ihoby wog

First I checked in with Launchnet and Covad separately and found out some bad news: my new house would cut my download speed in half. 3mbit is the fastest I could get from them or any other DSL provider. Hm. Also I’d have to buy a new modem and be locked in for a full year (or was it 2 years?). The other DSL providers could indeed be cheaper but they wouldn’t be better or faster. Next I checked to see if Verizon has gotten fiber into the area. Nope. Has the city done anything with all the fiber they strung up and down the city limits? No. Okay so cable internet. I had high hopes that cable companies other than Comcast had begun providing in the area but they all turned out to be ones that sold ONLY to tenants of the giant sky-rise appts/condos downtown. For WiMax all there is, is Clear, who used to be called Clearwire.

So now from 5 potential options I’m down to 3 actual options:

I had a thought then about the companies themselves, about their evil factor, so I looked up their history:

The info on these companies can be found in many places but most of it is already summarized well on Wikipedia.

Faced with this information I was twisted in a dilemma: Should I choose the least evil for the highest cost, slowest service, and most inflexible contract? Or the middle evil for questionably better service? Or the cheapest, fastest service who will use all the money I give them to undermine every internet/media policy I stand for?

In the end, I ended up trying out Clear since it seemed the easiest to back out of if it didn’t work well. It certainly wasn’t a clear winner (bad pun) but it seemed like the only balance between evil and connectivity in North Seattle. It shouldn’t have to be this difficult.

The FCC hearing tonight at the Seattle Town Hall went pretty well for the public – it wasn’t so good for the handful of media conglomeration advocates who spoke. Kevin Martin got an earful of our discontent, our hopes, our accomplishments, and our strong opinion against media consolidation.

I was present in Monterey, CA at that leg of the 2004 hearings.. and I’d have to say that this recording of public and panel comments was as good or better than that one. There weren’t as many people (given the short notice) but the people who where, gave solid and passionate testimonies to not only commissioner Copps but also Kevin Martin! Can you believe it? Now, Martin didn’t stay at the commissioners’ table the entire time, nor was he paying attention 100% – but he DID keep coming back and listening. I left a little after 9:30 pm so I don’t know if he stayed in his chair until the end but he was CERTAINLY subjected to hours and hours of people telling him that the previous FCC decisions concerning consolidation have caused so much harm and any future loosening of consolidation restrictions would cause even more – that it is NOT in the public interest, it is NOT what we need, and it is NOT what we want.

There were speakers from diverse backgrounds, ages, shapes and sizes – all giving the same opinion but from their own perspective, in their own way. In a discussion of media diversity, we gave them public diversity.. in person and en masse.

Probably one of the best (there were so many memorable speakers) angles of perspective came from a middle aged woman with a british accent. She got up and told the commission that she was “shocked.. that there are so many people here tonight, BEGGING to you – for what should be their right.” (not sure if I’m quoting exactly)

It’s something that no one else spoke of and I myself hadn’t backed out of the moment enough to realize the absurdity of the entire situation. Why ARE we needing to fly, drive, bike or run in from across town or across the country with a few days notice, just to have the chance to jostle in line for a chance to beg to this appointed commission? Why aren’t we being asked what’s in our interest before-hand? Why aren’t we polled? Why aren’t they coming to US to make their decisions?

Why must we be forced to beg for what is right? To beg for them to do what is right?

It’s an important point that I’m glad was made. Within the sea of other statements that comprised some of the finest public feedback I’ve witnessed from a group as large as this – it wrapped it all up, back to a point where all of the impassioned pleas from us were suddenly in a greater perspective.. That it’s come down to this now. That we’re being treated this way. It’s simply inhumane.

How could ANYONE after hearing everything that was said tonight, go back to their office and still side with corporate media on this? How could they live with themselves?

I guess we’ll find out when Kevin Martin gets back to D.C.

As I see it, the internet is the most important communication medium that we need to protect, expand, and enhance – both nationally and internationally.

