Comments on: From Governor Dean Blog, news, books Tue, 10 Oct 2017 06:01:00 +0000 hourly 1 By: Jean Cerwonka Tue, 02 Sep 2008 20:30:55 +0000 This article is very informative. However I would like to know about wifimax. is it only for businesses or does it have other applications?

By: Anonymous Tue, 06 Apr 2004 18:34:43 +0000 I live in Oklahoma and have been begging my local cable company for years now to carry broad band internet access but since more people in my area do not want it, it is not cost affective for the cable company to carry it(in other words we will not make enough of a proffit).
I have access through my phone line and aol right now but it is costing me about $100 a month which i think really sucks.
I could get broad band access through Southwestern Bell but to do so i will have to had my phone account with them for at least a year in good standing and pay a $500 deposit for the equipment.Now I play alot of games over the internet and with
out broad band access they are not really much fun when some one comes along and kills me then tells me I should not even be on if I am only going to use a dial up connection which is all i am able to get right now even though I am more than willing to pay more than the $100 a month I am paying right now.
So in closing I guess what I am saying is that a fast and realliable internet access method should be established for everyone in the country no matter where they live or wither they are rich,middle class or poor and that it needs to be done as soon as possible.
It would help make us a more informed and better educated country in my oppion.
And to that guy that lives in Sweden and has 10 meg access with no upload/download restictions for only 22 a month over the phone lines no less, I would just like to say that i eveny you very much and would consider myself extreamly lucky if I was able to get a deal that even came close to yours.(the max connection speed i can get is 48k if i am lucky and some times i have to spend several hours just trying to get connected).

By: business card Sun, 08 Feb 2004 04:45:10 +0000 Dean needs to get on Conan O’Brien – fast

By: saidur r. badal Thu, 04 Dec 2003 16:43:47 +0000 Dear
I am interested to attend the confrence. please send me all
information in details. i am working in ngo in bangladesh.
thanks and best regards.
saidur r. badal

By: Doc Martian Mon, 17 Nov 2003 01:59:28 +0000 While questioning Howard Dean’s grassroots organization upon his financing… a series of people began to defame the memory of my brother… who passed away at Loma Linda University Medical Center in October 1984. Todd Garth Anderson was a strong and vital kid. He was a fount of humor and human love.

this link will disgust you with the soullessness of howard dean’s supporters as they attack the memory of a child victim of the godzilla of all brain tumors.
words like the words posted there on behalf of a political agenda should not go unavenged..

I personally think the best revenge is to spread the word. Dean’s staff are human filth. If you wish to write them however, please take into account that shortly after posting messages on Dean weblogs, people i believe to be Howard Dean’s goons have swerved their cars at me… attempted to physically intimidate me… and act like nazis in a variety of shocking methods of huey long style politics. Spread the word remains my advice, you have greater networks of communication as activists, students and humanists, then they have as corrupt thugs.

Kevin Anderson

howard dean! sucking israel’s bean! a sellout machine! building fences not dreams! brought to you by the same guys that shot yitzhak rabin! and his lovely zionist wife, dr. steinberg-dean! bought by sex, a second doctor’s income and ice cream. howard dean!

By: Suzanne Kiefer Sun, 14 Sep 2003 14:25:06 +0000 Dear Governor,
I am a seasoned teacher in Florida. 2004 is when my campaign for Superintendent of Marion County School System ends. My friend said you have collected more money via the internet than all the other candidates.
Our regulations state; we must have name, address, check number. How do you electronically accomplish that for reporting purposes?
Paypal? My students told me about this company. I would be greatful to hear from your people on how this was set up.
Thank you,
Suzanne Kiefer
Art Educator

By: Rob Froelich Mon, 04 Aug 2003 15:11:40 +0000 Governor Dean,

Back in the late ’90s many of us were excited about the prospects of the Telecom Act of ’96. We were sorely disappointed when we saw it get slowly gutted through little or no enforcement and that no on in congress or the white house had the guts to take on the ILECs and re-examine this issue. I’ll shorten my comments by referring you the Bruce Watson’s comments above, in my opinion he’s right on target.

