Remember the Internet kill switch that Senate leaders couldn’t get past enough of their cohorts to pass? It’s back! In the United States Senate, bad ideas don’t die, their proponents simply try a different ploy to sneak them into law. This time senate leadership is working to bury it in the bowels of another one of those 1500+ page bills that they never give members enough time to read.

The  culprits are Senators Thomas Carper, Joe Lieberman, Jay Rockefeller and Harry Reid. Lieberman recently provided a bit if insight into why the kill switch is “necessary”

Lieberman let slip his real thoughts on the Internet Kill Switch in an interview with CNN’s Candy Crowley when he said, “Right now China — the government — can disconnect parts of its Internet in a case of war. We need to have the ability to do that, too.” (Libertypulse)

Obviously Joe Lieberman has a strong case of commie envy. There are a number of things the Chinese government can do that even self important elites like Lieberman aren’t allowed to do in the still largely free nation of the United States. The biggest problem with giving the kill switch to the feds is that an out of control federal government can declare an emergency just about any time it wants to. So, if a rogue president, senator or any other power grabbing high level bureaucrat simply wanted to kill communication between the unwashed masses, all he or she would need to do is declare an emergency. In case you hadn’t noticed, just about every for of communication passes over the Internet now. For that reason, the kill switch is a tool no one in a free nation should have. Not even the almighty Senator Lieberman.

If you value your freedom it’s probably a good time to write to both of your senators.

Paul Allen made his billions as one of Microsoft’s founders. Since retiring from his post in Windersland, Allen has invested heavily in a  number of companies, with most ending in failure. Not to be dicouraged, Mr. Allen appears to be entering a new business built on roughly 300 patents owned by a venture he funded. Many of these patents are for features and functions that most of us would consider to be common as dirt on major commercial sites.

The complaint (PDF), filed in federal court in Washington state, asserts four patents that cover e-commerce and online functions that have been staples of most websites for years. Noticeably absent from the hit list is Microsoft, which Allen co-founded in 1975 and in which he remains a major shareholder. It was filed on behalf of Interval Licensing, the patent arm of Interval Research, the Silicon Valley technology incubator Allen bankrolled in 1992. (The Register)

There’s already so much new “innovation” coming from the abuse of the patent system and the courts. It’s troubling to see one of the world’s deepest sets of pockets joining the troll business. Responsible law makers would try to fix the patent mess. Unfortunately, most of them are lawyers and patent trolling is a lawyer’s business.

Rural North Carolina has been a battle ground between local residents who have pro actively worked to improve their internet connections and duopoly controlled state politicians who have blatantly tried to stop them. At least in Salisbury, it looks like to locals won. They managed to do it without help from federal stimulus or the masses of political blowhards who are supposed to work in the interest of the individual.

The lesson: Forget the empty promises from Washington and the State houses. Time to act locally.

While the FCC busily tries to take greater control of the Internet, it’s important to remember that is is the agency most responsible for creating the broadband duopoly in the first place. The US backbone continues to expand and it remains the envy of the world. Unfortunately, the unwashed masses who pay for duopoly internet connections continue to be shackled to outdated, artificially scarce last mile bandwidth. We have been sold out by our elected elites and the bureaucrats they oversee. Even Russia has more last mile competition and it is getting continued improvement as a result. In fact the average Russian just edged past the average American in real world bandwidth. Don’t believe me? Look at the graph.

It’s time to take control of our broadband and do it locally. The feds who got us into this mess to begin with are only going to ask for more control and more money. As long as so much control remains centered in Washington DC, nothing will improve unless you’re a telco or cable guy.

In a world loaded with technology we act like campers swatting flies with 19th century band allocations. –

The problem is that we’re all locked into the spectrum offered by a single cell phone carrier, and our phones can’t even access most of the wifi hotspots that are in range, much less use them to make calls.

As Yap et al. outline in a provocative new paper entitled Delivering Capacity for the Mobile Internet by Stitching Together Networks, this leads to all sorts of inefficiencies that could be solved by a network ruled by standards that allowed devices to be agnostic about which portion of the wireless spectrum they are currently using:

- Increased capacity through more efficient statistical sharing. Cellular network operators tend to heavily over-provision their network in order to handle times of peak load and congestion. Most of the time, the net- work is lightly loaded. If instead they were able to hand off traffic to each other, or from cellular to WiFi networks, then their traffic load would be smoother, and their network more efficient. For example, what if AT&T could re-route traffic from their iPhone users to T-Mobile during an overload? Or T-Mobile could re- route their customers’ flows to a nearby WiFi hotspot?

- Exploit differences in technologies and frequency bands. Mobile technologies such as EVDO and HSPA provide wide area coverage with consistent bandwidth guaran- tees; while technologies like WiFi provide high band- width and low latency. Lower frequencies provides better coverage and penetration; while higher frequen- cies provides better spatial reuse. Being able to use the most appropriate technology for the application at hand would make best use of capacity available.

