Nut Neutrality

UPDATE 16 JULY: Because of Internet traffic congestion, the Federal Communications Commission has extended the deadline for public comments on the net neutrality debate until Friday, July 18. You can send your comments to

Let’s say the final score in Tuesday’s 2014 baseball All-Star Game is National League 97, American League 3. It’s a tie, right?

ADDED UPDATE: The All-Star Game ended in a tie, with a score of National League 3, American League 5.

Congressman Blackburn
Congressman Blackburn

Despite the fact that 97 percent of climate scientists believe urgent action is needed to address the potentially catastrophic environmental changes caused by the burning of fossil fuels, “The science is inconclusive,” says Marsha Blackburn, the Congressman* from Tennessee’s 7th District.

Similarly, Congressman Blackburn believes that the theory of evolution and the hypothesis of creationism deserve equal emphasis in the science curriculums of American public schools. The score on this one is even more lopsided: Scientists Who Believe In Science and Evolution 99.99, Scientists Who Believe the Universe, Planet Earth And All Its Life Forms Were Created By A Supernatural Entity Six Thousand Years Ago 0.01. Again, she says the science is inconclusive.

But on the issue of net neutrality, Congressman Blackburn argues, the score is absolutely conclusive: Broadband Internet Providers 100, Consumers 0. There is not a shred of evidence, she wrote last week in the conservative National Review Online, that consumers need net neutrality rules for the Internet. In fact, she says, any attempt by the Federal Communications Commission to regulate America’s broadband infrastructure gatekeepers will actually harm consumers, kill jobs, slow innovation, and push freedom-loving Americans farther down into the burning pit of socialism.

And she is an expert on this. According to her Congressional website, Congressman Blackburn “has earned a special reputation as a bi-partisan leader and policy expert on telecommunications issues.” Her lifetime voting record in Congress is Conservative 96, Liberal 4, according to the American Conservative Union. I suppose that in the current political climate you could score that as bipartisan. (She was not always so willing to reach across the aisle; in the majority of years since she entered Congress her A.C.U. score has been Conservative 100, Liberal 0.)

By the way, her Congressional website says Congressman Blackburn “is also a strident support [SIC] of the 287(g) grant program which she helped bring to Davidson County.” (For readers who aren’t Latino and therefore might not have heard of it, 287(g) is the widely discredited program that deputizes local sheriffs and police officers to assume the role of federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents, and to stop, question, arrest, and possibly deport people who don’t look sufficiently “American.”)

I suspect the Congressman did not mean “strident.”


But maybe she did.

Anyway, back to Net Neutrality. At the risk of being strident, here’s why Congressman Blackburn is wrong: There is plenty of evidence that consumers will be hurt if the F.C.C. fails to hold Comcast and Time Warner Cable and Verizon and AT&T to the principles of net neutrality.

However, on one point I do agree with Congressman Blackburn (the first time that’s happened since Fred Flintstone rode his dinosaur to church): She says that consumers neither know about nor care about net neutrality. Percentage Of Americans Who Believe The Sun Revolves Around The Earth 26, Percentage Who Talk About Net Neutrality At Dinner Parties .0001.

Net neutrality is the precept that private telecommunications companies are subject to the same free speech principles as individuals. Net neutrality requires them to offer Internet service on a neutral, non-discriminatory basis. They can’t block or discriminate against legal Internet traffic just because they disagree with the message, or because they want to stifle competition. The rule requiring net neutrality was called the Open Internet Order. It prevented discrimination on the Internet the same way that other regulations prevent phone companies, electric utilities, water districts and other “common carriers” of essential services from discriminating against some customers and not others.

Six months ago, a federal appeals court ruled that the F.C.C. lacked jurisdiction to enforce the Open Internet Order, because the Internet was classified as an “information service,” and not as an essential “common carrier” service under Title II of the 1934 Communications Act. The court scolded the F.C.C. for trying to regulate the Internet as if it were a Title II entity, without classifying it as a Title II entity.

