Nicholas Batik 's Techdirt Comments
Latest Comments (22)
-
On the post: Techdirt Podcast Episode 16: Rethinking Work, Income & Leisure: Albert Wenger On Basic Income
-
On the post: Former FCC Boss Turned Top Cable Lobbyist Michael Powell Blames Everyone But Himself For Current Net Neutrality Mess
Nicholas Batik ( profile ), 19 Feb, 2015 @ 01:37pmRe: Re: Why do we want the net regulated?
Technically yes, realistically no.
So I see your point. But the question is what is most likely to "fix" it - technological innovation, or government regulation.
I tend to view regulation as a collaboration between government and big business in a way that serves them both, and us not at all.
I came out of the era of big iron in the 70's when IBM ruled supreme, and everyone called for them to be regulated. Then these little unheard of companies called "Apple" and "Microsoft" changed everything. -
On the post: Former FCC Boss Turned Top Cable Lobbyist Michael Powell Blames Everyone But Himself For Current Net Neutrality Mess
Nicholas Batik ( profile ), 19 Feb, 2015 @ 01:29pmRe: Re: Why do we want the net regulated?
I get the effective monopoly on the infrastructure, part. Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on how you look at it), it was the big companies that had the capital and were willing to make the long term investment to build it.
I know there have been several attempts by municipalities to take ownership of wired/wireless pipes, but generally those have failed because they weren't willing to devote budget to support them, and ultimately the went back into private hands.
The game changer is always the new technology on the horizon - the unexpected. Think about how many 3rd world countries bypassed the cost of landlines and went straight to cellular.
I've always maintained that technology ultimately move the power into the hands of those who use it. -
On the post: Former FCC Boss Turned Top Cable Lobbyist Michael Powell Blames Everyone But Himself For Current Net Neutrality Mess
Nicholas Batik ( profile ), 19 Feb, 2015 @ 01:22pmRe: Re: Why do we want the net regulated?
Sorry jackn, I don't understand: What "false logic"?
I would appreciate if you could spell out the issue in detail, because I find this whole mess confusing. What, exactly are the counter-claims? -
On the post: Former FCC Boss Turned Top Cable Lobbyist Michael Powell Blames Everyone But Himself For Current Net Neutrality Mess
Nicholas Batik ( profile ), 19 Feb, 2015 @ 01:18pmRe: Re: Why do we want the net regulated?
Thanks, Mike.
A Big problem for me is the constantly shifting meaning of "net neutrality" - including what current and former administrations claim they want, and what their designated agencies say they will implement. Since no one speaks in english, and every bill is a mountain of unreadable debt, I am naturally suspect of all of it.
Is it possible to just say "Everybody back away. We are not going to touch anything?" -
On the post: Former FCC Boss Turned Top Cable Lobbyist Michael Powell Blames Everyone But Himself For Current Net Neutrality Mess
Nicholas Batik ( profile ), 19 Feb, 2015 @ 12:37pmRe: Re: Why do we want the net regulated?
Thank you. My point exactly.
-
On the post: Former FCC Boss Turned Top Cable Lobbyist Michael Powell Blames Everyone But Himself For Current Net Neutrality Mess
Nicholas Batik ( profile ), 19 Feb, 2015 @ 05:00pm"The last mile is just too expensive to expect multiple competitors in that space."
I tried to make this point toward the beginning of this little dust-up, but I think you said it better.
Every industry starts as a collection of freelancers - from wildcat oil men to garage-office code writers. Eventually somebody starts to make money, then they consolidate the industry, and the giants are born. Hence the oligopolies, duopolies, or monopolies you mentioned.
Good luck on preventing that, nobody has yet.
Rosneft is mostly owned by the Russian government, Lukoil is mostly private. Sinopec is Chinese owned. Our own oil companies are mostly private but with government regulation as Anonymous Coward pointed out. Yet private or governmental, regulated or not, can anyone identify a single difference between any of them? Once you get to that size, everything starts to look the same.
Interesting history on UNE-P. I was not aware of that.