IMPORTANCE

Democracy is at stake. Being the only uncensored means of high speed communication, it is the only place candidates and ballot measures have nearly equal footing for the public to experience what they’re about and make an informed vote.

Freedom is at stake. Through the internet you are free to express nearly anything you want to potentially anyone in the world, unbound by corporate suppression. True information, whistle-blowing, investigative reports and so on are necessities. Creativity, entertainment and cultural records are enriching. The ability for us to do EXACTLY WHAT WE’RE DOING NOW on this website is at stake.

Once again, community and human enlightenment are at stake. As with other means throughout history with which people gained new abilities to communicate and interact across previous barriers, we are at a point where the internet has the potential to let us realize how similar all our hopes and concerns are, how little we really need borders, and how once enough of us realize that – then it’s obvious that we can start making life better for everyone.

SOLUTIONS

Many years ago, a plan was called for and drawn up. It was said to be the most ambitious project ever attempted, the man who drew up the plans did not have confidence it could really be done. But the government was determined and the resources were allotted. The project was to build an Interstate Highway system.. and guess what – they succeeded. And with the exception of turnpikes, U.S. roads are free for everyone to use.

That’s how the “last mile” of internet should be – and CAN be. If all the necessary people in our government can ignore the corporate lobbyists for a minute and LISTEN TO US instead, they could see that we want this. They could pick a plan to do this and they could build what needs to be built for us to have free, nation-wide internet access.

People of government should realize that if they don’t listen to the citizens who elected them and are corrupted by corporate interests (who are by definition and legal charter, dictatorships with a single goal of monetary profit over all other concerns), THEIR VERY JOBS ARE AT STAKE. The system in which they’re employed as “public servants” will continue to slide into a republic not based on democracy but on despotism.. exactly the abuses of power that the U.S. rebelled against Britain for so many years ago.

So they need to take a new look at who they’re supposed to be serving (hint: us). They need to realize that if they save and expand the internet for all, they won’t NEED to be funded by corporate interests to appear on TV because people will get their information from the internet – and you won’t NEED millions of dollars to appear on the internet. You can campaign all you want on the net without spending much at all, and reach thousands, millions of voters without the TV and Radio networks chopping your message into half-second bites.

So if you don’t need millions of dollars to reach millions of voters, you don’t need corporate campaign funders looking for special favors.. and you can listen to who you’re supposed to be listening to, to make your decisions on what bills should pass and fail – the American People.

An economy based on fleecing citizens for corporate profit and fighting war is not sustainable. An economy based on bankers controlling all is not sound. A culture based on capitalism is not humane. We need to stop this direction while we still can, before it all comes crashing down.

The first place to start is with the last bastion of free speech, high-speed communication, and potential for true democracy – the internet. It can be the main conduit between the people and the government to get things on the right track.

One alternative could be a mixture of electronic democracy and either pay per view or state funding.

With digital TV and Radio (and of course, net-based entertainment) there could be added, a rating functionality. The audience could casually participate in providing democratic feedback of anything that is being broadcast. It would be great if the ratings were not just a simple up or down vote but could also be in the form of a 1-5 or 1-10 rating – or be in the form of emotion (joy, disgust, sadness, etc.) and concept (“I feel informed”, “This is important”, “This is disappointing”, etc.) buttons. Along with this ability to give pertinent but simple feedback, the results could be made transparent as well. There could be a view mode that would show current feedback statistics for the broadcast.

That would handle one aspect of opinions of how valued a broadcast may be to the public.. the other side is where the funding for these programs comes from. You could either go the capitalist or the socialist way.. or both.

In the capitalist method, everything would be pay per view. The price would probably have to be low or not many people would watch. Life with that would most likely be similar to using cell phones without “plans”.

In the socialist method, taxes would pay for the programming and voters would control what shows or stories (or general styles/genres/subjects) actually get the funding.

