« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

FRONT PAGE CONTRIBUTOR

Tech at Night: We won a battle on SOPA; LightSquared heating up; OBAMA shows sense on privacy

By: Neil Stevens (Diary)  |  December 17th, 2011 at 02:30 AM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

Tech at Night

Wednesday night I put off all Tech at Night topics except for SOPA because the critical mark up votes in Committee were coming up. We weren’t supposed to be able to stop SOPA, but we could at least raise awareness, put up a fight, and prepare for the floor votes. And sure enough, the vote to keep the Internet censorship provisions went in favor of censorship 22-11.

Well, it turns out, we managed to slow the process down. After we made our threats to start working on primary challenges over that 22-11 vote, Lamar Smith put off SOPA, halting the current process until next week at the earliest. Stay sharp, but feel good about this delay. The longer we delay, the more we can gain support for the OPEN Act instead of SOPA.

SOPA opponents Darrell Issa, Zoe Lofgren, Jared Polis, and Jason Chaffetz also deserve credit. Why yes, that list does include a Democrat. Just shows how wrong Lamar Smith is to side with disgraced former Senator Chris Dodd and the MPAA on this. Two men who between them have no clue how the Internet works.

LightSquared. I complained early on that I could see no fire there, but even I’m having to concede there’s a whole lot of smoke. Chuck Grassley’s demands for transparency on LightSquared and the FCC still aren’t being met. Reports bad for LightSquared and its effects on GPS users continue to come out despite further word that the testing is unfinished but being released prematurely. Sanjiv Ahuja and LightSquared continue to insist that it’s not their fault, and I’m seeing no clear refutation to that point, but then again, why is the FCC stonewalling Grassley?

I’m not sure I agree with House legislation on LightSquared, though. Not until we get straight answers given to Chuck Grassley’s questions do we have enough information to act on this. What do Barack Obama and Julius Genachowski have to hide here?

Is it spectrum policy? FCC’s spectrum screen policies are being exposed as controversial. Republican attempts to enhance the use of free markets in spectrum policy are being attacked. And Republicans are apparently holding firm on the matter.

Spectrum matters, folks.

I did not expect Barack Obama of all people to exercise parental rights, rather than demand more regulation, to achieve sensible outcomes on privacy for his kids. If only Michelle would follow suit when it comes to food for her kids.

Wow, we’re not done yet? Nope. Hang on. It was a busy week even without SOPA hogging all the attention.

Anonymous: not as good at staying anonymous as they think. This is good, though: we need to keep putting attackers in jail, not passing new regulations. But again, information sharing is fine as long as it’s not putting burdens on anyone or hindering innovation and job growth in any way.

Remember the proposed regulations to require cars to act as Faraday cages and block all phone transmissions? The next wave of that proposal is here. NTSB wants to ban all phone use in cars, which is even dumber than the phone restrictions on planes.

You know those FCC subsidies that rural phone carriers are fighting with ISPs over? You’re paying for them, don’t forget.

SOPA is not the only example of copyright holders flipping out over pro-customer innovation and new technology. Remember: pro-business is not the same as pro-liberty.

Man, I wish my lone self could go around hiring people all the time with a wad of George Soros cash. Maybe then I could write about this stuff more than three nights a week.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • bs61

    I often don’t understand what you are talking about, but I appreciate it! ;)

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    If there’s ever a topic I’m not explaining well enough, I’d love to hear about it.

    I’m learning how to do this as I go after all. :)

  • APA Guy

    Blogging is conversation in print without expression or context most of the time…impossible to be 100% clear all the time :)

  • alexva

    I have been reading your completely uncritical comments about LightSquared for months but finally decided to comment. LightSquared’s areguments about their right to use the spectrum for terrestrial use is completly phony. The FCC was always clear it was to be a fill in service, not a stand alone service.

    The power of LightSquared’s terrestrial signal is simply too powerful to put in a satellite band next to GPS. I am told other investors looked at this spectrum and took a pass since they knew GPS was right next door.

    Look at the Coalition to Save Our GPS website if you want to see a refutation of the LightSquared arguments.

    And I also noticed you haven’t mentioned that LightSquared’s owner, Phil Falcone is under investigation for securities fraud.

    In my opinion this whole deal stinks. The WH almost certainly pressured the FCC and other agencies to get the LightSquared deal done. Remember how the WH pressured General Shelton to change his testimony in Spetember to be more favorable to LightSquared.

    Neil – just because someone say they are promoting broadband doesn’t mean you should accept everything they say at face value. Some critical thought here would be helpful.

