Comments on: 21st Century Reaganomics: Helping the “merely rich” so as to help the really poor Blog, news, books Tue, 10 Oct 2017 06:01:00 +0000 hourly 1 By: Maximilien taga Fri, 29 Mar 2013 11:26:08 +0000 |

By: Laisenia on Wed, 20 Mar 2013 05:33:21 +0000 |

By: wuuuuu Mon, 23 Oct 2006 19:37:00 +0000 you may want to check out the OECD statistics on US broadband penetration at

By: mik Mon, 23 Oct 2006 16:32:40 +0000 “United States has the 4th highest level of students (by 15 years old) who have never used a computer — worse than Greece, Poland, Portugal, and the Czech Republic. “

All 4 are countries with pretty homogineous population.
Poland has higher average IQ than US and Czech Repubs has the same. Unless they are extremely poor, these countries are supposed to have a higher computer literacy than US.
US has significant minority population groups with significantly lower IQ than those 4 countries. That also lowers average IQ of US and makes comparisons with homogineous countries meaningless.

Is it really that important for low performing kids use computer? Isn’t it better at least to learn read and write?

By: Phil H Mon, 23 Oct 2006 15:44:36 +0000 “Limited time” = “life of copyright”
Love it.

By: taoist Mon, 23 Oct 2006 15:33:52 +0000 Unfortunately I think you’re only seeing one half of the equation. Telcos have indeed set up a non-competitive oligopoly. Net Neutrality is not the way to solve this issue though: Adding more regulations in favor of Google and Yahoo such as Net Neutrality would suggest would add legislation in the other direction, postponing the current troubles but creating more down the road. On the other hand, if we were to simply use our existing marketing laws to crack the monopolistic practices these companies are currently engaged in, we would solve these problems.

By: Mr L Mon, 23 Oct 2006 15:28:20 +0000 “blaming the telcos for not throwing good money after bad… comcast should invest in building out its cable network just so google (and the next google) can make more money whilst undermining comcast’s media business. under what rules of business does this make sense?”

This is absolutely true and key to the nature of the problem. What’s their incentive to improve the connection? None, as far as I can tell, unless they can start charging for bandwidth by the megabyte…which consumers HATE HATE HATE and is functionally identical to a repeal on net neutrality (only the incentive to moderate usage are on the consumer end so it’s even worse).

By: BillW Mon, 23 Oct 2006 15:26:52 +0000 So, I have DirecTV, SprintPCS and Clearwire Internet (wireless, city wide). Where do I want a phone or cable company doing anything to the public net or anything in my life?

By: three blind mice Mon, 23 Oct 2006 14:52:51 +0000 I had thought we were pushing to reverse a failed policy because we wanted to enable the next Google

past performance is no guarantee of future returns.

it seems really odd professor that you deride the fact that broadband connectivity in the US is so poor, yet support an agenda (NN) that focuses on applications (like google).

YouTube, and any similar bandwitdh hungry application, is barely tolerable on dial-up, and completely useless if you don’t have a connection to begin with. or are we missing something?

blaming the telcos for not throwing good money after bad… comcast should invest in building out its cable network just so google (and the next google) can make more money whilst undermining comcast’s media business. under what rules of business does this make sense?

It’s funny, I hadn’t realized I was a Google tool.

saying it is a battle between the extremely wealthy and merely wealthy is a (poor) way of placing himself on the side of the underdog, but Mr. Kennard is absolutely correct is saying this is a battle of competing and powerful commercial interests. no one is pure and innocent here. shilling for NN does quite make you a tool of google as we might be said to be tools for the ISPs.

Even if America’s broadband strategy doesn’t make sense for America, it makes lots of sense for certain companies. Kennard knows this well, because he sits on the board of many of those who benefit most from this deregulation.

ad hominen claptrap and quite unbecoming of you professor.

By: Don Marti Mon, 23 Oct 2006 14:42:40 +0000 Bogus metric alert: “the United States has the 4th highest level of students (by 15 years old) who have never used a computer”.

Just going by “used a computer” includes all kinds of awful “educational” software and office application training — you might as well count people who can work the order terminal at McDonald’s as “computer literate”.

Alan Kay: “Now you’ve got millions and millions of people who think that doing even the most trivial things on a computer is a sign of computer literacy. This includes parents, teachers and the kids themselves. But most of what is done is about as worthwhile as playing an air guitar.”

