For what its worth at this late date, the following plan makes a lot more sense than the Paulson plan, even with the proposed Congressional add-ons. It's proposed by Nouriel Roubini, a professor at NYU's business school who saw this coming much earlier and more clearly than most anyone.
http://www.rgemonitor.com/roub...
Though it looks like Congress may end up moving fast on this, I'd love to see the netroots push this one hard, in conjunction with the elements of the "financial expert" community that are coming around to Roubini's way of thinking. Here are the highlights:
Roubini proposes a program he calls HOME (Home Owners' Mortgage Enterprise), which is basically an updated verion of the Great Depression's Home Owners' Loan Corporation (HOLC). And its got an even more politically attractive name, since it reminds people that helping Americans keep their homes is a lot more important than asking these already-stressed homeowners to bail out wealthy elites whose serious gambling problem is on the verge of taking down our economy.
Roubini explains how his HOME-focused approach is more important and would be more effective than the attempt by Paulson (and now Congress) to do an RTC-like bailout of financial institutions.
The title of Paul Rosenberg's post "Externalized Costs: The Free Market's Free Lunch" sums up a whole lot of what's wrong with our economic system and dominant theories of economics. I read it just after reading some reviews of Riane Eisler's "The Real Wealth of Nations: Creating a Caring Economy." They dovetailed together nicely.
According to a review in Stanford Social Innovation Review written by Mal Warwick, former chair of the Social Venture Network, Eisler's book:
sets forth "six foundations for a caring economic system": 1) a "full-spectrum economic map" that encompasses the households, unpaid, natural and illegal economies, as well as the traditional market and government economies; 2) a set of cultural beliefs and institutions that shifts the reigning social paradigm from domination to partnerships; 3) caring economic rules, policies and practices for business and government that meet basic human needs, direct technological developments to life-sustaining applications and consider effects on future generations; 4) inclusive and accurate economic indicators that reject benchmarks like the GDP, which grows larger with every massive oil spill and every bullet used in war; 5) relationships between economic and social structures that don't result in the concentration of economic assets and power at the top; and 6) an evolving economic theory of what Eisler calls "partnership": human interaction that goes beyond capitalism and socialism to recognize the essential economic value of caring for ourselves, others and nature.
This perspective is very much in sync with the "dignitarianism" Paul's written about in earlier posts, and with the primary themes of his latest post, which are also powerfully presented in books like Peter Barnes' "Capitalism 3.0" and "Natural Capitalism" by Paul Hawken, Amory Lovins, and Hunter Lovins.
There's also a growing body of economic and legal analysis focused on "commons-related" issues and "externalities" related to communication systems and policies and the Internet, in particular.
I can't help but think that it would be very valuable to develop an ongoing online discussion aimed at creating:
1) a detailed and integrated progressive platform built around these fundamental "dignitarian" principles for systemic reform;
2) a web site that aggregates and helps develop and integrate multimedia materials (articles, podcasts, videos, etc.) to help present this platform and related background material to the public in a powerful, digestible and paradigm-shifting way.
I'm convinced that what this country needs to unite and move forward is a deeply inspiring vision of the future backed up by a strategic and practical plan of reform that addresses fundamental needs and systemic problems.
To be politically successful, this vision and plan must speak simultaneously and authentically to American's love of both "freedom" and "community," and in a manner that speaks to our cherished heritage, our current situation, and our shared hopes for a brighter future. In doing so, it will resonate with the positive and progressive elements of both liberal and conservative political ideologies.
Though I don't claim to have a full and clear picture of what this vision and plan should include, I see several key related elements that can help create a solid foundation upon which we can build. I also believe that these can be combined under a broader "framing" focused on the need for a "21st century upgrade of the American operating system" that could attach a 2.0 (or 3.0, et.) tag to terms like Democracy, Legislation, Politics, Capitalism, Policy, Economics, Communication, Healthcare, Education, etc.
As the above suggests, this upgrade would encompass our capitalist system and accompanying economic theories and public policies; our political system (as exemplified by Open Left's Legislation 2.0 project, Sunlight Foundation's projects and the netroots in general); and our communications sector, in the form of an open-access Internet replacing the dominance of the one-way TV medium and the telco and cable duopolies. Other areas where this could be applied include healthcare and education, both of which exhibit an urgent need for systemic upgrades, and are tied closely to these other core elements of the broader system upgrade.
I hope to address all this in a series of Open Left diary posts. This first one will start with excerpts from the book, Capitalism 3.0: Reclaiming the Commons, by Peter Barnes, co-founder of Working Assets Long Distance. A hard copy of the book can be purchased at this site: http://www.amazon.co... laiming-Commons-Currents/dp/1576753611. An electronic Creative Commons version can be downloaded here: http://onthecommons.... _3.0_Peter_Barnes.pdf, and some of Peter's blog posts based on the book are here: http://onthecommons....
I think the excerpts speak for themselves, with a fuller explanation in the book. In later posts I'll discuss other potential elements of a systemic upgrade, and how they relate to each other as part of a broader process of fundamental change. Thanks to Peter for thinking this all through and taking the time to put it to paper.