- Open up new sources of capacity. The ability to move between networks also open up new sources of capacity. For example, one can now use a network such as that of fon.com to supplement their main network, without having to deploy an extensive WiFi network. Such crowd-sourcing can be a powerful tool to cover dead spots and relieve congestion.

ThirdPipe has observed this since it started posting. We have advocated a technical solution set that included opening up the bands, requiring intelligent spread spectrum devices. We could open up that other 95% of the bandwidth not currently being utilized. Prices would drop, additional services can be had and disasters like the AT&T 4G debacle in places like New York City.

Its time.

Linky.

While may Europeans and Asians continue to enjoy ever faster broadband at falling prices, most Americans have pretty much the same broadband they’ve had for a decade, and many of us are paying more for it. Why? Even the most populated areas typically have only two providers, and rural areas rarely have more than one. Without any competitive pressure to improve, things will stay same or possibly get worse.  How can this happen in the most competitive market in the world?  Our laws have established a brodband cartel and continue to support it. The insure things stay that way, the duopoly lobby is taking a small chunk of billions they get from us to buy Congress’ loyal support. Out of all tech companies, the Duopoly’s biggest players are spending the largest. Lobby money is the music that makes Congress dance, and $11.3 million makes sure that lawmakers are dancing in double step to the Duopoly’s tune.

Here’s a breakdown of how much companies spent in the second quarter, rounded to the nearest thousand, according to disclosures filed by midnight Tuesday:

Verizon: $4.4 million

Comcast: $3.82 million

AT&T: $3.08 million

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0710/40087.html#ixzz0ul0XiYHa

For the record, I think municipal broadband should be the Third Pipe of last resort, but in a duopoly world it’s a necessary evil.

The broadband duopoly exists only with the help of government - local state and federal. By locking down right of ways, the telco and cable giants have been able to maintain a low investment enterprise with declining costs while routinely raising prices to consumers. When municipalities try to use their right of ways to provide better service, the duopoly always invests in lobbying rather than trying to compete.

There are plentiful pols who are all too willing to carry the duopoly’s water. Fortunately, one case to thwart  muni alternatives in North Caraolina has been defeated:

Indeed it has. North Carolina Senator David Hoyle’s (D-GA) now-defeated amendment (S-1209) was cosmetically titled “An Act to Ensure That A Local Government That Competes with Private Companies in Providing Communication Services Has The Support Of Its Citizens.” But advocates of city/county backed high speed Internet projects just knew it as the Municipal-Broadband Must Die Die Die bill.

Hoyle’s proposal would have banned any Tar Heel state city or county from contracting to “purchase, or finance or refinance” any kind of property to set up an “external communications system.” The law defined the latter as anything that “provides broadband service or other Internet access service, cable service, telecommunications service, video programming service, or a combination of these services.” (Ars Technica)

I hope NC voters will have enough common sense to send Senator Hoyle on permanent vacation from his law making duties when his term expires.

With the lack of will in Washington and most state houses to open the market for competitive broadband, the time for muni networks is here. These networks should not be the last alternative, but hopefully the one that will beak the duopoly strangle hold.  Around the world broadband is moving from copper to fiber at break neck speed at falling prices. World Class Broadband isn’t delivered in electrons any more, it comes in photons. It’s time to join the race and leap ahead or stand on the sidelines with our duopoly and watch the rest of the world race by.

It’s no secret that anti-business policies can wreck an economy. The persistent recession is proof of that. The problem is, when you kill growth, you also kill tax revenues. When the revenue slides, government tends to look for new any new way to tax.

Rep. Bill Delahunt (D-Mass.) has teamed with four Democratic co-sponsors to introduce the Main Street Fairness Act, legislation that aims to put online retailers on a par with their brick-and-mortar counterparts regarding the collection of sales taxes.

Internet retailers typically only collect sales taxes in states where they have a physical presence, such as a corporate office, call center or distribution center, though some states have enacted laws to impose collection requirements on ecommerce companies that generate sales through referrals from affiliates.

Delahunt’s bill would authorize states that participate in a voluntary consortium that aims to harmonize the byzantine web of state and local tax rules across the country to require online retailers to collect and remit taxes on residents’ purchases. (Ecommerce Guide)

The current system of not requiring merchants with no presence in your state to collect tax from buyers in your state has been with us since the time your great grandfather mailed money orders to Sears. In that era there may have been some lack of parity, since mail order companies tended to be located in large population centers. States and localities were free to require payment of sales tax on residents out of state purchases, but needed to collect directly from the buyer in their state. Over time, most states have enacted laws requiring locals to pay sales tax on out of state purchases, but have only been able to force retailers with a local presence to be their unpaid tax collector. For all practical purposes, no sales tax collected on purchases from smaller concerns out of state.

With the advent of online commerce, the advantage enjoyed by the mega corporations has been diminished. A new level paying field benefits all states from online businesses who hire local people and pay local taxes.  The lure of not having tax added to purchases has helped small sellers woo buyers, but more as an offset to the disadvantage of added shipping charges.  The lack of accounting woes that playing bag man for 50+ taxing entities would create also allows the little guys to run an online shop with a smaller investment. With so many Americans starting businesses to support themselves when there are few jobs to be had, that’s important.

