My Thoughts Exactly:
DNA Robots — another “Acts” technology sighting

, , , , , ,

According to this release from the BioDesign Institute at Arizona State University,

A team of scientists from Columbia University, Arizona State University, the University of Michigan, and the California Institute of Technology (Caltech) have programmed an autonomous molecular “robot” made out of DNA to start, move, turn, and stop while following a DNA track.

The development could ultimately lead to molecular systems that might one day be used for medical therapeutic devices and molecular-scale reconfigurable robots—robots made of many simple units that can reposition or even rebuild themselves to accomplish different tasks.

Or for creating the Overmind and repairing and reanimating the thawing head of Fred Christ, the frozen god, according to diabolical villain Monty Meekman, the power behind the throne at Digital Microsystems, Inc., and chancellor of the University of New Kent, as chronicled in my famous novel Acts of the Apostles and famous novella The Pains.

Tales of the Sausage Factory:
Want to Play FCC Fantasy Baseball? Follow The Title II Debate.

Ever since FCC Chair Genachowski announced his plans to hit the legal reset button and classify some aspect of broadband access service as Title II “telecom” rather than as a Title I “information service,” the little hard core world of policy has been all abuzz about what the FCC might do and how that might work or not work or would have this or that unintended consequence. AT&T’s Bob Quin provides a good example of this sort of analysis here, wherein he concludes that the Genachowski proposal can’t achieve the desired net neutrality rules and therefore analogizes this effort to Pickett’s Charge.  [Additional props to Quin for comparing the effort to something that turned out to be a huge tactical mistake and that the folks executing Pickett’s Charge were fighting for a cause most of us in the progressive side oppose (the Confederacy).]

For me, this sort of speculation has much more in common with Fantasy Baseball than with an actual historic event — or what is likely to happen. What we’ve got right now is Genachowski outlining his approach in as close to layman’s terms as possible, and FCC General Counsel Austin Schlick providing an only slightly more detailed legal over view. No one can reasonably expect this to contain the level of detail and nuance of the FCC’s upcoming Notice of Inquiry on Title II and whatever forbearance proposal the FCC actually publishes.  So all us policy wonks digging into the minutia of what we think the FCC might say and how that would or wouldn’t accomplish is a lot of fun. It’s also potentially educational in allowing us to explore  possible issues and develop and hone arguments. But using this collective internet chatter to judge the effective of what the real FCC will actually do in reality, and therefore whether the FCC should take action at all, is as foolish as trying to predict the 2010 World Series from how well my fantasy baseball team performs.

Still, being a hardcore policy wonk, I can’t resist the urge to put my Fantasy FCC team against AT&T’s and the others. So I will give my replies to the most common “why the FCC won’t be able to do what it wants based on what Genachowski and Schlick said,” with the following caveats:

1) This is not written with the precision and nuance of a legal brief.

2) Substantive legal and tech comments, either pro or against, are certainly welcome. I just may not get a chance to respond given how busy things are.

3) The FCC still has an enormous capacity to do this wrong and mess things up. So while they could do it right, and I hope they will (I shall certainly do my best to push them) they could also screw up big time.

Continue reading

Tales of the Sausage Factory:
Genachowski Hits The Legal Reset Button — “Title II Lite”

, , , , , , , , , ,

Genachowski has announced his proposed response to the Comcast case. This is precisely the result Comcast and the other carriers feared since the DC Circuit panel signaled at oral argument they would slam the FCC.  In my latest “5 Minutes With Harold Feld,” I give a short (at least, as short as I can) explanation of what this “Third Way” (also referred to as “Title II Lite”) means and what happens next from a process perspective. Some additional analysis, laughing at Wall St. analysts, and reference to a Dilbert from 1992 below . . .

Continue reading

Tales of the Sausage Factory:
Public Knowledge IP3 Awards Nominations Open

Every year, my employer Public Knowledge gives the IP3 Awards to recognize individuals or organizations that have tremendous contributions to balance in Intellectual Property, Information Policy, and Internet Protocols (hence “IP3”). To nominate someone, click on this link.  You can see past winner here to see what sort of achievement we’ve honored (and who you think we’ve missed).

Stay tuned . . . .

My Thoughts Exactly:
Attention Cape-Cod area Red Sox radio fans/grammar police

, , , , ,

I listen to a lot of Red Sox games on the radio. I like the game-calling by Joe Costiglione well enough. Joe is boring, but competent. His sidekick Dave O’Brien drives me a bit nuts, as he’s pompous &  tends to talk in broadcasterese more than English.  I can  abide the cliches even if I don’t like them, (“twin killing” for double play; “became strikeout victim” for “struck out”, etc) but the mangled grammar is really irksome. O’Brien’s inability to  master the conditional sentence, especially the “third conditional” is particularly annoying.  Instead of saying, for example, “if Ortiz had hit the ball he would not have struck out and the Red Sox might not have lost the game,” O’Brien ponderously intones “Ortiz hits that ball, he doesn’t strike out and the Sox are still playing.” With O’Brien at the mic, there’s only present tense. You might think that a professional broadcaster would have familiarity with the nuances of our language. Not O’Brien. He talks like somebody who never went to school. It irritates the hell out of me.

