Letters to the Editor
Published Letters: 12 Editor's Choice: 5
-
zero sum
[Read the article: The zero-sum globalization game nightmare]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The zero sum nightmare you allude to might not be too far from the truth. I recommend taking a look at L.S. Stavrianos, Global Rift: The Third World Comes of Age (New York: Morrow, 1981). Global Rift is a history tome that, starting from 1400, traces the emergence of the third world. While Global Rift does not paint a zero sum nightmare per se, it does present the case that First World wealth is born on the backs of the Third World. A sort of pyramid scheme, if you will. It seems unlikely to me that the entire world could live at First World standards. The First World lifestyle is premised on (dare I say defined by) access to cheap resources: energy, labor, and other natural resources. Where can the Third World turn to for access to cheap resources that the First World isn't already using?
The last page of the text (814) quotes an Army report that is interesting in light of recent events (and note the second author): "Major Danial W. Christman and Major Wesley K. Clark concluded in a a study . . . that 'U.S. military forces will be ineffective in coercing petroleum-producing states to respond to America's wishes.'"
-
Net neutrality case is overstated
[Read the article: Meet the new AT&T, same as the old AT&T, only worse]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The consolidation of the telecom sector is worrisome. As is AT&T's stated desire to build a fee moat around its new residential fiber network. However, the arguments for network neutrality ignore the fact that neutrality has already passed away. I can offer a few examples. First, blocking IP address ranges or entire ISPs to defend against spam certainly breaks network neutrality. A spam blockade limits the blocking ISP's customers as surely as a business deal favoring one provider over another would. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SPEWS). In a similar vein, defending against DDOS attacks also involves blocking IP address ranges. (See http://www.infosyssec.org/infosyssec/security/secdos1.htm) Finally, and most damaging to the myth of network neutrality, is quality of service (QoS). QoS technology has long allowed ISPs to discriminate amongst traffic streams running over their network. Providers already charge customers differential fees for differing levels of service (or at least Providers are trying to). (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quality_of_service and http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/cisintwk/ito_doc/qos.htm and http://www.cisco.com/en/US/tech/tk436/tk428/technologies_white_paper09186a00800a4455.shtml)
For residential users, most people have two choices for high-speed Internet access: Cable or Telecom (i.e., DSL). But telecom is more than just one provider because while SBC/ATT may be your local telecom you can choose another ISP, for example, Speakeasy (http://www.speakeasy.net/?dis=home). The degree of choices is far from as bleak as Farhad Manjoo's articles made out. If an ISP implements network shenanigans a user does not like that user does have other choices.
Additionally, high-speed wireless technology for the "last mile" may allow more providers to enter the market with their own infrastructure because it obviates the expense of running physical wires to homes or businesses. (See http://standards.ieee.org/announcements/80216app.html and http://www.ieee802.org/16/pub/backgrounder.html) And yet another factor militating against mega-telecom dominance is the rise of the municipal wireless network. Some municipalities are rolling out their own wireless networks to ensure their citizens have Internet access. (See http://www.technewsworld.com/story/42543.html)
I think I have shown that network neutrality is a myth and that consumers have some provider choice. Moreover, provider choice is likely to grow, not shrink, over time as new wireless technologies are deployed. Thus, to my mind, the concern over network neutrality is a product of large corporations (Microsoft, Google, etc.) fearing a new business model that does not favor them.
(Full disclosure: I work for a large telecom provider, though not one currently involved in the network neutrality brouhaha.)
-
Echoing Alan Oaks
[Read the article: One kazillion Google searches and counting]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I'd like to echo Alan Oaks. I find your blog (and Broadsheet) to be the most valuable aspect of salon.com. You provide consistently top-notch aggregation and analysis. Of course now that I know your a fellow Michigan alum you can count me biased in your favor but I swear I felt this way about your blog before I knew your collegiate affiliation.
-
Dr. Levy is correct
[Read the article: Why the Democrats can't stop the surge]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Dr. Levy is correct. Congress could manage the war--allocate money, materiel, and men as it sees fit. Though, if Congress were to suddenly exercise its prerogative to designated what forces the commander-in-chief can command, we could have a Constitutional crisis because the Bush administration has little respect for the rule of law or separation of powers. That is, the administration might decide to ignore the Congressional command. Moreover, as Shapiro notes, a presidential veto presents a, perhaps, insurmountable obstacle for a Congress just barely controlled by Democrats.
To read more about the power Congress could exercise (and historically did exercise) over war powers I suggest Louis Fisher, Presidential War Power, 2ed., University Press of Kansas (2004). I think Eisenhower was the last president to accept separations of power and the war powers allocated to each branch.
-
No debate? What do you call this?
[Read the article: Fun with synthetic biology]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Two points. First, quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur (Anything said in Latin sounds profound) which doesn't make it actually profound.
Second, the very existence of the ETC, its report, and the fact that commentators (like Mr. Leonard) took time to consider the report diminishes the "ETC Group's key complaint: that scientists and corporations are charging forward without oversight, without regulation, and without even much debate over how to proceed in a prudent and safe fashion." The follow-up post by Mr. Leonard on the scientist's response which pointed to all the places discussion and debate occur diminishes the ETC's complaint even further.
I sometimes wonder if, when people complain debate isn't occurring, what they really mean is they don't like the outcome of the debate.