It's easy to pick up the sense of frustration: Innovation takes time and is unpredictable. Regulation promises quicker response, but I fear longer-term consequences.
Consider this: when was the last time you used a phone book? Right, me either. But part of the 1984 Bell System divestiture, required every baby-bell and baby-bell wannabe to print a phone book.
So here we are 3 decades later with massive print runs that go from deliver truck to dumpster because nobody knows how to turn off the obsolete regulation. -
On the post: Former FCC Boss Turned Top Cable Lobbyist Michael Powell Blames Everyone But Himself For Current Net Neutrality Mess
Nicholas Batik ( profile ), 19 Feb, 2015 @ 02:47pmParting Thoughts
1.My "partisan bias" tends to the libertarian/anarchist.
2. I rarely believe government is the answer. Even the best policies eventually get amended. Then they are no longer the best policies, but it literally takes an act of congress to get rid of them. Once you start down that road...
3. "The only solution to the situation appears to be governmental." Do you mean the spying, data gathering, property-seizing, money-wasting, corruption riddled government? Or is there a different one I don't know about? Do you read any of the other daily articles here? Why does anyone think that THIS time, they are going to get it right, and the implementation will be flawless.
4. Any and all regulation to "punish" the terrible, awful, no-good, very bad, cheating, swindling, (adjective of your choice) companies, never punishes the companies. They pass on the cost, and the consumer suffers.
5. Historically, innovation has proved the undoing of every monopoly. Look how digital media has broken the strangle-hold of publishing houses and music studios; micro-lending and crowd-funding have provided alternative to the banking industry. Before that, the automobile changed the dynamic of the all-powerful railroad industry. I will put my faith in creativity and a garage full of pissed-off innovators rather than bureaucracy. -
On the post: Former FCC Boss Turned Top Cable Lobbyist Michael Powell Blames Everyone But Himself For Current Net Neutrality Mess
Nicholas Batik ( profile ), 19 Feb, 2015 @ 12:21pmWhy do we want the net regulated?
Yes, I agree that there is massive confusion on the political front regarding net neutrality; however, I am still unclear as to why Techdirt extolls the virtues of regulating the internet.
The lack of competition in connectivity stems more from a lack of infrastructure (view any converage map), and the time it has taken to build, as well as continually upgrade.
My personal concern over any regulation is that once regulation is in place, major initiative must go through the "Mother May I" exercise with the regulating agency, who has no impetus to act quickly. Often, in regulated industries, the agency will require massive amounts of justifying documentation, will panel a committee to study it to death, then out of a sense of "fairness" will invite comment from all competitors, and after careful consideration will rule in favor of whomever pays them the most.
Look at how many regulated industries are nothing more than blocks to competition - taxis vs. Uber for example. Once there are barriers to entry, the existing players can solidify there positions and lobby for regulations more favorable to themselves.
In unregulated industries, people can vote with their feet or their wallets. When was the last known instance of a consumer successfully petitioning a regulatory agency?
I have been on the internet since the early days of 300 baud dial-up, and I remember the frustration of the pay-by-the-minute connections. We no longer have that problem becuase technology advanced. Are the complaints we field today likely to disappear with the technical advances of tomorrow?
Many of the complaints I have heard concern those who pay more for better service. So. Name anything else in the world where that does not occur. More to the point, though: Those who paid $100 for calculators, or $4000 for VCRs, or $10,000 for camcorders in the early days, subsidized the development of the technology that made those same things available to everyone else at a fraction of that cost.
So I end with this: can anyone do an honest pro-con benefit analysis as to why regulation is better than free-market innovation, because I the hyperbole of who is good vs. who is bad serves no one. -
On the post: Fifth Circuit Court Of Appeals Upholds Decision That Warrantless Cell Phone Tracking Doesn't Violate Fourth Amendment
Nicholas Batik ( profile ), 01 Aug, 2013 @ 02:11pmRe: Boycott
Wrong target. When you subscribe with the phone company you sign-off on the "I agree to..." notice regarding the collection of your data for business purposes, however grudgingly you may do so.
