Successful Blog

Bloggers Fighting? Oh, If You Must . . . Do It Right

by

I agree
I saw and article called How to fight with other bloggers, on Paul Boutin’s blog Sunday. It’s advice he offers to bloggers about arguing, “if you need fight, do it right.” Doing it right means following three rules.

    Rule 1: Fight only with bloggers bigger than you.

    Rule 2: Stick to the arguments you know

    Rule 3: Don’t talk about the fight.

If I might add a few of my own,

    Liz’s Rule 1: Make sure it’s worth fighting about.

    Liz’s Rule 2: Keep personal talk out.

    Liz’s Rule 3: Don’t kick a guy who’s down or a horse that’s already dead.

    Liz’s Rule 4: Always leave the other guy a place to stand.

    Liz’s Rule 5: Remember your future boss and your heirs will be reading whatever you write a long time after your feelings have cooled off.

If a cause is worth supporting, it gets more traction from positive interaction. 😉

The blogosphere doesn’t need any of us to make it work.

Liz's Signature

Net Neutrality 11-30-2006

by

Net Neutrality Links

I’m adding this link to the Net Neutrality Page.

No Slam Dunk for Net Neutrality (with apologies to George Tenet)

What isn’t yet known is who will chair the pivotal Telecommunications and Internet Subcommittee. If it’s Ed Markey (D-Mass.), then you have a strong Bell opponent, strong Net Neutrality proponent and some momentum. But, Markey has a lot of options. He could try for the chairmanship of the full Resources Committee, and he also has seniority on the Homeland Security committee.

Depending on what Markey does, the Telecom Subcommittee could be led by Rep. Rick Boucher (D-Va.). Boucher, like Markey, is a strong Net Neutrality proponent. But unlike Markey and very much like Dingell, Boucher tends to favor the Bell companies on many other issues.

[ . . . ]

With some positive Net Neutrality leadership in place, then the question becomes, what would be in any overall telecom legislation, and there the picture gets lots more murky. Let’s start with video franchising. This is the concept behind the Bells’ push for a bill this year. They want to get into the cable business, providing TV programming over their fast networks, and they don’t want to negotiate with 30,000 local authorities to get permission as the real cable providers had to do. So the Bells pushed the bill that gave them, and cable, a free pass nationally to enter cable business, pushing aside objections from local governments.

[ . . . ]

Remember, the Bells still have a lot of friends and a lot of votes in Congress, whether on Net Neutrality or not. There are many legislators of both parties, on the relevant committees or not, who will vote the Bell line regardless. Net Neutrality isn’t a slam dunk. The key will be how much the Bells will be willing to deal. They didn’t feel the need in the last session of Congress. Now, with the leadership against them, they may have a different calculus, of trying to get the best bill they can.

By now, the Bells have realized how important Net Neutrality is to a great many people and organizations, ranging from large companies like Google and Yahoo, to public interest groups like Public Knowledge (my day-job employer), something they probably didn’t count on this year. If they try in good faith to negotiate a reasonable Net Neutrality provision next year, the Bells could gain some of their goals despite themselves.

Want to know what you can do?
MA Bell Monopoly Versus the Free Internet — Tell the FCC Net Neutrality Is Not Negotiable

–ME “Liz” Strauss

Related
NET NEUTRALITY PAGE

Qualitative, Intuitive Thinkers vs Quantitative, Data-Based Thinkers: How Not to Make Each Other Crazy

by

I've been thinking . . .

It was a chain of thoughts this morning, that started with a post at Seth’s blog. I so agree with what he said, but I should warn you, this post is not about his content. His post title got me thinking about the ways that people think.

This must be hard

Seth’s title, “This must be hard,” reminded me of a woman I once worked for. Joan believed that all good things must be difficult. She often said that anyone who achieved a 3.9 grade point went to an easy school — no exceptions.

Joan sought out the hard road. She liked hard data. She strove to have her “ducks in a row.” Her details never fell through the cracks. Her entire knowledge of gut feeling was how to spell it. Working smart in Joan’s world meant taking the easy way out.

Joan was mostly a quantitative, black and white, data-based thinker.

I was an intuitive, “seat of the pants,” qualitative thinker. At times, Joan’s boxes, details, and ducks all lined up made me crazy.

Thoughts of Joan led me to remember a comment made on Bloggy Question 31. in which Chris Cree said, ” . . . Life doesn’t always fit into a tidy calculated box.”

Chris made the comment of a qualitative, intuitive thinker.

That single sentence would have made Joan crazy. No facts, no concrete to support it. She’d say it was too easy.

Folks who prefer one way of thinking often frustrate folks who prefer the other. Gosh wouldn’t it be nice if everyone thought like we do? Well, not really. Both kinds of thinking are important to making great decisions.

No one seems to dispute the fact that every person has a preference, or that we all can do both — we just don’t like one nearly as much as the other. Still we need both.

How Not to Make Each Other Crazy

The trick is knowing when to be intuitive and when to get to hard data. It’s figuring out how to work together without driving each other crazy — knowing when a situation calls for folks who are good at one or the other.

