Baldwin Votes Against Internet Free Speech

Posted on by

Tammy Baldwin voted against internet free speech yesterday [The House voted 225 to 182 on the Online Freedom of Speech Act (H.R. 1606) — a majority but less than the two-thirds required for a “suspension” bill to clear the House. via instapundit]. An explanation would be useful. Jim Abrams has more. There’s certainly growing activism online. Adding complexity via more and more laws will be a loss for everyone (which is, perhaps one perspective of Baldwin and others who voted against H.R. 1606). Google News has more. As is typical, the small players get screwed in these deals, while the special interests on both sides spend money to get around the legal spaghetti, as we saw in the last national elections.

Ed Cone says “Email your congressman and tell him you want to blog without Federal regulation.”

Wisconsin’s House delegation voted as follows: Mark Green (R) voted Yes along with Ron Kind (D), Jim Sensenbrenner (R) – (I agree on something with Sensenbrenner???) and Mark Ryan (R).

Voting No with Baldwin (D) were Petri (R), Obey (D) and Moore (D).

Send Tammy Baldwin a note with your views on this important, local issue.

California Democrat Zoe Lofgren’s supportive comments on this bill. Slashdot and Declan have more.

Many Internet Startups Are Flying Without Venture Capital

Posted on by

Rebecca Buckman:

Many Internet companies attending a Web-business conference here earlier this month described venture money as “almost superfluous,” says Jason Pressman, a principal at Shasta Ventures in Menlo Park, Calif. Venture capitalists generally say their money and expertise are still needed to build large-scale businesses, and they don’t mind investing a little bit less in companies that have built businesses on the cheap but still want some venture money.
But some entrepreneurs believe the balance of power in Silicon Valley is shifting for at least a subset of Internet-focused start-ups. “There is magic in independence,” says Chris MacAskill, co-founder of online-photo site Smugmug Inc., which has no venture funding — and, according to Mr. MacAskill, doesn’t want any.

Honda Accord Hybrid Review

Posted on by

Autoweek:


In most respects then, the car is simply a better Accord.
Except for cost. At $3,290 more than a gasoline-only V6 Accord, it will take a very long time to recoup the hybrid’s price premium at the pump—and that’s not factoring in the cost of battery replacement—but owners insist it’s not always about the Benjamins.
“Yes, I paid a premium over a similar six-cylinder sedan,” one owner said. “But to my set of priorities, it is worth it to help promote something that simply makes sense.”

Gingrich on WWII vs the Four Years since 9/11

Posted on by

Newt Gingrich raises some useful points in comparing WWII’s four years vs. the four since 9/11 [pdf]:

I appreciate the opportunity to testify today about the nation’s intelligence system and the absolute imperative for effective ongoing reform.

It is now four years and one month since the 9/11 attack on America.

The comparable date for World War II would have been January 19, 1946. By that point the United States was largely demobilizing its forces after a victorious global war.
During the comparable length of time that we have been responding to the 9/11 attacks on America, the World War II generation of Americans had rebounded from the attack on Pearl Harbor and defeated Germany, Japan and Italy, built a worldwide military and intelligence capability, built the atomic bomb, massed and organized industrial power, and laid the foundation for the worldwide network of alliances that has stabilized the world for the last sixty years.

This difference in energy, intensity, and resolve should worry all of us.

This is a fascinating topic. One thing that strikes me is how different our national awareness of the globe must have been in 1946, given millions of Americans stationed overseas. This is much different, today, I think.

Our Tax Dollars at Work: Hollywood Lobbyists’ Halloween Work

Posted on by

Slashdot:

BoingBoing has an interesting article about a joint RIAA/MPAA move started yesterday on Capitol Hill. From the article: ‘Hollywood has fielded a shockingly ambitious piece of Analog Hole legislation while everyone was out partying in costume. Under a new proposed Analog Hole bill, it will be illegal to make anything capable of digitizing video unless it either has all its outputs approved by the Hollywood studios, or is closed-source, proprietary and tamper-resistant. The idea is to make it impossible to create an MPEG from a video signal unless Hollywood approves it.

Altavista, Google and MSN Search

Posted on by

Don Dodge, former Director of Engineering at Altavista, once king of the hill in the internet search game, sheds some light on what went wrong in the 1990’s:

The AltaVista experience is sad to remember. We should have been the “Google” of today. We were pure search, no frills, no consumer portal crap. DEC is guilty of neglect in its handling of AltaVista. Compaq put a bunch of PC guys in charge who relied on McKinsey consultants and copied AOL, Excite, Yahoo and Lycos into the consumer portal game. It should have been clear that being the 5th or 6th player in the consumer portal business wouldn’t work. AltaVista spent hundreds of millions on acquisitions that never worked, and spent $100M on a brand advertising campaign. They spent NOTHING to improve core search. That was the undoing of AltaVista.
You need to remember the context of the time. It seemed like every week AOL was announcing a $50M deal to sell traffic. Yahoo was doing it too. The game was build traffic with search, keep them on your site with content, and sell traffic and “screen real estate” to sponsors for $20-$40M a pop up front. There was no proven search business model other than annoying banner ads that were not really contextual.

“Free American Broadband!”

Posted on by

S. Derek Turner:

Next time you sit down to pay your cable-modem or DSL bill, consider this: Most Japanese consumers can get an Internet connection that’s 16 times faster than the typical American DSL line for a mere $22 per month.
Across the globe, it’s the same story. In France, DSL service that is 10 times faster than the typical United States connection; 100 TV channels and unlimited telephone service cost only $38 per month. In South Korea, super-fast connections are common for less than $30 per month. Places as diverse as Finland, Canada and Hong Kong all have much faster Internet connections at a lower cost than what is available here. In fact, since 2001, the U.S. has slipped from fourth to 16th in the world in broadband use per capita. While other countries are taking advantage of the technological, business and education opportunities of the broadband era, America remains lost in transition.
How did this happen? Why has the U.S. fallen so far behind the rest of its economic peers? The answer is simple. These nations all have something the U.S. lacks: a national broadband policy, one that actively encourages competition among providers, leading to lower consumer prices and better service.

Via David Isenberg.