The dirty little secret Rep Delhunt and his cronies don’t want you to know is that the current sales tax system is working well. Even if tax is not collected from local buyers,  sales are also made to out of state buyers by local business, increasing the local tax base.  Every state benefits from small business selling online. If there is any advantage, it goes to the states who are friendly to small business over those who only offer special treatment to corporate giants.

Who really benefits from this proposed tax law? Mega retailers like Wal Mart. In fact, Wal Mart has lobbied long and hard for this type of legislation.  I have no doubt there are plenty of local government Luddites who do not understand the advantage of freeing small enterprise from the burden of playing tax collector for 50 different states. While they may back it  this legislation, if passed, I believe the new law will actually decrease revenues in most states as millions of marginal micro businesses will call it quits.   This is a full assault on small business and technology as a great equalizer for the little guy. That’s a bad idea in good times, and sheer stupidity in times like these.

I’ve been monitoring the chatter about a Senate panel that is pushing the Obama administration’s request for an internet kill switch. I had believed that such an ill conceived idea wouldn’t be with us for long after a little rational debate. Unfortunately, the legislation is advancing.  The bill’s front man, Senator Joe Lieberman, insists that the authority is needed and claims his panels legislation will actually impose more limits on the president.

Senator Joe Lieberman and other bill sponsors have refuted the charges that the Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act gives the president an Internet “kill switch.” Instead, the bill puts limits on the powers the president already has to cause “the closing of any facility or stations for wire communication” in a time of war, as described in the Communications Act of 1934, they said in a breakdown of the bill published on the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee website. (Techworld)

For me, there’s a contradiction in the senators claims. The act not only grants authority to seize control of non-telecom public networks (something it is not currently allowed to do), it also creates a new bureaucracy with limited accountability.

The bill, introduced earlier this month, would establish a White House Office for Cyberspace Policy and a National Center for Cybersecurity and Communications, which would work with private US companies to create cybersecurity requirements for the electrical grid, telecommunications networks and other critical infrastructure.

The bill also would allow the US president to take emergency actions to protect critical parts of the Internet, including ordering owners of critical infrastructure to implement emergency response plans, during a cyber-emergency. The president would need congressional approval to extend a national cyber-emergency beyond 120 days under an amendment to the legislation approved by the committee.

The legislation would give the US Department of Homeland Security authority that it does not now have to respond to cyber-attacks, Lieberman, a Connecticut independent, said earlier this month. (Techworld)

I’m sorry Joe, this is a very bad idea. I doubt you and the other bill sponsors even manage you own email, let alone possess even the most cursory knowledge on securing networks. In fact Joe, the federal government repeatedly under performs the free market in securing its own networks and systems. In other words you’re just not qualified to create best practices, let alone implement them.

As a very young infrastructure, the internet has been phenomenally resilient and secure. It’s no secret that private control has made the net as secure as it is today. Having said that, there is a need to harden all of our systems nationwide. We are under investing in security. One of the largest obstacles to increasing IT budgets to improve security has been the escalating costs of compliance with federal IT regulation. Most of these regulations come down from well meaning folks like Joe Lieberman and the bureaucracies they work tirelessly to create. Turning over control of critical networks to an under performing agency like  DHS is just insane. The agency can’t even effectively enforce something as simple as  a no fly list.

Joe, if you want to help, you should roll back the compliance load you have already placed on private IT and networks and encourage companies to invest some of that money in security. In the event of emergency, private network managers who are already up to the task will be able to respond much more quickly and effectively without the burden of complying with even more federal oversight.  If you really think the bureaucracy can do a better job of securing systems then start with the ones you are already responsible for. When you can prove that the feds really are up to hardening their internal systems  we can discuss that kill switch. Until you can get your own house in order, hands off ours please!

While the FCC had agreed in principle to work towards opening White Spaces frequencies for broadband access, little has happened since.  Senators Kerry and Snowe (two telco favorites) drafted a letter to the FCC that demands action.

In a letter to FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski, Sens. John Kerry (D-Mass.) and Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) requested that the commission set the final rules for the so-called “white spaces” spectrum in the third quarter, bringing closure to a proceeding that’s been on the table for more than half a decade.

The FCC approved an order to open the white-spaces spectrum in November 2008, over strenuous opposition from broadcasters and others who warned that the new networks would interfere with signals in adjacent bands.

In a nod to those concerns, the FCC in its order mandated the establishment of a national database cataloging TV station frequencies region by region. Any device connecting to a white-spaces network would have to be equipped with location-aware technology and communicate with the database to ensure it occupied a vacant channel.

Since rural areas have the lowest density of television broadcast signals, white spaces could be a boon for rural Americans.  I doubt Kerry and Snowe are pushing this issue to help farmers the vast expanses of the rural fly over country. Never the less, any effort that gets the FCC moving forward will certainly be beneficial to under served who live and work there.