It works a lot like writing — go for ideas, then edit and test them.

Qualitative thinking is a valuable skill when we need ideas, possibilities, and solutions. Creativity needs the room that qualitative thinking allows. Even qualitative numbers — somewhere around a billion — work when we’re trying to imagine or wonder our way out of old assumptions into new options.

Once we’ve gathered possibilities with potential — likely suspects — that’s when we turn to the switch to quantitative thinking. Move over to the black and white, gather folks who think well in concrete, hard data terms.

Quantitative thinking in binary black and white is a valuable skill when we need to test and validate ideas, assumptions, and action plans. Getting grounded in reality needs the “yes or no,” the “go or no go” of solid numbers and “best and worst case” scenarios.

Two kinds of thinking challenge each other to make an idea and test it. One to imagine, one to validate — that gets the best of both minds, both kinds of thinking.

When I figured that out, I began to value folks who think differently than I do, It became a pleasure working with them. They like to do the things that I find frustrating and painful — herding ducks into a row.

Imagine or calculate it. It doesn’t have to be hard. Two kinds of thinking beat one.

Take a look at who makes you crazy. What does that person do well that you really hate to do?

Liz's Signature

Net Neutrality 11-29-2006

by

Net Neutrality Links

I’m adding this link to the Net Neutrality Page.

There Is A Utopia For Net Neutrality

In this case, we’re talking about a real UTOPIA, the clever acronym for the Utah Telecommunication Open Infrastructure Agency, a group of 14 cities which banded together to build a fiber-to-the-home network that will eventually provide 100 mbps service.

[ . . . ]

From the start, UTOPIA’s developers thought through the public policy issues, particularly the competitive ones. Their answer was not to compete with private-sector companies, but to provide a platform for them.

UTOPIA said in its background materials it solves the competitive issue very simply, “by offering a network that is open to a variety of competitors that vie for customers based on the price, quality, and innovativeness of their services rather than on the basis that the customer has no other choice.”
[Keith Wilson, president of DynamicCity, the network’s operator] said the wholesale model eliminates the Net Neutrality objection right from the start because any service provider can get access to the UTOPIA network. That’s where the “Net Neutrality on steroids” description comes from. The fact that any provider can get on the network “takes the wind out of the sails of the incumbents,” Wilson said.

[ . . . ]

The individual service providers aren’t bound by the Net Neutrality, Wilson said, “The [Net Neutrality] problem exists when the network owner is wielding influence. When the owner is inherently open to all providers, then they [the providers on the network] can shoot themselves in the foot. They have to take the risk with their users who might be offended [by violations of Net Neutrality] and go to someone else.”

There are so far five service providers using the UTOPIA network. Four are local, MStar, Sisna, Veracity and XMission. AT&T is also offering service. MStar is the only one offering data, phone and TV.

How do customers make out with UTOPIA? Here’s a brief comparison. Comcast charges $68 per month for 3 mbps service. Qwest charges $54.99 for 3 mbps or $44.99 for 1.5 mbps.

On the other hand, MStar charges $39.95 for 10 mbps, XMission charges $40 for 15 mbps, and even AT&T can charge $39.95 for 15 mpbs.

–ME “Liz” Strauss

Related
NET NEUTRALITY PAGE

Net Neutrality 11-28-2006

by

Net Neutrality Links

I’m adding this link to the Net Neutrality Page.

Wake up, Neo

Breaking the Matrix is my column in the October issue of Linux Journal. It goes beyond Net Neutrality arguments to explore the possibility of (nay, the need for) a truly open marketplace for connectivity. Some excerpts:

Far more powerful is a belief, held by nearly everybody in the developed world, that the best markets are captive ones. In the Free Software and Open Source movements we call captive markets “walled gardens” or “silos”. But to most producers in the developed world, these are ideal. And to most consumers, they are business as usual.
Even after the Net obsoleted closed on-line systems, Yahoo, AOL and Microsoft continued to silo instant messaging inside their own walled gardens. In 2006, there should be no excuse for this.
Yet there is. We continue to believe, as both producers and consumers, that silos are okay. And worse, that a “free” marketplace is one where you get to choose the best silo.
We see this in the US today with our “choice” of services from phone and cable carriers. We even think the Net itself is a grace of telecom and cablecom carriage. After all, those are the guys we pay to get it. Those are the guys who have gradually increased our connection speeds.

[ . . . ]

These carriers can no more appreciate a truly free market than an agent in The Matrix can imagine a world not run by machines….
You have to be free to see how absurd silos can be. You have to see markets as wide-open spaces opened by ubiquitous relationships, and potential relationships, between digital devices and the human beings who use them. You have to see unrestricted possibilities for the people and organizations putting those devices, their applications and their data to work. Those possibilities lose their limits once you set your mind free of the notion that a free market is just a choice of silos.

–ME “Liz” Strauss

Related
NET NEUTRALITY PAGE