link

You may have seen the MoveOn petition for Congress to preserve network neutrality. The major broadband internet providers — Verizon, Comcast, and AT&T (SBC) — have been lobbying Congress for something. What have they been lobbying for? Abolish "network neutrality"? Write a law so they can do something legal that they already do?

There's a good chance you get your home broadband internet connection through a cable line (especially if your provider is Comcast, Cox, Time Warner, RCN, or Adelphia). You may also get cable TV through the same wire into your house. The cable TV is quite possibly digital. It is sent over the same wire into your home but frequency-decoded by your cable box. Comcast pushes regular internet bits through one frequency and special "cable TV" bits through another. Are the big evil companies asking for something different?

I think it's quite just for Comcast to sell two kinds of service on its network in this case. Are they, Verizon, and AT&T asking for a power they don't already have? What are their motives? What are the specific implications? The debate on "network neutrality" is woefully underinformed on any of these points.

I don't think any of these companies are trying to be nice. They are huge corporations that earn slimming margins providing a commodity service. I have no doubt that they would love to work out some deal with the government that guarantees them a comfy profit margin. But are they doing that here?

If you have any clue, let me know. This whole debate is utterly confusing.

[Thanks to my coworker Todd Underwood for giving me the digital cable TV example.]

link

It's mostly off topic now, but I was wondering why (as this article suggests) we are still having problems counting votes. In particular, if the polling place has incomplete or incorrect information about you, you may be stuck with a provisional ballot. After you vote your provisional ballot, you'll never know if your vote was counted; you just have to trust the election authorities. What if we did something like this:

• All ballots have a serial number.
• When you vote, you keep a chit with your ballot's serial number.
• Serial numbers are distributed at random so that your ballot cannot be associated with you solely by knowing the serial number. (Preserves secret ballot.)
• At end of election, elections board publishes a text file that lists each ballot serial number and the votes counted for that serial number. This must be public and can be because serial numbers are anonymous.
• Voters, or organizations acting on their behalf, can verify that their votes have been counted as intended by searching the published list for their serial number.

• A number of organizations that support this behavior could take down your information right outside the polling place (like an exit poll) and verify it later for you automatically. You'd pick an organization that you trust and has some incentive for arguing that your votes were counted.

Wouldn't this solve the provisional ballots problem? Are there any problems with it that I haven't foreseen?

Few of my friends will be happy to see Bush win. But on the other hand, Kerry is a rather pathetic candidate too. Assuming that Bush does win, what's going to happen? It's time to make some predictions.

1.

With the assistance of a bold Republican congress, Bush will get additional steam for the continued occupation of Iraq. This is badly needed, but will not be enough. The election win will only bolster Bush's overconfidence on Iraq, and the administration will hardly even try to strike the deals we need with India, China, and Russia to bring 100,000 non-American troops into Iraq. After two years, Russia will pledge some troops but not enough. Near the end of Bush's second term, China will begin to consider some sort of military partnership with the US to bring the middle east out of total chaos, and it will be up to the next president to develop the partnership.

2.

Increased spending on Iraq will further balloon the budget deficit. I believe improving world security is a worthwhile infrastructure investment, so I'm not freaked out about this. Additionally, the administration will come close to neglect of the domestic economy, which is probably the best possible outcome. Without a reelection to worry about, we're likely to get lied to spoken to less.

Where Bush does damage domestically may be Social Security. The risk here is not exactly privatization itself, which could be done without harm, but that whatever changes they have in mind will create a domestic budget crisis. By characterizing the crisis in terms of "welfare spending," Bush could strike a powerful political triple-play:

1. reunite fiscally conservative Republicans with the Christian right
2. distract nation from ongoing costs of reconstruction in Iraq
3. actually cut welfare spending.

Pulling off this sort of thing would be huge political win for the Republicans. It is likely to make many domestic issues marginally worse, including healthcare (especially for the poor).

3.

A new generation of voters is outraged at the secretive and deceptive manners of our nation's leadership. Looking for a leader, we will probably not find anyone actually good. But the process of looking will set out our values as a political bloc, and these values will guide the mainstream voters in 20 years. The foremost will state that leaders must be communicators. A good politician cleverly leverages the media, including websites/weblogs she directly authors, to communicate with voters and constituents.

4.

John Kerry will not be doing Viagra advertisements, and it will be possible to take a walk around Beacon Hill without being accosted by the Secret Service.

I voted for the first time today. If you can vote, do!

link

Wow, in this form for DNC press credentials, you can select blog for News Source Seeking Credentials. It's right there!

link

A high-ranking military officer reveals how Defense Department extremists suppressed information and twisted the truth to drive the country to war.

I've only skimmed the beginning, but this seems like a must-read.

link

Transcript of a long talk by the author of Guns, Germs, and Steel introducing his book.

link

Upcoming interesting events: Jesse Ventura on third party politics; Robert McNamara on The Fog of War.

Jim Moore, Dean's internet guru and Berkman regular, has some interesting observations about yesterday's near-record fundraising. In my opinion, what was appealing about Dean's promise—an email to supporters asking for an all-out effort to win Wisconsin but vowing to bow out of the race if he lost—was that it resonated with a concept of Dean For America as a movement, not just a political campaign.

Let's face it: if this election is about one man, it is about George Bush. Bush's potential opponents have their varying strengths, to be sure, but the differences among them utterly pale in comparison to the differences between any of them and Bush. We almost owe Bush our thanks for galvanizing all of us against him. It is now possible to feel camaraderie with virtually anyone in the Western world under 30 by sharing disgust at the US President.

The implications of these bonds are stunning. My generation has had things pretty easy here in America. Growing up, the economy was kind to our parents, we were wonderfully educated, and we always felt safe and trusting of our nation and government. But in the past three years, the economy has tanked as we entered the job market, the resulting government budget crunch has drained public schools and universities everywhere, and our illusions of safety have been brutally compromised. While it's true we shouldn't expect boom times to last forever, we see a president that has not only ignored but worked against our concerns in favor of entrenched interests that we oppose. And, for the first time, there are major political organizations that really appeal to us. One may be a candidate, but like many others, what appeals to us is the opportunity to participate meaningfully in politics within a constituency that has only recently, but with great force, acheived self-awareness. It tells us you don't have to be old, unionized, or religious to rally together— a tremendous relief for us, who have been battered and fried in diversity rhetoric.

That's why I almost gave money to Dean yesterday— his message showed the biggest hint of understanding our pressing needs I've seen yet. What would get me to give? A promise that, rather than letting his campaign fizzle to death in primary after primary, he'd turn the money and momentum it has raised into a new kind of union and advocacy organization that would continue to represent us for years and years. For that, I would not only open my pocket, but also my schedule.

link

During the conference, an expected 5,000 representatives from intragovernmental, business and nonprofit organizations, will try to create an action plan for the next phase of the Internet.

Excuse my skepticism, but yeah, right. 5000 people none of us have heard of making an action plan for the internet? That's getting together a bunch of politicians to plan the next step for a cultural force that they have very little control over. I guess they are in denial about that part, though.

An interesting statistic though:

Because the Internet first took root in the United States, it may be understandable that American interests have tended to prevail. The Massachusetts Institute of Technology, for example, still has more Internet addresses than all of China, according to Lee McKnight, an associate professor at Syracuse University and an M.I.T. research affiliate.

Of course, lots of IP addresses doesn't mean lots of internet usage. But China is a country, whereas MIT is only "a series of individual faculty entrepreneurs held together by a common grievance over parking."