Call Congress


Comments (Archived):

  1. jason wright

    I thought your Congress was as equally corrupt. aren’t they all suckling on the nipple of corporations and their lobbyists? what therefore would be the point of calling?Jeremy Corbyn has said that Parliament is a road block to reform and social and economic change. one has to swerve around these institutions and not go through them. the answer is in innovation. you more than most know that.

    1. JLM

      .Diogenes has run through a lot of candles trolling the halls of the US Congress.JLMwww.themusingsofthebigredca…

    2. Lawrence Brass

      In our times government and legislation are usually playing catch up with reality due to the speed of change.Contacting your “representative” is the only means voters have to express their interests between elections in a functional democracy. I think the most frequent failure of democratic systems is their failure to self heal from the damage caused by corruption. Corruption and degradation is a natural phenomenon, if self healing processes are not designed into governance systems, at the end they fail.Changes will come eventually, as the new generations take power. If it will be for better on worse will depend on the people wanting to participate in the process. I am concerned because as society grows more individualistic and maybe dumb-er, again you will have an elite in charge of the process and a great number of sceptics.We can do something meanwhile, we could crowd-source governance systems to test them and iterate towards useful versions. I have my candidate: a crypto-parliamentary system with persistent vote tokens that the voter can allocate or reallocate periodically.

  2. JamesHRH

    If today’s AVC UE is supposed to be a sample of dystopian non-NN future, I do not think you made the sale.Never happening,

  3. JLM

    .It is difficult to have much faith in a solution which falls at the feet of the Congress. It is folly to expect that this Congress is going to act in the requested manner. There have been more than half a dozen bills in the last decade — none of which have ever made it into the law books.Like any rigorous, intelligent discussion, there are powerful voices and first rate minds on both sides of the discussion.Guys like VC Marc Andreessen, Nicholas Negroponte (MIT Media Lab founder), VC Peter Thiel, and Nobel Prize winning economist Gary Becker are serious, thoughtful guys. They all oppose NN.Further, this is not a single point of contention. Much of what is supposedly at stake here is already solved by prior FCC Orders such as the FCC Order of 2010 which ensures many of the exact bones of contention which are being discussed.It is a short Order and worth reading.It is important to remember we are talking about a policy which has only existed since June 2015. Whatever has spurred the enormous and spectacular growth of the Internet did not occur under the NN rules.The action taken by the FCC in 2015 classified service providers as “common carriers” under Title II of the Communications Act of 1934 and Sec 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996.This put these service providers under the thumb of the FCC and subjected them to an enormously heightened level of regulation. It was all a power grab.All that is going to happen in two days is that the Internet will return to the same status in which the Internet blossomed. The same fertile environment which has grown the Internet since its founding by Al Gore.NN is a fanciful solution to a problem that does not exist.JLMwww.themusingsofthebigredca…

    1. Lawrence Brass

      I still think that my idea of net neutrality is not exactly your lawyer’s definition of it.The internet is a worldwide open network, preserving its public, open and neutral nature is as important and relevant as protecting the right of free speech.If you want names, Vinton Cerf and Tim Berners-Lee, both in favor of NN, is all that I need. They created the thing not some government lawyer.

      1. JLM

        .There is a letter out there signed by 43 Internet worthies. What is said in that letter is a fair, broad, and reasonable set of principles. It argues for NN. Tim Berners-Lee is a signatory to it.BTW, his co-founder is on the other side of the subject. Go figure.The issue is — How do you accomplish these worthy objectives?Under the prior FCC Chairman, the answer was to jam the Internet under a set of laws which classified it as a “common carrier.” This made the Internet a common carrier subject to heavy-handed government regulation and gov’t derived fees.[Can you point to any innovative endeavor which was aided by government regulation?]The current FCC Chairman thinks the rules which drove the Internet to its existing lofty perch are more than sufficient — when taken in concert with rules like the FCC Order of 2010 — to continue that growth.The NN rules were enacted in June 2015. So, they are not the source of the Internet’s success. These rules were hatched in the dark of night.I actually think there is huge agreement as to how the Internet should operate, innovate, and grow. Where we begin to diverge is whether we trust market forces or the government to shepherd that development.I trust the market. I trust capitalism. I trust the crowd. I trust competition. Those are the forces which have delivered the Internet. Why change horses?I do not trust regulation or the government.JLMwww.themusingsofthebigredca…

        1. Lawrence Brass

          I don’t support heavy handed regulation, I prefer clear and simple rules easy to understand, apply and enforce.At the time, net neutrality discussion was a reaction to bad practices by some ISPs such as throttling and capping and it was a discussion happening almost worldwide. Many countries legislated to protect consumers.Resulting regulation in each country is not the same but clearly point in the same direction.I wonder if Ajit Pai cares about aligning with the rest of the world on this or if he is just following the isolation path of his boss.[If your are pointing at DARPA.. touché.]I yet have to read that letter you mention, thanks for the pointer.

