”

Harvey Grossman, legal director for the ACLU of Illinois, concurred, saying that the multiple lawsuits filed against the telecoms was a chance to explore these “very complex relationships” and gain a “full public exposition” of the shady web of influence that is spun between the major telecom companies and elements of the federal government.

Also participating in the conference call was Kevin Bankston, a senior attorney for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, another major plaintiff in the lawsuits against the government and the telecoms. Bankston made a point worth repeating and remembering: “These companies control the networks that enable access to our most private communications…if these lawsuits are blocked, that sends a message of approving unchecked executive power….that these companies can spy on you at will if the President says it’s okay.”

Ignorance of the law is no excuse, and that should hold particularly true if you’re a multibillion-dollar company with a legal department whose collective salaries probably outpace the GDP of your average Third World country. Don’t believe the hype.

So it seems like a welcome development that Federal Communications Commission chair Kevin Martin announced today that his agency would move quickly to end the practice of exclusive contracts with multi-dwelling units (MDUs), in order to promote lower cable prices and prevent cable services from being priced out of reach of low-income families:

“Exclusive contracts have been one of the most significant barriers to competition,” Kevin J. Martin, chairman of the commission, said in an interview. Cable prices have risen “about 93 percent in the last 10 years,” he said. “This is a way to introduce additional competition, which will result in lower prices and greater innovation.”

Sounds great, right? No one likes their cable company, after all, and being able to choose your own provider instead of being stuck with whatever mediocre offering your building cut a deal with seems to be a good bargain. But what’s the real motive behind Martin’s move?

As my ConsumerAffairs.Com colleague Truman Lewis reports, Martin’s decision is the latest in a long series of moves by his FCC to favor major telecom companies to the exclusion of cable incumbents. Martin aggressively shepherded the rollout of new video franchising rights for telecom companies that would enable them to bypass local governments and deal directly with states–a big help when you want your expensive new video services like FiOS or U-Verse to go directly to specific, rich neighborhoods and bypass lower-income areas. As Ars Technica’s Nate Anderson notes, winning the ability to wire new “triple play” services to MDUs would be a huge boon to telecom competitors–and a bust for their foes in the cable sector.

Martin has also been a fervent champion of “a la carte” packaging for cable programming, which would enable subscribers to only buy the channels they want. Again, this seems like a boon for the end-user, but it would also severely undercut cable companies’ ability to buy channel packages at a bulk discount when creating programming blocks–and would thus limit their offerings and drive away subscribers, which could only benefit cable’s new competition in the telecom industry.

Kevin Martin has been such a lopsidedly zealous supporter of telecom interests that he and the entire commission got dragged before Congress earlier this year and grilled for their lack of oversight and attention paid to consumer issues. Martin’s zealous support for the megamerger of AT&T and BellSouth also won him no friends in the consumer rights world, especially his implied threat that the FCC would not force AT&T to live up to its agreement to support net neutrality as part of the merger. During the discussion of the rules for the upcoming 700 mhz wireless auction, Kevin Martin claimed to support “open access” wholly and ended up endorsing a much more lukewarm set of rules that may end up favoring incumbents in the long run.

And if his recent rush to approve new rules enabling even more consolidation of media in regional markets are any indication, Martin appears to have learned little from his recent criticism. So I guess the moral of this particular story is “Take nothing at face value.” Kevin Martin may be making decisions that benefit consumers, but his eyes have always been on the prize of ensuring his favored allies in the telecom industry get the biggest slice of the pie.

Sounds like something you’d expect me to say, right? Or maybe Matt Stoller over at OpenLeft. But this memorable turn of phrase doesn’t belong to either of us, but to BusinessWeek’s Stephen Wildstrom, who wrote an editorial yesterday decrying the recent bad decisions of major telecom companies that decided they had the right to control the content their subscribers could access:

“A bit over a year ago, I wrote a column arguing that innovation on the Internet would be best served if the government mostly kept its hands off. I’ve changed my mind. The behavior of the top telecommunications companies, especially Verizon Communications (VZ) and AT&T (T), has convinced me that more government involvement is needed to keep communications free of corporate interference,” wrote Wildstrom. Now, remember, this ain’t Mother Jones or The Nation we’re talking about here, but Business Week. For an avowedly pro-business corporatist magazine like this to even publish such an editorial is a clear sign of how strongly the tide has turned in favor of those who support net neutrality rights. And the best part is that we have the stupidity of big communications companies to thank for it.

Last month, CNet columnist and avowed libertarian Declan McCullagh loudly proclaimed that net neutrality was dead, claiming in part that there were no smoking guns to prove that corporations could and were willing to block content from subscribers. Although AT&T had already been caught censoring Pearl Jam singer Eddie Vedder from making anti-Bush remarks in a Webcast, this apparently wasn’t enough for the free market uber alles set to accept that the possibility of content favoritism could exist.

But then Verizon Wireless tried to block NARAL from sending text message alerts to supporters. And AT&T instituted new terms of service that enabled them to cancel your subscription if you criticized them. And then Comcast got caught actively interfering with users who shared content via BitTorrent, and shot itself in the foot with its non-denial denials.

The typical response from the libertarian set is that consumers unhappy with a service can take their business elsewhere. In a perfect world, that would be absolutely correct. But in the duopolist incumbency that is America’s modern broadband business, many regions of the country have one choice for Internet service, two at the most. And as a commenter at the Technology Liberation Front memorably puts it, Comcast competitors AT&T and Verizon “are two of the same companies that have been accused of participating in the warrantless wiretapping program. So my choice is a company that throttles my bandwidth without telling me or a couple of companies that hand my data off to the government without telling me. I guess that still qualifies as competition, but it’s not much.”

Exactly. What kind of a playing field is it for consumers when they’re forced to choose between giving their business to a company that actively discriminates against legal usage of the service, and companies that have participated in widespread violation of their rights? Why should we be forced to compromise our ethics for companies that clearly have none?

The answer is that we shouldn’t have to. More robust competition that serves the entire country, and not just rich urban and exurban areas, will go a long way towards giving consumers more options for their communications services. And laws that codify the right of all users to access all content equally, without fear of censorship or interference, will help protect the wonderful space of innovation that the Internet has become.