General

Items that do not fit in other categories

We Are Finalists for the 2008 Weblog Best Technology Blog! Go us!

, , , , , ,

My shameless begging last November paid off!

The 2008 Weblog Awards

Yes, we here at Tales of the Sausage Factory and Wetmachine generally are delighted, astounded, humbled and whatever else one says at this juncture to make the final cut for nominees as Weblog’s “Best Technology Blog of 2008.” Given that (a) Engadget has apparently won in this category every year since they started doing this in 2003, (b) Both TechCrunch and Ars Technica also do policy and have real journalists and stuff, and (c) a quick scan of all the other titles reveals that we are probably the only nominated site maintained by amateurs doing this in addition to our full time jobs, I totally expect for us to get utterly creamed.

Nevertheless, as whining pathetically worked to get us nominated, I am going to continue this fine tradition and see if it gets us a win. So I want to urge everyone who reads this to please, please, puh-leaze go vote for us! Polls close at 5 p.m. EST on Tuesday, January 13. Any questions, please read the Weblog Award FAQ.

Thanks all, and stay tuned . . . . .

How is Senator Corker like Laban the Aramite? Perhaps Mr. Corker and His Fellow Republicans Should Spend More Time With the Bible.

,

It’s Sunday School time! And our reading today is going to be from Genesis. Specifically, I want to tell you the story of Laban the Aramite. You can find the details in Gen 29:1-32:3. Today’s reading is dedicated to Senator Bob Corker, who may find some bits of the story familiar.

Now when our father Jacob, the memory of the righteous is as a blessing, fled from the anger of his brother Esau, he came to the land of Charan where dwelt his Uncle Laban the Aramite. Laban had two daughters, Leah and Rachel. He also had an abundance of flocks of various kinds.

Now when Jacob had been there a month, Laban asked: “Would you work for me for free? Say what shall be your wage.” And Jacob loved Rachel, and he said: “I shall work for you seven years for your daughter Rachel’s hand in marriage.” And Laban agreed. And so great was Jacob’s love for Rachel that the seven years had seemed but a few days. But at the end of the seven years, Laban tricked Jacob and gave his daughter Leah instead.

And Jacob discovered this and said to Laban: “You tricked me!” And Laban said: “But here we have a law that we will not give the younger in marriage before the elder. Sure, I might have mentioned that before, but hey — it wasn’t my responsibility. You agreed to the terms of the contract without worrying about the underlying legal background which — curiously enough — is controlled by me and my fellow similarly situated Arameans. And while it may seem like we are just picking on you because you are a worker and helpless stranger in our land, that really isn’t it at all. Now, becuase I am such a nice guy, I will let you marry Rachel in addition to Leah in exchange for another seven years of labor.”

And even though Laban had cheeted him, Jacob was without recourse, so he maried Rachel and he worked another seven years for Laban on account of Rachel.

And at the end of the seven years, Laban said: “Now let us negotiate and tell me what you wish your wages to be.” And Jacob said: “I will take all the striped sheep and all the spotted sheep, and you will take all the solid sheep.” And to this Laban agreed. And Jacob guarded the sheep, and did all that he could to maximize the number of striped and spotted sheep because, after 14 years of working for Laban the Aramite, Jacob was no fool and knew exactly what he was getting into. And time and again, Laban the Aramite changed Jacob’s wages without notice. And time and again, God protected Jacob and caused Jacob’s flocks to increase. And throughout all this, although Laban always sought to cheat Jacob, Jacob did his job as best he could. He stood guard at night in the freezing cold. He watched the flocks in the summer heat. And Laban’s flocks grew vast from the labor of Jacob.

But there came a time when Laban and his sons grew Jealous of Jacob. Yes, Jacob did everything he was asked to do. And everytime Laban tried to cheat him and changed his wages, Jacob would still work hard for Laban. And because of Jacob’s labors, Laban and his sons grew very prosperous. But still, the fact that Jacob also grew wealthy stirred their hearts against them. And the sons of Laban said: “Behold how Jacob has taken all that belonged to our father, and from what was our father’s he has gotten his glory.” And Jacob saw that Laban did not look at him as he had before. Because of course, the fact that Laban wasn’t doing nearly as well as he wished he were was totally Jacob’s fault for doing everything Laban had told him, and because every time Laban had tried to cheat Jacob by changing his wage, God had protected Jacob. So Laban and his sons knew that it must somehow be Jacob’s fault. So God told Jacob to gather up all the cattle and wealth he had earned and take early retirement, while Laban and his sons went off to the big sheep convention in Paddan Aram. (Rachel took the opportunity to grab the household idols as a parting gift, but Jacob did not know this.)