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    It’s a very simple question: Does precision GPS rely on listening within LightSquared’s spectrum, or does it not?

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    Unlike the attitude suggested by your comment, which is full of more condescension than fact and reason, I actually have an open mind on this.

    You say “certainly pressured the FCC.” On what do you base that statement? What proof do you have? What is the motive? What is the mechanism? Was a crime committed, a bribe offered?

    I see lots of vague statements but no hard facts. No definite claims. I have my mind switched on fully. I see specific, definite claims made by Lightsquared. From your side I see nothing firm, nothing definite, nothing provable.

  • alexva

    Augmented high precision GPS receives a correction signal from within the L band. LightSquared itself offers this correction service to Trimble and others. They’ve been selling this augmentation signal for years. Inmarsat, which also shares the L band, sells their augmentation signal to John Deere and others.

    LightSquared has known about this for years and they were happy to collect payment for selling that signal. It took LightSquared months to admit that they even sold this correction signal.

    That is the only signal in the L band that GPS recivers listen to. GPS receivers will be able to hear the LightSquared terrestrial signal because it is a billion time (or more) louder than the GPS signal. I believe one witness at one of the Congressional hearings compared that satellitle band to a quiet library. As long as eveyone whispers there’s not a problem,. He compared the LightSquared terrestrial signal to running a lawnmower in the library — everyone can hear it no matter how close or far away.

  • alexva

    Why won;t the FCC turn over documents about LightSquared? If they have nothing to hide, release them and put an end to the charges.

    I don’t think there was any crime or bribe, but I think we’ll see the same thing as Solyndra. An Obama donor (Falcone and others at LightSquared may big donations to the DSCC right around the time of the FCC actions) gets special treatment by a regulator because of political connections.

    The FCC has never explained why they ignored all of the complaints from other federal agencies. Numerous agencies complained about LightSquared – DOD, DOT, FAA, etc and they were all ignored.

    Look at the public dockets and you can find their complaints,

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    ..

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    Solyndra was given money.

    What are you alleging LS was given of value?

  • alexva

    I am confirming that LightSquared sells an augmentation signal to certain high precision GPS receivers. Interference to this signal is separate from their interference to the GPS signal.

    LightSquared’s terrestrial signal is simply too powerful and too close to GPS.

  • alexva

    LightSquared may receive an enormous windfall in the valu eof their spectrum. Taking satellite spectrum and getting the rules changed to allow terrestrial use of the spectrum makes that spectrum enormously more expensive. Something like $2 billion if the spectrum is satellite only and $12 billion if it is used for wireless.

    This whole deal was simply an arbitrage play by Harbinger. Buy an asset cheap, get the rules changed and dump it ater the value has gone up.

    There was no auction of this spectrum. This is a huge gift from the FCC.

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    So in other words, no actual special treatment.

    In fact currently it’s Verizon, Sprint Nextel, AT&T, etc., along with the landline Internet competitors, that are getting the special treatment by keeping a competitor out.

  • acat

    So .. they’ve “flipped” a spectrum… ?

    If so, where’s the problem?

    If the problem is the precision-GPS-specific “correction” signal that’s in the middle of their spectrum, then .. hate to say, but it *is* their asset, and they *are* allowed to change from a low-profit business to a high-profit one.

    The model is a re-developer who owns an entire block but can’t evict a long-lease tenant business …

    Mew

  • alexva

    LightSquared can certainly terminate the correction signal from their satellite if they choose. But they don’t have the right to interfere with GPS. That was one of the conditions from an earlier FCC rulemaking on their predecessor company.

  • alexva

    If the FCC allows they to proceed, they will have received an enormous spectrum windfall. I call that crony capitalism. — taking a public asset and turning it into private gain.

    Look at what Congress wants to do to the broadcasters — clear them out of spectrum and AUCTION that spectrum — not hand it out for free to the Obama donors.

    That has been the M.O. for the Obama administration. I think most of the readers of Red State know crony capitalism when they see it.

  • acat

    You’re saying “they can’t interfere with GPS”, but also saying “The correction signal isn’t in the GPS band”.

    If the correction signal is out of the GPS band, then it’s a misnomer to claim this interferes with GPS, yes? Changing the spectrum isn’t going to affect 99% of GPS units that don’t listen for the out-of-band corrections.

    On the other paw, if the correction signal is in the GPS band, then it’s also a misnomer to claim this interferes with GPS .. because it’s a different frequency entirely.

    Pick one.

    Mew

  • bs61

    It’s me being technically deficient! I get the gist of you and I know that you are on our side.