Various matters

Here are a bunch of random thoughts for the day. Blogging is light today, both because DB was busy, but also because I wanted to let my last post stay on top for a while. In fact, I tried my hand at my first cross-post on Daily Kos, but I'm starting to think from the comments in it, which almost all have to do with Tony Blair, that a diary posted when Europe is waking up and America is sleeping, entitled "We didn't elect Tony Blair" -- well, that was probably a mistake (blushing).

In any event, please consider calling your Senators and ask them if they were aware that the Bush administration was on the verge of provoking a war with Iran until England declined the offer. At least two Senators have already said that Bush does not have the Constitutional authority to attack Iran. If Congress is waiting for Bush to make a move before fighting back, reacting to the news of this offer would be immeasurably preferable to reacting to a war that's already claiming lives and will probably be impossible to stop.

If your Senators weren't informed that Bush was ready to go to war with Iran, ask them when they are planning to get an explanation from him. Shouldn't they be concerned by the fact that the decision to take America to war with Iran was left up to Tony Blair, not Congress or the American people?

Let me know what they say.

A few other items of interest:

Thanks for the link, Greg Sargent. And great work.

Abstinence-only programs have failed. Seems to me the people of Connecticut should ask Joe Lieberman why all that taxpayer money that leaves the state and comes back at a lower rate than almost every other state in the country should be getting funneled into the worthless faith-based abstinence programs he helped make possible.

COOT OFF! Like the grouchy "get off my lawn" neighborhood curmudgeon who lives forever, Ted Stevens sets a longevity record. Couldn't have happened to a lousier Senator. "I just the other day got, an Internet was sent by my staff at 10 o'clock in the morning on Friday and I just got it yesterday. Why??"

Great job on the document dump, blog-o-sphere!

It's about time

Congrats to the House (and America) for passing a bill to enact the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. Readers of this blog will know there is one particular area DB is particularly happy to see improved: Interoperable communications systems for our first responders.

When Republicans like Sen. Ted Stevens were in charge, it looked like first responders were going to risk their lives in dangerous situations without the right equipment until at least 2009, probably 2012... Eleven years after 9/11 and 16 years after Congress was explicitly warned that communications were inadequate at the Federal Building in OK City and the World Trade Center, bombed in 1993.

Well, the jury is still out on when that equipment will arrive and our first responders will be trained to use it, but at least there's some motion today. It looks like the ball is now in DHS' court, so we'll see how that works out.

Relevant text from the bill follows:

SEC. 201. IMPROVE COMMUNICATIONS FOR EMERGENCY RESPONSE GRANT PROGRAM.

(a) Establishment- Title V of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 311 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following new section:

`SEC. 522. IMPROVE COMMUNICATIONS FOR EMERGENCY RESPONSE GRANT PROGRAM.

`(a) Establishment- The Secretary, acting through the Director of the Office of Grants and Training and in coordination with the Director for Emergency Communications, shall establish the Improve Communications for Emergency Response Grant Program to make grants to States and regions to carry out initiatives to improve interoperable emergency communications, including initiatives to achieve solutions to statewide, regional, national, and, where appropriate, international interoperability.

`(b) Use of Grant Funds- A State or region receiving a grant under this section may use the grant for short-term or long-term goals for improving interoperable emergency communications, including interoperability within that State or region, and to assist with--

`(1) statewide or regional communications planning;

`(2) design and engineering for interoperable emergency communications systems;

`(3) procurement and installation of interoperable emergency communications equipment;

`(4) interoperable emergency communications exercises;

`(5) modeling and simulation exercises for operational command and control functions;

`(6) technical assistance and training for interoperable emergency communications; and

`(7) other activities determined by the Secretary to be integral to interoperable emergency communications.

`(c) Region Defined- For the purposes of this section, the term `region' means any combination of contiguous local government units, including such a combination established by law or mutual aid agreement between two or more local governments or governmental agencies.'.

(b) Authorization of Appropriations- There is authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary of Homeland Security for grants under section 522 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, as added by subsection (a)--

(1) such sums as may be necessary for the first fiscal year that begins after the later of--

(A) the date on which the Secretary of Homeland Security completes and submits to Congress the National Emergency Communications Plan required under section 1802 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 572);

(B) the date on which the Secretary of Homeland Security completes and submits to Congress the first baseline interoperability assessment required under section 1803 of such Act (6 U.S.C. 573); or

(C) the date on which the Secretary of Homeland Security, after consultation with the Director of Emergency Communications, determines and notifies Congress that substantial progress has been made towards the development and promulgation of voluntary consensus-based interoperable communications standards pursuant to section 1801(c)(11) of such Act (6 U.S.C. 571(c)(11)); and

(2) such sums as may be necessary for each subsequent fiscal year.

