Recently in Rants Category

Ok, so yesterday I posted the witness list for today's Net Neutrality/Broadband hearing. I could have woken up at 5am to beat the line standers and get a seat with the lobbyists who pay people to stand in line for them in the halls of the Rayburn building, but I didn't. 

I could be listening on the Audio Webcast. I tuned in for about 10 minutes, and haven't been impressed yet. I've got other projects, other things to work on, so I'm listening but my attention has not been caught. Why? Have you ever turned on your favorite TV show expecting a new episode and instead getting a rerun, or worse yet, a 3 hour extended version of American Idol? You know what you'll be seeing and hearing. No surprises, nothing to discuss with your friends. Just the same, this hearing, despite a few new faces, was a rerun in a series over the past year or so, including a few at the FCC. 

We know who the players are and what the plot will be. I'd rather just spend my time working on the things that I can't predict than sit through hours of talking, when instead I can read my good friend Drew Clark or Andrew Noyes' (of Tech Daily Dose/CongressDaily fame), aka "That Other Andrew (tm)" or one of his colleagues write an excellent summary of what I already know is going to happen. Just think about this...

Posted to Broadband | Congress | FCC | Google | Net Neutrality | Politics | Rants | Telecommunications | Wireless

This is exactly the kind of thing that I like to point out any time someone says that Web 2.0 technologies aren't good for anything more than fun.  Tom Hadfield, who at 17 sold soccer.net to ESPN for a cool $40 Million, is designing a site that will do more "...than putting up soccer scores."

 

Tom has been instrumental in founding www.MalariaEngage.org, a site designed to spread awareness of malaria in Africa and raise money to fight and prevent its spread.  I'm not going to get into the details of MalariaEngage.  Reuters, where I found the article, does a way better job than I would anyway.

 

The article reminds me of three major things -

 

  • Social Networking Sites are About More Than Just Fun

Facebook and MySpace are primarily, nowadays at least, regarded as "fun."  They're a new way to keep in touch, but not always respected as being as innovative in how we keep in touch as they really are.  There are also sites liked LinkedIn that allow you to form professional bonds.  Hadfield's new project is a very logical step in that progression.  We've seen a similar usage shift in other technologies.  Look at text messaging - In its earliest incarnation it was very much a "fun" feature that was usually used by kids.  Then it expanded to notify people of sports scores and stock quotes.  Now the FCC has announced its plan for a nationwide SMS (text message) alert system to let citizens know about things like terrorist threats.  It's the same evolution - from fun to professional to public service/safety.  Tom Hadfield is helping to do the same for social networking.  Big, big ups to Tom, and I hope that MalariaEngage.org is a huge success.

 

  • Stress the Positive

Sometimes, the "positive" may seem to be "business as usual."  Like MySpace helping two people get back in touch after years and years.  To an employee at MySpace it might seem like it's no big deal, but to skeptics...it's something that could turn their head and make them think "Hey, MySpace actually helped these people do more than share photos of a frat party."  So, if social networking sites like MalariaEngage promote their successes and how they're helping it will help remind people that for every Megan Meirs that there are literally millions of people using social networks uneventfully and that there are even social networking sites that help people.  As for the latter, why does MariaEngage care about MySpace?  Well, if they would...

 

  • Form an Industry Organization

As was stated by Dr. Patrick Moore in our interview with him last month, members of any industry organization are competitors.  The reason for the formation of the organization is so that these competitors can band together against common foes (like potentially restrictive legislation) so that they can focus on competing with each other to eventually drive down prices and improve the quality of their products. With a Social Networking/Media organization in place a lobbying firm could handle things in Washington ans watch out for the entire organization so that the individual members can focus on business rather than worrying about how to handle a bill that might shut them down.  Heck, I can even take us out of the realm of the serious and into comic book territory.  Sometimes the hero and the villain team up against something that would destroy the entire planet.  That way, thanks to their team-up, they survive so that they can go about competing against each other.

 

I'm sorry to sound like a broken record, especially on the last point, but it's true.  Do you think that the tobacco industry would wield the power that it does if R.J. Reynolds and Philip Morris lobbied Congress individually?  I doubt it. 

 

Ranting aside, I'm really excited to see social networking make the leap leap that text messaging has just started to make.  Moving from nice to mainstream to public service is a surefire way to help ensure the longevity of a technology.