I could go on at considerable length on the topic of bridging the digital divide, and competition in telecom, but I won’t here. Instead I’ll give one small piece of advice, to you Mr. Dean. If you want a prosperous America, do what government ought to do for telecom, allow innovation, and break down anti-competitive barriers that enrich the owners of old technology at the expense of entrepeneurs and community activists that want something better for their community. If you want a concrete example of what I’m talking about, you need to get to know Annie Collins in Batavia, IL. She’s the head of the group Fiber for our Future that supports a community broadband network in her area. They were defeated last april in a referendum by big spending, and despicable, deceptive marketing by Comcast and SBC.

I believe that Americans are among the most creative and hardy people in the world. We will find a way to ensure that everyone can benefit from the advancements made possible by the Internet. Americans will make it happen, we need a government that will stay out of the way, and take prudent steps to ensure that local monopolies are not allowed to crush innovation and competition before it has a chance to flourish.

Best wishes,
Rob Froelich

By: Sean Wed, 23 Jul 2003 14:53:52 +0000 It strikes me that if you want uniform coverage for the internet, it may be prudent to treat it like a new freeway system. Something that is payed for by all for the benefit of all.


By: Mike Gillis Wed, 23 Jul 2003 05:17:42 +0000 You probably aren’t even getting these comments anymore, so I’ll keep this fairly short, just in case I’m completely wasting my time. But, I would just like to say that I really would like you to become President.
It really looks like it’ll be pretty hard to do it in ’04. The Internet is an amazing tool, and it’s absolutely wonderful, thrilling, and cool to see it being used — and used well — by a Presidential candidate, and the resulting masses of people being introduced to all the neat things that some of us have been lucky to know about for a couple of years now.
I’d vote for you, hands down, but I’m a Canadian university student, and so it would be rather difficult. I wish we had a better candidate for our next election.
Thanks for revolutionizing the process.

By: MMartin Tue, 22 Jul 2003 13:12:37 +0000 I am no expert in this area – but would love some input from those of you who are… what ever happened to the notion that we could use powerlines that are already going into nearly everyone’s homes to connect at high speeds to the internet? In so many ways that seems like a real winning proposition to me – what are the pros/cons of that technology?

By: gerald berke Mon, 21 Jul 2003 13:43:46 +0000 THIS is interesting!
Through this medium, a person can state directly and always on the record, their thoughts.
I don’t have to read what somebody else thought about it, I can see the words of the person, directly.

By: Nathanael Nerode Mon, 21 Jul 2003 13:23:22 +0000 No-cost solution?

Stop requiring libraries to buy useless filtering software. This is straining the budgets of public libraries, which *want* to bring free Internet service to people.

By: Shawn The Modest Mon, 21 Jul 2003 05:27:50 +0000 Gov. Dean:

When this question of the digital divide came up at Rainbow/PUSH, you took the opportunity to distance yourself from Rep. Kucinich, who was saying that until we cut Pentagon spending and made a real commitment to funding social programs divides such as this would persist. You’re position that increased Pentagon spending makes us strong and secure remains debatable. Be that as it may, are you asking for no-cost solutions? Assuming that’s what you’re looking for, here are some suggestions.

(1). Hardware. Rely on groups like freegeek who are overextended and underfunded to provide secondhand computers to poor people. Articulate a strategy of faith-based pc distribution. I’m envisaging a WPA-type crusade of Penguinistas that won’t cost the government a cent–because we all know those GNU hippies are in it for the love of the game and would never flinch at rubbing shoulders with the hoipoloi.

(2) Knowledge. Start with those all important preschool years. Make a MSCE or RHCE certificate mandatory for preschool teachers. Add a mandatory retraining regime and comptency testing. Oh, and don’t call them teachers. Create job titles like Early Liteteracy In Techology Enablers (ELITES). This will work fabulously, as it will draw all those laid off engineers and developers into preschool education, where they can earn low wages and a lowered status and frightful working conditions while managing to hold on to at least a symbolic token of self-esteem. The children will love it too. Who doesn’t want to play cyborg–7 hours a day, five days a week?