          1. JLM

            .I don’t see any Trump fingerprints on this issue. Ajit Pai was in the midst of the debate when this happened in 2015.There is nothing coming out of his mouth today which is different than he said during the Obama administration.It is pretty clear that the whole NN debate genesis is Eric Schmidt talking to Barack Obama.I think people are really overlooking the FCC Order of 2015 which actually codifies much of what people really want.Everybody wants the Internet to be spectacular. The question is — who can do it better? The government or the free market?JLMwww.themusingsofthebigredca…

        2. baba12

          I observe most of the writings and comments on AVC.Most of the time I just keep silent as it neither affects me personally and or does it make me a better person. AVC is a place where Mr.Wilson espouses his views on topics that that interest him.I am responding to JLM’s one line “I do not trust regulation or the government.”I am not sure if that is a fair statement in the sense that JLM doesn’t necessarily believe all of that statement to be true all of the time. If you dont trust regulation or the government then how do you accept the rules and laws that are there in your state and the country. If you believe that markets can do a better job of regulating and providing a framework of governance then Sir, I would suggest why not live in a country or area like The Sudan, Somalia, Chad etc where regulations and governments don’t seem to exist and it is ripe for “free” market thinkers to create wealth.I am sure when you say you dont trust regulations and government you are talking only in terms of how it affects a small part of your life.But in general if you are against it then I’d like to understand how in a democracy could we have the rules/regulations and governments we have after all I am sure none of these rules/regulations/governments are being created at gunpoint.

          1. JLM

            .There is a difference between accepting regulation (the caveats of the government) and “trusting” either the regulations themselves or the government which issues them.What does one “not trust?”In my case, it is the wisdom, fairness, the efficacy of the rules and the rule makers.I did not trust Pres Obama to tell us the truth, for which he gave us numerous examples. I do not trust Pres Trump to speak the truth for which I can also cite examples.I do not trust them. I do, however, support some of their policies. I am a policy guy.Of course, society requires an orderly set of rules for conduct. The Founding Fathers gave us a terrific road map to empower the individual and the government, but they also gave the citizens the ability to remove their government.They said, “When you don’t trust the guys running the show, replace them.”Skepticism and the questioning of authority are time honored rights of the American people enshrined in our founding documents.Even in small things, there is a certain prudence in questioning seemingly good ideas. Thirty years ago, I received a recommendation to have my gall bladder removed. I sought a second opinion. The second doctor said, “Wait on it.”I am happy to report that my gall bladder joins me in writing this comment. I was skeptical. I did not trust the advice of the first doctor. I did not storm the first doctor’s office. I harnessed my dis-trust, my skepticism and sought a second opinion. Voila!When one does not trust something that does not imply they oppose them. It means one approaches both the regulations and the government with a healthy dose of skepticism, prudence.In the examples you suggest, they are not “free markets.” There is no opportunity to create wealth as they are incredibly small little places.They are criminal markets, just as the Silk Road blockchain enterprise was a criminal market.Capitalism is based on the notion that individuals control the means of production, the allocation of resources, the pricing of products, and the manner in which they are made. Capitalism also mandates respect for property rights.On a very personal level, I was a professional soldier. I served my country and trusted the chain of command to conduct just wars. I obeyed their orders.In retrospect — as I studied the wars, got older, and saw the results including the cost in human capital — the period of my service was involved with one of the stupidest exercises of decisionmaking by Presidents of both parties.On that front, I admit to not trusting almost anyone on the subject of going to war.I love my country. I served my country. I do not trust my government.JLMwww.themusingsofthebigredca…

          2. baba12

            Mark Twain said “Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it.” In your examples of skepticism and decision making, it is good that getting a second opinion helped save your gall bladder, though if after heeding to that advice the outcome wasn’t positive then you may have a different view and or thereafter your skepticism may have taken a different road, as they say 20/20 is hindsight.As it pertains to government, you give examples of Presidents, they are not the government they are politicians and just like the doctors you mention some of them may not be what you expect out of them. Some Presidents have been great marshals of the country, some have been forward thinking and managed to present those ideas in a cogent coherent way and others have been outright crooks as well, but they all got elected by the rules we have accepted to live by.Capitalism as you explain it isn’t the way it is practiced.Sure (individuals control the means of production, allocation of resources, the manner in which they are made and markets decide pricing of products) but when individuals decide that to maximize profit they can and do cheat/deceive and chicanery then all bets are off and as you state you can’t trust capitalism to do the right thing. One can show time and again how for the sake of maximizing profit individuals/corporations have destroyed many a human life and the planet in terms of environmental damage.Society generally comes last to making rules/regulations, generally after many people have been f’ed over, pillaged and looted then we finally wake up and say lets put some rules/regulations into place cuz enough is enough even then they are watered down to protect capitalist ideals. “Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me” Unfortunately we the people have been fooled many a time and we being like goldfish forget very easily and get skewered time and time again. What differentiates countries like the U.S. and say countries in Africa or Asia is rules and regulations tend to work for most people in the U.S. most of the time, in Africa and Asia they tend to work some of the time for some people.I always seem to go to the same place as it pertains to Rules/Regulations/Laws, if capitalism and individuals who profess that it works, forget that we don’t need any of them if they would be transparent and do the right thing. Unfortunately that isn’t and won’t be the case ever and therefore we need all these things. As for the constitution sure it is a good document to start with but it deserves to be living and as we get more knowledgeable we need to incorporate the new found knowledge to make it a fairer place.At the time of the forming of the country many things were not fair and the document reflects none of that so it should adapt and can be be shaped to be better in time. I am sure you will disagree on that but thats fine, Im not here debating right/wrong winner/looser this is a simple conversation.