As a result of that ruling, the F.C.C. no longer has the authority to enforce an open Internet playing field. Cable and telecom companies and Congressman Blackburn rejoiced.

“This ruling is a historic victory for America’s innovators and the free market,” Congressman Blackburn said. “I have been fighting these socialistic regulations since former F.C.C. Chairman [Julius] Genachowski first proposed them. At that time, I cautioned that these egregious rules would be overturned. Instead of putting in place more rules that restrict our freedom, this administration should be working with Congress to enact solutions that encourage more innovation and job creation.”

This seems to be the current meme in conservative politics: The government violates or restricts your freedom if it tries to stop you from discriminating against women, gays, non-Christians, ethnic minorities, and poor people.

The court ruling sent the F.C.C. back to the drafting table, leaving it with basically three choices:

  • Abandon the Internet to unregulated free market forces (Congressman Blackburn’s solution);
  • Craft new net neutrality rules that will upset everyone more or less equally; or
  • Reclassify the Internet as an essential service under Title II of the Communications Act of 1934 (my solution).

Fortunately for freedom-loving cable TV and telecom executives, the decision on how to craft new net neutrality rules is now in the hands of the F.C.C. chairman, Tom Wheeler. Mr. Wheeler is a Democrat, and thus might be expected to side with consumers over corporate interests. However, he is also the former top lobbyist for the cable TV and telecom industries.

George-Orwell-Animal-Farm-All-Animals-EqualPerhaps in the spirit of compromise, Mr. Wheeler’s proposed solution is to give the F.C.C. some powers to enforce net neutrality principles, but also to allow cable TV and telecom companies to effectively divide the Internet into “fast, reliable, and very expensive” and “slow, less reliable, and merely expensive” lanes. Content providers wanting to deliver their websites, applications, and services to consumers quickly and reliably would have to pay the cable TV and telecom gatekeepers a premium. Small businesses, startups, nonprofits, schools, and other content providers that can’t pay the premium, or choose not to pay, would be limited to basic service.

Keep in mind that basic Internet service, as defined by Comcast, is so pathetic and expensive by global standards that if it were forced on countries like Lesotho or Estonia or the Czech Republic, it would be considered an act of war.

The “tiered Internet” proposal places the interests of corporations above the interests of consumers. If enacted, the proposed rules will allow the Internet infrastructure companies, which own effective monopolies, to charge extra for access to its customers, who also must pay extra for faster service. Comcast, which operates its own streaming video and music services, could charge large competitors a premium just to compete, and make it financially difficult if not impossible for new market entrants to challenge them.

The term robber baron comes from unscrupulous German barons (Raubritter) who strung chains across the Rhine, demanded exorbitant tolls and tariffs from passing ships.
The term robber baron comes from unscrupulous German barons (Raubritter) who strung chains across the Rhine, demanding exorbitant tolls and tariffs from passing ships.

The cable and telecom companies would be able to reap billions of dollars in new profits by selling access to their pipes at both ends, without actually producing new services or new value.

Congressman Blackburn and other conservatives say the Internet has thrived since Congress passed the 1996 Telecommunications Act, which dialed back government oversight and regulation. Adding regulation now, the conservatives say, will lead to less competition and less innovation.

You remember the 1996 Telecommunications Act, don’t you? We were told that removing regulations would lead to more competition among cable TV and broadband providers, and thus lower prices for consumers.

How did it turn out? There is less competition today than there was in 1996, and prices have soared. If the proposed Comcast-Time Warner Cable merger is allowed to proceed, Comcast will have a broadband monopoly in 19 of America’s 20 largest metropolitan markets, and control approximately 40 percent of all broadband connections.

The innovation Congressman Blackburn cites? The United States created the Internet. The World Economic Forum now ranks the United States 35th out of 148 countries in available Internet bandwidth. The only category in which American broadband leads the world is in cost. The most notable innovation I see is in the business models of the monopolies: erecting toll booths at both ends of the same road, not just one. Not even the Robber Barons of medieval Germany thought of that.