(3) Connectivity. It’s got to be wireless. Outfit the military with wireless gear, and garrison them in disadvantaged communities. Let them hand out wireless cards and share connections–and sweets too (you know, hearts and minds). If there’s room in your budget for Homeland Security and “first responders” by all means give them the gear too. Imagine a poor community where every call to the paramedics becomes an educational moment, and every shakedown of immigrants brings us together as a nation!

By: Daniel Speyer Mon, 21 Jul 2003 01:20:14 +0000 I don’t think wireless is a digital-devide solution. Even if we could get coverage (unlikely — it’d be as hard as cell phones), there’s still the matter of access points. Wireless cards aren’t free. Wired Ethernet cards are, or very close. If you have any luck or connections, you can find them being thrown out with old computers. Failing that, they’re about $5. Wireless is different. It’s at least $30 just for the adapter.

For getting access to people who really have no money, public internet terminals are pretty much the only option. Every library, every town hall, every school should have public internet terminals, with no censership. Everything falls apart with CIPA or the like. In most cases, the fiber is already there (for the internal uses of the organizations). The terminals should be cheap (no more than $250 for hardware, free software). Labor costs can be kept down by running from CD with no hard drives (using a staandardized modified Knoppix).

None of this helps *really* rural areas. For them, I guess it’s worth considering satelite based systems. Other than that, just offer *some* bandwidth by subsidizing a 1-800 based dial-up ISP. Broadband’s very nice, but it’s not really vital.

What is vital, though I realize I’m a little off topic here, is decent computer education. The state of computer curriculae in our educational system is disgraceful. The main shortage seems to be teachers. I realize that most people who understand computers well enough to teach them can get better pay and conditions in industry, but we need something. Dragging Cat5 to everyone’s front door won’t help if they think they run Compaq on their Netscapes! It may well be that we need to specially prepare a corp of teachers to teach computers. If so, then so be it. As a democracy, we cannot afford the level of rampant technological ignorance we currently suffer.

By: Dr. B. Sun, 20 Jul 2003 23:38:59 +0000 What about ISDN level access in rural areas?

Consider ISDN modem access via communication services where network marketing among community groups could produce individual and non-profit monies ( to help finance ISDN (125K) level access. There are now low cost ISDN modems that can be used for internet access and VoIP (

By: Eric Brunner-WIlliams Sun, 20 Jul 2003 21:51:38 +0000 The largest minorities in New Hampshire, as in Vermont and Maine, are Abenaki Indians, and francophone descendents of the 1860-1880 migration from PQ, with considerable overlap of the two populations.

By: Jonathan in GA Sun, 20 Jul 2003 21:13:35 +0000 We have to do more to reach out to minorities.

Although Iowa and NH are not minority bastions, most of the critical primary states are.

We need to pull in blacks and latinos!


By: Eric Brunne-Williams Sun, 20 Jul 2003 20:58:04 +0000 The segway from IP to last-mile must have left some shaking their heads. Richard, if you’re still “here”, feel free to chime in.

The set of services that don’t require low latency, low jitter, … — the technical characteristics of “QoS” — such as ftp, smtp, telnet, … and the invisible infrastructure dns/udp, nfs/tcp, afs/tcp, kerberos authentication, … aren’t made more, or less available by the size of the last-mile bit-pipe. These all work fine over dialup, aka “narrow-band”. What problems there are are not inate to the technology, but asI mentioned earlier, to business models that fill the pipe with predatory garbage. Incidently VoIP works fine over 56k, I ran a VoIP testbed with CNNIC (Beijing), Cleveland and WD using 56k. It is unusual when such a service is used to transport an object that is encumbered, other then computer source code. The set of services that do require low latency, low jitter, and incidently, bit rates above 56k, are streaming data — audio and video in particular. It is unusual when such a service is used to transport an object that isn’t encumbered, other than to incidently deliver non-QoS service (above) over the same channel.

In a nutshell, if the service is “best effort” (classical internet), then bandwidth is generally not the controlling factor, and IP is an edge case. If the service is better than “best effort” (telco or cable nets), then bandwidth is generally the controlling factor, and IP is not an edge case.

When Dean, or any other competing politician goes for “broadband” as a national policy goal, these fall out as logical consequences:
o the media-independent policy goal is not literacy,
o the media-dependent policy goal is a subset of universal service,
o the candidate has confused encumbered a/v product distribution systems with the Internet.