(c) Clerical Amendment- The table of contents in section 1(b) of that Act is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 521 the following:

`Sec. 522. Improve Communications for Emergency Response Grant Program.'.

Playing hide the pork

Who could have predicted it would turn out to be Ted Stevens who put the secret hold on the Obama/Coburn Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act? He's not the Chairman to Nowhere for nothing.

IRONY OVERLOAD UPDATE: Stevens says his motive was "to make sure that this wasn’t going to be a huge cost to the taxpayer."

The Pneumatic Tube from Alaska

The vacuum that represents Alaska in the Senate and chairs the Commerce Committee apparently knows as much about the Internet as a king crab. DB had heard Senator Stevens went on an incoherent rant about Net Neutrality, in which he appeared to bounce back and forth between arguments for each side, thinking he was making solely a case against the Snowe-Dorgan bill.

But holy crap.

Who could have possibly known that the man spearheading the telecom bill could be so unbelievably ignorant? When you actually listen to him deliver the rant (MP3) it's hard to believe he's even allowed near a microphone, let alone in a Senate office building.

It should be illegal for somebody this clueless to have any input whatsoever into the future of our national information infrastructure. That he got 10 other Senators to vote his way just shows how craven the GOP is in general.

Really, it's a fucking embarrassment and the people of Alaska should be ashamed.

UPDATE: Upon a closer listen, it appears Sen. Stevens used the term "Neternit" during his rant. DB objects.

Chairman to nowhere

It's important, while considering Net Neutrality, to consider who is fighting against it in the Senate: Commerce Committee Chairman Ted Stevens.

The Commerce Committee is set to vote on the latest Net Neutrality bill on Thursday. We cannot sit back and wait for the results. Keep calling your senators and getting the message out to the public.

Although he "threatened" to quit the Senate last December, Stevens is still handing out taxpayer money and resources to his corporate buddies.

First, a quick review of just the last year of Stevens' highlights:

He introduced and passed a $3 billion subsidy for digital TV tuner manufacturers. He spearheaded the delay in getting our first responders the communications frequencies they need until 2009. He threatened to deny our troops funding by inserting his repeat-failure ANWR drilling provision into the defense bill -- a move called "disgusting" by his colleagues -- after having previously claimed that it had no place in such a bill. He swindled $223 million from the American people for a "bridge to nowhere."

Oh yeah, and he was one of nine in the Senate who voted for torture.

Now he's messing with the Internet. Among the latest news is this gem:

In a change favorable to cable, Stevens stripped from the bill language that would have forced Comcast Corp. to sell its Sports Net Philadelphia to DirecTV Inc. and EchoStar Communications Corp. Also gone are provisions allowing competitors to file FCC complaints to gain access to regional sports networks not owned by cable operator but to which a cable operator has exclusive rights.

Bummer for Stevens. His "Sports Freedom Act of 2006" is a no-go. But why did he want to interfere with teams' and leagues' contracts with cable companies anyway? After all, in an article about Net Neutrality, the Washington Post dutifully reported:

Senate Commerce Committee Chairman Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) is open to consumer protections but is loath to interfere with commercial deals among phone and cable companies and the content providers, a committee staffer said.

You just cannot take this man at his word. Ever.

So now he's floating a new "compromise" for Net Neutrality: An Internet Bill of Rights, which is actually a toothless smokescreen, intended to appear as if there's any real protections for Net discrimination. If you can prove your ISP is messing with the services you use, you can complain to the FCC. Eventually, they may levy a fine up to $10,000.

Fortunately for us, ranking Democrat Daniel Inouye isn't fooled.

"The new draft's provisions on net neutrality utterly fail to protect consumers and preserve an open Internet," Inouye said in a statement.

"Under the current language, network operators will have the ability to dictate what the Internet of the future will look like, what content it will include and how it will operate.

The question is whether the general public will be fooled. Pick up a phone and call your senators. Call your local radio stations. The clock is ticking.

F: Shame on you, Senator Stevens

Note: This is Part V of a short series on the issue of the failure of our representatives in Washington to provide our first responders with the communications technology necessary to save lives. Part I | Part II | Part III | Part IV.

"This conference report is another in a series of important steps to freeing up the necessary spectrum for our nation's first responders. By providing our emergency response entities and broadcasters with a date certain for the digital transition, our first responders can move forward in ensuring that critical communication infrastructure is in place in the event of a natural disaster or terrorist attack." -- Commerce Committee Chairman Ted Stevens, Dec. 21, 2005

That "date certain" is now set for Feb. 17, 2009, which means that you shouldn't expect a police officer in your neighborhood to be able to warn a firefighter of potential danger until roughly Feb. 17, 2012.

DB gives Stevens the title of Worst Senator in Washington for his shameful work in stalling this transition until the most money could be made off the frequencies and for the corporations with the most to gain from the transition.

