The Victorious Opposition

Carol Bartz, CEO of Yahoo, doing an interview with Mike Arrington, head of the TechCrunch blog:

This is clearly not one of those “oops, was that mike live?” moments…

Back in 2008 I wrote about the FCC’s smackdown of Comcast for its BitTorrent network management debacle. Last year I wrote about the broader issue of network management in a net neutrality world. Today Comcast won the first round against the FCC:

A federal appeals court on Tuesday dealt a sharp blow to the efforts of the Federal Communications Commission to set the rules of the road for the Internet, ruling that the agency lacks the authority to require broadband providers to give equal treatment to all Internet traffic flowing over their networks.

The decision, by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, specifically concerned the efforts of Comcast, the nation’s largest cable provider, to slow down customers’ access to a service called BitTorrent, which is used to exchange large video files, most often pirated copies of movies.

The ruling (PDF file) is narrow, but with broad implications. It doesn’t get into the issue of net neutrality at all. Rather, Comcast challenged whether or not the FCC had regulatory jurisdiction to control its network management policies. The FCC asserted that it did, even though the Communications Act doesn’t explicitly address this area - a fact the FCC acknowledged, relying instead on previous rulings about its power to regulate areas “ancillary” to its explicit authority. The Court ruled solely on this jurisdictional issue, finding the FCC’s argument unpersuasive. The money quote:

the Commission maintains that congressional policy by itself creates “statutorily mandated responsibilities” sufficient to support the exercise of section 4(i) ancillary authority. Not only is this argument flatly inconsistent with Southwestern Cable, Midwest Video I, Midwest Video II, and NARUC II, but if accepted it would virtually free the Commission from its congressional tether. As the Court explained in Midwest Video II, “without reference to the provisions of the Act” expressly granting regulatory authority, “the Commission’s [ancillary] jurisdiction ... would be unbounded.” 440 U.S. at 706. Indeed, Commission counsel told us at oral argument that just as the Order seeks to make Comcast’s Internet service more “rapid” and “efficient,” Order, 23 F.C.C.R. 13,036–37, ¶ 16, the Commission could someday subject Comcast’s Internet service to pervasive rate regulation to ensure that the company provides the service at “reasonable charges,” 47 U.S.C. § 151. Oral Arg. Tr. 58–59. Were we to accept that theory of ancillary authority, we see no reason why the Commission would have to stop there, for we can think of few examples of regulations that apply to Title II common carrier services, Title III broadcast services, or Title VI cable services that the Commission, relying on the broad policies articulated in section 230(b) and section 1, would be unable to impose upon Internet service providers. If in Midwest Video I the Commission “strain[ed] the outer limits of even the open-ended and pervasive jurisdiction that has evolved by decisions of the Commission and the courts,” 406 U.S. at 676 (Burger, C.J., concurring), and if in NARUC II and Midwest Video II it exceeded those limits, then here it seeks to shatter them entirely.

Of course, there are people quite up in arms about this:

Consumer advocates said the ruling, one of several that have challenged the F.C.C.’s regulatory reach, could also undermine all of the F.C.C.’s attempts to regulate Internet service providers and establish its authority over the Internet, including its recently released national broadband plan.

“This decision destroys the F.C.C.’s authority to build broadband policy on the legal theory established by the Bush Administration,” said Ben Scott, the policy director for Free Press, a nonprofit organization that advocates for broad media ownership and access.

TBH, I’m somewhat surprised that the FCC doesn’t have some discretion in this area, based on the 1996 update to the Communications Act, but it appears they don’t. The companies that the FCC regulates are borderline monopolies, based on network architecture issues that I discussed in my previous posts, and there is something to be said for such intervention (it’s hard to argue that what happened to AT&T 30 years ago was bad for the consumer). Although that’s really going away - you have telecomm-based fiber alternatives to cable in most if not all metropolitan areas (e.g. I have Cox Cable and Verizon FiOS fighting over my business every day). And wireless broadband is becoming a reality with Clearwire’s rollout of WiMAX (20-some-odd metropolitan areas so far) and the coming of LTE from Verizon and others, so there are some market forces in play now that weren’t there just a few years ago - which argues for continuing to go slow from a regulatory perspective.