When Laban heard Jacob was taking early retirement, Laban and his sons rose to persue him and steal from him all the wealth that he had earned from Laban. But God did not think very highly of Laban and his conduct. So he warned Laban that attempts to improve the balance of trade between Charan and Canaan by confiscating all the wealth that Jacob had earned was a very, very BAD IDEA. And the Lord would not look kindly on the efforts of Laban and his sons to resolve Laban’s economic problems at the expense of Jacob and his family.

So when Laban overtook Jacob, he made a big deal about all of this as if it were Jacob’s fault, even though Laban had been the one to ask Jacob to name his wage, and Jacob had labored faithfully at all Laban had asked. And Jacob got really pissed off, and reminded Laban that Laban had tried to cheat him like 100 times, and that everytime it looked Like Jacob would get ahead, Laban tried to cheat him, even though Jacob’s labors enriched Laban and his sons. And Laban was all like “well, I’ll still do you a big favor and let you leave with everything you earned, but I reserve the right to cross the border and take stuff away from you if I think you are mistreating my daughters.” And Jacob did roll his eyes, because everyone knew Laban did give a rat’s patootie for his daughters, but said “fine, whatever. Just bugger off and let me keep what I earned you miserable whanker.”

And Laban and Jacob made their piece, and Laban departed.

Here endeth the lesson. Next week, we’ll take up Exodus, and why crapping all over immigrants because you fear them doesn’t work out very well either. In the meantime, I would recommend Mr. Corker and his Republican buddies spend a bit more time with their Bibles. In particular, I refer them to Deut. 24: 10-16. You should find it instructive on how to reform the personal bankruptcy code.

Stay tuned . . . .

Changes for Media Access Project, And For Me Personally.

, , , , , ,

As everyone not living under a rock has heard, the spirit of change is now sweeping through Washington like a broom enchanted by a lazy animated mouse. Who are we at Media Access Project to resist change? Heck, we bloody well lead change, we make change. We are change agents. We — well, you get the idea.

So what changes will happen at MAP?

1) After 10 years, I will leave Media Access Project, effective January 31, 2009.

2) After more than 30 years as President and CEO, Andrew Jay Schwartzman will become Legal and Policy Director. Andy will handle policy, and MAP will hire a new CEO to handle administrative and fundraising duties.

3) Associate Director Parul Desai will have an enhanced role in the organization going forward.

Why? Because, bluntly, we need to prepare for a very different world. Make no mistake, the telecom policy world still needs MAP — perhaps now more than ever. As I repeatedly stress, anyone who thinks that we can just elect the right people and go home needs to think again. The new Administration, despite what I believe is a very real and strong ideological affinity for our issues and a reasonable skepticism for the blandishments of incumbents, will need a powerful progressive movement to keep it moving in the right direction. MAP will continue to sit at the tip of the spear on media and telecom reform, pushing against media gatekeepers and fighting for an electronic media that lives up to its potential for Free Speech and innovation.

But we can’t do that by staying the way we’ve always stayed. We need to take a deep look at ourselves and ask some hard questions about how we avoid the trap of fighting battles that no longer matter, in ways that no longer work. We have spent the last 8 years in opposition, fighting to hold back some really wretched policies and swimming uphill to create new opportunities for independent voices. Whatever the Obama Administration brings, I gaurantee it will not be anything like the Bush or Clinton years.

Which is why I have decided to move on, or at least give up my job at MAP. I still love this field, and strongly believe in the Progressive movement (including my belief that it is a movement and not a mob). But the time has come for me to move on to something else, although I have no idea what that something else will be (anyone with any thoughts on the subject, don’t hesitate to write). I have a book contract with Ig Publishing for a book on building the modern progressive movement and developing an alternative to the Gods of the Marketplace (I like to think of it as what Naiomi Klein forgot to write about in The Shock Doctrine, the part where people figure out how to get a better system in place). that, of course, will not pay the bills (especially as it will not actually get published until the fall of 2010), so I expect to do some consulting for awhile until I figure out what else to do. I’ll add that if anyone can figure out a way to make this bloging stuff pay, I would love to know it.

In answer to the inevitable question — yes, I’d love to work for the Obama Administration or do something worthwhile on the Hill. And like every other Democratic policy wonk, I’ve filled out the form at change.gov, so they will know where to find me if they decide they can use me.

But even without a job waiting for me, and despite my general satisfaction with my job at MAP, I feel the time has come for me to move on. Cliche as it sounds, I need a change and I cannot think of a better time for one (other than this pesky recession), given how the policy wonk world is undergoing one of its rare ferment moments when the possibility of sweeping away the established order of things seems breathtakingly real if we have the courage to sieze it and dare to do something utterly different.

