http://blogcritics.org/ A sinister cabal of superior bloggers on music, books, film, popular culture, politics, and technology - updated continuously. en Copyright 2005 by the authors Thu, 30 Jan 2003 08:12:08 EST http://backend.userland.com/rss Blogcritics.org custom software http://blogcritics.org/archives/2003/01/26/135101.php#comment-3098 Thanks very much for the info and the perspective. 3098@blogcritics.org Thu, 30 Jan 2003 08:12:08 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2003/01/26/135101.php#comment-3093 The Wrong Kind of Regulation The worst way to regulate is based on the self-interest of those you're regulating. The collapse of the telecom market has caused Washington to consider doing just that. One advocate is Peter Huber. His latest polemic, for the right-wing think tank the Manhattan Institute (find out who funds it and you know who paid for this Intellectual Astroturf), claims the current mess is "all Clinton's fault" (well, Gore too, and his buddy Reed Hundt). It claims everything would be OK if we'd just go back to regulating things on behalf of the monopolists. The problem with Huber's analysis is that it takes a steady-state view of the technology world. The approach of the mid-1990s -- de-regulating the Bells and encouraging competition from new providers -- was correct, based on what was known at the time. It was a bi-partisan approach, approved of by both Republicans and Democrats. The 1996 Telecommunications Act was passed by a Republican Congress, and its enforcement was not objected to by conservatives save in retrospect, when they discovered how much money they could get from the Bells by putting things back as they were. Then they simply re-wrote history, blamed it all on the opposition, and advocated monopoly. In 1996 the 802.11 standards hadn't been announced. The first wireless networking scheme, announced in 1997, ran at 1 Mbps. It wasn't until 1998 that we got to the 11 Mbps 802.11b scheme, and with the arrival of another bug hunk of spectrum (made available by that same FCC), we now have both an 802.11A standard for 54 Mbps and products that can combine both of the 802.11 frequency sets to deliver still more speed. In other words, regulators didn't know about Moore's Law of Radios. And they didn't properly understand Moore's Law of Bandwidth, or DWDM (Dense Wavelength Division Multiplexing), the use of various colors to multiply the carrying-capacity of fiber by a factor of 10, 100 or even 1,000. What I object to (especially from a Harvard-MIT graduate) is the re-writing of history for partisan advantage, and the continuing ignorance of how technology has changed in the last 7 years. (Heck, I just went to Rice, and even I know better.) I guess Huber needs "The Blankenhorn Effect." If you're reading this, Peter, buy yourself a copy. (You, too, Sparky. Yeah, you, behind the screen, reading this.) The Universe changes every day, and regulators have a lot of catching-up to do. 3093@blogcritics.org Wed, 29 Jan 2003 20:08:47 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2003/01/26/135101.php#comment-3031 <i>Think of it as compensation for having your team named the "Zips."</i> Nevermind your CIO is named "Gaylord". I've been thinking about getting wireless access put in the Casa Brain Garage, but wonder if the the price on .11b gear is going to go down even more with the new .11g getting adopted as a standard. 3031@blogcritics.org Sun, 26 Jan 2003 14:17:09 EST