Comcast really screwed up with their 2007 nonsense. I still completely agree with their need to manage their network, and their right to do so. But the way they did it was ham-handed and stupid. There are better solutions. The question is whether people will wake up to the complexities involved in running these networks enough to allow them to operate profitably, or if we’re going to continue to fall for the “Movies For Nothing and Pr0n For Free” mindset of much of the Internet Illuminati, who do not appear to have the slightest comprehension of what’s actually involved in running “teh InterWebs”.

Google search has an autocomplete/auto-suggest feature which proposes full search phrases as you start typing. These suggestions change over time, based on various proprietary algorithms. Right now, if you type “why” into the Google search box, you get the following suggestions:

• “why can’t I own a canadian” (which I believe is a reference to the Dr. Laura letter)
• “why is my poop green”
• “why did I get married too” (a question for the National Organization for Marriage, I would guess /snark)
• “why is the sky blue”
• “why do dogs eat poop”
• “why are people posting colors on facebook” (too much LSD?)
• “why do cats purr”
• “why did the chicken cross the road” (to get to the other side, duh)
• “why don’t we just dance lyrics”
• “whyy”

Are people really so taken with the Dr. Laura letter that this is the first completion for “why”? Weird stuff, huh?

This sort of thing has piqued interest in the blogosphere since someone discovered that Google autocomplete appeared to filter out searches for Pat Buchanan a while back (it doesn’t any more).

H/T: The Volokh Conspiracy

Res Ipsa Loquitur

H/T: Cato

Update: The original got deleted; the YouTube version screws up the aspect ratio, but you get the message anyhow.

Since we’ve had no income, as part of our controlling discretionary spending, all of our annual renewals for various charitable/political/whatever organizations had been stacking up on my desk. Now that mrs. dwex has a job (well, will in 2 weeks), I went through the stack to send in my annual donations. After doing five of them, on the sixth one, my credit card was declined. After verifying that I’d entered my credit card info correctly, I guessed that all of these identically-priced transactions in very rapid sequence had set off an alarm at the credit card company. So I called them up and went through their voice prompt system (credit card number, social security number, password, etc). They immediately launched into an inquiry requiring me to indicate whether I recognized a handful of transactions. I indicated that I did, they removed the hold, and then back to submitting contributions.

All without having to interact with a human being for any of it.

God, I love technology

BTW - most credit card companies allow you to choose a password to use in place of “mother’s maiden name”. If you haven’t done so, I suggest that you do it. I did this five years ago or so after someone social-engineered the credit card company into changing the billing and email address associated with my account (which I found after having my credit card declined for some purchase or another and called them to complain).

Unless you were living in a cave, you know about the incredibly important speech that happened yesterday - Steve Jobs launching the new Apple iPad tablet device. It’s pretty clear that no females work on Apple’s branding team, as MadTV explains:

It appears that at least part of the reason for the uptick in bombings in Baghdad may be due to the Iraqis having been sold a completely bogus explosive-detection device at $40,000 each - more than $80MM worth. Basically a dowsing rod for explosives. Watch this BBC video and be really, really angry.

If you ever doubt whether there are people sufficiently evil to warrant the death penalty, this should answer the question.

He’s been arrested for fraud, but is out on bail. I want to know why he wasn’t arrested for giving aid to terrorists, murder, conspiracy, etc.

H/T: TechCrunch

The latest from the Law of Unintended Consequences:

Cities around the country that have installed energy-efficient traffic lights are discovering a hazardous downside: The bulbs don’t burn hot enough to melt snow and can become crusted over in a storm — a problem blamed for dozens of accidents and at least one death.

To be honest, this is one of those things that’s obvious after someone points it out to you, but I don’t think I would have predicted this. Given the other maintenance advantages of LED bulbs, I would certainly have thought replacing bulbs with LEDs was a good idea, if the price is right (which I expect it probably is in bulk). The solution?

Short of some kind of technological fix, “as far as I’m aware, all that can be done is to have crews clean off the snow by hand,” said Green Bay, Wis., police Lt. Jim Runge. “It’s a bit labor-intensive.”

In St. Paul, Minn., for example, city crews use air compressors to blow snow and ice off blocked lights.

There go all your maintenance cost savings.