          3. JLM

            .Most people who chatter about patriotism have never done anything to put any skin in the game. I say that to suggest that patriotism is not a spectator sport.As to gall bladders, the anecdote is something that really happened which colored my thinking. Had it turned out differently, I would have a different view of things. It did not.I will disagree as to Presidents not being the government. Presidents, as the chief executive and commander in chief, are the government. They appoint a Cabinet and senior appointees in their own likeness and image. They appoint boards, commissions, and Judges.They develop a set of initiatives and they use their bully pulpit and power to ram those through the Congress – if they can.Pres Obama did it with Ocare. Pres Trump is doing it with tax policy.There is no economic or political system which is going to make bad guys do good. It is like a social contract. No well drawn contract kept a scoundrel from violating it. No honest man needed a contract to inform him as to right v wrong.What I think differentiates the US from other nations is our independent judiciary. The guys who make the laws, the CEO who runs the country do not run the Courts.We still only have as much justice as you can afford, but that is more about the practice of law than the Courts.Capitalism is not a form of governance. It is an economic theory which varies in the purity of its application. Like any economic theory, its practice is only as good as its practitioners.The Constitution is a living document. It has been amended in accordance with its explicit language in Article V. There have been 33 attempts to amend the Constitution since 1789 and there have been 27 successful attempts.The Constitution requires a 2/3 majority in the House and Senate or a similar majority amongst the several states.The Founding Fathers took a long time to draft and ratify the Constitution. It took almost six years to turn the trick. Think about that. It is a fairly short document, but it had a lot of thought from the smartest men available.The notion of “fairness” is a pipe dream. It is a worthy aspiration, but life is not fair. The only fairness in life is the 24 hours per day which we are all allotted.The Founding Fathers were the intelligentsia, the property owners, the wealthy, the slave owners, the alpha males of their time.Still, they did a damn good job. The endurance and goodness of our Nation is the testament to the quality of their work.JLMwww.themusingsofthebigredca…

    2. Michael Elling

      Maybe you should add a thing or two about all the court cases that overturned the various FCC NN orders, as well as why it was introduced in the first place by a Republican Chairman. You’re also leaving out what everyone knows; namely that Pai’s Order will likely get overturned by said same courts; because what Mr. Wheeler did was the only possible solution after 2 prior attempts.I’m not defending him and have called NN a contrivance from the very beginning. The only solution to this mess is mandated interconnection as far out to the edge and bottom of the stack as possible and in return 2-sided or balanced settlements that provide the necessary price signals and value transfer for the internet ecosystems to be generative and sustainable. Of course both sides hate this outcome which is why it is so perfect. The current internet is busted, as is the vertically integrated edge access model.

      1. JLM

        .Mike, several times you have mentioned the term “Republican Chairman” as if this issue is a political issue which pits Republicans v Democrats. There hasn’t been a Republican Chairman since the Bush admin.The Internet of today and its issues are different with the passage of almost a decade.The fight is really the pipe owners v the content providers — shorthand. The poor customers are just standing on the sidelines waiting for the final verdict.I don’t see much in the way of politics involved.While there are those who whisper that Eric Schmidt caught the ear of Pres Obama (the guy has huge ears), I think it is just what it seems to be. Everybody is talking their own book, their own interest. It isn’t a national political issue.The guys pumping out the content want to control the guys with the pipes.In fact, the Internet itself and oddities such as the Amazon-Jet Blue deal show that the Internet is going to be just fine.JLMwww.themusingsofthebigredca…

        1. Michael Elling

          JLM you are wrong on every front. Please go read the history: equal access, Computers 1-3, AUP, TA96, Broadband Title 1, Brand X, BitTorrent cease and desist. And that’s just a prelude to 2010, which was thrown out by the courts (again) and landed in Mr. Wheeler’s lap. You started off by saying NN started with the latter (you used the term advent) and now you’ve backtracked and said it started in 2010. What is it? Neither actually.The problem is you’ve made 31 comments over the past 2 days, albeit not all about NN, and you come off sounding like a know it all. You don’t.For the past 25 years the competitive, free-market, side of the industry (the core) has been supported by the social democrats while the government granted monopoly side (the edge) has been supported by the conservative republicans. Ironic and true.Lastly, there you go again, talking about the people.

    3. PhilipSugar

      JLM do you know who has this plan? I do. I have a datacenter in Shanghai.China very much has this plan.If you think you are going to serve up the internet from SF and get any speed in China you are smoking crack. And it’s not because of the pipe, you can see them throttle it. We update datacenters in the middle of the night and we can see traffic from here getting throttled.So you pay China Telecom in Shanghai. Are your websites censored? Not really but if your response time is above 2 seconds 50% of people abandon.

  4. mplsvbhvr

    Called and contacted – too important to sit on the sidelines.