As jilocasin points out, the issue is not the companies that collect, and eventually expire that data, it is the government that re-purposes and infinitely retains it, without our knowledge or consent.
The question is: How do you boycott the government? -
On the post: Fifth Circuit Court Of Appeals Upholds Decision That Warrantless Cell Phone Tracking Doesn't Violate Fourth Amendment
Nicholas Batik ( profile ), 31 Jul, 2013 @ 08:39pmThere is an implied contract with both public and private data
The courts have already established that there are numerous venues within which you have no expectation of privacy. What is missing in this discussion is the implied contract that is associated with your public data, specifically that your public data is casual, random, limited, and segregated.
It may be easiest to illustrate those with example:
It is understood that if you venture into public you will be observed. No one expects privacy in that setting. You may encounter the same people in the same places, at the same times, or randomly at different times and venues, but you would become suspicious if you encountered the same person everywhere you went. You would probably suspect stalking.
If that person recorded which lights turned on in the windows of your house, the order they turned on and their duration, when you opened and closed window shades, the time you entered and exited your house, where you went, what you bought, who you met, and so on, you would necessarily be worried. All that information is public, but it has crossed a threshold of limited, casual and random.
It is understood that this behavior implies nefarious intent. Even if that person is a law enforcement officer, we have historically required reasonable suspicion of behavior, or a court order authorizing their collection of your public data on such a scale.
If a store owner tracks your purchases to provide better service and try to better meet your needs, that is laudable. If he starts following you around the shopping mall to see what else you buy, that rapidly degrades into creepy behavior.
We expect that grocery stores will track our grocery habits, the phone company will monitor our calling patterns, the credit card company will analyze typical and non-typical purchases to prevent fraud. Although all this data is ostensibly public, implied in this understanding is the segregation of that data. If the phone company started acquiring our grocery records, we would demand to know why, and act to put a stop to it.
In order for the government to carry out its appointed tasks, it must obtain from its citizens specific personal data, that if disclosed, could result in loss of harm to that citizen. We entrust this information with the understanding that those in authority will take all necessary safeguards to protect it from disclosure or unauthorized use.
When that same authority accumulates all our public data, from all of the available sources, combines that the private data of our financial and tax records, medical records, licenses, legal filings, driving records, political and religions affiliations, and all other disclosures, then it has far exceeded the authority issued by its citizenry.
That it should then use this unprecedented store of information to identify and target individuals for propaganda and behavioral modification, as well as provide policing agencies the ability to observe and analyze the totality of every citizen's life for any and all activities that may be used to incriminate those individuals, for the entire duration of their lives, then it has crossed the boundaries of implied consent of both the public and private stores of data, and has ventured into realm of treason against its people. -
On the post: Telcos: The Internet Will Collapse If The Gov't Doesn't Gives Us Lots Of Money
Nicholas Batik ( profile ), 25 Nov, 2008 @ 02:41pmRe: What Happened to No Government Interference in Business?
Anon: I know that Bush-bashing is a very popular occupation, unfortunately it is not that simple. If Bush and his "corprocratic cronies" were the problem, then a simple change in the administration would cure everything.
Unfortunately, this fails to recognize the basic structure (and inherent problems) in our system of government. While the president can attempt to set an agenda through the budget proposal submitted to congress, he cannot write, propose, submit, discuss, or vote upon any legislation - that is reserved for the legislative branch. He can direct some legislation through veto (or the threat of), and can issue executive orders in certain circumstances (which are subject to congressional override). The judicial branch then often "interprets" the legislation or executive order as it applies to specific cases.
There is, of course, the fourth branch of government - the "bureaucratic branch". As I have actually worked inside this branch I can speak with at least a little authority on this subject.
Herein lies the problem:
Congress wrote and passed the laws that allowed the various financial fiascos, and they are charged with providing the oversight. It is telling that Appropriations Committee chair Barney Franks (D) who co-authored the bailout without providing any restrictions, was "shocked" that executive of the failed banks were paying themselves huge bonuses with the bailout money. Congress is also who will write and pass a Telco bailout - probably with the same nebulous purpose and non-existant oversight.