 

Here is the full article about MalariaEngage, at the Reuters.

Posted to All | Internet | Rants
Ok, so Twitter took themselves down for some probably important database maintenance tonight. I decided to conduct an experiment, so I created a quick Cover It Live liveblog, tweeted it before the site went town and did what I'd do on twitter. Nothing happened. Read if you want, it's boring. I'll probably delete the whole thing tomorrow.

Posted to Rants

As a native Washingtonian, I know the value of a good business card exchange. It's almost a ritual here, as well as at most conferences and networking events I attend.

I don't know if I'm behind the times, but after my "conference hell month" I've got about 400 business cards I still need to scan and some to reply to. I should buy a scanner.

However, some of them I'm putting at the bottom of the pile:

    1. If you handed me a "moocard," one of those tiny little calling cards sold using your flickr photos, you've immediately gone to to the bottom of the pile. Why? They're not real cards. They're not useful to me. They don't tell me enough about you for me to remember you, and they all look pretty much alike.

    2. If you hand me a double-sided, glossy business card with no white space, you lose points. Why? Part of the beauty of business cards, is that with a pen, I can write things on them, like how, when, or where I met you, if we have a mutual friend, or anything else that would make me pick your card out of the stack and possibly do something important. When you have shiny, dark colored cards, I can't write on them. You remove a valuable avenue for making your cards a tool, not just something to gawk at. It may look cool, but it's useless to me as a networking facilitator.

    3. Cutesy cards with company-related graphics and logos are ok. Double-sided cards are ok. However, if you must go that far, please, please, please, please have at least one side with some space that I could write on. I cannot stress this enough. When I get home at the end of the day, or even when I make a card exchange (an art in and of itself) I write things down, like the date or event, so I can better mentally sort through who you are, especially at somewhere like SXSW where I came away with 250 cards in 4 days. If you want to be remembered, make it easy. Plus, someone might want to write a note to themselve that they really, really want to do business with you. Make sure there is a place for them to write.

    4. It's ok to be creative, but remember that your card is a tool for helping people remember you, and leaves a lasting impression of how "serious" you are. A quick look at my stack reveals that the vast majority of people who would be considered "important" or that I made a point of getting back to first had uncluttered, easy to read cards with ample writing space, communicated the basic information (name, title contact info) and were generally devoid of clutter, gloss, or garish color schemes. If you had these things, they had better be enough to make me remember you.

    5. If you're going to be creative, be really, really creative. Check out the SXSW Card Collective for examples of the good, the bad, the ugly, and the creative (in a good way).

 

FYI, Here's mine:

andrewfeinberg.jpg

 

Robert Scoble's is awesome, and has enough white space to still be useful. Best of both worlds.

 

robert-scoble.jpg
Is that person happy or horrified? I can't tell.
 
And the winner: Lots of white space, and interactive! Joshua Strebel, of the Unicorn Panel fame:
jshua.png

Back to tech/politics later. I hear there's an Energy bill around.

Posted to Rants | SXSW | Social Networking

Five days ago I posted in reaction to an article at CNN.com about, among other things, using your mobile phone as a modem.  I was upset that they didn't mention the potential for data overages or service interruptions.  They didn't even advise consulting your carrier before trying it.  I felt that the article, while well-meaning, was also a little misleading.  Not intentionally, but misleading still.

 

Skip ahead to today, when I was reading a really neat article about Benjamin Heckendorn.  He modifies video games, doing things like taking apart an Atari 2600 and refashioning it into a handheld unit.  Although not linked to, Heckendorn's personal site is given in the article.  As soon as I finished the article I decided to check out his site.  This is a pretty standard procedure for me.  If a website is mentioned in an article I'll usually check it out.  As soon as I tried to navigate to the site my virus monitoring software went crazy.  So crazy, in fact, that when I tried to close the warning window so I could kill the site the warning would repopulate in about...instantly.  Luckily, a reboot was all I needed and there was no harm done, except for our IT guy (at the day job, of course) probably thinking I'm a colossal douchebag.  What upset me so much is that it never should have happened.  I would have to imagine that Reuters has some sort of anti-virus software running.  I can't imagine that if the author had visited the site, at least on their work computer, that there wouldn't have been some sort of notification that a virus was detected.  It seems pretty clear to me that the author didn't visit the site before including it in their article, and that's terrible.  Even if, as the author, you couldn't care less about your readers being overwhelmed by a virus you should at least be visiting the sites you mention to see if they work.  Had the author done this, they (or the IT folks at Reuters) would have identified the site as harboring a virus and never have included it in the article.

