Big Co’s Scheming to Undermine Net Neutrality?

The news of the alleged negotiations (i.e., conspiring) between Verizon and Google to undermine the principle of net neutrality, as reported today in The New York Times and elsewhere, should be more than a bit concerning to all of us who use the internet as an information source and are wary of large corporations wielding even more control of the media industry. Media pundit Dan Kennedy outlines the ramifications of such corporate conspiring in today’s post on his Media Nation blog (read it here).

Google has since denied the veracity of the reports, claiming its ongoing commitment to net neutrality. Be that as it may, if you care about the First Amendment and your variety of choices regarding digital news and entertainment, then this is something you might want to keep an eye on.

If you find the prospect of an increased stratification of the here-to-fore reasonably equitable playing field of the Internet disturbing, consider registering your concern here. The number of citizens voicing opposition needs to grow significantly to gain the attention of the powers that be and counter corporate lobbying efforts.

Quite Optimistic

This is an interesting video clip of Esquire editor David Granger’s interview with Steve Forbes at the 2010 Publishing Business Conference and Expo in New York City back in early March:

I’m not sure how Forbes reaches such an optimistic conclusion about whether America is in decline or not given the economic facts as he lays them out in his answer, but he’s more knowledgeable about this stuff than most of us. (Personally, I avoid discussions of monetary policy like the plague! ) Thought-provoking, nonetheless.

Time Is Right

The title of a new Feelies’ song (much on my mind since last Friday’s outstanding concert) seems an apropos entré to this brief shout out to Time magazine’s recent special issue highlighting “10 Ideas For the Next 10 Years.”

In 10 brief essays by leading thinkers, researchers and analysts (many from the New America Foundation), Time offers a fascinating overview of how America stands with one foot over the threshold of the new century, as well as some prognosis for the coming years. Overall, it’s a thought-provoking, remarkably optimistic and reasonably centrist (well, just left-0f-center, it is Time, after all) analysis of the United States’ evolving place in the world economically, politically, culturally and militarily. It holds a mirror to our recent history, and highlights key impulses already at play in our society or now percolating just beneath the surface.

The introductory essay, in particular, “The Next American Century,” by Andres Martinez, puts a surprisingly positive spin on our current national sense of society going to hell in a hand basket. It’s followed by thoughtful pieces on “Remapping the World” (bad borders and realistic means to minimize their ongoing detriment in light of current and future challenges), “Bandwidth Is the New Black Gold” (revealing how bandwidth issues will soon affect us all), “The Dropout Economy” (the future of work, education and social constructs in light of the growing libertarian impulse in America), as well as essays on U.S.-China relations, growing “white anxiety” in our increasingly diverse nation, and what it means to live in the “post-trust” era.

All worthwhile reads. Whether you go old school and pick up a copy at the newsstand or read them all online, spend 20 minutes with this Time.

Do Not Fly

What’s wrong with this picture?

A Nigerian national (Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab to be exact), who is not only a known Al Qaeda supporter but also happens to have visited Yemen (hotbed of anti-American sentiment) recently, is allowed – without detention, questioning or even suspicious looks – on an international flight bound for Detroit. Whereas me, a native born, generally law-abiding (yes, I occasionally exceed the speed limit ... OK, regularly) citizen traveling domestically on business, is repeatedly scrutinized and delayed before being allowed to board flights.

Apparently, something about my name and/or date of birth, height, weight or eye color matches with some suspected terrorist on the “Do Not Fly” list. (I guess the powers that be have been wary of Scottish terrorists ever since William Wallace painted his face blue. But I have yet to attempt to board an airplane looking like a deranged cast off from the Blue Man Group.)

OK, like Mr. Abdulmutallab, I have never actually been denied boarding access to a flight. But, unlike young Umar, I have routinely had to put up with additional harassment at the security gates at numerous airports across the country for the past six or seven years. My special status often makes it impossible for me to “enjoy” the efficiency of self-check in at the electronic kiosks, necessitating my waiting in longer lines for airline personnel to manually process my boarding passes.