The ultimate solution is probably a combination bulb/lens with some sort of reflectivity sensor that turns on a heater in the lens under the right conditions. LEDs are so much sturdier and long-lasting that incandescent bulbs that going back isn’t really the right solution.

Anyhow, I thought this was interesting.

AT&T tried to sue Verizon for using their maps in these ads, but then backed off that (knowing they would lose), and came up with completely lame ads in response.

Then there’s the whole Droid vs. iPhone war going on.

As an Apple-hater, I love to see this stuff

I’ve written before about Google’s cavalier attitude towards data retention, and usages of your data, which often conflicts with their “Don’t Be Evil” semi-official corporate motto. There’s other stuff I’m aware of that I can’t write about because it was part of contract terms between Google and a former employer that add strength to my concerns about how much they believe their own message. Last week Eric Schmidt, Google CEO, in an interview with CNBC. said:

If you have something that you don’t want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn’t be doing it in the first place.

That’s a rather telling statement from someone whose company controls so much data and has policies on ownership and retention thereof that border on the egregious. In context, he’s making the point that data you put out there on the Internet can be subpoenaed, so you have to be aware of that:

If you really need that kind of privacy, the reality is that search engines - including Google - do retain this information for some time and it’s important, for example, that we are all subject in the United States to the Patriot Act and it is possible that all that information could be made available to the authorities.

But to phrase it the way he did is, at best, inept.

Especially since he doesn’t like it when the shoe is on the other foot:

The generous explanation for Schmidt’s statement is that he’s revolutionized his thinking since 2005, when he blacklisted CNET for publishing info about him gleaned from Google searches, including salary, neighborhood, hobbies and political donations.

Everyone loves Google for their anti-Microsoft stance, but people really need to understand more about how Google thinks and operates, because Google is becoming Microsoft 2.0.

N.B. The video of this part of the interview is at the linked site; I didn’t see a way to re-embed it.

“Manning up” has a recurring theme around here in the last couple of months. It’s now spilled over into the smartphone wars:

At least one techie blogger is annoyed:

What in the world can one make of the new ad for the Droid, the Motorola (MOT) smartphone with Google (GOOG) Android software on the Verizon Wireless (VZ) network, which apparently put out this commercial?

Here’s what: It aggressively calls the Apple (AAPL) iPhone a dumb blonde and then a prissy dude in need of a beatdown.

Let’s put it this way: The 30-second clip makes Glenn Beck look like Gloria Steinem and Ellen Degeneres combined!

Aw, lighten up, Francis…

The Denon AKDL1 Dedicated Link Cable:

Denon’s 1.5 meter (59 in.) proprietary ultra premium Denon Link cable was designed for the audio enthusiast.  Made from high purity copper wire and high performance connection parts, the AK-DL1 will bring out all the nuances in digital audio reproduction from any of our Denon DVD players with the Denon Link feature connected to a Denon Link enabled Denon A/V receiver.

The asking price?  $500 on Amazon.com.  Oh, and check out Amazon’s reviews section—it’s a comedic gold mine.  Some of my favorites will be posted after the break, and feel free to add the ones you like.

So before I get to the comedy, I want to ask the obvious question—who the hell would ever buy this?  I mean seriously, what kind of person would spend $500 on a 1.5-meter ethernet cable?  Look, I know better than most the importance of having components that work, and DJs are often willing to pay a premium for reliability.  After all, the whole show—and often your paycheck—relies on those signals working without fail.  But sometimes you can go too far, and I think they did in this case.  Anyhoo, on to the funny:

Yesterday, TechCrunch posted an article titled Facebook Now Lets You Fax Your Photos. I Have No Idea Why Anyone Would Want To Do This:

Wow, talk about a big day for Facebook. Hours after launching Facebook Lite, open-sourcing part of FriendFeed’s code, and launching @ tagging, the site has one more release in store for today: Fax This Photo, powered by efax.com. Now when you’re looking through photo albums, you’ll have the opportunity to send a photo you like to a friend’s fax machine. For price of $1.50 per photo. That’s one pricey fax.

They even tested it out - it really worked.