In either method, advertising could be excluded entirely to remove that source of bias and influence. The programs might not be as well funded.. but I think in most cases, current programs are over-paid and the broadcasting industries are rife with wasteful excess.

—
As for how to prevent propaganda.. the best way is probably through diversity of viewpoints broadcast. And the best way to increase the diversity of viewpoints is to reduce the cost and difficulty of creating contents and broadcasting them as much as possible.

If it’s cheap enough and easy enough for someone to argue with what you say, they’ll do it.

—
You probably shouldn’t use the word “filter” in this context because in the larger picture it amounts to censorship and informational fascism.

What could be implemented for net-info though, are protocols for increasing the ability to quickly/easily verify information and for certifying credentials or building cumulative “street cred” for a given source.

I can think of a couple ways of doing this – and I think these sort of systems would give the greatest benefit without needing to form armies of corruptible moderators or attempting to develop impossibly smart artificial intelligence programs.

This situation definitely centers around the “knowing about knowing” paradox that allows them to – among other things – make us believe that we are part of an ideological minority, when in fact the direct opposite is probably true.

By controlling the means of mass communication, they can make us feel more isolated and alone than we really are.

Education and health are probably the key methods for societies to realize self-empowerment. And since communication is most of what education is, that makes mass communication a critical device in how each one of us formulates our view of the world around us (especially beyond us).

Right now the Internet is the only means of mass communication still dominated by diverse and opposing viewpoints.. I think it’s for this reason that we have a movement as massive as we do, trying to counter forces of oppression. The internet is the only place where we can FIND OUT about opinions and reports that contradict what is being broadcast on TV, Radio, and Print. It is the very means with which we even know that things like media consolidation / net un-neutrality / etc. are happening and that there are other people out there who don’t like it either.

Remember there is no such thing as common knowledge, only what is either experienced directly or passed on from one person to another.

If there is a question of focus, that could go in several directions. Either we fight to protect the internet over all else and branch out from there.. or we get some other medium up and known as fast as we can before they shut down the open internet.. or we give up both to take over TV or Radio.

I don’t know. Neither of these focus actions sound as good as keeping at all fronts.

I guess the biggest thing to consider is that we HAVE to keep some line of communication up between all of us, whatever it may be.

It is apparent to me that besides the efforts of small collectives of relatively poor and unconnected people trying to turn the tide of tidal waves like corporate propaganda environment we have today – the two ways we have left to affect significant improvements to the communications landscape is by making friends with people who are one or both of the following:

1. Rich

2. Connected

Organizations like MoveOn and even the ACLU have only persisted at the level they have because of one or more wealthy benefactors who agree with their way of thinking. Somehow these orgs and their silent sponsors found each other and I think more of this needs to happen.

If this isn’t on the table as an important course of action, I feel it should be. While I don’t generally favor fighting fire with fire (and in this case, money with money and clout with clout), it can have the effect of leveling the playing field.

I’m wondering if anyone has ideas about who we could appeal to? Possibly disheartened members or former members of major corporations, banks, the federal reserve, or so on? Maybe on the side of influence there are people in the congress, lobbyists, newspeople or military officers.. I’m sure there are some of them who don’t like what’s going on, or at least some aspect of it.

Maybe.. maybe some of those contractors in Iraq that received portions of that “missing” $9 billion a couple years ago? I mean, if two guys with no experience or staff can get paid $100 million for “securing” an airfield that no aircraft used – I’d think either some of them might be feeling guilty and want to give back a little, or we could get even a fraction of that kind of money from someone else.. which would amount to far more money than could ever be raised by donations from us, the fantom that used to be called the middle class.

I mean $100 million.. one hundred million. Can anyone even visualize that kind of money? It doesn’t even sound like a real amount.. a zillion kadjillion.

But that’s what we’re up against.. people that have that kind of money and people that were willing to do just about ANYthing to get that kind of money.

So if any of those people in that strata might be willing to confront their peers with our help – either openly or discretely – that would be an opportunity that could change everything.