The Judicial Branch, which has repeatedly demonstrated a fundamental lack of understanding of business, economics, technology, or, well, pretty much anything they are passing decisions about, will then probably twist the law into something that agrees with the position of the largest and best-funded legal team.
The Bureaucratic Branch will continue to do whatever they want, adopting a version of the old Chinese adage "the mountains are high and the emperor is far away". Most large corporations also know that a little "support" provided to these generally under-funded, under-appreciated clerks will get a lot of things done under the radar.
So... nice rant, Anon, but I fail to see how this is, or will be, all Bush's fault. -
On the post: The Internet Isn't 'Critical Infrastructure'
Nicholas Batik ( profile ), 30 May, 2008 @ 12:06amRe: Re: Real-life story
More like a little bit of luck but no lessons learned.
> Then your group wasn't very prepared or competent. To expect local communications systems to survive a hurricane is foolish.
We were outside of the storm strike-zone waiting to go in. The failure wasn't local, it was nearly state-wide.
We were a volunteer crew that shipped in from out-of-state. You might think that a state that faced so many hurricanes would have a more robust communications system, at least for its emergency services. You might also think it would make sense for Fire and Police to be able to talk to each other on the same radios. After 9/11 the newly formed DHS ear-marked hundreds of millions to upgrade these systems, but none of it has yet filtered down to the people who buy the radios or use them.
I wish I could say it was only Louisiana. Unfortunately most areas of the US don't have enhanced-911, and some still don't have any form of 911. There are more than a few of us in EMS that hope someday soon the internet can provide what the states and telcos haven't.
> Do you even know what "infrastructure" means?
Typically it is the public facilities and services needed to service and support development e.g. roads, electricity, sewerage, water, health and education facilities. But in the IT infrastructures we also see that it is the architectural elements, organizational support, corporate standards, methodology, data, and processes, as well as the physical hardware/network. This also applies to the Safety & Security infrastructure which is as much a logical construct as a physical one, including both fixed and mobile facilities, dispatch systems, protocols, and when they are working, communications systems. OK, so the airplanes and trains were a bit of a stretch - I was trying to make a point. -
On the post: If You're Going To Argue In Favor Of Copyright, It Might Help To Do Some Research First
Nicholas Batik ( profile ), 29 May, 2008 @ 09:48pmActual numbers
Hi Mike,
Special request:
I have had similar arguements with people in a variety of circles, and always the issues boils down to "show me the facts".
So, can you help point me to were I can get hard numbers on:
- Recorded music sales have been shrinking rapidly over the past few years.
- Concert revenue is up.
- The number of people making music is up.
- The number of people earning money from their musical careers is up.
- Even the instrument sales business has been up.
Thanks. -
On the post: The Internet Isn't 'Critical Infrastructure'
Nicholas Batik ( profile ), 28 May, 2008 @ 04:00pmSubmit button got stuck?
Not sure what happened. Sorry about the dups.
-
On the post: The Internet Isn't 'Critical Infrastructure'
Nicholas Batik ( profile ), 28 May, 2008 @ 03:59pmSubmit button got stuck?
Not sure what happened. Sorry about the dups.
-
On the post: The Internet Isn't 'Critical Infrastructure'
Nicholas Batik ( profile ), 28 May, 2008 @ 03:56pmReal-life story
Maybe I can help out a little with a real-life example. I was stationed with an emergency services crew in an area north and west of New Orleans in preparation for Katrina. We set up a temporary command center, but never anticipated the extent of the flooding, or the fact that it would take out cell towers, radio transmitters and repeaters, TV stations, and every other communication channel we had. Our internet connection was the only thing in our command center that continued to work, and that is how we were able to find out where to dispatch our rescue crews. I think that qualifies as "critical".
Also...
Shohat says "...which the majority (80% ?) of the population does not have access to, and most people do not know how to use, simply can not qualify as critical infrastructure."