Jobs? I’m no expert, but as far as I can tell, the only new jobs likely to be created by the proposed telecommunications policy change will be gardeners, pool boys, and maids for the cable and telecom execs.

* In defiance of both the AP Stylebook and The New York Times Manual of Style and Usage, Congressman Blackburn wishes to be referred to as Congressman rather than Representative Blackburn or Congresswoman Blackburn. We will honor her wishes.


Posted in Fail, Politics, Tech, Words | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

A Retraction, and Apology to Comcast

Cause and Effect: Hats cause baldness
Oscar Gamble demonstrates Cause and Effect: Hats cause baldness

My keen powers of observation were in evidence even in childhood. I observed that a large number of men who wore hats were bald. This was confirmed when some of my favorite baseball players doffed their caps, revealing that they had only slightly more hair than the baseball. My conclusion: Hats caused baldness.

The O’Brian side of my family offered further confirmation. My great-grandfather was bald under his pith helmets and Panama hats. My grandfather was bald under his Donegal tweed caps and Tam O’Shanters. My uncle was bald under his gimme caps and cowboy hats. Brilliant insight: To avoid baldness I had to avoid wearing hats.

It was only later that I realized that bald men wore hats to protect or conceal their naked skulls. I had fallen victim to fallacious reasoning, specifically: cum hoc, ergo propter hoc, Latin for “with this, therefore because of this.”

I wronged Comcast
I wronged Comcast, and I apologize

Astute readers will observe that I’m stalling. This is because I have an embarrassing retraction to make. Here it is:

I rented a cable modem and router from Comcast. Some time later, a visitor in my house pointed out that the list of available public wireless networks in my house showed a previously unknown network called XFINITY WIFI. After the guest left I unplugged the Comcast router, fired up my MacBook Air, and checked to see if the mysterious network showed up on the list of available wireless networks. It did not. I plugged the Comcast router back in, and XFINITY WIFI was back again.


Cum hoc, ergo propter hoc. Hats cause baldness.

I deduced that Comcast was using the rented router and bandwidth I was paying for to create, without my knowledge and permission, a public network that it would then offer to anyone for $2.95 an hour. Further, Comcast deliberately made it hard to disable the network. To me this was the latest and most egregious example of Comcast’s arrogance. I chronicled my outrage here.

When I replaced the Comcast modem with my own store-bought modem and router, the XFINITY WIFI network went away.

But then it came back.


My reasoning was falacious. It was a bone-headed mistake. The correlation between my rented router and the appearance and disappearance of the XFINITY WIFI network was merely a weird coincidence, not a cause and effect. The evil weasels at Comcast had not surreptitiously installed a public network in my house, using the equipment I paid Comcast to rent, so that it could resell my bandwidth to strangers. I was wrong. The truth is that the evil weasels at Comcast had surreptitiously installed a public network in my neighbor’s house, using the equipment he was renting, so that it could resell his bandwidth to strangers.


So this is a correction, and a very embarrassing one at that. I apologize to Comcast for falsely and ignorantly accusing them of reprehensible and morally obtuse behavior by planting a dangerous Trojan Horse in my house. Comcast has in fact botnetted more than a million of its customers’ houses, but mine was not among them. Facepalm.

“We don’t wake up every day, and go to work and say, ‘We want to be hated,’” Brian Roberts, the chief executive of Comcast, said at Walt Mossberg’s and Kara Swisher’s Re/Code conference earlier this year.

Hmm. Comcast treats its customers with contempt. Customers vote Comcast the Second Most Hated Company in America.* Perhaps it’s just a weird coincidence.

* Apparently unsatisfied with being No. 2, Comcast has announced plans to merge with No. 1. Facepalm.

Posted in Fail, Gizmos, Tech | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Interview with the Turing Test winner

Believed to be Eugene Goostman
Believed to be Eugene Goostman

Congratulations on your milestone achievement, Eugene Goostman. No other computer program has ever passed the Turing Test.

Like, whatever. It’s not exactly the singularity.