Also adding to his title are the facts that he was one of the nine Senators to vote for torture and, of course, his pathetic and unethical attempts to turn the Alaskan Wildlife Refuge into a cash register:

"This is one of the most unpatriotic acts ever attempted by an elected official -- tantamount to treason," said Brian Moore, legislative director for the Alaska Wilderness League. "It's Ted Stevens denying the troops food, funding, ammunition -- everything they need."

As reported here earlier, Stevens claimed that the public safety agencies needed three years to be ready to use these frequencies, so 2009 is just fine. He also said that it had to be 2009 in order to get the money, from auctions, needed to help people pay for digital tuners. But those auction revenues are also going to be used to buy the emergency equipment. So that three years of preparation won't even begin until 2009. [Edit: States may begin to apply for loans against some of those revenues, but there is still no chance of beginning the implementation of these systems until the bandwidth is available.] And there's no chance that our first responders are going to be ignoring the life-and-death situations they face every day so they can start thinking about the radios they won't be getting for another three years.

A Senator who swindled taxpayer money for a bridge to nowhere, in a state ranked in the bottom three in population and likely to never in our lifetimes experience a disaster like Katrina or attack like 9/11, has spearheaded the delays that caused our government to receive a much-deserved 'F' from the 9/11 Commissioners.

Go ahead, Stevens, resign from the Senate. Do America a favor.

Since it seems like a lost cause at this point, DB will conclude this series without getting into the actions on the House side... Joe Barton's efforts and the influence of lobbyists like the National Association of Broadcasters.

But let it be known that in the next disaster -- which will inevitably occur -- any lives that are lost because of a lack of communications will be the true cost of this legislation. Every dollar earned in the auctions, every profit margin increased by these corporations... none of it is worth the life of a single first responder.

F: Do I hear $30 billion?

Note: This is Part IV of a short series on the issue of the failure of our representatives in Washington to provide our first responders with the communications technology necessary to save lives. Part I | Part II | Part III.

We've talked for years about the importance of getting new spectrum in the hands of our first responders. But today that priority was a casualty of the clout that powerful interests wield in Congress and a process driven by gimmicks aimed at making a fiscally irresponsible budget more palatable.-- Senator John Kerry, Oct. 20, 2005, after Senator John McCain's proposal to expedite the spectrum transition was defeated

There is a big component in this story that DB has only mentioned in passing -- the auction.

While the federal government has designated some of the frequencies in the 700 MHz band for our first responders, the rest will be put up for auction. One of the reasons this part of the spectrum will be so good for emergency services is that broadcasts at 700 MHz can penetrate walls easily. This also makes it ideal for wireless broadband or WiMax. The government expects these auctions to bring in tens of billions of dollars. Some independent analysts suggest as much as $30 billion or more.

The Senate has set an auction date of Jan. 2009, preceding the April 7, 2009 deadline they set for the relinquishing of those frequencies to the public. The House deadline is Dec. 31, 2008 and the auction date they set is Jan. 7, 2008.

Keep this in mind as we take a look at the legislation.

First, let's look at some of the people who are pushing for a 2009 deadline. Here's FCC Chairman (and son of the former Secretary of State) Michael K. Powell, testifying before the Senate's Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee on Sept. 8 2004.

Of course, questions will be asked about what is the "right" hard deadline for the transition. In choosing 2009 as a target date for our plan, we focused on three potential benefits. First, because the Commission's tuner mandate becomes fully effective on July 1, 2007, having a deadline of 2009 will add millions more digital sets to the marketplace before analog signals are turned off. The tuner mandate and other market forces will also further drive down the costs of digital-to-analog converters during that time for those households still relying on analog broadcast television.

Further, a 2009 deadline would provide time to prepare the public on the impending end of the transition so they could take steps to prepare themselves in the natural course of replacing old sets.

Finally, under the current 85 percent statutory test, the added DTV 8 sets with tuners and the expansion of DBS local-into-local markets will help ensure that most of the country meets the 85% threshold, providing for a nationwide end to the transition rather than a piecemeal result. The ultimate benefit of the 2009 deadline, in conjunction with steps we already have taken, will be to reduce to a minimum the number of consumers reliant on analog broadcast television.

Whenever the transition ends, however, we recognize that there will be consumers that still tune into analog over-the-air television.

We've already addressed his first point. Sure, "a deadline of 2009 will add millions more digital sets" but so will a deadline of 2008, or (remember this testimony is from 2004) so would 2007. The same goes for his second point. How long does a minority of TV watchers need to get a gadget? Four or five years? How many first responders and disaster victims need to die before their needs outweigh the TV viewers who would be surprised by the need for a gadget subsidized by the American taxpayer? His third point doesn't seem to support 2009 in particular, just the need for a transition from analog to digital, a goal he concedes will not be fully met.