Continue reading

Tales of the Sausage Factory:
McDowell and Baker Want To Preempt States on Broadband Reporting? Fat Chance Under Title I.

, , , ,

Sometime back, I coined the term “Cassandrafreude.”  A compound of “Cassandra” and “schadenfreude,” it means “the bitter pleasure derived from seeing someone else suffer in the way you predicted even though you are getting screwed yourself.”

I am experiencing a healthy dose of Cassandrefreude watching FCC Commissioners McDowell and Baker push the FCC to preempt state data collection of broadband deployment (statements here and here). The matter came up when the FCC issued a Declaratory Ruling findng that nothing in federal statutes or previous FCC orders stops states from collecting their own information about broadband deployment. The ruling expresses no opinion about whether state PUCs have existing authority (given that broadband is a Title I “information service”) or whether or not it would be a good idea for states to collect their own data. But even this specter that someone somewhere might do something carriers don’t like prompted Republicans McDowell and Baker to push for the FCC to preempt state authority to collect information. After all, as we all know, broadband providers are timid creatures and likely to be scared off by the least thing that could conceivably raise their cost of doing business — as the broadband providers themselves constantly remind us.

I’ll zip past the usually irony of Republicans who supposedly venerate federalism and demand record evidence before the FCC contemplates action to protect consumers sounding the alarm bell that unless the FCC rushes to preempt state governments, it will mean the end of broadband investment as we know it. Lets get right to the juicy part that fills me with such unbridled Cassandrafreude.

Under what authority, exactly, would the FCC preempt state collection of broadband data?

Continue reading

My Thoughts Exactly:
Status report on Wetmachine crossover

, , ,

Longtime readers of Wetmachine are aware that we’ve moved to a new blogging platform. This has been a pretty ambitious undertaking and we’ve hit a few snags. Among other things, it’s not possible, yet, to buy or read my books from the site, and our adverts are not working (not that you miss them, but we miss the little bit of revenue they bring). There are some aesthetic tweaks to the layout & rss feeds we’re working on, and a few other things.

Please bear with us. The migration is being handled by Wetmachine’s unsung & unpaid hero Gary Gray, and he’s got a lot on his plate (including small things like the proverbial day job). We’ll address the remaining issues as expeditiously as possible.

Meanwhile we certainly would appreciate any feedback on the new design, and bug reports are always welcome. You can leave them in the comments or use the “contact” form.

Tales of the Sausage Factory:
I Testify Tomorrow On Set-Top Boxes

Ever wonder whatever happened to “cable ready” televisions, so that now you have to rent a set-top box from your cable or satellite (or other “MVPD” for those who remember the term from last time)? Wonder why getting your TiVo or XBox or Roku box hooked up to your “CableCard” (whatever that is) is such a pain?

I and a panel of other witnesses will explain all this to the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Communications, Technology and the Internet tomorrow (Thursday, April 29) at 10m a.m. at a hearing on Competitive Availability of Navigation Devices. “Navigation Devices” is the fancy name for set-top boxes that can do things other than switch channels. Almost 15 years ago, Congress directed the FCC as part of the 1996 Telecommunications Act to make rules that would promote competition for “navigation devices” that would make it possible for us consumers to have our choice of fun things to attach to the cable system cheaply and easily. (Law codified at 47 U.S.C. 549)

We at PK pushed for the FCC to take up this issue as part of the National Broadband Plan as part of the general issue of broadband and the next generation of online video competition. To its credit, the FCC admitted that the existing rules have not worked out (as anyone who has tried to find a “cable ready” anything or tried to hook up something that is supposed to be “compatible” with your subscription video service knows). They have kicked off a new proceeding based on our Petition last December to create a “universal gateway” device that would work the way the a phone jack works: plug in the connector and the device connects to the network (more details in this post by PK colleague John Bergmayer.)

I’ll be talking about our proposal and why I think it would not only save people tons of money on monthly rental fees for cable boxes, but would have serious impact on online video, gaming, and content creation generally. Witnesses from various industry sectors will be there to explain what they like and don’t like about the status quo and our proposal. If you are the sort of policy junkie that enjoys watching this (or wonder what I look like hunched over a table reading testimony), you can follow the fun on the Subcommittee homepage via the link they will post in the bottom right-hand corner box.

Stay tuned . . . .

Tales of the Sausage Factory:
Media Bureau Sides Against Over The Top Video In Round 1 Of Sky Angel Case.

Last Wednesday, those trying to use broadband to compete with cable video offerings (aka “over-the-top” video providers) lost the first round in a small but important case: Sky Angel v. Discovery Channel. Happily, it’s only the first round. But the preliminary ruling by the FCC’s Media Bureau (“MB”) highlights why either Congress or the full Commission needs to focus on the question of whether the rules that protect cable competition (or, as we in the field say, “multichannel video programming distributors” or “MVPDs” — which includes everything from traditional cable to FIOS to satellite) will also protect competition for online providers.

Continue reading