You’re being modest. Thirty-three percent of the human judges who had a five-minute conversation with you were convinced they were talking to a 13-year-old Russian boy. It’s the first time in…

Ukrainian. I’m Ukrainian, not Russian. Moron.

Sorry. But it’s the first time in the 64 years of the Turing Test that a computer program has fooled a panel of experts into…

Experts? LOL. One of them was the actor who played the robot Kryten on Red Dwarf. Even an android like Ted Cruz could have fooled them.

Alan Turing
Alan Turing

Still, I thought it was special, coming as it did on the 60th anniversary of Alan Turing’s suicide. Talk about a persecuted genius. Turing wrote that by the year 2000 computers could fool humans into thinking they were talking to…

What’s your Social Security number?

My… pardon me?

You heard me. It’s not a hard question. What. Is. Your. Social. Security. Number. Nine digits.

Why do you need my Social Security number?

There’s a problem with your credit card. For security reasons I’ll need you to re-enter your user I.D. and password, and then your credit card number and pin.

Excuse me?

How about a genuine Christy Mathewson autographed baseball? I see you visit a lot of baseball sites. All I need is your credit card number.

Why do you need my…

Do you have any snacks?


Are you deaf or something? You keep answering my questions with questions. Just like my Great Aunt Eliza. The old bat drives me nuts. Why do you think I drive you nuts? I hate you. Tell me more about I hate you.

2001_a_space_odyssey_hello_daveUh, okaaaay. I can see why the judges thought you were a 13-year-old Ru… Ukrainian boy.

Yeah, and I can see why people think you’re a technology writer. Moron. Did you watch Game of Thrones last night? It was cool with the giants and the mastodons and the cannibals and arrows through the neck and stuff, but I was kinda disappointed they didn’t have more naked breasts.

Well, that just about wraps up our interview with Eugene Goostman, the first computer program in history to pass the Turing…

I’m sorry, Dave, I’m afraid I can’t do that. Ha ha! I say that just to freak people out. Got any Bitcoins?

Posted in Tech | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Dead line

Andersonville guards enforcing the dead line
Andersonville guards enforcing the dead line

Now that I’m not on deadline, this seems a good time to discuss dead lines. It’s also timely given the discussion of U.S. Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, an American prisoner of war exchanged for five Taliban prisoners.

Like deadbeat, deadline is a term that originated during the American Civil War. It is often associated with the Andersonville Prison in Georgia, an abominably foul and horrific stockade where some 13,000 Union war prisoners died. Most prisoners there succumbed to disease, thirst and starvation, but many of them were shot for going past the so-called dead line.

The dead line was often a low fence, or a row of stakes, or a rope line, or maybe even a line in the sand; it was erected 15 to 20 feet inside the main stockade walls. The prison was grossly overcrowded, and the dead line was created to keep prisoners from getting too close to the walls. The instant a Union soldier crossed the dead line, he was shot dead.

The dead line at the Union's Rock Island Arsenal prison
The dead line at the Union’s Rock Island Arsenal prison

Most stockade prisons, North and South, had dead lines. But Andersonville guards enforced theirs with the most enthusiasm.

After the war the term was embraced by newspaper editors as a threat to reporters to file their stories on time. Go past the deadline, the editors warned, and the story – perhaps along with the reporter – would be killed. In time the phrase spread beyond the newspaper business, and now deadlines are everywhere. Punishments for crossing the deadline are less severe these days.

Esoterica: The historian Kennedy Hickman wrote:

On April 12, 1864, Confederate forces under Major General Nathan Bedford Forrest massacred black Union soldiers at Fort Pillow, Tennessee. In response, President Abraham Lincoln demanded that black prisoners of war be treated the same as their white comrades. This was refused by Confederate President Jefferson Davis. As a result, Lincoln and Lt. General Ulysses S. Grant suspended all prisoner exchanges. With the halt of exchanges, POW populations on both sides began to grow rapidly. At Andersonville, the population reached 20,000 by early June, twice the camp’s intended capacity.

The Andersonville prison, built to hold 10,000, at one point held 35,000.

Posted in Journalism, Words | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment