A Public Private Partnership We Can All Do Without

The phrase "Public Private Partnership"- "PPP" in shorthand - just sounds so good. It is everything we want from our leaders in business and government, evoking a Rodney King-like "People, I just want to say, you know, can we all get along?" sentiment.

But whether a PPP is a good cure, even good medicine, depends on
a) the epiphany ("something's not right, we can do better...)
b) the diagnosis ("what's wrong, how serious is it?");
c) the prognosis ("how bad will it get, Doc?");
d) the treatment options ("what can we do, what our options?"); and
e) the potential side effects and unintended consequences (" what can we expect, what should we watch out for?").

In the case of broadband projects in cities, I'm convinced alternate broadband options will only gain traction if local public and private sector leaders manage to come together to foster change, so I'm a proponent of PPP. If that means we'll have a slow ramp up until any number of questions have been answered, then so be it. This is change that could take awhile, but be worth it in the end.

It's certainly no reason to shy away from the issues that we face, no reason to shirk this path, no reason to discourage experimentation. In fact, we strongly encourage all of these things on this site. If there's a broader (forgive the pun) context to this debate about metropolitan broadband, it's the role of National Broadband Policy to lay out the issues and forge a consensus, and the role of our leadership at all levels to define and explain the impact of the internet on our lives going forward and plan both for positive aspects and potential negative aspects. Either way, the Genie is out of the bottle, the changes are coming.

With that in mind, another thing I've been doing lately is to highlight the debate going on in Washington DC about the role of the telecommunications industry in bringing broadband infrastructure to the nation, and of late, about their role in helping the government in its efforts to "keep America safe."

With the eroded trust levels the executive branch has earned over the past six years, I think this issue deserves close scrutiny, because all too often we have learned after the fact that the story we were told when we accepted changes proposed by either the government or the telecoms was in fact false and slanted, by an administration or telecom executives who had motives besides those they would talk about in public. Indeed, it looks like that has been the case here, where spying on the American public was a goal held by the government and accommodated by the telecoms even before that tragic day in September six years ago. More after the jump.

IMHO, we have two parties who have already been working in a PPP:
a) one Public (Executive Branch of the Federal Government); and
b) one Private (AT&T and Verizon, the two largest telecom firms in the US, both heavily engaged at all levels of government).

These two halves of a partnership have each done much to earn a high level of distrust and skepticism based on a history of secrecy and abuse of political power. But we need both of these institutions and neither is going away anytime soon. So we have to find a way to get them to work more for the nation and less for themselves.

So forgive me when I look at this situation with a somewhat jaundiced eye. Having the large telecoms open up their networks and their customer data files to a federal government in a climate of national fear is dangerous, to say the least. That the public partner, sworn to uphold the Constitution, has shown consistent disdain for the rule of law is a red flag. In sum, I believe this is a Public Private Partnership that we can do without.

In this particular case, release of data without a warrant has already gone on for over five years, and has resulted in an erosion of constitutional protections that are the foundation of our way of life - in short, the cure appears far worse than the disease. This reminds me of those cures from the Dark Ages, when the patient would die if treated, but had better odds of getting well if left alone. Scared of the doctor? Prefer to stay out of the hospital? Me too.

On this site, I try to tie together complex issues, shine the light on the facts and encourage a rational discussion. You get a little opinion along with that. So let's start with some facts and definitions and see where the analysis takes us.

FOURTH AMENDMENT [U.S. Constitution] - 'The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.'

Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution - Besides this Wikipedia reference, a great start, I recommend the more legal site FindLaw, which includes the actual text, and the 'Lectric Law Library's Legal Lexicon (no kidding). When it comes to searching and monitoring citizens and their things, the authors of the Constitution had very recent examples of government run amok, and put their antidote to government abuse of power down in writing. All of the argument about what the government can and can't do in monitoring US citizens starts here.

The oath or affirmation of office of the President of the United States was established in the United States Constitution and is mandatory for a President upon beginning a term of office. The wording is prescribed by the Constitution (Article II, Section 1, Clause 8), as follows:
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." Oath of Office of the President of the United States

Again, back to the Constitution, this time, Article II, Sec. 1, Clause 8, on what we expect from our president. As far as I'm concerned, this oath should be mounted on the president's bathroom wall over the toilet, next to the bed so it's the first thing the president sees in the morning and the last thing the president sees at night, and mounted permanently under glass at the president's desk in the Oval Office so it's staring at the president all day. Hell, let's make it a law to tattoo it on the president's belly, if we have to. This is the whole point - this is why we elect a president and put him/her in office; it's a solemn oath sworn on the Bible, a promise to the American people. We're in charge, we just let the president run things for a term, according to the rules we all agreed upon. The president should be able to close his/her eyes and see the Constitution - he/she swore an oath, for Pete's Sake!

OK, that feels better to let it all out. Maybe I'm just naive and I don't understand power, maybe that's it. Here's a little excerpt of a Wikipedia article about the Office of Vice President - an oath that guides someone who clearly does understand power ... a little too much, I'm afraid...

Unlike the president, the Constitution does not specify an oath of office for the vice president. Several variants of the oath have been used since 1789; the current form, which is also recited by Senators, Representatives and other government officers, has been used since 1884:
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter." Oath of Office of Vice President, Senators, Representatives, and Other Government Officers

Whoops! There it is again - the Constitution - every time you turn around, there we are, the people expecting our elected officials and representatives in government to swear an oath to "Support and defend the Constitution of the United States". But too many US citizens, wrapped up in their busy lives, seem to forget what that oath means. All those who feel that our VP Dick Cheney is bearing "true faith and allegiance to the same" please raise your hands...

I thought so. Anyway, this is how I see it. The Constitution rules...unambiguously.

But then we hear from our leaders that we're under attack, or at least, we were that one terrible day, who can forget 9/11? (queue Rudy Guiliani)..I can't, never will, and I hate that. But now, we also hear that our "way of life" is under constant attack, we're told to be afraid...many refer to a Global War on Terror or GWOT.

Now I'm no weak-kneed Willie, no shrinking violet, but I do have a pretty good BS detector. Even I can tell that this whole "We're at war so normal rules don't apply" is a load of crap - it's just so convenient, especially when it's used by power-hungry imperialists to justify suspending allegiance to the Constitution! And so as a nation, we've actually come to this .....

Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) - besides this Wikipedia reference, which is very comprehensive, I encourage you to check out this link on FISA at the electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC). This law was originally passed to curb abuses by our government back in the 1970s. And it's been amended a few times recently, to update it to accommodate the internet, but also to loosen up the reins of government. But it turns out, it doesn't really matter, because many in this administration don't think they have to follow it anyway! Which leads us to the nut of the issue, at least as far as it concerns the telecom policy wonks among us.

Telecommunications Immunity - in a nutshell, this provision in the FISA bill rewrite has become a bone of contention and a focal point for the debate on the bill. The provision in the Senate Intelligence Committee version of the FISA bill makes telecom companies that cooperated with warrantless administration requests for phone taps and customer data retroactively immune from prosecution (they are currently under threat by multiple lawsuits for that activity). The House version of the rewrite does not include an Immunity provision, nor does the Senate Judiciary Committee version. For more on this topic, please see these recent posts on MetroNetIQ ...
Nov 19: A Wicked Wind Blows Through the Senate, The Shankill Butchers Ride Tonight
Nov 12: Rule of Law v. Rule of Da Man - I vote for Rule of Law
Oct 31: What Would Woodward and Bernstein Do?
Oct 30: Tangled Webs, Wicked Ways
Oct 29: Laura Scher Kicks Some Assets
Oct 29: A Long, Not So Gentle Backslide: Ersatz Oversight
Oct 25: The Road to 1984, paved with good intentions
Oct 23: Getting More Interesting
Oct 22: Where There's Smoke ... Part V Summing it Up
Oct 21: Where There's Smoke ... Part IV How Close is Too Close?

I really think that history will show this episode as a bigger deal than we are giving it credit for today. The current events this week were dramatic.

Current Events

12/17

I'm no fan of one of our most senior Democrats, Sen. Harry Reid. And I'm getting less and less so each day. I have to admit, I'm dumbfounded how a guy like this got into such a high seat of power in the first place, but we seem to be getting better and better at electing worse and worse leaders here in the US. Something is terribly amiss, if we only look to Sen. Reid for evidence. He's a bundle of contradictions, apparently compromised in some way, and about as uninspiring a leader as you could find. Unless, that is, you stand him up against the current president and the current speaker of the house, when he starts to look about par for the course...

In this telecom amnesty issue, Reid has seemed more Republican than Democratic, and he's the freakin' Senate Majority Leader!! Still, I consider this a note of progress, when he suggested that all the senators should have access to the full information so that they can vote with their eyes open. What a thought. See Senator Reid seeks More Information for a warm-up to the dramatic events of this week.

The bill was brought to the floor (over the objections and hold of Sen. Dodd, a fellow Dem, BTW), debated and a vote of cloture was approved by a wide margin, which is a means of stopping a filibuster by limiting the allowed time for debate (approved by many Dems as well!). But in the end, the serious intent of opponents, principally Sen. Dodd, with strong support from Sens. Feingold and Kennedy, threatened a long fight, and with the holidays looming and a desire to get other bills passed, Sen. Reid folded and postponed action on the bill until January (see
Huffington Post: Surveillance Bill Delayed Until 2008).

The YouTube clip below provides a good summary, which may be helpful at this point to put all the details in context.

Even better, listen to this recap straight from the horses mouth, in this clip of Senator Dodd on Countdown from Dec 17.

12/18

OK, now the serious analysis of what went down at the Senate on Monday starts to unfold. First, spend some time reading this review on Salon by Glen Greenwald - Anatomy and significance of Monday's FISA victory. He's an astute attorney and passionate about the Constitution. He provides a comprehensive review and analysis, but check especially the comments - several touch on the potential threat of unchecked surveillance in the age of the internet, when the actual technology exists to enable some of the worst of the 1984 nightmare scenarios.

And Glenn Greenwald brings up another aspect of the battle that the Post seems blissfully unaware of, and that is about how the whole notion of one man taking a stand on this issue came to pass. I first asked Dodd in early October on Air America if he would commit to filibuster retroactive telecom immunity, and he said at the time "Well, may have to do that....Hope it doesn't come to that."

But it did. And on October 18, when the deal that Jello Jay Rockefeller and Dick Cheney made to give the telecoms immunity in exchange for...well, virtually nothing... was announced, an outcry rose up on the liberal blogs. Jane Hamsher in Why Did Reid Pull the Telecom Bill?

I highly recommend this post - It's hard to beat this kind of in-depth analysis, and the whole process makes more sense when you read this insider account. This really was a case of liberal bloggers using the internet to first stimulate Senator Dodd to take a filibuster strategy seriously (he was on the edge anyway) and then putting pressure on the Senate leadership to raise the political risk of going along with the White House. For a change, we were actually participating in the process, rather than reading about a defeat ex post facto. This is an example of power from the edges coming into a traditional standoff and winning, at least for a day.

12/19

With a little time to digest this drama, the NY Times weighs in with an editorial, Bad Bill Now, Bad Bill Later that is well worth reading.

And for a look ahead, try this feature on the role of Sen. Russ Feingold and his view of what lays ahead. Either Feingold or Dodd would get my vote for Majority Leader.

In summary, this is one of my longest posts, but I feel it's important to make things as clear as I can.

The potential of the internet and everything I write about on this website is inevitably tied to its widespread acceptance as a safe and compelling technology. We need the assurance that only the government can give us: new technology, from broadband to video surveillance to RFID tracking devices, will not be used against the population.

Otherwise, who needs it? I see it as a negative if technological progress brings political regression. The events chronicled on this website today and in other recent posts raise the very real risk that the current administration and current industry leaders do not respect the awesome power of the internet and new digital technologies. I can only hope that the masses will continue to use this tool to communicate with each other, to mobilize their resources, to clarify and hone their message, and to overwhelm our elected officials with feedback that says in a very loud voice, "Respect the Constitution, or Suffer the Consequences." Maybe then they'll finally get the message that this is a democratic republic, not a monarchy or dictatorship. The popular will must prevail.

With a new year about to begin, this is an especially appropriate message for our leaders to hear. Let's hope they buy a clue and get focused on what's important, and soon.

Posted on December 19, 2007 at 11:05 PM | Comments (0)

Your Government at "Work"

WASHINGTON -- The Federal Communications Commission's monthly meetings are scheduled to start at 9:30 a.m. Under Chairman Kevin J. Martin, the trains don't always run on time, and recently they've come close to veering off the rails.

On Nov. 27, for instance, the FCC was slated to consider controversial proposals dealing with potential new cable TV regulations and increasing women and minority ownership of broadcast stations. Journalists, lobbyists and spectators waited as the five commissioners on the fractious panel wrangled over the issues eight floors above. When they finally showed up for the public session -- nearly 12 hours late -- the few spectators remaining had front-row seats for the sniping and accusations that are threatening to become hallmarks of FCC meetings.

Critics usually blame Martin, a soft-spoken Republican known as a political tactician who has accomplished the rare feat of being criticized by all four of his fellow commissioners. He is also facing a congressional inquiry into the FCC's procedures and allegations of flawed research studies, suppressing data, ignoring public input and holding hearings with minimal notice. Criticism of the FCC's chairman is widely aired

Sometimes when I read articles like this I sigh and wonder, "Must we really wait another year for another administration to finally get the leadership we so desperately need, right now?" and then I skip to "Where the hell do they find these people?"

This recent, depressing article in the LA Times details the mercurial disrespectful style of FCC Charmian Kevin Martin. Unfortunately, it starts off badly, and goes downhill from there.

I was reminded of my time in 1995-1996 spent as a regulatory lobbyist for CSW, a large electric utility holding company headquartered in Dallas. I was fresh out of business school and a stint as a research director at the Texas Senate. It was exciting to be learning all about the electric industry. My job was to provide "interface" work at the Texas Public Utility Commission - I was the eyes and ears of the corporation at the regulatory commission in Austin.

I'd cover events like public meetings and administrative hearings and report on them, and meet and work with staff to work through detailed issues and provide the utility's viewpoint. It was a great education and an interesting job for the 20 months I did it, before I was promoted out of that role.

But those opening paragraphs describing multiple hour-long waits in the FCC's public meeting room while the commissioners wrangled over issues in private brought back some of the most painful memories I had from 15 years ago, covering the long public meetings of the PUCT. As in painful on my back and rear side. I can still remember those chairs.

I guess my point is that sometimes government can be a real pain in the ass.

Posted on December 12, 2007 at 05:06 AM | Comments (0)

A Wicked Wind Blows Through the Senate, The Shankill Butchers Ride Tonight

Shankill Butchers - Decemberists Live 10/27/06

"At what point then is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer, if it ever reach us, it must spring up amongst us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide.

I hope I am over wary; but if I am not, there is, even now, something of ill-omen, amongst us. I mean the increasing disregard for law which pervades the country; the growing disposition to substitute the wild and furious passions, in lieu of the sober judgment of Courts; and the worse than savage mobs, for the executive ministers of justice. This disposition is awfully fearful in any community; and that it now exists in ours, though grating to our feelings to admit, it would be a violation of truth, and an insult to our intelligence, to deny. " -- The Perpetuation of Our Political Institutions, A. Lincoln, at his Address Before the Young Men's Lyceum of Springfield, Illinois on January 27, 1838

I think that if Abraham Lincoln were a young (28 yrs old) lawyer today, he would be as likely to write a blog as to give a speech. In the particular speech that helped kick start his political career and make his reputation, young Abe decried the angry mobs that had strung up and burned a mulatto man for nothing more than his racial identity. He decries in this speech the angry mood of the country that preceded the Civil War, and calls on his countrymen to redouble their fealty to the spirit of the founding fathers, to the laws and system of government that they created to ensure justice. He warns that the institutions will not stand up on their own, but must be supported in times of peace as well as in times of strife.

Today, if he were around, young Abe would highlight another kind of mob spirit that is animating our nation and causing it to support actions by our political leadership that go well beyond the boundaries of the law, as they manipulate the system to evade the system of checks and balances designed by our forefathers.

We are a nation that remains, six years after that horrific attack on September 11, 2001, a nation in fear. We live in fear of another attack. We're reminded, in gory detail, by our president and opportunistic politicians that we could be subject to another attack at any moment, and encouraged to trade away our civil liberties in exchange for an opportunity to feel safer. (Over 1 Million Hits in Google search for "Bush+fear mongering" - or If you prefer the evidence in video form, see this search of You Tube for "Bush+fear mongering" - 58 hits, though some may be repetitive).

The measures this administration and its supporters would take cannot make us any safer, but they do offer to make us feel safer, in exchange for long-lasting political changes that serve their agenda. In response, we should be demanding hard evidence, we should demand to know: "How do massive violations of our laws to survey all data communications make us any safer?" What's the track record to date? It's been six years, after all.

We're fed the impression that we're being protected, but in fact, that's not possible by such means. In fact, our civil liberties are being traded away for a pittance in an historic power grab. We're buying a temporary feeling of security, in exchange for handing over our most precious asset: the system of laws, checks, and balances that are the very foundation of our government and our stable civil society.

This issue is coming to a head in the Senate, and I'm concerned.

In the Senate, two competing versions of the FISA Act have passed out of Senate committees. One, passed last month by the Intelligence Committee, saw Democratic Senators Schumer and Feinstein vote with the Republicans in favor of a version that contains immunity for telecom firms that cooperated with requests from the executive branch to break laws and provide surveillance of domestic data traffic without warrants.

The other, passed by the Judiciary Committee, voted out a version that did not include immunity, but also did not expressly condemn immunity, in effect punting to the Senate floor resolution of the issue of whether large telecom firms should be left subject to the consequences of their illegal activity.

In contrast, the House passed a version that expressly excluded such immunity. This article in Techdirt and its associated links help explain the confusing state of affairs in Congress.

I am not confident in our Democratic leadership, I'm afraid to say. I fear an ill wind blowing through the Senate, which could see this issue traded away in some high-minded compromise. I think it's important to take this stand, because the legal fight that would ensue when telecom companies are called to task for their behavior has the potential to uncover law-breaking by this administration as well, and that is the bigger fish. We have an opportunity to educate our nation on the risks we are taking, and turn the tide on the steady erosion of our civil liberties.

Similar voices echo Abe Lincoln, calling out today, warn us to beware. Consider this article and video clip, where a whistle-blower visited Washington two weeks ago to tell what he knows about illegal collusion between AT&T and the federal government.

Those documents detail how AT&T diverted portions of fiber optic internet cables, included powerful snooping hardware and a fat fiber connection out of the room.

The EFF filed those documents under seal with the court as part of their ongoing class action suit against AT&T. Wired News independently acquired and published the documents in May 2006.

Even prior to the Senate Intelligence committee's assent to the president's push for immunity for the telecoms, Klein believed that Congress was helping the administration cover up the spying, according to an interview with Wired News in May.

[KLEIN]: I've called and sent letters to senators and Congress members. They haven't called back. I don't think they want to pursue it. They want to talk about this behind closed doors. These days I am angry at Congress for helping them keep it secret. They could hold hearings and subpoena people and give them immunity. Right now there are people who could come forward and say what they know, but they need immunity. That's the bottleneck. I don't see a resolution coming from this Congress. It's a conspiracy against the American people.

But on Wednesday, Klein had a full D.C. day -- meeting with senators and Congressional staffers and doing rounds of interviews with the press, who have largely ignored the soft-spoken retiree.

Klein's stated intent for the visit is to stop Congress from giving immunity to well-connected telecom firms that the administration and its platoon of consent manufacturers say are being treated unfairly. http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2007/11/att-whistle-blo.html

Here's Klein in person, in a clip put up on Sen. Dodd's website - watch it.

Having watched this video, I urge you to pause for a moment and then read Lincoln's speech in its entirety, below.

Lyceum Address
As one of Abraham Lincoln's earliest published speeches, this address has been much scrutinized and debated by historians, who see broad implications for his later public policies. Lincoln was 28 years old at the time he gave this speech and had recently moved from a rough pioneer village to Springfield, Illinois.

William Herndon, Lincoln's law partner, describes the event this way: "we had a society in Springfield, which contained and commanded all the culture and talent of the place. Unlike the other one its meetings were public, and reflected great credit on the community ... The speech was brought out by the burning in St. Louis a few weeks before, by a mob, of a negro. Lincoln took this incident as a sort of text for his remarks ... The address was published in the Sangamon Journal and created for the young orator a reputation which soon extended beyond the limits of the locality in which he lived."

The Perpetuation of Our Political Institutions:
Address Before the Young Men's Lyceum of Springfield, Illinois
January 27, 1838

As a subject for the remarks of the evening, the perpetuation of our political institutions, is selected.

In the great journal of things happening under the sun, we, the American People, find our account running, under date of the nineteenth century of the Christian era.--We find ourselves in the peaceful possession, of the fairest portion of the earth, as regards extent of territory, fertility of soil, and salubrity of climate. We find ourselves under the government of a system of political institutions, conducing more essentially to the ends of civil and religious liberty, than any of which the history of former times tells us. We, when mounting the stage of existence, found ourselves the legal inheritors of these fundamental blessings. We toiled not in the acquirement or establishment of them--they are a legacy bequeathed us, by a once hardy, brave, and patriotic, but now lamented and departed race of ancestors. Their's was the task (and nobly they performed it) to possess themselves, and through themselves, us, of this goodly land; and to uprear upon its hills and its valleys, a political edifice of liberty and equal rights; 'tis ours only, to transmit these, the former, unprofaned by the foot of an invader; the latter, undecayed by the lapse of time and untorn by usurpation, to the latest generation that fate shall permit the world to know. This task of gratitude to our fathers, justice to ourselves, duty to posterity, and love for our species in general, all imperatively require us faithfully to perform.

How then shall we perform it?--At what point shall we expect the approach of danger? By what means shall we fortify against it?-- Shall we expect some transatlantic military giant, to step the Ocean, and crush us at a blow? Never!--All the armies of Europe, Asia and Africa combined, with all the treasure of the earth (our own excepted) in their military chest; with a Buonaparte for a commander, could not by force, take a drink from the Ohio, or make a track on the Blue Ridge, in a trial of a thousand years.

At what point then is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer, if it ever reach us, it must spring up amongst us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide.

I hope I am over wary; but if I am not, there is, even now, something of ill-omen, amongst us. I mean the increasing disregard for law which pervades the country; the growing disposition to substitute the wild and furious passions, in lieu of the sober judgment of Courts; and the worse than savage mobs, for the executive ministers of justice. This disposition is awfully fearful in any community; and that it now exists in ours, though grating to our feelings to admit, it would be a violation of truth, and an insult to our intelligence, to deny. Accounts of outrages committed by mobs, form the every-day news of the times. They have pervaded the country, from New England to Louisiana;--they are neither peculiar to the eternal snows of the former, nor the burning suns of the latter;--they are not the creature of climate-- neither are they confined to the slave-holding, or the non-slave- holding States. Alike, they spring up among the pleasure hunting masters of Southern slaves, and the order loving citizens of the land of steady habits.--Whatever, then, their cause may be, it is common to the whole country.

It would be tedious, as well as useless, to recount the horrors of all of them. Those happening in the State of Mississippi, and at St. Louis, are, perhaps, the most dangerous in example and revolting to humanity. In the Mississippi case, they first commenced by hanging the regular gamblers; a set of men, certainly not following for a livelihood, a very useful, or very honest occupation; but one which, so far from being forbidden by the laws, was actually licensed by an act of the Legislature, passed but a single year before. Next, negroes, suspected of conspiring to raise an insurrection, were caught up and hanged in all parts of the State: then, white men, supposed to be leagued with the negroes; and finally, strangers, from neighboring States, going thither on business, were, in many instances subjected to the same fate. Thus went on this process of hanging, from gamblers to negroes, from negroes to white citizens, and from these to strangers; till, dead men were seen literally dangling from the boughs of trees upon every road side; and in numbers almost sufficient, to rival the native Spanish moss of the country, as a drapery of the forest.

Turn, then, to that horror-striking scene at St. Louis. A single victim was only sacrificed there. His story is very short; and is, perhaps, the most highly tragic, if anything of its length, that has ever been witnessed in real life. A mulatto man, by the name of McIntosh, was seized in the street, dragged to the suburbs of the city, chained to a tree, and actually burned to death; and all within a single hour from the time he had been a freeman, attending to his own business, and at peace with the world.

Such are the effects of mob law; and such as the scenes, becoming more and more frequent in this land so lately famed for love of law and order; and the stories of which, have even now grown too familiar, to attract any thing more, than an idle remark.

But you are, perhaps, ready to ask, "What has this to do with the perpetuation of our political institutions?" I answer, it has much to do with it. Its direct consequences are, comparatively speaking, but a small evil; and much of its danger consists, in the proneness of our minds, to regard its direct, as its only consequences. Abstractly considered, the hanging of the gamblers at Vicksburg, was of but little consequence. They constitute a portion of population, that is worse than useless in any community; and their death, if no pernicious example be set by it, is never matter of reasonable regret with any one. If they were annually swept, from the stage of existence, by the plague or small pox, honest men would, perhaps, be much profited, by the operation.--Similar too, is the correct reasoning, in regard to the burning of the negro at St. Louis. He had forfeited his life, by the perpetuation of an outrageous murder, upon one of the most worthy and respectable citizens of the city; and had not he died as he did, he must have died by the sentence of the law, in a very short time afterwards. As to him alone, it was as well the way it was, as it could otherwise have been.--But the example in either case, was fearful.--When men take it in their heads to day, to hang gamblers, or burn murderers, they should recollect, that, in the confusion usually attending such transactions, they will be as likely to hang or burn some one who is neither a gambler nor a murderer as one who is; and that, acting upon the example they set, the mob of to-morrow, may, and probably will, hang or burn some of them by the very same mistake. And not only so; the innocent, those who have ever set their faces against violations of law in every shape, alike with the guilty, fall victims to the ravages of mob law; and thus it goes on, step by step, till all the walls erected for the defense of the persons and property of individuals, are trodden down, and disregarded. But all this even, is not the full extent of the evil.--By such examples, by instances of the perpetrators of such acts going unpunished, the lawless in spirit, are encouraged to become lawless in practice; and having been used to no restraint, but dread of punishment, they thus become, absolutely unrestrained.--Having ever regarded Government as their deadliest bane, they make a jubilee of the suspension of its operations; and pray for nothing so much, as its total annihilation. While, on the other hand, good men, men who love tranquility, who desire to abide by the laws, and enjoy their benefits, who would gladly spill their blood in the defense of their country; seeing their property destroyed; their families insulted, and their lives endangered; their persons injured; and seeing nothing in prospect that forebodes a change for the better; become tired of, and disgusted with, a Government that offers them no protection; and are not much averse to a change in which they imagine they have nothing to lose. Thus, then, by the operation of this mobocractic spirit, which all must admit, is now abroad in the land, the strongest bulwark of any Government, and particularly of those constituted like ours, may effectually be broken down and destroyed--I mean the attachment of the People. Whenever this effect shall be produced among us; whenever the vicious portion of population shall be permitted to gather in bands of hundreds and thousands, and burn churches, ravage and rob provision-stores, throw printing presses into rivers, shoot editors, and hang and burn obnoxious persons at pleasure, and with impunity; depend on it, this Government cannot last. By such things, the feelings of the best citizens will become more or less alienated from it; and thus it will be left without friends, or with too few, and those few too weak, to make their friendship effectual. At such a time and under such circumstances, men of sufficient talent and ambition will not be wanting to seize the opportunity, strike the blow, and overturn that fair fabric, which for the last half century, has been the fondest hope, of the lovers of freedom, throughout the world.

I know the American People are much attached to their Government;--I know they would suffer much for its sake;--I know they would endure evils long and patiently, before they would ever think of exchanging it for another. Yet, notwithstanding all this, if the laws be continually despised and disregarded, if their rights to be secure in their persons and property, are held by no better tenure than the caprice of a mob, the alienation of their affections from the Government is the natural consequence; and to that, sooner or later, it must come.

Here then, is one point at which danger may be expected.

The question recurs, "how shall we fortify against it?" The answer is simple. Let every American, every lover of liberty, every well wisher to his posterity, swear by the blood of the Revolution, never to violate in the least particular, the laws of the country; and never to tolerate their violation by others. As the patriots of seventy-six did to the support of the Declaration of Independence, so to the support of the Constitution and Laws, let every American pledge his life, his property, and his sacred honor;--let every man remember that to violate the law, is to trample on the blood of his father, and to tear the character of his own, and his children's liberty. Let reverence for the laws, be breathed by every American mother, to the lisping babe, that prattles on her lap--let it be taught in schools, in seminaries, and in colleges; let it be written in Primers, spelling books, and in Almanacs;--let it be preached from the pulpit, proclaimed in legislative halls, and enforced in courts of justice. And, in short, let it become the political religion of the nation; and let the old and the young, the rich and the poor, the grave and the gay, of all sexes and tongues, and colors and conditions, sacrifice unceasingly upon its altars.

While ever a state of feeling, such as this, shall universally, or even, very generally prevail throughout the nation, vain will be every effort, and fruitless every attempt, to subvert our national freedom.

When I so pressingly urge a strict observance of all the laws, let me not be understood as saying there are no bad laws, nor that grievances may not arise, for the redress of which, no legal provisions have been made.--I mean to say no such thing. But I do mean to say, that, although bad laws, if they exist, should be repealed as soon as possible, still while they continue in force, for the sake of example, they should be religiously observed. So also in unprovided cases. If such arise, let proper legal provisions be made for them with the least possible delay; but, till then, let them, if not too intolerable, be borne with.

There is no grievance that is a fit object of redress by mob law. In any case that arises, as for instance, the promulgation of abolitionism, one of two positions is necessarily true; that is, the thing is right within itself, and therefore deserves the protection of all law and all good citizens; or, it is wrong, and therefore proper to be prohibited by legal enactments; and in neither case, is the interposition of mob law, either necessary, justifiable, or excusable.

But, it may be asked, why suppose danger to our political institutions? Have we not preserved them for more than fifty years? And why may we not for fifty times as long?

We hope there is no sufficient reason. We hope all dangers may be overcome; but to conclude that no danger may ever arise, would itself be extremely dangerous. There are now, and will hereafter be, many causes, dangerous in their tendency, which have not existed heretofore; and which are not too insignificant to merit attention. That our government should have been maintained in its original form from its establishment until now, is not much to be wondered at. It had many props to support it through that period, which now are decayed, and crumbled away. Through that period, it was felt by all, to be an undecided experiment; now, it is understood to be a successful one.--Then, all that sought celebrity and fame, and distinction, expected to find them in the success of that experiment. Their all was staked upon it:-- their destiny was inseparably linked with it. Their ambition aspired to display before an admiring world, a practical demonstration of the truth of a proposition, which had hitherto been considered, at best no better, than problematical; namely, the capability of a people to govern themselves. If they succeeded, they were to be immortalized; their names were to be transferred to counties and cities, and rivers and mountains; and to be revered and sung, and toasted through all time. If they failed, they were to be called knaves and fools, and fanatics for a fleeting hour; then to sink and be forgotten. They succeeded. The experiment is successful; and thousands have won their deathless names in making it so. But the game is caught; and I believe it is true, that with the catching, end the pleasures of the chase. This field of glory is harvested, and the crop is already appropriated. But new reapers will arise, and they, too, will seek a field. It is to deny, what the history of the world tells us is true, to suppose that men of ambition and talents will not continue to spring up amongst us. And, when they do, they will as naturally seek the gratification of their ruling passion, as others have so done before them. The question then, is, can that gratification be found in supporting and maintaining an edifice that has been erected by others? Most certainly it cannot. Many great and good men sufficiently qualified for any task they should undertake, may ever be found, whose ambition would inspire to nothing beyond a seat in Congress, a gubernatorial or a presidential chair; but such belong not to the family of the lion, or the tribe of the eagle. What! think you these places would satisfy an Alexander, a Caesar, or a Napoleon?--Never! Towering genius distains a beaten path. It seeks regions hitherto unexplored.--It sees no distinction in adding story to story, upon the monuments of fame, erected to the memory of others. It denies that it is glory enough to serve under any chief. It scorns to tread in the footsteps of any predecessor, however illustrious. It thirsts and burns for distinction; and, if possible, it will have it, whether at the expense of emancipating slaves, or enslaving freemen. Is it unreasonable then to expect, that some man possessed of the loftiest genius, coupled with ambition sufficient to push it to its utmost stretch, will at some time, spring up among us? And when such a one does, it will require the people to be united with each other, attached to the government and laws, and generally intelligent, to successfully frustrate his designs.

Distinction will be his paramount object, and although he would as willingly, perhaps more so, acquire it by doing good as harm; yet, that opportunity being past, and nothing left to be done in the way of building up, he would set boldly to the task of pulling down.

Here, then, is a probable case, highly dangerous, and such a one as could not have well existed heretofore.

Another reason which once was; but which, to the same extent, is now no more, has done much in maintaining our institutions thus far. I mean the powerful influence which the interesting scenes of the revolution had upon the passions of the people as distinguished from their judgment. By this influence, the jealousy, envy, and avarice, incident to our nature, and so common to a state of peace, prosperity, and conscious strength, were, for the time, in a great measure smothered and rendered inactive; while the deep-rooted principles of hate, and the powerful motive of revenge, instead of being turned against each other, were directed exclusively against the British nation. And thus, from the force of circumstances, the basest principles of our nature, were either made to lie dormant, or to become the active agents in the advancement of the noblest cause--that of establishing and maintaining civil and religious liberty.

But this state of feeling must fade, is fading, has faded, with the circumstances that produced it.

I do not mean to say, that the scenes of the revolution are now or ever will be entirely forgotten; but that like every thing else, they must fade upon the memory of the world, and grow more and more dim by the lapse of time. In history, we hope, they will be read of, and recounted, so long as the bible shall be read;-- but even granting that they will, their influence cannot be what it heretofore has been. Even then, they cannot be so universally known, nor so vividly felt, as they were by the generation just gone to rest. At the close of that struggle, nearly every adult male had been a participator in some of its scenes. The consequence was, that of those scenes, in the form of a husband, a father, a son or brother, a living history was to be found in every family-- a history bearing the indubitable testimonies of its own authenticity, in the limbs mangled, in the scars of wounds received, in the midst of the very scenes related--a history, too, that could be read and understood alike by all, the wise and the ignorant, the learned and the unlearned.--But those histories are gone. They can be read no more forever. They were a fortress of strength; but, what invading foeman could never do, the silent artillery of time has done; the leveling of its walls. They are gone.--They were a forest of giant oaks; but the all-resistless hurricane has swept over them, and left only, here and there, a lonely trunk, despoiled of its verdure, shorn of its foliage; unshading and unshaded, to murmur in a few gentle breezes, and to combat with its mutilated limbs, a few more ruder storms, then to sink, and be no more.

They were the pillars of the temple of liberty; and now, that they have crumbled away, that temple must fall, unless we, their descendants, supply their places with other pillars, hewn from the solid quarry of sober reason. Passion has helped us; but can do so no more. It will in future be our enemy. Reason, cold, calculating, unimpassioned reason, must furnish all the materials for our future support and defence.--Let those materials be moulded into general intelligence, sound morality, and in particular, a reverence for the constitution and laws: and, that we improved to the last; that we remained free to the last; that we revered his name to the last; that, during his long sleep, we permitted no hostile foot to pass over or desecrate his resting place; shall be that which to learn the last trump shall awaken our WASHINGTON.

Upon these let the proud fabric of freedom rest, as the rock of its basis; and as truly as has been said of the only greater institution, "the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."

Source: Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln, edited by Roy P. Basler.

The Perpetuation of Our Political Institutions, A. Lincoln, at his Address Before the Young Men's Lyceum of Springfield, Illinois on January 27, 1838

Isn't it time we woke up and recognized the path we're on? We know where the path took Lincoln's nation a short 12 years after he made this speech, which propelled him to lead our nation during its most trying time. Can we not learn from history and avoid repeating the same mistakes? Will we let passionate anger and fear outvote our brains in our national debate today, in the same way that we let passionate anger and fear hold sway 170 years ago?

Posted on November 19, 2007 at 08:09 AM | Comments (0)

Rule of Law v. Rule of Da Man - I vote for Rule of Law

I am starting to worry that nobody in charge in Washington, D.C., is looking out for our long-term interests when it comes to being protected from unknown powers using the Internet and all the information out on the Web to spy on us. Have we become the Soviet Union? Have we forgotten what a police state is? Have we become so driven by fear that we are ready to check it all in because of those punks/goons at Al Queda? Can this really be happening? I think the Internet makes this issue of illegal domestic surveillance a much more serious issue, one we will all be focusing on at some point, I hope before it's not too late.

If Congress retroactively grants immunity, it will be one more blow against the respect of the rule of law. Not a fatal blow to be sure. Our Constitution and system of government have weathered such storms in the past. But a severe blow nonetheless. Congress will send a signal to the corporations that control the vital services on which we all depend, and to which we must entrust our private information, that they may safely collude with the Executive branch to break the law. Because a compliant Congress and a strong Executive will make it all right later. Yet these are the very companies into which we must most carefully inculcate the respect for the rule of law, because they have access to our most personal information and we have no way of discovering when our rights are violated.

Congress will also send a message to us. We will learn that our rights must yield to the interests of the President and the Powerful when they work together in the name of national security. That we must accustom ourselves to such violations in the "post-9/11 world." And while powerful Democrats, brought within the inner circle by the crumbs of information the Administration grudgingly shares, may not go as far as Rep. Lamar Smith in saying we should thank the telephone companies for preferring the illegal demands of the President to the rule of law, we shall be taught to sympathize with them rather than hold them accountable for their choices. And we shall know that, when faced with similar choices in the future, they and every other industry will chose to honor the demands of the Executive rather than honor the demands of the rule of law.

Such a message undermines our national security and our way of life far more powerfully than any Al-Qeda attack. When Chris Dodd frames this as a fight to restore the Constitution, that's not overbroad campaign rhetoric. It is the literal truth. For without respect for the rule of law, the Constitution has no meaning or purpose save as a tool for demagogues who revel in its power while ignoring its intent. And when Dodd calls on Democrats to remember that the public elected them to stop these abuses of our rights, to reign in lawbreakers rather than "thank" them, he also tells the truth. I can only hope Harry Reid and his colleagues on both sides of the aisle pay attention. Harold Feld: So Much For All That "We Are A Nation of Laws" Stuff . . . .

Harold Feld, an attorney with the Media Access Project, provides the best coverage and argument yet for why we should all be very, very concerned about this telecom immunity issue.

He has the background to know:

Harold Feld, MAP's Senior Vice President, joined MAP in August 1999 after practicing communications, Internet, and energy law at Covington & Burling. Mr. Feld served as co-chair of the Federal Communications Bar Association's Online Committee, and has written numerous articles on Internet law and communications policy for trade publications and legal journals. Mr. Feld won the 2000 Burton Award for excellence in writing by a nonacademic. Mr. Feld graduated magna cum laude from Princeton University in 1989, and magna cum laude from Boston University Law School in 1993. Mr. Feld clerked for the Hon. John M. Ferren of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals. Media Access Project

In other coverage of potential Telecom Immunity this week, there was this exchange of Letters to the Editor at the New York Times, worth a look.

Posted on November 12, 2007 at 08:34 PM | Comments (0)

On Trust and Betrayal, Indicators of a Competitive Market

Here's a more Qualitative Assessment of a Competitive Market, one that the FCC may want to take note of and add to its repertoire of means to assess competition. Let me say before you read on that while I acknowledge upfront that this is very trivial, I'm sharing this with you my readers because it captures so well these issues of trust and betrayal in commercial relationships and how they differ based on the level of competition in the particular market.

I had one of those Moments of Truth this morning that sheds light on the nature of market success and failure. It was a little thing, in the Big Picture scheme of things, but after all, it's those little things that can make or break a business in a competitive service industry. I have had a favorite coffee shop that has free Wi Fi and really comfortable armchairs, a parking lot and a prime location in downtown Austin. I've been traveling some, so I haven't been there in a while, but it's been one of my favorite locations whenever I have a business meeting, morning or afternoon, for the reasons cited above. I routinely met people there and went there on my own.

On my many visits, I gathered stamps on a Customer Loyalty program card, you know those "Buy 10, Get the 11th coffee free" cards? I had three working with multiple stamps on each, and they always would consolidate them into a free coffee and a new partially stamped card whenever I managed to remember to bring them in to redeem them. Imagine my surprise when I made the effort to remember to bring the cards this morning, intending to sit for a couple of hours before a downtown lunch appointment, buy a pound of coffee, and enjoy "my" easy chair, when the young clerk told me "Oh, we don't take those anymore."

I'd understand discontinuing the program, that's any business owner's prerogative, but I was flabbergasted when I was told that they would not offer me a coffee in exchange for the 17 stamps I had on the three cards...How much can a coffee cost? What's the value of a customer?

Those 17 stamps represented between $60 and $80 I had spent on 17 trips, all to that one store. And those stamps represented an implied contract between the owner and me, the regular customer, that I would get a free coffee. It was like a slap in the face...How cavalier to treat a regular customer, to boot! Business must be very good, too good, I'm thinking, if a business manager can take such a stand. I'm so pissed off because I trusted them to honor their commitment, every time I made sure to get that stupid card checked, every time I kept track of it in some desk drawer...I made an investment, albeit a minor one, in this particular coffee shop. They repaid my investment in them as a regular customer by betraying my trust not when they discontinued the program, but when they refused to redeem my cards under the old program. Bad, bad Mojo.

I wrote an extended Comment on the official comment card and now I'm repaying the favor by telling the world what a shitty deal the coffee shop gave me...oh, by the way, the cafe in question is Seattle's Best Worst .

The money line on the comment card I filled out was that when a business reneges on an oral contract, no matter how small, they're betraying a trust and in effect telling me, "We don't value or even need your business." My only response can be that I no longer value them as a supplier and that I'll take my business elsewhere. Or else I guess I could just shrug my shoulders, pile that one more indignity along with all the others in the back seat, and soldier on. Well, I'm tired of taking it on the chin and smiling. So, I'll take this little opportunity to bitch in public, to take as much business away from them as I can along the way, just to make my point. Maybe this will have little or no effect, but I don't care, it's cathartic just to write this post.

They say a positive experience generates far fewer positive referrals than a negative experience generates negative referrals. I'm living proof, I guess. It's been six hours since this negative event, and I'm still pissed. They deserve whatever bad karma can come their way after such a bone-headed customer service move. I don't do this often, by the way.

I left Seattle's Best and went happily on to Austin Java, a local shop. I'll continue to explore new haunts and avoid not just that one, but all of their brethren. Seattle's Best has just been moved to the bottom of my list - indeed, this sours me on all chains, at least for the time being. I'm shopping local from now on, at least when it comes to coffee and wi fi - we have many options in this field in Austin.

I believe it's a business maxim that Trust is hard to win, but easy to lose. All businesses should treat their regular customers with extra care, because they give them more revenue for less cost than any other. They're the most valuable, if they stop to think about it. Where businesses have to go out of their way and spend to market and sell to bring in new customers, the regulars come without any marketing, and bring in others with their recommendations and as company. All they have to do is respect them and treat them well and they keep on coming in.

For that reason, competitive businesses should respect all their customers and treat them as if they really value their business, in hopes that they become regulars. At least, that's how I understand service businesses in particular to work. In retail business, shouldn't repeat business and referrals be a goal to strive for?

So it's an indicator of a competitive market when a customer that is treated poorly as I was has an option to react the way I did. In a duopoly market, I'd have far fewer options - I'd be as likely to suck it up, take it, etc...what would I have done were I six months into a 24-month contract with this cafe owner? What would have been my options if this were one of the two franchised coffee shop chains in town? You get the picture...

One risk of large chains is just this sort of impersonality. The risk is that individual links in the chain begin to act as if the corporate head were the customer, rather than the person across the counter. They act as if every penny were a line item in a business process flow chart, to be trimmed, so that the next quarter is better than the last. They act as if a market is a big homogeneous blob, instead of a series of individual win or lose business transactions - those Moments of Truth - with real-live flesh-and-blood customers and clients. In short, they forget the "service" in the words "customer service" and act as if they are not in the business of providing a service, but of cutting costs and counting their revenues.

When they lose sight as these folks did today, we count on the market to provide a correction, but sometimes it takes a while for such offenders to feel the heat. The good ones react and correct, we'll see what Seattle's Best does...I'm not holding my breath, but I did give them an option to react by filling out the card. In most of the domestic broadband markets today, there's far less competition than there is in coffee shops. Consequently, there's far less potential for the market to exert a correcting force in those markets. In most cases, there's little chance for the market to work as it should, or could, so I'd wonder by what definition do they describe these markets as "competitive."

Sighhh. This is disappointing. I'll miss my easy chair, Wi Fi, and coffee. But I have new horizons ahead of me... and I'll focus on that. It's sad, a little like losing a friend. This is Tough Love, I guess.

Posted on November 12, 2007 at 03:41 PM | Comments (0)

Playing Roulette with Your Broadband Future

My recurring nightmare ...

A busy casino. Lights flashing, slot machines chinking and whirling in the background. A roar goes up from the crowd around the craps table. I stand next to the roulette table, mesmerized by the spinning wheel. It's so pretty. I'm new to Vegas, but my "trusted adviser" knows the ropes and he turns to me.

Trusted Adviser: Here, hand me all your chips.
Me: Wait, what are you going to do with them?
TA: Don't ask so many questions. Who's the expert here? It's ME who's managing your broadband future, right?
You: But I'm not sure.
TA: Look, this is complicated business, right, and I've been in Vegas for years, right? Do I know my way around here, or what? I introduced you to the Casino Manager, didn't I?
Croupier: Round and round she goes, where she stops, nobody knows.
Me: Yeah, you did. You do seem to know everyone, and you sure seem to know your way around here.
TA: You got that right, I sure do. I've been doing this for a quite a while, in fact, I know the people that built this place. I helped design this wheel. When it comes to telecommunications, I wrote the book.
Me: (watching the wheel go around) It's so pretty - amazing.
TA: Look, they're about to spin again - hand me your chips.
Me: What are you going to do with them?
TA: I'm putting them all on Red. Can't lose. Trust me.
Me: But how do you know where to place the bet?
TA: Look, it's complicated. Don't you worry about that, you just have to trust me. You want broadband, don't you?
Me: You bet I do. I love to surf the Internet, and I do like a discount. But I"m not sure of Red. It seems, well, rather risky.
TA: (snorts). What, you want me to put the stack on Lucky Seven? Red is a safer bet. Remember, only I know how to make your broadband dreams come true. Here, hand me your chips, it's time.
Me: Well, OK, if you say so....

The trusted adviser, smiling, takes my stack of chips and places them all on Red. The croupier gives the wheel a good spin. Around and around it goes, where it stops .... I vaguely remember this scene from a not so distant past, but back then the pile of chips were all on Black. Otherwise, the conversation was the same.

How does this scenario turn out? I don't know about you, but for all of our sakes, I sure hope the wheel stops on Red. And I hope we can trust our Trusted Adviser, because it still seems like a gamble to me.

Whatever, who really knows, right? It's complicated. And besides, what happens in Vegas, stays in Vegas. And isn't it fun, all those blinking lights? Here, have another cocktail. Don't worry, be happy. Time to place your bets! Hurry up!

When we hand over all of our decision making on broadband infrastructure to a few large companies and a federal government with a long history of cozy corporate relations, we're no better than the visitor to Vegas in my nightmare scenario above.

We're hoping betting that the decisions they make on our behalf will bring us the broadband we need. But if we pause for a moment and reflect on the series of outcomes in the past, we realize that the track record in the recent past has not been all that good - they're coasting on a glorious telecommunications history in the twentieth century that is long gone. In fact, when it comes to current decisions on broadband, they're more or less making it up as they go.

For good background on these issues, check out the website Teletruth, which will give you lots more detailed information than you can swallow at one sitting. Take my advice, swallow this medicine in small doses. These guys are passionate and persistent, and understandably impatient. They've built up a body of evidence that tells a story. They thoroughly unwrap the complex wrapper that obscures the truth about the companies and government relationships that are currently driving our broadband future. While I'm not altogether convinced at how effective they will be outside the circles of power, I respect their attempt to bring facts and truth to the broadband debate.

BROADBAND ROLLOUT FAILURES

As we enter the 21st century, the sparkle of our new fiber-optic future suddenly fades to a dull copper tone - the color of the three-quarters of a century old phone network based on copper wiring that is still in use today.

Our fiber-optic future was supposed to be here by now. Starting in the 1980s and continuing throughout the 1990s, the Bells convinced state and federal regulators that if they changed laws to give them more money, they would use these funds to replace the aging copper network - with a fabulous fiber-optic network and wondrous new applications. In fact, by the year 2000, more than half of American homes were supposed to have been upgraded to a glassy future - a future with very high-speed broadband.

Instead, the Bell companies have been able to keep the money in the form of higher prices for service. We estimate that over $120 billion dollars in excess payments have been collected in the name of Broadband.

We also contend that the downward turn of the Tech sector and thus the current financial recession was caused in a large part because the Bells never fulfilled their obligations, as well as the documented harm to competitors.

Stunningly Bad Regulations by the FCC

The FCC is also seriously to blame for the current situation with the lack of fiber-based broadband in the US. They have consistently created laws to block competition. Most recently, the FCC has created the "Triennial Review" which closes out competitors from using the customer-financed networks and gives private companies, the Bell companies, the exclusive us of fiber-based networks, as well as shutting down 'line-sharing' which allows Internet providers and competitive local phone companies to use even the older copper networks. Teletruth: Broadband and DSL Issues

By all means, read this history and listen to these and other arguments with a healthy dose of skepticism. They may appear to be kooks, or they may even be kooks. But the value of listening to an unconventional viewpoint is that it puts one's assumed reality in perspective. Indeed, WE ALL may be even bigger kooks for taking at face value the information offered us by multi-billion dollar corporations and government regulators: corporate individuals with competing priorities, with strong incentives to shade the truth and government regulators who have consistently given those they regulate everything they wanted, despite a history of broken promises. Trusting the untrustworthy, now how much sense does that make? Just who is getting played here? Indeed, who is more kooky, after all?

The bottom line for me is as follows.

In the Networked Information Age, our broadband information infrastructure has become too vital to be left in the hands of a select few, operating behind closed doors. Broadband has become too vital to place all of our chances for success on a narrow strategy defined and executed by insiders.

This sentiment is especially poignant when one considers that there now exists an alternative when it comes to broadband. We need to challenge our old way of thinking about this subject and factor in some of these new perspectives. I argue that we should be giving strong consideration to implementing a Plan B that doesn't involve trusting either the government or big business. We need a contingency plan that will shield us from the consequences of making the wrong bet because we followed conventional wisdom.

The challenge we face is that the telecom and broadband story is so complex that most people lack the patience to wade through it. The facts are so mind-numbing as to stagger the imagination. It's hard to believe that this situation continues year on year, yet it does.

But the good news is that we have an alternative to the Trusted Adviser scenario above.

Cities and neighborhoods, investors, property developers, business leaders - each can now take matters into their our own hands and craft their own broadband future. The concept of the Wisdom of the Crowds poses the curious finding that many well-informed individuals are consistently better at making decisions than are a small group of really smart people. That concept holds when it comes to building a better broadband tomorrow - why don't we look to more local solutions for more creativity and less risk?

We know that's true when it comes to investing. Experience has taught us that a well-balanced portfolio of smaller investments produces better results at lower risk than does one big investment. We look for a balance of expected return and acceptable risk. We take control and tailor our risk to meet our needs. As much as we would like to be totally safe regarding the future, nobody has a crystal ball. When it comes to investing, there is no such thing as a Trusted Adviser, although many will claim that title. Look closely at the fine print and you'll see that advice comes at a high price, and even after all those high fees, it's not your adviser that takes the risk, you do. You own it, no matter what.

Don't like the idea of putting all your chips on Red and then watching the wheel spin? Want a second opinion? Don't fret, the good news is that now, we can each choose to manage our own chips for ourselves. The beauty of technology is that we've been liberated from a decision-making paradigm that controlled our future. We don't need any large global telecommunications company to build our broadband future for us. That's what the metropolitan broadband movement is all about.

But for non-telecom people to take the steps needed to gain control of their broadband destiny, they will need to get educated. They will need to raise their Network IQs. And they need to build up their self confidence, to show themselves that they can do at least as well or even better than the phone company has done when it comes to broadband. We still need time to let this movement grow and show us their results.

So keep reading this and other resources. And Happy Risk Taking! The good news about learning about risk is that you tend to make smarter bets the more you lose. You make smarter bets, that is, IF you learn from every loss. So start making some small bets in broadband, just to learn. Track how you do, and compare notes with others. Gain some experience, and as you do, you'll also gain confidence.

In the end, becoming aware and taking control of your own destiny is the only way to really live. Playing it "safe" is for wussies, and increasingly, playing it safe has its own risks. Please, avoid being a wussie - take some chances, live life! Remember - Nothing ventured, nothing gained.

And when "safety" turns out to be a chimera, when the opportunity cost of the safe route turns out to bear little to no reward, and when your "Trusted Adviser" is deemed not worthy of your trust, then the "safe route" is even worse, it's for saps. So please, don't be a sap either. Get smart, get experienced, get real, get busy on alternatives to Status Quo Broadband.

Posted on November 11, 2007 at 06:43 AM | Comments (0)

Poker with Dick Cheney

Amazing what you find reading blogs. I came across this one this morning Five Nominations for the Best Weblog Post Ever!, recommended for sure, but not the main theme of this post...in the Comments section readers added their personal Favorite blog posts, many of them quite hilarious. One of them looked particularly good, but the link would not take me there, nor could I find it through various Google searches.

Many of you may already be aware of this website, and I had heard about it, but there is an Internet archive for dead posts - bookmark this one - I found the post I was looking for - amazes me when technology actually works! See the Internet Archive: Way Back Machine. It works!

So as a public service, I've resurrected this little gem titled The Poor Man: Poker With Dick Cheney, from way back in June 2004.

Enjoy (also copied after the jump).

Poker With Dick Cheney

Transcript of The Editors' regular Saturday-night poker game with Dick Cheney, 6/19/04. Start tape at 12:32 AM.

The Editors: We'll take three cards.

Dick Cheney: Give me one.

Sounds of cards being placed down, dealt, retrieved, and rearranged in hand. Non-committal noises, puffing of cigars.

TE: Fifty bucks.

DC: I'm in. Show 'em.

TE: Two pair, sevens and fives.

DC: Not good enough.

TE: What do you have?

DC: Better than that, that's for sure. Pay up.

TE: Can you show us your cards?

DC: Sure. One of them's a six.

TE: You need to show all your cards. That's the way the game is played.

Colin Powell: Ladies and gentlemen. We have accumulated overwhelming evidence that Mr. Cheney's poker hand is far, far better than two pair. Note this satellite photo, taken three minutes ago when The Editors went to get more chips. In it we clearly see the back sides of five playing cards, arranged in a poker hand. Defector reports have assured us that Mr. Cheney's hand was already well advanced at this stage. Later, Mr. Cheney drew only one card. Why only one card? Would a man without a strong hand choose only one card? We are absolutely convinced that Mr. Cheney has at least a full house.

Tim Russert: Wow. Colin Powell really hit a homerun for the Administration right there. A very powerful performance. My dad played a lot of poker in World War 2, and he taught me many things about life. Read my book.

TE: He's extremely good at Power Point. But we would like to see the cards, or else we can't really be sure he has anything to beat two pair. We don't think he would lie to us, but ... well, it is a very rich pot.

Jonah Goldberg: Liberal critics of Mr. Cheney's poker hand contend that "he doesn't have anything". Oh, really, liberal critics? Cheney has already showed them the six of clubs, and yet these liberals persist in saying he has "nothing". Why do liberals consider the six of clubs to be "nothing"? Is it because the six of clubs is black?

Matt Drudge: ****DRUDGE REPORT EXCLUSIVE****
*****MUST CREDIT THE DRUDGE REPORT*****
The Drudge Report has learned that Dick Cheney has a royal flush, hearts. Developing ...

TE: Perhaps if you could just show us a subset of your cards which beat 2 pair? Or tell us exactly what your hand is?

DC: We will show you our cards after we have collected the pot. It is important that things be done in this order, otherwise the foundation of our entire poker game will be destroyed.

TE: We aren't sure ...

DC: Very good. And here are my cards. A straight flush.

Judith Miller: Dick Cheney has revealed a straight flush, confirming his pre-collection claims about beating two pair.

TE: Those cards are of different suits. It's not a flush.

Mark Steyn: When will it end? Now liberal critics complain that Dick Cheney's cards are not all the same suit. Naturally, these are the same liberals who are always whining about a lack of diversity in higher education. It seems like segregation is OK with these liberals, as long as it damages Republicans.

MD: ****DRUDGE REPORT EXCLUSIVE****
*****MUST CREDIT THE DRUDGE REPORT*****
A witness has come forward claiming that The Editors engage in racial profiling in blog-linking. Developing ...

TE: Wait! It's not even a straight! You've got a eight and ten of hearts, a six of clubs, and the seven and five of diamonds. You have a ten high. That's nothing.

Sean Hannity: Well, well, well. In another sign of liberal desperation, liberals now complain that a ten high is "nothing". Does ten equal zero in liberal mathematics? That would explain a lot.

Robert Novak: It's a perfectly valid poker hand. Apparently, liberals have never heard of a "skip straight". It's a kind of straight, just with one card missing. But if you skip around the missing nine, it's a straight.

Alan Colmes: Mother says I mustn't play poker.

TE: There is no such thing as a "skip straight".

Brit Hume: It seems like some people are still playing poker like it's September 10th. Back then, you needed to have all your cards in order to claim a straight. But, as we learned on that day, sometimes you won't have perfect knowledge. Sometimes you have to learn to connect the dots, and see the patterns which are not visible to superficial analysis of the type favored by the CIA and the State Department. Dick Cheney's skip straight is a winning poker hand for the post-9/11 world.

Rush Limbaugh: Do The Editors have two pairs, or a pair of twos? First they say one thing, then another. What are they hiding?

Andrew Sullivan: Dick Cheney never said he had a straight. He was very careful about this. His cards can form many different hands. None of these hands alone can beat a pair of twos; but, taken together, the combination of all possible hands presents a more compelling case for taking the pot than simply screaming "Pair of twos! Pair of twos!" as unprincipled liberal critics of the Vice President so often do.

MD: ****DRUDGE REPORT EXCLUSIVE****
*****MUST CREDIT THE DRUDGE REPORT*****
Did The Editors claim to have "a pair of Jews"? Are they anti-Semites as well as racists? Developing ...

Zell Miller: As a lifelong liberal Democrat, I believe Dick Cheney, and I hate liberals and Democrats.

William Safire: Why are liberals so obsessed by Dick Cheney's poker hand? The pot has been taken, the deal is done. If liberals are upset that we are no longer playing by the Marquis of Queensbury patty-cake poker rules, they clearly lack the stomach to play poker in the post-September 11th environment. And why do they never complain about Saddam Hussein's poker playing, which was a thousand times worse?

Christopher Hitchens: The Left won't be happy until the pot is divided up equally between Yassar Arafat, Osama bin Laden, and Hitler. Orwell would have seen this.

Ann Coulter: Why do liberals object so strenuously to the idea of conservatives having a "straight"? Perhaps because it doesn't fit in with the radical homosexual/Islamist agenda they hold so dear?

Report of the Bipartisan Commission on Poker Hands: There is no such thing as a "skip straight".

DC: I have access to poker rules that the Commission doesn't, and so I know for a fact that the cards in my hand are all intimately connected.

George W. Bush: Dick Cheney is telling the truth. I'm a nice man who would drink a beer with you.

Vladimir Putin: I dealt Dick Cheney three aces and two kings.

DC: My deal.
Posted by The Editors at June 20, 2004 07:34 PM | TrackBack

Posted on November 02, 2007 at 08:06 AM | Comments (0)

What Would Woodward and Bernstein Do?

Continuing with the Watergate II theme ...

As much as I promote Alternative Broadband on this blog, I guess it should come as little surprise that I've really become more and more used to getting my news from Alternative Media, namely, from special interest blogs and websites. Frankly, I find the writing superb and the reporting excellent, generally a cut above what you will see from the Main Stream Media (MSM).

It's amazing that since I began reading these blogs say six-nine months ago, I consistently find myself reading old "news" the next day in the morning paper, in what you might call a summarized version. Or when I have time to watch one of the cable news shows, I realize how much detail and nuance is missing. And you might as well forget the really mainstream media such as CBS News or USA Today, which provide the viewer what could only be termed as Cliff Notes News, dumbed-down at that!

These blogs, when you get used to reading past the opinions and the informality, provide some very compelling insights into what is going on in the world. They come across as fresh, if a little obsessive. Take these two that I highlight in this post today as an example.

The Anonymous Liberal is written by an attorney, who is self-described as Who Am I? For what it's worth, I'm a litigator at a large national law firm (at least until someone offers to pay me to write about politics). Until then, I'll just have to go by A.L. As an attorney, A.L. brings a level of subject matter expertise and attention to detail that a regular reporter could only dream of. See this analysis of the telecom immunity issue in Did the Senate Intelligence Committee Disclose Key Evidence of Telecom Illegality?

Consider next these two recent posts on The Next Hurrah. These two articles are great examples of how this Alternative Media can focus on details that may be considered too arcane for the mainstream press to cover, but are nevertheless relevant to give a more complete picture.

On October 25, this post, The United States of AT&T Wants Satellites Now, Too, highlights the potential of very large well financed companies to grow ever larger and more powerful, supporting the role of government to exercise oversight and keep things in balance. Something to think about when we consider how that power can be used in light of recent revelations, like ...

On October 27, this post, The Dodge on Retroactive Immunity, provides a good summary of how a Democratic-majority congressional committee could consider acquiescing to the demand of a weak Republican administration to grant retroactive immunity to telecommunication companies that broke the law in supporting the administration's request to use the networks they manage for domestic spying. That's still a head-scratcher for me.

This post is well-written and succinct as it goes into detail examining the inner workings of the committee and its approach to the law, on this compelling constitutional issue. I found it both informative and riveting.

The law says that only the AG or someone specified in 2518(7) may provide the telecoms with the certification that their actions are legal. Here's what 2518(7) says:

(7) Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, any investigative or law enforcement officer, specially designated by the Attorney General, the Deputy Attorney General, the Associate Attorney General, or by the principal prosecuting attorney of any State or subdivision thereof acting pursuant to a statute of that State, who reasonably determines that— [my emphasis]

So the only people who may give telecoms the authorization that their eavesdropping is legal are: the AG, the DAG, the AAG, and any principal prosecuting attorney, such as a USA [Actually, maybe this means a State AG].

Yet, as the report informs us, for a period of time (a period of time, I might add, at some remove from 9/11), none of those people had signed off on the wiretapping program. After the Deputy Attorney General, as the Acting Attorney General refused to endorse the legality of the program, Alberto Gonzales authorized it.

The Committee can say, however, that beginning soon after September 11, 2001, the Executive branch provided written requests or directives to U.S. electronic communication service providers to obtain their assistance with communications intelligence activities that had been authorized by the President.

The Committee has reviewed all of the relevant correspondence. The letters were provided to electronic communication service providers at regular intervals. All of the letters stated that the activities had been authorized by the President. All of the letters also stated that the activities had been determined to be lawful by the Attorney General, except for one letter that covered a period of less than sixty days. That letter, which like all the others stated that the activities had been authorized by the President, stated that the activities had been determined to be lawful by the Counsel to the President. [my emphasis]

But Alberto Gonzales was not then one of the named people who could authorize such wiretaps. He was an attorney, but not a prosecuting attorney. In fact, at the time, he was not a law enforcement officer at all (unless you count someone enforcing Cheney's law as a law enforcement officer).

As I pointed out above, the committee tries to get around this inconvenient legal fact by waving around purposely vague language, using the phrase "certain other officers" to hide the fact that only specific other officers have the authority to authorize such wiretaps. They do it again in their final justification for extending immunity to the telecoms--replacing the titles of the very specific officers who can authorize wiretapping with another vague phrase, "high-level Government officials."

On the basis of the representations in the communications to providers, the Committee concluded that the providers, in the unique historical circumstances of the aftermath of September 11, 2001, had a good faith basis for responding to the requests for assistance they received. Section 202 makes no assessment about the legality of the President's program. It simply recognizes that, in the specific historical circumstances here, if the private sector relied on written representations that high-level Government officials had assessed the program to be legal, they acted in good faith and should be entitled to protection from civil suit. [my emphasis]

Effectively, the committee has rewritten the law to accommodate Bush's actions when he deliberately bypassed his own DOJ.

So, in addition to giving the Administration carte blanche to hide its own wrong-doing by invoking State Secrets and thereby depriving its accomplices of any defense, the committee has effectively rewritten the law. Where the law very clearly specifies that only a senior law enforcement officer may authorize wiretaps, they've inserted vague language that extends that authority to any hack who is willing to do the President's Vice President's bidding.

And in the process, most Democrats on the committee have written a convenient excuse for actions that amount to giving not only the telecoms, but Bush and Gonzales immunity.

So, it's not just about telecom immunity, but also about covering the tails of Bush and Gonzales. I have to think that if Woodward and Bernstein were on the trail of this current ongoing political drama, they would be writing something like what is written above at The Last Hurrah. So we have journalists pointing the way, what is missing in today's political world is a Congress with a backbone to stand up to this Administration's overreaching interpretations, subjugations of the Constitution, and abuses of power.

Posted on October 31, 2007 at 07:29 AM | Comments (0)

Unitary Executive v. Constitution - You Make the Call

Critics claim the President has used the war on terror to put himself above the law and that he has created a secret presidency of classified decisions and orders, that approve extraordinary renditions, torture, illegal detentions, and wiretapping without warrants with the collaboration of big telecom companies. This boundless secrecy and surveillance evokes images counter to American values. Bill Moyers Journal: Power and the Presidency

What good is broadband for all if this powerful new tool gets perverted and twisted into a means to repress political expression, to enable our government to flout our constitutional rights to privacy, to take away the country we love?

As much as I hate to say it, broadband policy has become more serious over the past several weeks. While the subject has always been inextricably wrapped up in national, state, and local politics, the discussion has generally been about getting access to a benefit, or on the downside, being denied a benefit. And it continues to be about benefits and consumerism, 99% of the time.

But there is a growing awareness of a new aspect to this network. We've shifted to talk about broadband networks becoming a threat to our lives and our liberty. It's not hyperbole to say that the Internet, when used as a tool and operated outside the bounds of laws, under the control of corporations that do not consider themselves to be subject to the same laws that you and I are, has become a realistic threat to democracy.

It doesn't have to be this way, and we are at the very beginning of this discussion. This is an important theme to pursue at this moment in our history.

Along with the excited talk about the potential of dual use iPhones and video over IP, we need to look at a darker underside to this broadband phenomenon. Because when comparing threats, the looming ExaFlood pales in comparison to the present subversion of the Constitution.

Check out this powerful video segment and see if you don't feel the same way. Moyers concludes his segment with this exchange, remembering a seminal moment from a mere 33 years ago.

BILL MOYERS: But listen to this voice from the past. From 1974. The Watergate scandals had revealed astonishing crimes and secret abuses of power by President Nixon and the men around him. The House Judiciary Committee was deliberating Nixon's impeachment. Congresswoman Barbara Jordan of Texas went straight to the heart of the matter:

BARBARA JORDAN: My faith in the constitution is whole it is complete it is total and I am not going to sit here and be an idle spectator to the diminution, the subversion, the destruction of the Constitution.

Posted on October 31, 2007 at 07:10 AM | Comments (0)

The Revolvng Door between Government and Telecom Industry

Writing in The American Prospect, Brian Beutler lays out a relationship that doesn't get a lot of attention in the Main Stream Media (that's "MSM' to regular readers of blogs.) Beutler describes in detail how the news of telecoms doing the bidding of government should not be a big surprise, because they all know each other and more than likely, have worked with each other under the same corporate or government logo at one time or another.

It seemed like shocking news last week when the telecommunications giant Verizon admitted it has readily allowed warrantless national security investigators to browse customer records on thousands of occasions. But given the revolving door between the telecom industry and federal government, no one should be surprised by their cozy relationship.

According to OpenSecrets.org, a Web site run by the Center for Responsive Politics in Washington, D.C., the worlds are well connected : There are no shortage of government officials who once worked in the telecommunications industry, and no shortage of telecommunications industry execs who once worked for the government.

This is not altogether uncommon in government and large corporate business, especially at high levels, but it seems to be especially common in telecommunications.

Many of the men and women who have hopped the fence - sometimes more than once - between government and telecom have done so via predictable channels. It's not uncommon, for instance, for aides and commissioners to the Federal Communications Commission to come from or move on to careers in telecommunications. It's arguably not even that surprising. But there are also the executives - like those who fill Verizon's ranks - who have spent years fighting for the government's right to pry into consumer data.

In an Oct. 12 letter to Democratic lawmakers, Randal S. Milch, senior vice president and general counsel to Verizon, admitted that, in tens of thousands of instances over the last two years, his company has provided government officials with subscriber information without court orders. According to the letter, that information has included subscriber names and addresses, local and long-distance telephone connection records, and methods and sources of payment.

Milch serves alongside William P. Barr, who is executive vice president and general counsel to Verizon. In Barr's past life, he was an analyst for the CIA, who went on to serve as a domestic policy adviser to President Ronald Reagan and as the attorney general of the United States under President George H.W. Bush. Throughout his esteemed government career, and well after he'd moved into the telecommunications industry, Barr has shown a voracious appetite for government surveillance.

So, it's not just that they all know each other - they share a common agenda, which is to leverage their access to data for their own purposes. In government or telecommunications, executives from both sides are in positions of public trust, so this is worrisome.

In 1995, after he'd made the switch, he told the House Judiciary Committee that "emergency wiretap authority exists under current law with respect to a range of criminal activity. Existing emergency authority has been sparingly used and I am not aware of any indication of abuse. It is clearly appropriate that the same emergency authority that applies with respect to mafia conspiracies also applies to terrorist conspiracies."

He argued that, when conducting surveillance, a single subpoena issued by the government should be sufficient to cover multiple telephones registered to an individual target. "It is impractical to identify a particular phone. This is perfectly in line with constitutional protections. After all, the right to privacy guaranteed under the Fourth Amendment is an individual's right to privacy; it is not an inanimate object's right to privacy. Roving wiretaps targeted at particular suspects rather than specific phones should not cause alarm."

Barr's testimony was cited in the House Report on the Comprehensive Antiterrorism Act of 1995 as justification for an expansion of federal wiretapping authority. The following year, he advocated on behalf of the use of intelligence information in domestic law enforcement proceedings in cases of suspected terrorism.

And that was all before Sept. 11, 2001. After the terrorist attacks, Barr re-emerged on Capitol Hill to lend his support to controversial measures such as beefed up executive privilege, broadened Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act authority, and both the use of military tribunals in specific and the USA Patriot Act more broadly.

Barr represents perhaps the most overtly wiretap-friendly liaison between the telecom industry and the government of the United States, but he's far from alone at Verizon. Peter Davidson, Verizon's chief lobbyist, was once a staffer in the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, and served as general counsel to former Texas Rep. Dick Armey when Armey was House majority leader.

Additionally, a former senior vice president at Verizon, Edward Whelan, was from mid 2001 to 2004 the principal deputy assistant attorney general for the Office of Legal Counsel. He clerked as well for Justice Antonin Scalia and, later, wrote an article defending Justice Samuel Alito who, in memos that eerily presage the current FISA debate, argued "an executive branch official who authorized the illegal wiretapping of U.S. citizens without a warrant should be immune from lawsuits," according to Charlie Savage of the Boston Globe. The Alito memos were written in his Justice Department days, before he was appointed to the Supreme Court.

None of this necessarily means Verizon and other telecom firms can't be trusted to honor our privacy, and the law. But it does show that if the executive branch wants access to nominally protected information, or the Congress wants to expand the legal framework in which surveillance is allowed, the doors are wide open and their friends are eagerly waiting.Snoops Get a Direct Line |

This type of perspective puts these events in a whole new light for me. It makes them that much more serious because it becomes hard to see where the government ends and the telecom company begins.

Posted on October 29, 2007 at 03:04 PM | Comments (0)

Laura Scher Kicks Some Assets

Laura Scher, co-founder, chairperson and CEO of Working Assets, has written a couple of blogs that beg to be shared with you.

Working Assets is a mobile and credit card company founded in 1985 "on the belief that building a business and building a better world are not mutually exclusive." The company has donated over $50 million to progressive nonprofit groups. As CEO, Laura helped Working Assets grow to more than $100 million in annual revenue. Laura now is a lecturer at Stanford University, teaching "Social Innovation and Entrepreneurship" at the undergraduate level.

In early October, Laura wrote about the propriety of an Internet Service Provider that would reach into your emails and censor you, based on their determination of what is appropriate use of "their" network. HMMMMMM....did you read the fine print of your contract?

Last week we witnessed Verizon trying to prevent a nonprofit from communicating with its own members because the company believed the content to be unsavory. Under the pressure of The New York Times front-page story and a storm of criticism, they caved.

Now it's happened again: another communications company trying to limit communications of its subscribers. This time, AT&T has added a bizarre provision in its terms of service that its network subscribers - anyone using AT&T for internet service - cannot participate in "conduct that AT&T believes...tends to damage the name or reputation of AT&T, or its parents, affiliates and subsidiaries."

So the message from AT&T is: if you're using AT&T for your e-mail, be careful what you say. Goodbye free speech. Hello, corporate censorship.

But let's be clear: the only one doing real damage to AT&T . . . is AT&T's own corporate policy .

Sadly, we have few alternative services. Over the past 10 years we have seen consolidation instead of competition. Where there were once 10 phone companies now there are but a measly four. Most of us have only two choices for Internet access and both are enormous companies. Our government has remained silent, if not complicit, as this consolidation has occurred. The FCC and Department of Justice have approved merger after merger, each of which reduced - not encouraged - competition.

Remember, today's "new" AT&T (which, not incidentally, has given over $1.8 million to Republican candidates) is really SBC, which, before it took over that telecom giant, gobbled up Ameritech, Pacific Bell, Bell South, and Cingular, among others. It's noteworthy that these companies originated as regulated utilities, charged with the rights and responsibilities of providing a public good. Yet today the regulators, instead of protecting the citizens of this country, protect and abet the companies that are eliminating consumer choice through voracious mergers.
---

I leave you with one unsettling question. How does AT&T find out if we're writing e-mails that are "damaging their name? " Are they now tracking our in-boxes? If you read this and use AT&T for your Internet service, why not give this a try: e-mail this article to a friend. It's the most subversive thing AT&T thinks you can do. October 5, 2007. AT&T: Out of My In-Box!

After the jump, I've captured a more recent blog by Laura that speaks directly to the current imbroglio concerning FISA and Telecom Amnesty.

It's been all over the news that in 2007, executives at Verizon and AT&T donated over $42,000 to Senator John D. Rockefeller, IV, chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee. Prior to 2007, Rockefeller wasn't getting any significant contributions from telecomm executives. But of course, prior to 2007, Rockefeller wasn't pushing his committee to grant retroactive immunity to phone companies that helped the NSA with its secret, warrantless surveillance on America's telephone calls.

There are so many reasons to be enraged by this.

As CEO of Working Assets, the socially responsible mobile and long distance company, I have watched for 15 years while big telecom "bought" monopoly power from Congress, from the White House and from the FCC. This is how they do business. Instead of building the best phone company, they buy politicians.

Instead of the vibrantly competitive telecom landscape promised by the deregulation of AT&T in 1984 and the Telecom Act of 1996, today we have a handful of telecommunications companies controlling legislation and policy, consolidating instead of innovating, and shutting out competitors. All with the blessing of the FCC.

Once upon a time the FCC took its role seriously, and required the phone companies to lease their networks. For a brief moment we had a competitive local telecom market offering a range of customized bundles and new features. Working Assets offered local service and doubled our donations for the customers who participated. But in due course the FCC bowed to the phone companies, and competitive local service simply vanished.

To add insult to injury, our politicians are cheap dates. For $42,000, these mega telecoms made a small but effective investment, given the magnitude of the lawsuits they are hoping to avoid, upwards of billions of dollars of damage. That's cheaper than hiring a D.C. lawyer for a week. When an issue is below the radar screen, it's easy to buy influence. But now that the issues have gone from thwarting competition to spying on Americans, I hope the public will start to pay attention, and hang up on the telecom companies' on-going campaign to buy the law that suits them best. Money Talks

Posted on October 29, 2007 at 02:43 PM | Comments (1)

A Long, Not So Gentle Backslide: Ersatz Oversight

I'm reminded of the "With Friends Like These, Who Needs Enemies" quote when I consider current events in our Democratic-majority Congress, more specifically, the Intelligence Committee and the FISA/Telecom Amnesty Issue. What passes for oversight and checks and balances these days, while a distinct improvement over the sad history of the first six years of this new century, still has a long way to go to get back to where it was a generation ago after the reforms that followed Watergate and the Nixon resignation.

Broadcast journalist, author, and social commentarian Studs Terkel has a great Op/Ed piece in the NY Times, The Wiretap This Time, where he puts recent events regarding FISA and Telecom Amnesty into perspective. And this guy has perspective:

Terkel graduated from the University of Chicago in 1934 with a law degree but says instead of practicing, he wanted to be a concierge at a hotel and also joined a theater group. He joined the Works Progress Administration's Federal Writers' Project, working in radio, doing work ranging from voicing soap opera productions and announcing news and sports, to presenting shows of recorded music and writing radio scripts and advertisements.

Terkel is well known for his radio program titled The Studs Terkel Program that aired on 98.7 WFMT Chicago between 1952 and 1997. The one-hour program appeared each weekday during all of that time. He interviewed guests as diverse as Bob Dylan, Leonard Bernstein and Alexander Frey. Wikipedia

This Op/Ed is valuable read, as Terkel reflects with first-hand experience on an inglorious past that saw the travesties of McCarthism move on to domestic spying and wiretapping of political opponents (think Martin Luther King), etc., etc. While we thought hoped we had put this behind us with the Church Amendment in the 1970s, apparently there is no rest when it comes to defending the Constitution, especially when you're defending it against assaults from within your own government.

In 1978, with broad public support, Congress passed the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), which placed national security investigations, including wiretapping, under a system of warrants approved by a special court. The law was not perfect, but as a result of its enactment and a series of subsequent federal laws, a generation of Americans has come to adulthood protected by a legal structure and a social compact making clear that government will not engage in unbridled, dragnet seizure of electronic communications.