I may regret it. But I think not. I like to think I’ve done a lot of good doing what I’ve been doing for the last ten years. I also like to think I’ll find other ways to do good and interesting things as well. This feels right, and I would be false to myself if I refused to take the risk.

Stay tuned . . .

Adelstein Is Right On FCC Authority to Launch An Investigation Into Arbitron Portable People Meter.

, , , , , ,

FCC Commissioner Adelstein wrote Chairman Martin a letter yesterday asking Martin to launch a formal inquiry into Arbitron’s use of the new portable people meter (PPM). As I noted back in September when the FCC put the Petition for an inquiry out on Public Notice, this issue means a lot to minority-oriented stations and their audiences, as they believe the PPM undercounts listeners to minority radio programming.

Also as I said back then, I think the FCC has very broad authority to investigate just about anything related to its core mission of, in the words of Section 1 of the Communications Act, “to make available, so far as possible, to all the people of the United States, without discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, or sex, a rapid, efficient, Nation-wide, and world-wide wire and radio communication service with adequate facilities at reasonable charges, for the purpose of the national defense, for the purpose of promoting safety of life and property through the use of wire and radio communications.”

Mind you, having the power to launch an official inquiry does not mean you have the power to actually do anything. The FCC’s mandate is fairly broad, but it has limits. But one of the questions the FCC can ask is: “So, if we discovered something we didn’t like, what could we do about it?” That answer may be nothing more than “tell Congress this sucks,” a conclusion the FCC has reached in the past on occasion when it concluded it could take no action under existing law. But it also allows the FCC to explore other options. For example, the FCC could decide that concerns over the ppm make Arbitron ratings unreliable for certain measurements relating to its rules, like determining whether or not a station is in the “top four” for purposes of permitting a merger. Or the FCC could decide, after seeing lots of opinions and legal research from interested parties pro and con, that the FCC does have authority even if it has never exercised this authority. Adelstein cites 47 U.S.C. 257, which requires the FCC to eliminate market barriers to entry. I think a fairly strong case can be made that regulation of ratings services falls under the FCC’s ancillary authority over broadcasting. That’s a little difficult after American Library Association v. FCC (the broadcast flag case), because a ppm is not a “communication” and ALA held that ancillary jurisdiction must regulate an actual communication or transmission rather than simply have some possible impact on the future of television. OTOH, ratings are so clearly integral to the entire broadcasting industry that the connection with the “statutorily mandated” responsibilities and goals of the Communications Act is very strong.

Neither of these views may bear out on close investigation as authority to act. But again, this is why the FCC conducts inquiries. While it is easy to point to things that might have an impact on broadcasting that clearly lie outside the FCC’s jurisdiction, such as building the Sears Tower in Chicago, and easy to point to things that lie squarely inside the authority of the FCC to regulate (such as media ownership limits), there is also a middle ground of things that are rather murky. In a case such as this, where interested parties have submitted a mess of evidence that raises questions on a matter that potentially impacts millions of people getting access to diverse programming, I think the FCC ought to go ahead and have an inquiry.

Stay tuned . . . .

Apparently, I Am Even Less Influential Than I Thought . . . .

, , ,

Or so says Paul Kapustka with his list of “Top Ten Net Neutrality Influencers”, on which I do not rank even an honorable mention.

Tip of the hat, however, to friend-of-the-blog and occasional sparring partner Richard Bennett included in the honorable mention slot.

On the plus side, no one will care if I take Wednesday and Friday off.

Stay tuned . . . .

Guest Post: Bailout Or Bust

, , ,

I’m pleased to post a guest blog posting from Professor Alan L. Feld of Boston University School of Law. Two disclaimers are in order. First, the views expressed herein by Prof. Feld are his own, and not those of B.U. Second, he is my Dad — a matter on which I am quite pleased and proud.

For his position on the proposed auto industry bail out, see below . . . .

Continue reading

As Long As We're On An Electoral Roll . . . .

, ,

Allow me to engage in a shameless act of self-promotion.

The 2008 Weblog Awards

If you’ve enjoyed either my shamelessly biased but hopefully entertaining coverage of the FCC and other techno-policy issues, or if you enjoy the whole whacky crew here at Wetmachine, why not go and nominate either Tales of the Sausage Factory or Wetmachine for a 2008 Weblog Award. Here’s the list of categories, and the nomination FAQ. None of the categories really fit, of course, although I will note that “law” and “technology” both have relatively few nominations at the moment.

Stay tuned. . . .