Regulation

Textbooks I Won’t be Buying

This entry was posted in Democrats Education Government Regulation Technology on by

Here is a good example of why legislative sessions should be reduced(Free Reg) to, say, a week if not completely eliminated:

Maybe Democrats in the state Assembly should just go ahead and write textbooks for California’s students. They’re so confident they know what constitutes a good one.
For instance, who knew that making a textbook longer than 200 pages was such a bad idea that there needs to be a law against it?

These folks have way too much time on their hands.
The bill’s sponser has been bashed a bunch but remember that 42 (mostly democrat) of the 70 representatives voted for this. That Californians elected 42 such bright people to rule their lives is a pretty good indicator that the eduction system there is broken.
Part of the alleged justification:

Textbooks are too laden with print supplemental materials, and too uninteresting in style. In the 21st century, the information age, information changes more rapidly than books can be printed. Educated, informed citizens of the 21st century will have to rely on technology and media for information. Textbooks should provide an overview of the critical questions and issues of a subject, and then become a roadmap to guide students to other means and sources of information.

To which I say, BS.
I’m long out of school and use the internet extensively to research areas in many subjects. Much, I’d expect, as a K-12 student might do once they’ve reached a certain level of competence. I also buy 2-4 high school/college survey textbooks a year (plus 20-30 volumes of more in depth material) for my own library. No 200 page textbook can cover the breadth and depth needed for any survey course even to provide the minimal requirements noted above.
Even if you reduce the range of focus 200 pages is still rediculous. For instance, if you are studying 13th-14th century world economic systems an excellent overview with references to a lot of primary material (much not available on the net) is Abu-Lughod’s Before European Hegemony: The World System A.D. 1250-1350. It has just over 450 pages. Sure, you can find this subject reduced to a paragraph, a few pages, or a chapter or two but whatever chunk you prefer will be in a volume that should take more than 200 pages to be meaningful….unless its volume N of a series.
Via The Carnival of Education: Week 17.

Now This is Broadband!

This entry was posted in Capitalism Economics Internet Regulation Technology on by

Services like this should be doable at similar prices in dense urban areas of the US:

Hong Kong Broadband Network (HKBN) officially launched its 1 Gbps symmetric service for the residential market. Approximately 800,000 households, out of a total of 2.2 million households in Hong Kong, are wired to receive the service. The 1 Gbps symmetric service is priced at US$215 per month.
HKBN noted that its 1 Gbps service is up to 166x faster downstream and 1,950x faster upstream than the advertised bandwidth of the incumbent’s ADSL service.
HKBN Premium bb1000 service is being offered on the same metro Ethernet infrastructure that delivers the company’s Mass Market bb100 (symmetric 100 Mbps for US$34/month) and Entry Point bb10 (symmetric 10 Mbps for US$16/month) services.

Even the low end blows away the crap that has commonly been labeled residential broadband in the US.
If they are allowed to proceed the Verizon and SBC buildouts, while not quite up to the Hong Kong standard, will be a substantial improvement over current US offerings.

Public Servants?

This entry was posted in Constitution Democracy Government Information Law Regulation on by

Why are these people even in office?

North Carolina cities and other government agencies are pursuing the authority to sue citizens who ask to see public records.
Lawyers for local governments and the University of North Carolina are talking about pushing for a new state law.
That law would allow pre-emptive lawsuits against citizens, news organizations and private companies to clarify the law when there is a dispute about providing records or opening meetings.

I can think of only one reason for public records not to be disclosed: they contains personal information that should not be released without an individuals consent. Anything else should be provided right now accompanied by a bow and a “May I help you with anything else?”
Via Politech.

Security Freeze? Not enough!

This entry was posted in Capitalism Domestic Terrorism Economics Information Libertarianism Regulation on by

The Washington legislature is considering legislation that will give consumers the authority:

….to put a security freeze on their credit-reporting file. A security freeze lets the consumer prevent anyone from looking at his or her own credit reporting file for purposes of granting credit unless the consumer chooses to let that particular business look at the information.

This is a partial step in the right direction. It is not enough and will not as article suggests give consumers the ability to prevent identity thieves from getting credit in their names.
As I commented last month individuals must own their personal information and:

No institution, government or private, can be allowed to collect or distribute, for free or for fee, any information about an individual without that individuals specific consent on a per incident basis and if the distribution is for a fee then that individual must be compensated at a rate agreeable to the individual.

Anything less is a recipe for theft underwritten by the very governmental institutions alleged to be our protectors.

Government Failure in the Telecom Industry

This entry was posted in Capitalism Constitution Economics Government Libertarianism Regulation Technology on by

I often agree with Larry Lessig but he is off base here:

But the government also should not act as the cat’s paw for one of the most powerful industries in the nation by making competition against that industry illegal, whether from government or not. This is true, at least, when it is unclear just what kind of “good” such competition might produce.
Broadband is the perfect example. The private market has failed the US so far.

First, he is absolutely correct when we rails against government enforced monopolies which reflects the state of the telecom industry for, well, seemingly forever.
Second, though, what private market has failed us? The heavily regulated, monopolistic telecom industry? No, this is better described as a government failure.
Lessig goes on to suggest:

The solution is not to fire private enterprise; it is instead to encourage more competition.

But it is not market competition he is suggesting. It is governments entering the market.
Lynn Kiesling has a great suggestion:

A better approach would be for governments to strive to be technology neutral, focus on defining the objectives, and work (interjurisdictionally, if necessary) to reduce the transaction costs and other features of the institutional landscape that prevent robust, private competition from occurring.

This is, I think, a very polite way of saying quit mucking with the market and start clearing out the sludge that has been put in the way of effective market functioning.