Except it turns out that the good folk at TechCrunch were completely and utterly punk’d by Facebook:

So we’ve had our fun with Facebook over the years (Why We’re Suing Facebook For $25 Million In Statutory Damages, Republican PR Director Calls Facebook’s Randi Zuckerberg “totally full of sh*t”, Randi Threatens a Bar Bouncer). But in general these things are supposed to flow one way – we mess with them, they take it gracefully.

Today that changed. They punk’d us, and we fell for it. Hard.

Read the article. It’s hilarious. The fact that Facebook actually implemented the fax send (i.e. it wasn’t just some web stuff) shows the lengths they went to. TechCrunch can sometimes be rather controversial as “journalists” (e.g. they published a range of highly sensitive documents that had been stolen from Twitter). That Facebook went this far is both disturbing and funny.

Many of you who know me, know I love me some cell phones. I have somewhat of a fascination with wireless technologies, in general, in part due to my formal product design education. However, aside from appreciating aesthetics, I have learned the the marriage of engineering is as important to design as is in the automobile industry. In the automobile industry, when you see something new and unique, it’s because the proportions underneath the car have been modified and reoriented underneath the beautiful skin designers work hard on outside of it. It really doesn’t work any other way (case in point, the Porsche Cayman). Once the engineers re-create and reorient the relationships of the inner workings of the car, suddenly, something new and unique visually can happen.

The same holds true for cell phones. Could this be the spark?

BASKING RIDGE, NJ — Verizon Wireless today completed its first successful Long Term Evolution (LTE) fourth generation (4G) data call in Boston based on the 3GPP Release 8 standard; the company also announced today that it had earlier completed the first LTE 4G data call based on the 3GPP Release 8 standard in Seattle. The successful data calls involved streaming video, file uploads and downloads, and Web browsing. Significantly, Verizon Wireless has successfully made data calls using Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) to enable voice transmissions over the LTE 4G network.

In collaboration with its network infrastructure providers, the wireless leader’s successful completion of the data calls over its 700 MHz spectrum in Boston and Seattle marks the next step in its deployment for building its LTE 4G wireless network, which is being built on the 3GPP Release 8 standard. In both locations, the data calls were executed on commercial infrastructure platforms.

This puts a new spin on what Verizon can offer me in the future. I have said that I wanted an Iphone on Verizon (and still do), but I am now thinking I might be missing the boat on what 4G has to offer. Speaking to Verizon about this technology, it appears that VZW will switch the platform of this back to a GSM platform (which seems to be winning in the GSM-CDMA battle). This opens up wide opportunities for both phones and content. For example, I would really like to get a phone from Japan, or Korea that offers OLEM screen display. Apple has really taken a backseat on technology, and if VZW fills the gap with this platform and phones, I am actually encouraged to stay.

It would be pretty rad to have a phone that is OLEM, and one that I can pretty much stream data to, on demand. I guess we’ll get our expert opinions on what this development means from dwex (our resident techie), but I, for one, see a little glimmer of hope for VZW taking a step toward new technology. What do you guys think?

Would it be premature to jump to At&T, if this is what the future holds?

This is vaguely disturbing:

Noonien Soong must be so proud.

From a report at CNet:

Organizers were billing the event as the first of its kind in the world, and I can’t recall another example of a humanoid robot showing off wedding apparel in a fashion show.

It also demonstrated how the Japanese continue to nurture a playful spirit in their approach to robotics. While other countries are building Terminator-style killing machines, Japan’s National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology (AIST) created 4C to work in the “entertainment industry.” Perhaps a dubious use of funds by a deeply indebted state, the project was announced with the admission that “(1) robots walking on two feet only have little commercial value, (2) the unit price is very high, and (3) if it falls, it may be seriously damaged.”

AIST acknowledges the annual market for humanoid machines is small, to the tune of $21 million. So why build this expensive toy bride? I think the best answer is that 4C, which communicates, looks and moves like a Japanese woman and overcomes the dreaded Uncanny Valley effect, is a worthwhile exploration of future human-robot relationships. Pundits including Daniel Levy have written about our future love affairs with robots, and 4C in her floral gown is a provocative harbinger of human-machine integration.

It’s pretty astonishing. I could never bring myself to spend the money on a Sony AIBO, but one of my coworkers got one, and it was one of the coolest things ever.

H/T: Silicon Alley Insider