Absent an equitably weighted policy goal concerning archival and library access, the policy space available to the candidate, if elected, is bounded by the interests of the telco infrastructure, the compeating cable infrastructure, and the encumbered content distrubution infrastructure — AT&T, TW, and Sony, to pick one from each side of the triangle.

There are thousands of dialup ISPs providing 56k and sub-56k, but only a few score of broadband-only operators. My company just acquired the ISP-side of New Brunswick Telephone (Prexar), and promptly sold off the xDSL business , because it is significantly more complex, and to keep our narrow-band, universal New England focus, and not get married to the markets Adelphia and TimeWarner are already attempting to monopolize, and Verizon is selling xDSL into. As several commentors have remarked, access to the ILEC and cable infrastructures are two, disjoint, crucial regulatory necessities for competitive access to customers — I _want_ access to the TW cable plant in Portland (in Maine, the other Portland has an interesting regulatory history on just this subject), and I _want_ access to the Verizon switch fabric. A candidate who simply says “broadband”, without a regulatory reform message, is saying to me “monoploy works, get one or get lost”.

Now I’m aware of my market demographics here in Southern Maine, and I know that the xDSL and data cable customer profile is suburban, with an above median income, and less Democrat (my wife is a party hack) than the average for the 1st Congressional District.

When all of us step back and ask what does it look like from 40,000 feet, the demographic consequence of the technical limitations on the existing copper and fibre distribution systems, and the regulatory barriers for competitive access to the low hanging fruit in the telco and cable walled gardens are as plain as day. When the porn and mass-market content distribution network revenue models are super-imposed, the certain classism and the possible racism, of “broadband” are hard to miss.

There are scores of places where this is written up better than my moments stolen from child-minding on a Sunday, not to mention my native limitations, allow. Besides, if I’ve made mistakes I can’t fob off on the kids or a bottle of IPA, I make my living selling dialup. I’m biased, even if I’m correct.

Anyway, that’s why DRM discussions frequenly pull in PILC issues. Things are better now, the soft real-time vs best-effort tension is just about a/v. It used to be about gun pointers and other hard real-time applications that went bang, even when the code was bug-free.

DRM == digital rights management, a former IRTF activity.
PILC == performance implications of link characteristics, an IETF WG.

Eric Brunner-Williams

By: Roman Berry Sun, 20 Jul 2003 18:04:04 +0000 Some of the comments on DSL and the “need for speed” above require I point to a technology called “Dynamic Time Metered Delivery” (DTMD) which can do 22 Mb/s over regular twisted pair at distances up to 12000 feet from the CO. (Compare that to the limitations on DSL!)

Bob Cringley had a good column on this a few weeks back. The problem isn’t the technology. The problem is with the ILEC’s.

See the column here (or click on my name below):

Dynamic Time Metered Delivery

By: Joseph W. Mathews Sun, 20 Jul 2003 17:16:04 +0000 Just curious as to why the Governor’s Office in Vermont
had no e-mail listed on the state site when Dean was in

By: Lucian Sun, 20 Jul 2003 14:35:49 +0000 ” You have to be able to read to get anything out of the Internet beyond downloading porn or stealing music,”

Thats not the schools fault, its the kids fault. I learned to read by reading and using the net, not from school. I did not go to good schools, so improving the school has nothing to do with improving the student. People who have the net but who dont use it for anything serious dont want to learn to read, its that simple.

Theres plenty of things to learn on the net, I’ve learned a few programming languages, I learned to read and write better, I still use the net as my primary research tool.

I bridged the digital divide, I grew up poor but I got on the net and used it to educate myself and make up for what I didnt learn in school.

Please do not make excuses, people who grew up even poorer than I, such as kids in Africa and in third world who go to internet cafes have learned computer programming, refined their english and now have most of our American jobs.

Improve the internet by increasing the speed in the rural communities and ghettos accross the USA, improve the situation by building more after school programs and computer clubhouses which have computers.

Its still up to the kid, if the kid doesnt want to use the computer the kid wont learn to read just like you cannot make a kid go to school or learn in school if the kid decides they wont.