The majority of people don't have access to, or know how to use military weapons, vehicles such as airplanes, trains, and ships, or fire and rescue apparatus. Does that mean they cannot qualify as critical infrastructure? -
On the post: The Internet Isn't 'Critical Infrastructure'
Nicholas Batik ( profile ), 28 May, 2008 @ 03:56pmReal-life story
Maybe I can help out a little with a real-life example. I was stationed with an emergency services crew in an area north and west of New Orleans in preparation for Katrina. We set up a temporary command center, but never anticipated the extent of the flooding, or the fact that it would take out cell towers, radio transmitters and repeaters, TV stations, and every other communication channel we had. Our internet connection was the only thing in our command center that continued to work, and that is how we were able to find out where to dispatch our rescue crews. I think that qualifies as "critical".
Also...
Shohat says "...which the majority (80% ?) of the population does not have access to, and most people do not know how to use, simply can not qualify as critical infrastructure."
The majority of people don't have access to, or know how to use military weapons, vehicles such as airplanes, trains, and ships, or fire and rescue apparatus. Does that mean they cannot qualify as critical infrastructure? -
On the post: The Internet Isn't 'Critical Infrastructure'
Nicholas Batik ( profile ), 28 May, 2008 @ 03:56pmReal-life story
Maybe I can help out a little with a real-life example. I was stationed with an emergency services crew in an area north and west of New Orleans in preparation for Katrina. We set up a temporary command center, but never anticipated the extent of the flooding, or the fact that it would take out cell towers, radio transmitters and repeaters, TV stations, and every other communication channel we had. Our internet connection was the only thing in our command center that continued to work, and that is how we were able to find out where to dispatch our rescue crews. I think that qualifies as "critical".
Also...
Shohat says "...which the majority (80% ?) of the population does not have access to, and most people do not know how to use, simply can not qualify as critical infrastructure."
The majority of people don't have access to, or know how to use military weapons, vehicles such as airplanes, trains, and ships, or fire and rescue apparatus. Does that mean they cannot qualify as critical infrastructure? -
On the post: Antitrust Law Is Supposed To Protect Consumers, Not Competitors
Nicholas Batik ( profile ), 14 Dec, 2007 @ 01:53pmRe: Re: It's not the bundling that's the issue
Apparently you are not a web programmer.
1. Back in the early to mid 90's when all other browsers were adding support for CSS, MS stopped all real development on IE, letting it languish as an HTML-only platform until the release of IE 5 in 2000 - an eternity in web-years (some will argue IE 3-4 had CSS but the implementation was so buggy and incomplete, I defy anyone to show me a CSS page that worked with it). Consequently, every web page created using CSS also had to have an IE HTML-only version - thus doubling (or more) the level of effort needed to launch a web site.
With the release of IE 5 & 6, MS implemented an incorrect box model, and an non-standard DOM, again requiring programmers to write multiple versions of everything.
Lest anyone get there knickers in a twist, yes, other browsers have had many instances of bad or incomplete implementations - the difference is those browser developers a.) worked with the standards groups to iron-out differences, and b.) released regular updates to fix the problems web developers encountered. Not so with MS.
2. You may not remember Sun Micro's law suit with MS over Java. MS took the Java platform and modified it into a Windows-only implementation, so that all Java development on Windows would only work with Windows and IE. In a decision that stunned the web community, the court apparently failed to understand public licensing and allowed MS to get away with it.
3. Even HTML was modified. Pick up any HTML reference and you will see a section of IE-only commands. For a while, other browser developers did the same, but due to the unfavorable response from web programmers, everyone but IE stopped implementing proprietary command structures.
There is far too much to go into here, but that should at least give you a brief understanding of the annoyance MS has caused programmers for years. Opera's contention that some programmers/companies are not willing to do multiple versions of every site and therefore only develop IE versions is probably correct.
A Nice Idea, but...
At first blush, this idea seems to hold merit - supporting those in need at the basic level so no one suffers. The problem is, this has been tried in a variety of forms which result in one or more of the following outcomes:
1. disincentivizes work
2. stagnates creativity
3. results in inflationary pressures
4. will expand an entitlement mentality
5. ignores the nature of "value"
Let's take these in order.