They might need us just as much as we need them.

In my first bit of news to report, I’d like to say that the Federal Communications Commission Localism Public Hearing held last night in Monterey was a success. The three commissioners present were greeted with a nearly unanimous 5 hour wave of disapproval concerning the effects of their deregulation of media consolidation.

Person after person voiced unique, eloquent, and emphatic remarks of why it hasn’t worked, what has been going wrong and what ideas the FCC could use to fix it. I’m very happy to report that even though I didn’t have enough time to prepare anything worthy of the open mic on this topic, I wouldn’t have had to. Other attendees of the public did for the most part, a splendid job of concisely presenting the opinions and facts that the FCC – and everyone really – should hear most..as well as ripping media power abusers (like Clearchannel, Murdock, etc.) a new ass hole. The only other facet I could have spoken on was how these and other rulings spelled the demise of internet radio’s former glory. Everything else was said and said well.

Our level of energy, unanimity and intelligence was inspiring. We know now that at least at this one event, we the people were heard. Loud, clear and in person. Copps, Adelstein and Abernathy have several hours of west coast public and industry discontent to shove in Powell’s orifice of choice.

I’d like to make a more complete report, one with quotes and greater depth. Apparently there will soon be a streaming video webcast of the event, so I should be able to do that. But also, if anyone has their own complete footage of the event – my own is shaky and woefully incomplete – a best-of video would also be great to make and release.

Side Points of interest:

– A couple people from the SF Indymedia were there. Liam who spoke at the mic and the girl who wore little pink piglet ears.

– For some members of the hearing staffers and conventional media, the energy of turnout was apparently frightening. People in suits nervously described us as “Quite a lively crowd” and stayed quiet after the talks began.

– Dozens of useless city police were scattered inside and out, with trucks and barricades. They stood around, bored out of their minds for the entire event.

More information on this and the other six hearings around the U.S. is available at this address:

http://www.fcc.gov/localism/hearing-monterey072104.html

(responding to a badly written, wrong-headed article)

There are several major points given as reasons in this article, which I don’t feel ARE the main reasons behind various events and decisions.

1. Near the beginning of this piece, it is mentioned that reasons for customers not adopting broadband were cost and content, being further narrowed to lack of content being the only reason. In my experience reading of satisfied and unsatisfied customers broadband, I’ve found the main inhibiting factors to be Cost, Availability and Hassle. For VERY large number of people trying to get broadband, it simply costs too much, they can’t get it at their house and they’ve had all sorts of trouble with customer service, reliability, contracts and line speed. I’ve never heard anyone complaining about or praising an ISP because of ‘content’. The Industry Watchers, whoever they are, are obviously smoking crack.

2. The featured success story of SBC and Yahoo and it’s rise in number of customers has nearly everything to do with the FCC cutting off third party access to phone company switches and millions of dollars in marketing than it has to do with this supposed list of unique content and features. When local ISPs are barred from providing and the only choice is the heavily advertised SBC-Yahoo DSL, that’s the only place customers CAN go.

3. The reference to “what happened to the music companies” is also a crock. The reason why record sales are down is mainly because they illegally raised their prices way too high, they’re producing fewer and fewer artists and those artists are making less and less compelling music. In short, maximizing their profits with minimal investment. If anything, internet-based mp3 swapping has HELPED record sales because it’s free promotion for artists who the RIAA is not actively promoting and distributing. The Big Labels are gouging themselves out of their own market and lynching their customers in a spiteful abuse of power simply because the public wants music that is diverse, available and affordable..something the RIAA is not willing to provide. I see the same thing coming into play with Hollywood.

What really needs to happen for broader broadband to take off in the U.S., is that the ISPs need to counter the FCC monopoly ruling to allow access and competitive pricing/features, the government needs to provide fat subsidies for last mile wiring, and mega-corp content publishers need to keep their greedy mitts out of the DRM schemes. People want hassle-free, affordable broadband wherever they live. If they choose to download sounds and videos, they want those as well to be affordable and hassle-free.