By: Lucian Sun, 20 Jul 2003 14:22:27 +0000 “In schools, fix the roof, make sure the kids are fed, and ensure that they have books (a problem even in some middle-class schools!). Those are the first steps to narrowing the digital divide.”

I have a better solution. Instead make sure every school has computers, and then load the books from PDF fiiles.

Schools dont reallly need to spend money on books anymore unless kids dont have a computer, a solution would be to make sure every household has a computer then you could save money on books easily, theres sites like this one

By: Lucian Sun, 20 Jul 2003 14:17:49 +0000

“In Japan, Corporations are required by law to use 10% of their profit to upgrade their technology.”

Maybe we should pass something like this?

By: Lucian Sun, 20 Jul 2003 14:11:01 +0000 Carl thats a very good post.

Another solution, at least to the music problem is to allow the file sharers to become the distributor, and split the profit. If the file sharers become file sellers, this is a possible solution.

The solution to the tech industry intellectual property situation is being solved by the open source movement, which currently is beginning to treat information as a service instead of as “property”.

It seems to be working.

The movie industry is safe, people want to see movies on the big screen and this isnt going to change. The Music industry is threatened most, and its only threatened because the RIAA refuses to allow file sharing to be profitable for artists.

As soon as a company decides to try to profit from file sharing, they get sued by the RIAA, of course if a ocmpany is profiting from it, it means theres money in the industry, I mean napster, kazaa, grokster and other file sharing companies wouldnt exist if there were no way to profit.

So we know theres a way to profit, and we know theres artists who want to make money, the solution is for the government to create a standard open source file sharing application, and then allow the user to become a legal distributor of music online, where they make 50 percent of the profits on mp3 sales, then the artist sells the rights to the public domain when they upload it to the internet or they can sell their rights to the government.

What we need to do to save the music industry is remove the RIAA, the whole record company middle man has a chokehold on the industry, they control the musicians, the consumer, and make most of the profits. The consumers refuse to pay the “tax” and its just like the boston tea party, when consumers refuse to pay you cannot force them to buy your stuff, it has to be of value to them. The musicians arent getting paid or treated well by the RIAA so musicians hate the RIAA as much as consumers.

So what we have here is the middle man RIAA preventing musicians from selling their music directly to consumers via P2P, while they also sue P2P companies so musicians and consumers have no where else to go but to them. Now that P2P is “legal” based on court opinion, they are suing everyone who uses it in an attempt to keep control over a market which they know does not need them.

We no longer need the RIAA to distribute music for us on CDs, we can do it ourselves, so basically consumers are refusing to pay the tax while musicians are going on strike.

Alot of musicians deliberately defy the RIAA and put their music on P2P services, alot of musicians hate the RIAA and love P2P, so we need to listen to the musicians(the ones who create the music), and the fans (the ones who pay for the music) who both want to get rid of the RIAA (the ones who own the music and who force the tax on the fans)

I call it a tax because fans dont ask for CDs, fans want P2P. 60 million people arent enough to tell the RIAA their business model is dead? So now they will sue as their new business model?

I really hope Dean does something about this, I think this issue can be solved if we talk to both sides, the creators of music and the consumers of music, WITHOUT the middle man RIAA group attempting to exploit both sides. When we finally can speak creator to consumer, the creators and consumers can come to a deal and the government can then enforce the deal.

This is what should be done, corperate welfare for the RIAA is not the solution. Thats not capitalism.

By: Carl Sun, 20 Jul 2003 08:06:59 +0000 Governor Dean,

Do you mind if I change the topic for a moment? ;-)
Here�s something that I�m really concerned about, and I think you should be too.

Copyright and other intellectual property issues (like the DMCA) are important topics on this blog. While these topics probably don�t seem very relevant to everyday Americans, there is a bigger picture to it all that may not seem apparent. This brings me to what I would like to see a greater focus on: How has the mainstreaming of the Internet affected intellectual property and the information sector of our economy? How does it affect the careers of many Americans in the present and in the future?