 

I could go on and on, but I'd just be saying the same thing over and over with a decrease in coherency and an increase in profanity.

 

My bottom line is that, barring some sort of disclaimer, when you mention or link to a website your readers are going to assume that it's safe to visit.  There's a certain level of trust between an author and a reader and it is an astounding breach of that trust when an author's lack of follow-through endangers the reader.

 

Here is a link to the article, in which the virus-y site is mentioned.  The article, as far as I can tell is safe to view - I've never had any problems with the Retuers site.  it was only when I loaded the subject's personal page (mentioned on page 2 of the article) that I had problems.

 

IF YOU VISIT THE SUBJECT'S PERSONAL SITE, DO SO AT YOUR OWN RISK.

I WOULD ADVISE NOT VISITING IT AT ALL.

Posted to All | Bad Business Ideas | Rants
Readers know I'm not a total fan of big-money collegiate athletics. That's not entirely true. I bleed Cardinal Red (the shade of "Red" associated with the University of Wisconsin-Madison) and love and support student-athletes everywhere. What I despise are the coaches, administrators, and officials who turn them into a money making machine and steer those kids who may be first-generation college students, towards easy classes and "bird" majors to keep them eligible to play football and basketball, which rake in huge sums of money, while promising a future of leaving early to turn pro with no safety net, and no compensation for the millions the Universities receive from marketing the students' images, likeness, and televising their efforts on games 

This is especially prevalent in Football, where huge rosters and simple number-crunching mean precious few of these kids will play professionally, yet are asked to train like pros, give up classes and majors they care about, and steered towards loosely regarded "directed study" classes where they can do nothing but keep their minimum GPA and credit requirements. I directed much vitriol this week towards Michigan (generally considered an Academic bastion) and their "General Studies" degree where a vast majority of recipients are athletes. The Ann Arbor News deserves great credit for exposing this fraud which has been perpetuated in plain sight before us while UM is held up as an example of "a tough school with great student-athletes." 

In day 4 of their 4 day series, the News tackles the system of academic advisors and the level of control they maintain on pushing athletes into keeping kids eligible with little regard for their academic goals post-college.



This building is the Ross Academic Center, which is where athletes can come to receive access to tutors, advisors, and get a quiet place to study and work in between practice sessions. This is and of itself is actually a good thing. My alma mater, Wisconsin, has a similar building located under the Football indoor practice field, and the academic advising staff was always both realistic and professional. I found that they were quite supportive of athletes (even in Football and Basketball) taking tough classes and worked with Professors to make sure that these student-athletes could get their work done and still perform in their chosen sport. I have nothing but fond memories of my academic adviser, Chris Butler, who was instrumental in helping me find a course of study that I not only enjoyed (History and History of Science) but has continued to affect my career path as I prepare to attend law school and influence my current and future employment, as well as the writing you read here today. Through Ms. Butler, I worked with some fantastic and absolutely brilliant faculty, and I have nothing but great things to say about Wisconsin and their program.

But back to Michigan, which as a Badger I always enjoy taking a dig at. In this case, it's well deserved. To quote the Ann Arbor News:

When the University of Michigan dedicated its new academic center for athletes in 2006, the building's namesake reinforced expectations for the university's athletes.

"I am very pleased to help provide a top-notch learning environment in a new facility where these student-athletes and others can study and receive academic support," said Stephen Ross, a New York real estate developer and Michigan graduate. "The 'leaders and best' not only refers to the athletes on the sports field, but also to the students in the classroom."

But three former employees of the athletic department's Academic Success Program, now housed in the Stephen M. Ross Academic Center, said that academics often take a back seat to sports.

To achieve that goal, Academic Success Program employees appear to have found an unofficial path through the university, one that isn't written on any Web site or manual, but is evident in statistics, transcripts, interviews with athletes, faculty and in a 2007 audit conducted by the university.

That path has included:

? Encouraging athletes to pursue a bachelor in general studies degree, on the grounds that other majors are too inflexible and will interfere with sports.

? Telling athletes which classes to take, which has resulted in clusters of athletes taking many of the same psychology, Ojibwe - a Native American language - classical civilization and education courses. Many of these choices are "non-traditional" or non-classroom courses, such as independent study, directed readings, practicums or mentoring.

