Some background is here, at MYDD.
Harold, as always we’ll look to you for guidance in how to best help out. And of course factual analysis of the issues will help us too.
This fight is far from over. The good guys may be poised to take leadership positions in the Congress, but there are statehose battles raging as well. Now is no time to let down our guard.
Few things raised joyfull cackles among Republicans in the waning days of 2006. Many, however regarded the bankruptcy of Air America as a bright spot in an otherwise dismal fall. Talk radio, it appeared, remained part of the conservative “heartland” where such liberal voices as Al Franken meet a resounding silence.
However, as reported by the New York Times, the story may have a lot more to it then a tale of silly liberals who can’t run a business and have nothing interesting to say. It appears that 90 major national advertisers engaged in a boycott of Air America programming, to the extent that they wanted their advertising stripped out of syndicated material from other sources (here, ABC Radio Network). The interesting question, of course, is why would supposedly dissinterested companies with no motivation to interefere with domestic politics want to drive Air America out of business?
Hahahahaha…..I love it when I ask silly rhetorical questions like that. For a further specualtion on what apparently went on and why I think the new, Democratic Congress might want to do a little investigatin’ into the Case of Secret Boycott, see below….
Last time: “Hidden Special Purpose Languages,” in which we said that cool languages can be a secret sauce embedded within useful products.
Now: What about having each product share a common language?
[This is an excerpt from a Lisp conference talk I gave in 2002.]
Last time: “Every Application Architecture Has Plenty of Languages,” in which we said that IT was full of enough languages to keep any language lawyer busy.
Now: Well clearly there’s room for languages work, but where are the language products hiding?
[This is an excerpt from a Lisp conference talk I gave in 2002.]
According to this article, the City of Boston is considering banning or otherwise regulating the placement of DBS receiver dishes. The article reports that in a number of places these have become real eye sores, especially where a tenant moves out and just leaves the dish. Also, DBS comapnies are increasingly puting dishes in windows rather than all the way on roofs, and are generally not that concerned with keeping the neighborhood looking pretty.
Nevertheless, after the trouncing the FCC gave Massport last month over OTARD, this is pretty silly. Or, as those of us from Boston might say “wicked OTAHDed.”
Now there are ways the City can try to deal with the esthetic problems. For example, it could mandate that landlords permit use of rooftops for DBS providers (one big problem is often that landlords sign exclusive deals with incumbent cable operators, so only tennants with a southern exposure window can subscribe). Or Boston might require that any tenant that terminates DBS service remove the dish or who moves must remove the receiver dish. The city could probably require that if a DBS or other provider comes to install a dish and finds a “dead dish” connected to the residence, the DBS provider must remove it (I’m a little leary of this one because it imposes additional costs on the DBS provider and therefore may be preempted by federal law).
These are just ideas off the top of my head, so they may not be plausible. If the City of Boston wants some help, I recommend the Boston University Law School Legislative Drafting Clinic (of which I am an alum). But I hope they resist the urge to just pass something stupid that a federal judge will smack down in five minutes. That never helps anyone, and is especially irritating when taking a bit of time and effort to get it right can save everyone some grief down the road.
Stay tuned . . . .
Last time: “What Do Buyers Want?,” in which I said that employers want specialists in technologies, which doesn’t really help the employers solve problems.
Now: Where does that leave us? Where’s the language vendor in this picture? Where does the language guru go?
[This is an excerpt from a Lisp conference talk I gave in 2002.]
Sometimes I think that the D.C. Circuit and the Republicans running the various Commerce Committees are the Arch Priests of Kiplings Gods of the Market, and it has brow-beaten the poor FCC through repeated reversals accompanied by tongue lashings into embracing this nonsense. The chief tenant of the Gods of the Market Place is that by deregulating the industry, competition emerges and consumers enjoy all the happiness that comes from a competitive environment. If this fails to happen as expected, adherents of the Gods of the Market practice a discipline called “Denial of Reality.” Practitioners of Denial of Reality believe that if you sufficiently discredit people who tell you about actual reality, and keep repeating that the reality you want actually exists, then Actual Reality will eventually by browbeaten into conforming to the reality promised by the Gods of the Market Place. And the FCC, like a good little penitent, keeps trying to produce reports that give the D.C. Circuit and the Republicans in Congress the world they want to see rather than actual reality.
Sadly, as GAO studies keep demonstrating, wishing for competition doesn’t make it so. This latest GAO Report on the lack of competition for business customers in major urban areas (and nicely explained in this piece here) is but the latest in a series of real world reports demonstrating that you can only ignore reality for so long before it bites you in the tender places. Sadly, however, it chomps down hard on the just and the unjust alike.
My analysis below . . .
In the latest chapter of the FCC’s most gripping “telecomnovella” Death Star Reborn: The AT&T/BellSouth Merger, FCC Chairman Kevin Martin has set in motion the process to get 3rd Republican Commissioner Robert McDowell “unrecused”. The FCC has been deadlocked 2-2 because Commissioner McDowell used to represent CompTel, one of the groups opposing the merger, creating a conflict of interest. (You can see my previous coverage explaining all this here.)
McDowell, while not champing at the bit to be unrecused, has announced he’s ready to serve if the FCC’s General Counsel tells him he has to vote to break the deadlock. So it becomes possible to get this done before the new Congress takes over. Although why this should be such a big deal is beyond me, since it’s not like Congress can directly interfere with FCC merger review, and the indirect threats for payback are already on the table.
Martin, conscious of the controversial nature of the move, wrote a letter to the Chairs and ranking members of the Senate and House Commerce Committees explaining the need for such extraordinary action. In doing so, Martin observed that the FCC General Counsel had previously authorized former FCC Chairman William E. Kennard to break a 2-2 deadlock despite Kennard’s previous recusal.
Now some months back, when folks first started wondering about the “McDowell Option,” I opined that while the FCC General Counsel could force McDowell to vote, such a move would be “extraordinary” and “To the best of my knowledge, it has never happened.” So what’s all this about Kennard then?
Art Brodsky does an excellent job explaining why the Kennard situation was radically different. But, my honor being involved and all, I decided to dig a bit deeper. As explained below, the facts on the Kennard case were so bizzare and different (starting with the fact that Kennard had not been legally required to recuse himself in the first place but had done so, in his own words “out of an abundance of caution”), that I still think my original statement stands and that, if the FCC unrecuses McDowell, and requires him to vote, it’s really breaking new ground.
More detail than you could possibly want (including a timeline and relevant quotes from Kennard’s public statement in 2000 on unrecusing himself) below….
In 2002 I gave an invited talk at a Lisp conference in San Francisco. I was scheduled while I was Technical Strategist at a hotshot Lisp-like company founded by Tim Berners-Lee. I gave the talk right after the strategy department was disolved and I was fired with it. (John was in the same department.)
As I remember, it wasn’t well received. (But I was pretty grumpy at the time and considered myself to be not well received by the world in general.) The writing and speaking wasn’t great, and some of the ideas were marginal. But I think a lot of the ideas have stood up pretty well, and I still believe them. I’m going to serialize it here, so that I can reference it in future blogs.
Abstract
The last few years have seen a lot of new language development, but commercial success has eluded many good language companies. A framework for success is presented, in which language systems are recast as open platforms for some class of application. Multi-tier marketing is examined, in which a free or low cost application enlarges the platform’s community, while revenues are produced on an upper-tier product or service. The presentation will be followed by a fishbowl discussion, in which everyone is encouraged to join the conversation.