The economy is based on capitalism, free markets, globalism, etc.
We all need to make money to pay for the products and services that we need and want.
These are 3 major categories of industries in which most people have jobs:

1. Physical products (food, housing, manufactured goods, etc.)
2. Services (doctors, lawyers, teachers, salespeople, managers, etc.)
3. Intellectual Property (books, music, films, software, etc.)
(I realize that I may have left some categories out, but this should suffice for my discussion.)

First lets look at #1.
The US used to have a strong manufacturing industry, but much of that had moved outside of the US and into third-world countries, along with a continuing decline in blue-collar jobs in this country. Due to globalization, workers in other countries are paid significantly less than they do here, which is the reason why most of the work moved overseas. It is simply cheaper for companies to produce goods there. In order to get a good paying job here then, people have had to get a college degree and work in another field. A high school diploma doesn�t cut it anymore in most cases, except for minimum wage jobs.

#2. Services
By their nature of requiring direct customer contact, it is likely that many jobs in this sector will never be exported to other countries. A young college student, deciding to pursue a career as a doctor is a pretty safe bet. However, some services like telemarketing and telephone support lines have already been exported to other countries like India. And technology sometimes has a way of greatly reducing the need for personal contact. I�m sure banks would just love to replace all their tellers with ATM machines if they could.

#3. Intellectual Property
This is where I want to focus on. The problem is, this industry is in trouble. REAL TROUBLE, unless we figure out a way to solve it, but it�ll be tough. Here�s why.

It has to do with the very nature of information, which this industry thrives on. Traditionally, someone could write a book, get a publisher to produce copies of that book and sell it in the bookstore. Or you could be a musician, produce an album, sell it and make lots of money if it sells well. All this involves costs, not only in the creation of the work, but also in duplication and distribution of the work. With the advent of the Internet, the cost of duplication and distribution has approached essentially zero. It costs time and money to create a work, but as soon as that work is in digital form and placed on the Internet, it can be copied for free. The music industry has been in a panic over P2P filesharing lately (i.e. Napster and Kazaa) and rightfully so.

The problem is the very nature of IP. It doesn�t work like other products in a capitalistic system in which products are bought and sold based on supply and demand. In basic Econ-101, less supply and greater demand should raise the price of a product. But as supply approaches infinity, price approaches zero. This is what occurs when IP is on the Internet. The only reason IP makes any money at all is by creating artificial scarcity by the use of copyright law. And the copyright law is only effective as long as the government can enforce it. But the Internet makes that very difficult. In fact, it is technically possible for a computer program to be written that will make it impossible for a person to be identified who is sharing copyrighted material.

Right now the music and movie industries are scared. The DMCA was passed with corporate backing, with unfortunately very little input from consumers. Record companies are currently suing hundreds of music file sharers (many of whom are college students) in an attempt to curtail file sharing. The only reason they can do this now is because the current crop of P2P programs aren�t very good at masking their users identities, but like I said it is technically possible to do so and it has been done. The Recording Industry is merely getting a lot of consumers angry with them by suing their customers, and it will push them to use those improved programs. So what should IP industries do? The Internet is here to stay. By the very nature of information, and the nature of the Internet, copyright law will probably cease to be relevant on the Internet. It is no use trying to fight technological progress, as fighting this will fail.

There are a few solutions that I can think of. One is for the IP industry to try to shift over to a Service industry (item #2). Another idea is to use a donations or tipping model, where IP is given out freely. Another is to fund IP from a central pool of funds, maybe a government tax?

The movie industry need not worry, as they can fund their movies through box office sales (a Service model), although I wouldn�t want to buy any stock in the Blockbuster video rental chain. The music industry is in more trouble, and they�re doing all the wrong things to alienate their customers that will hurt them in the end. The software industry and tech industry is also having problems. Not only because of the nature of IP, but also because of increased exportation of tech jobs to third-world nations like India and China. In fact, many white-collar jobs are now being exported to these countries today like blue-collar jobs were exported yesterday. It isn�t only the dot-com bust that is causing the current slump in the tech industry!

I really believe that these intellectual property and tech issues have a profound effect on the future of our economy and really need to be addressed. I think the sooner there is a serious discussion on this the better. We need this if we expect to get out of this recession!

– Carl

(Here�s a good discussion on slashdot about the exportation of tech jobs. )