? Recommending athletes take the minimum number of credits required to stay eligible for sports, a practice that runs contrary to the Academic Success Program's stated principles.

? Using athletes' passwords and log-ins to enroll in classes or make changes in schedules, a violation of university policy.


Let's compare to my alma mater (by the way, the Badgers Basketball team has now reached the Sweet Sixteen, baby!) where I saw athletes in various sports enrolled in pre-law, pre-med, education (one of the toughest non-science schools to get into), engineering, and all kinds of programs, including kinesiology, which at Wisconsin is considered a path to Medical School. 

My former team at Wisconsin included several medical school graduates and current med students, at least one who spent a year at Oxford as a graduate student and one who received a Masters' degree there while rowing in the Oxford-Cambridge Boat Race, and many who were regularly all Big Ten student-athletes based on their GPA. This wasn't just my sport. I saw football players, basketball players, hockey players, swimmers, and those of all sports sitting in the Fetzer center (the Wisconsin equivalent of the "Ross Center") studying, using tutors and burying themselves in books. 

I never saw a advisor use a students' password to change a class. I was never encouraged to take the minimum number of credits. In fact, when I did (because I had the luxury of many AP credits to cushion me) I was repeatedly asked if I knew if I was on track to graduate in four years (which I was) and that I had to certify that I had a "graduation plan." If I hadn't, I would have not been eligible entering my third year. 

Now, what would have happened had I been at another Big Ten school? Joe Paterno, the legendary coach at Penn State, is known for his coaching acumen as well as his graduation rate, which looms above the national average, embarrassing his peers in all respects, especially since JoePa, as he is known, is not only a football coach, but a tenured professor at PSU. To JoePa, athletics is only a part of an academic experience, and he'll be damned before he sees a player put the court-work before the coursework. For all his faults, Bob Knight (formerly Indiana, and of Texas Tech) was the same way. People used to get on JoePa and Knight for having losing teams, but you know what? Their players graduated. 


As part of a seven-month investigation into athletics and academics at Michigan, The News spoke with Academic Success Program co-director Shari Acho about these issues, as well as the program's mission, challenges and policies.

Acho said Academic Success Program staff do not direct students to majors or classes.

"No, not at all," said Acho, the program's co-director since 2002. "Each individual student will sit down and decide what their interests are and what works for them, and follow the right channels to do that."

Athletic director Bill Martin, who declined to be interviewed, told a university publication in spring 2005 that he wants academics to be the department's foremost focus.

In speaking with 87 current and former athletes, athletic staff, administrators and faculty on academics and athletics at Michigan, The News encountered cynicism about whether that goal can be met.

"Michigan, or any big-time program, they try to say that, and I think they do believe it," said Steve King, a former Michigan football player who later worked in the Academic Success Program. "But at the same time, too, as long as it doesn't interfere with the ultimate objective, which is to win football games, or to win in their sport."

Daniel Horton, who played basketball at Michigan from 2002 to 2006, was more blunt, laughing at the suggestion that academics came ahead of sports.

"There are consequences immediately if you don't show up for practice," Horton said. "The next day, you have to run or aren't going to play or something like that. There's no immediate consequences for not doing your homework or not studying that night.
"It's a farce for the NCAA to say that academics should come first. It's good in theory. ... But it's not really like that, not just at Michigan, anywhere."


Not true. At Wisconsin, we had people in tough majors. It was simply understood that the class came first. If we were out at 5:30am and a player had to make an 8:30am exam, we were done by 8. Coaches understood that. From Pat Richter, who was the AD at the time, and now under Barry Alvarez, I believe they care enough about making sure that student-athletes get a real, Wisconsin education. 

Even other schools can make it happen. Observe the number of Ivy League players in the NFL, such as Matt Birk, Ryan Fitzpatrick, or my Wisconsin Teammates Beau Hoopman and Paul Daniels. Beau is an Olympic Gold Medalist and Paul has a Masters' Degree from Oxford. Both are candidates for the 2008 Olympics. Neither of them could have ever been accused of skimping on classes, and I doubt anyone at the Wisconsin Athletic Department ever encouraged them to. Even those on the Basketball team, currently known as one of the best in the U.S. is not filled with academic punch lines like many of Michigan or MSU's teams in the 1990s. Indeed, Bo Ryan recruits students he can coach. His system requires students who can study both their own subject as well as basketball. It's a double major, and it pays off. Plus, for those who don't turn pro, they graduate. 