As I read Sascha's proposals (http://www.openleft.....)
and others offered this week, I'm struck by how powerful and sensible is the vision of a commons-based, universal, high-capacity open-access Internet.
While imposition of network neutrality or structural separation rules on incumbents may be feasible, I think what's most important for achieving this vision is to unite the municipal broadband, unlicensed, open-access and open-source movements around a strategy that incorporates key elements of what Sascha, Harold, Ben and others are proposing, along with the approach to white space spectrum I laid out in an earlier comment (see: http://www.openleft.....).
If the collective forces of what I'll call "freedom" and "community" are able to leverage the large amount of white space spectrum (and maybe also some of the 700 MHz spectrum) to begin building an attractive alternative to what is offered by incumbents, the result will be a shift in real-world market power.
Rather than insisting that incumbents adopt the model we believe is best, it makes more sense to me that we focus on insuring we have the freedom and resources to manifest that model ourselves. And, as this online discussion reminds us, the Internet provides an efficient and ever-evolving platform for aggregating and synthesizing ideas and resources in highly efficient and creative ways.
As I write this, the FCC is in the final stages of deciding if and how to authorize use of the TV broadcast "white space," which it could make available by early 2009, when broadcasters are scheduled to return their analog channels and switch to all-digital transmission.
The so-called "white space" is comprised of channels in the broadcast band that were historically set aside as unused "guard bands." This was done to avoid interference with stations transmitting on adjacent channels in the same market and broadcasts on the same channel in nearby markets.
The Commission's current proceeding reflects a growing belief that, thanks to modern technology, these channels can be made available for unlicensed use without causing harmful interference to licensed broadcasters. But, at the same time, the politically powerful broadcast industry is pushing the FCC to place onerous restrictions on unlicensed use of the white space. Should the FCC accept broadcasters' self-serving arguments, this historic opportunity for broadband innovation, competition and expanded access could be lost to the American people.
Should the Commission open up the white space for unlicensed use, many parts of the country could see as much as 150-200 MHz of unlicensed spectrum become available, with more than 200 MHz potentially available in some areas. To put this in perspective, consider that: 1) the entire cellular, PCS and recently auctioned AWS bands include 50 MHz, 120 MHz, and 90 MHz, respectively and; 2) the white space spectrum has much better propagation characteristics than the 83.5 MHz of spectrum in the heavily used 2.4 GHz unlicensed band and, even more so, than the unlicensed bands above 5 GHz, which are not well suited for wide area access networks.
The white space proceeding (Docket 04-186) requires the FCC to make decisions on a number of technical and operational issues that together will determine how much and on what terms white-space spectrum will be made available--and, potentially, the nature and economic viability of networks and services employing that spectrum. Between late January and early March of this year, the Commission received two rounds of comments on these issues.
Having read most of these comments, I developed my own recommendations for how best to address issues raised in the white space proceeding.
At the core of my recommendations is a proposal to encourage white space-enabled "Public Interest IP" networks that use public spectrum assets to serve the public interest more directly and fully than has been the case in the past. As their acronym suggests, these PIIP networks would serve as open-access "pipes" for transmission of Internet Protocol data packets and the nearly endless forms of IP-based content and service this would enable.
In contrast to the profit-seeking motivation of private network operators, a key financial goal of PIIP networks would be to move in the direction of providing free universal connectivity, to the extent this can be done in an economically sustainable manner. In this respect, the PIIP model is a 21st century expression of the underlying "public interest" principle shared by the 20th century policy goals of "universal phone service" and "free over-the-air television."
Key goals of the PIIP proposal contained in this report are to maximize: 1) the amount and efficiency of white space spectrum made available for unlicensed use and; 2) the benefits associated with harnessing that spectrum to the purposes of municipal or "community" broadband networks. These benefits include:
1) more universal and affordable Internet access;
2) providing a low-cost and Internet-friendly open-access alternative to incumbents' vertically-integrated "gatekeeper" access models;
3) delivering cost savings and increased efficiencies to local governments and other non-market "public service" institutions;
4) increasing beneficial "externalities," including economic growth and social value driven by the Internet's ability to facilitate efficient exchange, evaluation, combination and implementation of new ideas;
5) a lessening of the First Amendment restrictions on non-licensees that result from the FCC's practice of granting exclusive spectrum licenses.
6) cost sharing and cooperation with next-generation public safety networks that will be using 700 MHz spectrum in the same timeframe that white space spectrum becomes available.
Though the PIIP proposals discussed in my report encompass a range of specific options, they all assume, to varying degrees, the following general roles for local governments:
1) helping to maximize the amount and efficiency of white space spectrum use while, at the same time, helping to avoid and, as necessary, resolve interference problems with broadcasters and other spectrum users;
2) providing rights of way and other resources to support efficient network deployment and operation, including cooperation and, as appropriate, coordination with public safety networks and users;
3) delivering public services and facilitating other economic, political and social benefits via white space-enabled networks that provide broadly available untethered and non-discriminatory access to the Internet;
4) through these cost savings, efficiencies, services and benefits, generating value that can help justify the cost of providing universal broadband Internet connectivity.