1. Disincentivizes work
Years ago my dad told me to get a job. It wasn't until he cut off my allowance that I actually got serious about it. This provided a valuable life lesson for me. Others have similarly observed that many on unemployment don't seriously start applying for work until the benefits run out.
A friend grew up on a beach in Hawaii. When she got hungry, she when into the forest and picked fruit. This is a perfect example of a modern aboriginal life style. Unfortunately, this only works if you live in a location where you can sustain yourself. Few people live thusly. Most need to acquire sustinence and shelter from someone (paid) or something (installed, serviced, and upgraded).
The phrase "Tragedy of the Commons" came from the first year of the Pilgrims' settlement where they decided to “Share everything, share the work, and we’ll share the harvest.” The net result was everyone scaled back on their labors, complaining about other people reaping the benefit of their work, and assuming others would make up their shortfall.
This speaks to a basic human reality - people won't work unless they have to.
2. Stagnates creativity
Necessity is the mother of invention. In the book The Obstacle Is the Way, Ryan Holiday describes how struggle and difficulty is the impetus behind creative solutions. Compare, for example, the level of innovation and entrepreneurship in the U.S. as compared to socialist countries.
Automation and mechanization can free us from the drudgery of undesirable jobs, but not from the need to innovate.
It is in fact the unfortunate nature of those jobs that stimulated the creative efforts to automate them. The assumption with BIG is that if we take away stress and discomfort we will free people to create, but the reality is more like the example of the hunter tribe described in the podcast - 3 hours of hunting followed by a life of leisure.
Furthermore, advances in innovation and creativity need a large number of participants. As people opt out of work in favor of pursing fun, fewer people will be available for the long, hard hours of focused creativity that most real advancements need.
3. Results in inflationary pressures
Every place where an industry or service has been subsidized, or loans guaranteed or "incentivized" with public money, the price has gone up. It is not hard to understand this basic cycle: if an ordinary individual can afford $1,000 for a semester of school, that is what the tuition will be, but if Student Aid is available for $10,000 per semester, not surprisingly, the tuition will become $10,000.
There are too many examples in too many industries to list, so google it. Here's a place to start http://www.calculated-success.com/the-inflation-elephant-in-the-room/
4. Will expand an entitlement mentality
In the book Systemantics: How Systems Work and Especially How They Fail, John Gall details how systems will never voluntarily disassemble themselves, and always strives to grow. Name a single government program that has gotten smaller.
We have probably all experience the "entitlement mentality." When signing up for cable or phone service with the 1-year price-saver special, did you get angry when your bill went up at the end of the year? You knew that it would - you read and signed the agreement. Yet we all feel that flush of anger and feeling of being ripped-off when the provider does exactly what they said they would do, and we agreed to.
And what are we angry about? We are "entitled" to that lower price! Nope, not really, but the feeling is very real, and those feeling, associated with all forms of entitlements, have lead to riots, arson and looting, followed by politicians promising better subsidies and entitlements.
Consider that a flat sceen TV, cable, and cell phones are now considered a "necessity" in today's welfare programs.
5. Ignores the nature of "value"
David Gerrold's book A Matter For Men: The War Against the Chtorr had one of the best treatises on the nature of the value of labor. If people value your product or service, they are happy to pay for it. Conversely, if nobody wants what you offer, it has no value.
Much of the discussion around providing basic living subsidies for people assumes that it will free them to create. Yet if we consider the nature of value, if they create something of value, there will be a sustaining market for it. The only time someone would need their creative efforts subsidized is if what they create hold no value for anyone, perhaps themselves included.
William Gibson famously said The future is already here — it's just not very evenly distributed. We must understand from this that while we are looking at a world of automation guaranteeing leisure, much of the rest of the world is struggling with simple survival. They are the ones most in need of our innovations, and the value that provides to them, so unless we are willing to engage in difficult work, we will never be able to create a better world for those who need it most.