Later today I'll tackle the New York Times article dealing with the MLB and NFL players' unions' failure to look out for their veterans while protecting their stars from anti-drug investigations. Why public policy? NCAA gets tax exempt status. NFL and MLB get antitrust exemptions. Congress should (yes, they should) examine how a group of rich owners and universities can exploit such young talented people and reap the benefits. 

More on this later, plus my finally un-archived SXSW interview on Cyber Safety, and prep for the Tech Policy Summit.

Go Badgers!
Posted to Rants | Sports
I'm making my way through Professor Zittrain's book as carefully as I can, and the more I read the more I get how dialed in he is to what is happening to the state of the 'Net these days and how we're so blinded by these "gee-whiz" technologies to see what is happening to our world.

During the first chapter he notes that one of the first mechanical computers, was built by Herman Hollerith for tabulating the Census, but leased to the Census Bureau, and that support was sold to them for a profit. They couldn't reprogram the machine, it did what the owner told it, and the owner took orders from the customer but had the final choice as to whether or not to implement a feature.

Hollerith's company became IBM. We know the rest.

Of course, with the CBS-Facebook March Madness debacle, you can't help but wonder why we have such short memories. Then again, we are in another bubble, aren't we?

More as I keep reading...
Posted to Bad Business Ideas | Economics | Rants

Michael Arrington at TechCrunch has a fantastic rant up about the influx of VC to "blog networks" and the recent (well, 2 years recent) tendency of bloggers to be looking for the VC infusion smoothie or to get in on the big networks.

This comes at a time when people ask me "how do you plan on making money with this thing?" and "where are the ads?" They assume I want to get into an ad network or get someone to invest in my writing looking for a return, they assume that is the way I see a payoff for my efforts.

They're wrong. On the other hand, Michael has it right:

So what's the point of this rant? Well, all this money flowing into the blogosphere is disrupting the complicated and emotional, but also stable way things are done. Bloggers with money and employees and health care programs and boards of directors and shareholders have to play politics with a whole new group of people, splitting them away from what they do best - Fighting the Blog War. Their behavior can become erratic as they have to decide to tone down their writing to get a certain type of sponsor on board, which in turn lets them make payroll. Investors want to see growth, so more and more blogs are launched, but perhaps without the right talent to grow it into a long term business.

In short, I believe the money is being, for the most part, wasted.

If a VC hands you a check, their intention is not to hang around for 20 years while you build a nice lifestyle business for yourself. What they want to see is an exit, preferably a 10x or higher exit, within 3-4 years. But something tells me that few of these networks are going to be able to grow quite as easily as they think and reach those liquidity events. The talent is, increasingly, locked up. Even when new talent is discovered or trained, every niche has serious heavyweights already there with page views and advertising dollars to back them up for a long fight.

I'm just going to print out his post and carry a laminated copy with me to show people next time I get asked "the question" and keep the URL handy to forward and pass around.

His (quite timely) point is that there are things that are worth investing in over the long term, by putting in time to develop relationships, content, style, etc, and then there are the "bubble" investments, where some believe that throwing Other People's Money and advertising around is the solution.

Last week I sat in on a panel where Robert Scoble  (correctly) pointed out that he doesn't run ads (except for his book) because the truth is, good content is king. Arrington takes this a step further and explains why he's been shying away from Other People's Money:

What I'd like to see, and even be a part of, is the blogger equivalent to the 1992 U.S. Mens Basketball Dream Team. That team could take CNET apart in a year, hire the best of the survivors there, and then move on to bigger prey.

Just the thought of being a part of something like that has held us back from raising any outside capital at all. I believe we have the beginning of a team that can play a role in this new Dream Team.

He's so right I can't even begin to get at it. I've been trying to explain it to friends, to family, to people I meet at conferences, and this guy just nails it.

I'd be happy to be the last guy off the bench on that Dream Team, because the content would blow the current "A-List" paid networks out of the water.

Content is king. Bubbles burst.

Well said, Michael.

Posted to Economics | Internet | Rants

Defining privacy

| | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)
There is no shortage of commentary on how the Internet will only become more important in campaigning, or how social networks will allow for more "transparent" life styles, and that keeping something private will be politically worse than total, Too Much Information style openness.