Choice, after all, is what separates us from the inanimate. And a forced choice is not a real choice at all.

I am writing to you in regards to the soon to be decided issue of Internet Radio, what is being proposed by the RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America) and the CARP report issued by the United States Copyright Office (Docket No. 2000-9 CARP DTRA1&2) and the Notice and Record keeping for Use of Sound Recordings Under Statutory License (Docket No. RM 2002-1 37 CFR Part 201).

I strongly urge to you not let this pass into law for several reasons, both from the perspective of a producer and of a listener:

1. Restricting independent internet radio will stifle musical culture.
Currently, music of all kinds from around the globe are available to be experienced. History, culture, art and diverse points of view are contained in the music and spoken word being broadcast. I personally have enjoyed a dramatic widening of my musical world view since finding particular independent internet radio stations – stations which are coincidentally, free from annoying advertisements and pointless disc jockey talking. Restrictions will act as a censor to this new range of cultural diversity and further deaden our society with the status quo of inbred corporate selections of what music is most likely to return the most profit.

2. Restricting independent internet radio will re-establish an unfair advantage the major record labels have over independent labels and artists.
Internet radio is one of the few places that new, underground or international artists can be heard by large potential audiences in a non-live performance format. Cutting that off will drive those artists into obscurity, just because they’re either not independently wealthy or backed by a major record label pushing for guaranteed sales figures reaching deep into the millions.

3. Restrictions of this kind are monetarily pointless.
What people would this restrict from broadcasting? Answer, people that are running internet radio stations for free..or at least, not to make money anyway. Is anyone losing money by having any given group of songs broadcast over these stations? No. Are the artists and music publishers getting free advertising by having these songs play with full track and artist information visible in the player applications? Yes. Are these stations committing intellectual property piracy by charging for redistribution of copywrited material that they don’t own? No.. Every internet only radio station I’ve listened to has not charged or even run advertisements. They broadcast because they want to broadcast the music they like. There’s no money to be made or lost in this activity, or for that matter, the proposed restrictions I’m advising against.

4. Restrictions in the US will only cause the small/free/hobbyist stations to broadcast from other countries.
So the process of broadcasting whatever you want will just be a little more irritating, you’ll have to use a non-US server. Will that added difficulty discourage some people from setting up little stations? Sure. Will it discourage everyone? Certainly not. The people that want to continue to broadcast free of censorship will do so from anywhere outside our borders.

The very reasons I had stopped listening to airwave radio – narrow & repetitive playlists, frequent and annoying advertisements, pointless DJ talking and lack of available song/artist information – are the very reasons why I enjoy listening to Internet Radio nearly every day. Internet Radio does not suffer from those deficiencies. It’s only problems are net congestion and dependance on internet connected devices, which have nothing to do with the content being broadcast.

Currently I as a listener can call up any number of specialty or eclectic Internet Radio stations to hear music that I like and have never heard before. I hear the music and only the music. If I like something enough to want to hear it whenever I want, I (most of the time anyway) can bring up the name of the Artist and Song Title – and often the Album name as well – while the song is playing. With that information I can go out and buy it. I can also recommend internet stations to any of my friends, wherever in the world they happen to be. I think this is a wonderful way to experience new music. There is SO much music out there that most of us haven’t heard, and it is so nice to be able to hear from a more diverse selection than what appears in the corporate sponsored top 40.

I as a broadcaster enjoy being able to let others hear some of the music I love to listen to, and I also enjoy the freedom to use internet broadcasting to voice any points of view I’d like to express. Free speech, good music, broadcasting for the sake of broadcasting. Restrictions of this kind are going against our constitution, which is a very well phrased document meant to insure our various freedoms. These restrictions are based in greed. i don’t support that. Please keep these proposed restrictions from becoming law.