Better metrics might be whether or not the person sends and receives email, or has contributed content to some kind of web forum or collaborative site.

By: Bobnormal Mon, 23 Oct 2006 14:15:43 +0000 Wow,I always thought you had some logic up there in that brain of yours,France? You can’t get a job there so how do you pay for cheaper service,especially if your poor? try markets not socialist twttle.If I dig a ditch to get water do I also have to let everyone else use the fruits of my labor for Free?

By: Matt Mon, 23 Oct 2006 14:03:33 +0000 Someone needs to tell Fed Ex, UPS, and the Post Office about this neutrality thing. I’m tired of paying tons of money to ship big heavy boxes! Don’t they know you can render the physical laws of the universe meaningless by legislative fiat?!

By: Greg D Mon, 23 Oct 2006 13:49:20 +0000 Have you read “Rainbow’s End”, by Vernor Vinge? One of the characters has a “high school” project: trying to develop algorithms to make “cheapnet” (“free”, and therefore lower priority, connection) work well transmitting a live audio performance. Is that what “Net Neutrality” would prevent? Allowing people to pay to get better service?

Frankly, watching Google in China, YouTube censor conservatives, and Google News do the same, I’m having a hard time coming up with any reason why I should care about the phone and cable companies “gouging” them.

They deserve it.

By: Stephen Mon, 23 Oct 2006 13:02:48 +0000 The phone companies and cable companies are foul, rank institutions that have harmed, currently harm, and will continue to harm this country in numerous ways – the worst being the stifling of competition and development/fostering/getting-the-hell-out-of-the-way of new technologies and ideas. The idiots in the phone and cable industries are oblivious to the damage that they do, but rather delude themselves into thinking they are the good guys. I have far more respect for a guy running a burger stand across from Wendy’s, next door to McDonald’s, and down the street from Burger King than the delusional monopolists running the phone and cable companies. Any time a company can say “takes us or leaves us” – you have a terrible situation for everyone but the company. Anything the phone and cable companies support is immediately open to question – whatever they are against deserves every benefit of the doubt. Because the phone and cable companies are against Net Neutrality, NN *MUST* be the right thing to do. To hell with Verizon, ATT/SBC, Comcast, Time Warner and the rest of the technology advancement hindering cabal. Common carriage should continue to be the rule on the Internet – every bit is treated the same. The user has the choice/power to buy a bigger pipe if desired.

By: TJIC Mon, 23 Oct 2006 12:55:04 +0000 It seems to me that this is an empty threat by the cable companies: the bottom line is that they have to serve their customers, and if they cut off a customer’s access to google, they’ve got a lot of explaining to do.

I’d like to see cable companies be free to run their businesses however they want *and* Google and other large websites tell the cable companies “go ahead; slit your own throat”.

By: Mike Chartier Mon, 23 Oct 2006 12:45:23 +0000 Got it.
I think his intent was to disparage both sides, but by default that ends up supporting status quo.
It may be a fair criticism to accuse him of downgrading the importance of NN. But I don’t think it’s fair to imply it’s based on vested interest. I think he would just like to see as much energy and resources applied to USF.

By: Rick C Mon, 23 Oct 2006 12:38:05 +0000 nice syllogism, Lessig.

I’m not sure, tho. Are you allowed to use logic on the internet?

By: Lessig Mon, 23 Oct 2006 12:12:21 +0000 (1) I certainly thing revamping USF is important

(2) He has equated the “merely rich” with the cable companies and telcos; it is the agenda of the cable companies and the telcos to block network neutrality legislation; thus, by arguing against NN, he is pushing the agenda of the “merely rich.”

By: Mike Chartier Mon, 23 Oct 2006 11:58:36 +0000 Just looking for clarification.

1.) So, Kennard says that for the purpose of increasing broadband penetration to underserved communities, the most important thing is to revamp the USF, which subsidizes the cost of providing service to those communities. Do you disagree with this?

2.) How is he pushing the “agenda of the “merely rich”?

By: David S. Isenberg Mon, 23 Oct 2006 11:19:00 +0000 Thanks, Larry! Kennard also fails to note that the “extremely wealthy” — the Googles, Amazons, etc. — are today’s rising stars pointing to the future while the “merely rich” — the telcos and cablecos — are old, dying companies. On my own blog, I wrote
The fight is not between, “the extremely wealthy . . . and the merely rich,” it is between us, who want to choose how we use our Internet connection and Internet providers like Verizon, Comcast and at&t, who want to choose for us.