That's the crux of an exchange I had during a panel with Facebook's Adam Conner, who believes that it will, at some point , become more odd for a potential candidate for office to not be "totally vetted" by their own online audit trail than not, and that any attempts to restore one's own privacy will be treated with suspicion. 

I think Adam and I are on the same page with many of these issues. Growing up online, as I have, I've always understood that what I write or post or upload is, well, forever. It never goes away. Potential employers 20 years from now will probably read these words. I have a message for those employers of the future: Hire Me!

Seriously, though. Justice  Brandeis once said: 
"The makers of the Constitution conferred the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by all civilized men--the right to be let alone." 

I found his assertion that the lack of a trail or the attempt to reclaim privacy would be viewed more suspiciously than complete and totally openness to be quite troubling. I live an open lifestyle. My phone number, address, email address, etc are readily available to anyone who wants to contact me. I have had the same personal email address since 1998. I have very few secrets online. There are no embarrassing photos or rants or screeds that I would regret. Perhaps this is because I grew up in the Open Source culture on archived lists, and on USENET, archived by DejaNews.I'm used to not having privacy, in that sense. When I send someone an email, I know once I click send, it's gone. Forever.

On the other hand, what I don't think anyone, including panelists at Politics Online, has acknowledged, is that there are simply more places to give up your privacy now, and that very few people "lurk," or wait to speak until they understand the discussion in progress. 

There is also very little common 'net culture anymore. The geeks, academics, and scientists who once defined convention have been replaced by corporate interests, by design "experts" and yes, by user-created content. Nothing is wrong with user-created content. It all used to be user-created. But we could take it down, or keep it from being archived if we wanted to. Now, people don't know how to use robots.txt, and privacy controls are opt-in, not opt-out, if at all. Only Thunderbird lets you use an X-No-Archive header, and it's not easy. But I digress.

I guess the point is, those of us who remember privacy, remember that it was taught. Now it's just scaremongering. We don't tell our kids to what what they write because it's archived, we tell them to avoid sexual predators because that's what we see on TV. 

I don't have much of a USENET trail because I didn't let Dejanews keep my messages. What I had to say then, is what I had to say. It's not that I'm ashamed, it's that I wanted my record to be the record that I chose to leave. When I interview someone, if they say "off the record," the microphone goes off. We need an off switch, and we need to teach people to use it. Not out of fear, but out of respect.

With all the talk that I expect to hear at SXSW about kids online, user-generated content, etc, I doubt I'll hear a single word about teaching kids to opt out. Too much fear, not enough knowledge.

Does someone want to prove me wrong?

See you in Texas.
Posted to Internet | Privacy | Rants

Crunchgear has a fawning declaration of love for DFW, where I passed through on my way to and from San Francisco not long ago.

Did he not see the "electricity vending chair" that I posted about?

Airports are generally the responsibility of governments. They maintain highways, too. We talk about an "information economy" but why are there so few on-ramps to the "information superhighway" for travelers? This is something I hope someone in Congress could make a priority...an "earmark" I could live with. Why do we let T-Mobile extort $7 people every time they fly? Shouldn't we want to make our nationwide wi-fi network as ubiquitous as our mobile network? Heck, we have mobile phone "towers" in large buildings, what's wrong with applying the same build-out to public wi-fi? Why hasn't the FCC chimed in, here?

This is especially important since some non-GPS phones (like Apple's hugely popular iPhone) can get location data by finding known wi-fi hotspots and comparing them to a map. This could be a great way for Mobile Phone providers to comply with E911 requirements that the FCC has set for them. Problems with triangulating via towers? Add some increased location functionality through a wi-fi network.

On the other hand, Rep. Ed Markey (D-MA)'s Wireless Customer Bill of Rights that we discussed last week has a section that would keep states from preventing municipal wi-fi.

Maybe that will extend to airports. Meanwhile, I pay my taxes and my fees. Why can't I get some electricity in Dallas?

Also, there is actually a bill calling for a Nationwide Broadband Census which passed the House but is stalled in the Senate. Drew Clark has been a leader on this with his Broadband Census project. I can't wait to hear his talk tomorrow at Politics Online 2008 and should have a good report for you.

Posted to Bad Business Ideas | Rants | Travel

Days to DTV transition

Change Congress


Archives

Subscribe in a reader