In short, no reason given by the FCC for choosing 2009 over an earlier date outweighs the needs of our public safety agencies. None.

On Oct. 20, 2005, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) introduced an amendment that would have pushed the Senate's deadline up to April 7, 2007, but it was defeated 5-17 by the Commerce Committee. He introduced a 2008 amendment to the full Senate on Nov. 3 and it was defeated, 60-39.

Here's what our friend Ted Stevens said in arguing against McCain's amendment:

Mr. President, this amendment would close off the analog broadcasting too close to the auction of spectrum. We currently have an April 2009 date. The auction date is January of 2009. It is just too close together. The leases cannot be processed. There is no way those auction proceeds can be available until licenses are issued. This amendment would end analog broadcasts before the funds are available for the converter box fund or the translator conversion fund authorized by S. 1932. We need help in this transition. The amendment makes spectrum available to public safety groups before they can put it to use because we are informed public safety groups must have at least 3 years to prepare for the use of spectrum.

We are going to get them the spectrum. They will not be able to use it until we have the money to bring about the transition. I believe our whole committee should oppose this amendment.

DB thinks Stevens was confused because his dates do not make sense at all. He seems to be complaining that the dates are already "too close" together. McCain's amendment would have set the deadline ahead by two years. How would this be "too close" to the auction date? The House had no problem setting an auction date after the transition deadline.

Also, the auction date is an arbitrary date set by the Senate. It's not Halley's comet. They could change it if they wanted, which also counters his next point, that the auction funds would come in after the subsidies for the consumer tuners. And perhaps if the subsidies weren't an outrageous $3 billion for consumers (to hand over to digital tuner manufacturers, plus $200 million for the broadcasters) and the Congress wasn't hell-bent on cutting taxes for the wealthy, then coming up with a reasonable subsidy before receiving a windfall of tens of billions from the auction wouldn't be too much of a sacrifice for Congress to make for the people who risk their lives to protect us from disaster.

Lastly, Stevens says that it will take three years before they can use the technology. This is the most offensive distortion of all. Our first responders won't be able to spend any time implementing the new communications systems until they can use the frequencies. Call your state's firefighters association and ask them if they have time to even think about what technology they'll be using in three years. These groups are worrying about how to protect the shrinking budgets they have right now. If Stevens is correct about the three years, then 2009 won't be when they start using the system. It will be 2012.

And if they don't get the funds to pay for the set-top tuners until the auction in 2009, how in the world can our first responders start preparing to use their new gear? The funds for that equipment come from the same auction as the $3.2 billion for the tuners and broadcasters. Outrageous. [Edit: States can begin to apply for loans against those funds in October 2006. States must pay at least 20% of the cost of implementation.]

Remember, Congress and the Senate will determine the auction date. If they have a problem with the date, if they need the funds sooner, they can change it. The question is why don't they want to change the auction date? The answer? Money.

You see, the government is already auctioning off 90 MHz beginning in 2006. This is important because the Congressional Budget Office recommends the 2009 date for the 700 MHz band (all emphasis mine):

CBO estimates that the proceeds from the auction of the 60 megahertz now used by broadcasters would most likely total between $10 billion and $15 billion, with an expected value of about $12.5 billion. But offering the wireless industry a total of 150 megahertz within a two- or three-year time period, would probably result in lower bids in the 90 megahertz auction that will take place under current law.

In other words, waiting until 2009 will be more profitable. Auctioning the 700 MHz band sooner will hurt profits expected from the auctions already in the works. Our public safely and national security have to wait because Congress doesn't want to lose money.

And it's not even a sure thing. Here's what the CBO said in a report on the exact same topic in 1999 (all emphasis mine):

The overall effect of the transition's lasting beyond 2006 is that some of the anticipated benefits from the move to digital TV may not be available as originally planned. Of particular significance for policymakers is that receipts from the scheduled auctions of licenses for the use of spectrum formerly available for analog broadcasting are likely to be lower. Each year of delay expected in freeing up those frequencies in a given market reduces a potential bidder's valuation of the license by the bidder's annual cost of funds. For example, if bidders desired a 10 percent rate of return on their investment, a one-year delay in receiving use of the spectrum would reduce what they were willing to pay for their license by about 10 percent (although the correspondence is not always exact).

The entire thing is a gamble and in the balance are the people who make up America's most important line of defense, our first responders.

DB will take a closer look at the House bills and the politicians and lobbyists involved in this mess in the next installment. Unfortunately, that won't be for a few days as DB has a business trip planned (gotta work).

In the meantime, any help would be welcome. This is the hardest part... figuring out which corporations profit the most and which politicians care the most about those companies. It is clear that they care more about the money than about the lives of our first responders.