Once, a few years ago, at Logan Airport, a State Trooper had to intervene to get authorization for my clearance. Even he recognized the absurdity of the situation when he had to spend nearly 45 minutes making calls to some shadowy governmental entity that finally decided it was safe to let me on the aircraft. (To this day, I still wonder what the voice on the other end of the Trooper’s phone could’ve possibly said that, having already been convinced of the threat I posed to national security, suddenly made it OK for me to board the flight. Probably something like: “Oh never mind, we f***ed up. He’s fine, let him go.”)

After finally making it past the TSA Inquisition, I inquired as to what I had to do to get off this #%@&! list so I wouldn’t continue to face this kind of hassle. I was instructed to go to the TSA website, where I could download all the necessary forms to complete. After printing out 40 some odd pages of paperwork to fill out, I came to the deflating passage toward the end of the document. It bluntly stated that completing the paperwork was no guarantee of removal from the list, even if there was not sufficient reason for being placed there in the first place. At that point I could only quote Charlie Brown: “ARGH!!"

This might all be palatable if, in addition to inconveniencing innocent citizens (like yours truly), this “security system” was also keeping terrorists off of planes. One might even be lead to believe that it has – until, of course, one reads the reports about Mr. Abdulmutallab and his exploits over Detroit.

To quote an Associated Press report of the incident:

Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano hastened to assure people that flying is “very, very safe.”

She said the suspect in Friday’s attack “was stopped before any damage could be done. I think the important thing to recognize here is that once this incident occurred, everything happened that should have.”

So our national security system is dependent upon the intervention of private citizens to subdue terrorists in mid act?

More from the AP:

That brought a sharp rebuke from Rep. Peter King of New York, the top Republican on the Homeland Security Committee. “It’s not reassuring when the secretary of Homeland Security says the system worked,” King said. “It failed in every respect.”

Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican leader in the Senate, said, “It’s amazing to me that an individual like this who was sending out so many signals could end up getting on a plane going to the U.S.”

An apparent malfunction in a device designed to detonate the high explosive PETN may have been all that saved the 278 passengers and the crew aboard Northwest Flight 253. No undercover air marshal was on board and passengers and crew subdued the suspect when he tried to set off the explosion. He succeeded only in starting a fire on himself.

The misplaced vigilance of Homeland Security, the Counter Terrorism Department and the TSA doesn’t exactly make one feel safe in the friendly skies, does it?

Government Intervention Isn’t Always Bad

I just got around to reading James Poniewozik’s Time magazine column from a few weeks ago on Ken Burns’ new documentary on America’s National Parks (it’s a very worthwhile read if you haven’t seen it already). Poniewozik’s point is a well-taken one given the current “tea party” temperament regarding government intervention. However, as the columnist points out, the story of the National Parks’ creation and ongoing evolution provides a good juxtaposition to all the hand-wringing about Big Brother and fears of the coming social state that seem so rampant today.

Watching segments of Burns’ marathon ode to the efforts to preserve some of the country’s most stunning natural assets over the last few weeks, I repeatedly found myself struck by the fact that the whole story is one of fight after fight after fight – first to bring each park into existence and then to preserve its integrity once established. In hindsight, given people’s carelessness and the free market’s tendency to foster exploitation, it is truly amazing that we didn’t totally trash the whole continent ... but for a few visionary and determined individuals and the application of federal power to make some good things happen, we surely would have.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not generally pro big government, but Poniewozik is right in pointing out that there are times and places in history when government intervention is the right way to go and, occasionally, the needs of all – the greater good – outweigh those of the few. And sometimes, just sometimes, only big government is able to successfully ensure the interests of all in the face of strong local self-interest and perpetually self-centered business practices.

I wish the free market (i.e., those powerful businesses) could be trusted to do the right thing, but both history and current events make the naivete of that wish very clear. It simply doesn’t happen. In these times of renewed government intervention, it’s food for thought.