Event Horizon

Dear Netflix: What?

The Netflix price hike kicked in this month and I'd decided to keep both plans. When Netflix announced the price increase I was right there with everyone else voicing outrage on social networks. Because I was a customer long before the streaming option became available, I felt like Netflix had it wrong in the way they were framing the issue. I wasn't on an streaming plan with an occasional DVD rental, I was on a DVD plan with occasional streaming. I was also put off by the manner in which they announced it, seemingly without regard to their most loyal and long-standing customers. Price increase, fine, but grandfather in the existing user base, show your loyal customers that you appreciate their business. 

After calming down a bit I re-thought my position and now I'm not at all worried by this price increase. What changed my mind? I remembered why I joined Netflix in the first place. I previously rented movies from Blockbuster and would usually rent one or two movies a weekend at $4.25 per rental. So, conservatively, let's say I rented only one movie each weekend this month and turned them all in on time (avoiding late fees), I would have paid $17. And if I rented more than one movie over a weekend or incurred late fees that total would have been much more. And keep in mind that renting movies at that time meant driving to the video store (and hoping they had the movie I wanted in stock) and back again, an expense and hassle that Netflix service avoids. So, given all of that, the Netlfix price increase is still a savings and my membership still has value to me. So, all was forgiven.

Now, this week, the Netflix CEO announced that he knows he made a mistake with the two price plans and he was prepared to fix it - by splitting the two services into different businesses. Okaaay. Now I have to decide not only if I want to keep two services but if I want to keep two separate accounts, two ques, and two bills. Come on Netflix, ever heard of bundling? All the cool service providers are doing it.

I like renting DVDs and I still consider streaming a hit-or-miss option, as they are likely to not have what I'm looking for available on streaming. Just this last weekend, for example, I rented Source Code on DVD and it's not available yet on the streaming service. And I still buy the occasional DVD if it's something I want in my collection. Even if my DVD player died tomorrow I'd probably replace it. I think they are underestimating the staying power of the DVD.

Of course, their long-term strategy is sound, eventually the DVD will go the way of the VCR, but I'm sure I'm not the only one wondering if Netflix will still be around when that day arrives.

Remembering 9/11

So 9/11 has come around again. I'm feeling a mix of emotions as this anniversary is commemorated. I feel relief that there have been no new terrorist attacks on U.S. soil. This relief though is tempered by the knowledge that we need to remain vigilant. I also feel trepidation about the changes to our society that have resulted from the response to the attacks. I've never been in favor of changing our way of life, I feel that if we do that, they win. And finally, I feel a renewed sense of purpose, that we need to refocus and achieve a higher strategic vision and not get distracted. My general attitude right now can be called resolute and defiant, best represented by a man who so ably demonstrated those virtues with the famous V for Victory sign:

The End of the Space Age?

I watched the launch of the space shuttle Atlantis Friday with a mix of pride and sadness. Pride at this amazing accomplishment that we have come to take for granted. Sadness at the impending end of the American manned space program. I'm not sure we really understand what we are giving up and that really bothers me. I write a blog for a professional association and wrote the following to honor and lament the U.S. manned space program:

 

As you may have heard, the space shuttle Atlantis will launch tomorrow for the last time. This launch will conclude the shuttle program and quite possibly, the U.S. manned space program, at least in the way we have come to think about it. If NASA is ending the shuttle program you would think that a new program with a new space vehicle would be ready to begin, sadly though, that's not the case, as John Glenn points out in his recent criticism of NASA. Up until last year, NASA did have a plan for continuing the American advance into space, it was called the Constellation Program, and it envisioned a fleet of new launch and crew vehicles that would not only send astronauts to the International Space Station (ISS), but also to the Moon to establish a small outpost. This was part of a comprehensive "Vision for Space Exploration" that would have replaced our halting and stumbling expansion into the solar system with a methodical step-by-step plan to move humans permanently into space. Unfortunately, this plan did not mesh well with new political and budget realities and was ended by President Obama.

Part of me likes to think that the American people haven't quite some to terms with the fact that their trailblazing national space program is ending and they will rise up and demand a halt to this sad development. Still waiting...

Of course, it's not true to say that the U.S. manned space program is ending, President Obama has allocated millions of dollars to private companies building the next generation of what he calls a "space taxi service" that will take both civilians and astronauts to low-Earth orbit. SpaceX, Virgin Galactic, Blue Origin, Boeing, Orbital Sciences, and Sierra Nevada are among the private companies testing prototypes and hoping to lead the next expansion into space. And even if they are not quite there yet, our astronauts will still be able to get to the ISS on a Soyuz capsule thanks to the Russians (guess we need to stay on their good side!). I wonder though if it was a false choice between a national manned space program and a civilian taxi service? Maybe we could have done both at the same time? And as appealing as a next generation space taxi service sounds to some, it raises the question: When has a taxi service ever led the way in exploration and discovery?

NASA has long-term plans, of course, landing on an asteroid or a Martian moon have been discussed as possible future missions. My fear is that these would be stunt missions and nothing like the methodical plan to get out into space to stay that the Constellation program represented. And in the meantime, an entire generation of astronauts, space scientists, engineers, designers, and contractors are being retired. What happens when that knowledge-base and skill-set is lost? You know, it really is rocket science. I hope that the politicians are including start-up costs into their future budgets because we won't be sending humans beyond low-Earth orbit in a taxi anytime soon.

As we watch shuttle Atlantis soar into space one last time, let's reflect with pride on an American space program that was once the envy and inspiration of the world. Let's be thankful for our astronaut corps and the NASA personnel that made it possible. And, finally, let's hope that the American people will demand of their government a space program that fully reflects our national pride, our goals, and our hopes for a brighter future.

Image Credit: IEEE Spectrum

 

I'm proud of NASA and the amazing legacy that the shuttle program represents and as Friday's launch proves, NASA still has the right stuff. I hope that we will, in time, again take up the challenge of manned spaceflight as an expression of national will and destiny, and not merely as a budget item that can be eliminated to save a few dollars. I will remain a supporter of the U.S. space program even though it's clear that the next human to step onto the Moon will not be an American. I hope that even if America sits out a few decades of spaceflight, we have the skill and ingenuity to make up for it...if we choose to.

Verizon Customer Responds to Promotional Offer

You may have heard that Verizon will start selling the iPhone 4 tonight to existing subscribers. Verizon sent an e-mail (above) to all current subscribers inviting them to upgrade to the iPhone 4 but there's a catch that you should be aware of. The offer only applies if you qualify for an upgrade. When I checked my upgrade status on the Verizon website I found that I won't be eligible to upgrade until May. I called Verizon to ask if they could help reconcile the confusing information I was getting from them. They explained that I'm still able to upgrade now at the unsubsidized retail rate (that would be close to $700) but that I'll have to wait until May to upgrade to an iPhone using my "New Every Two" credit. I thanked them for their very generous offer and let them know that I'll pass for now.

So, this promotion is a bit misleading, only a small subset of Verizon Wireless subscribers will be able to upgrade this week, not all subscribers as the media has reported. This is a perplexing business move, it would seem to undercut momentum for the phone going forward. But, hey, if they want to discourage a buyer whose only months away from upgrading, I guess that's their call. It gives me time to explore my options.

Update: 2/4/11: Here is the answer to why Verizon opened the pre-order to only a subset of current subscribers and not all, they knew they had a suppy problem: CNN - Verizon iPhone 4 pre-orders sold out: Verizon is no longer accepting pre-orders for the iPhone 4. The demand for Verizon iPhone was very strong as it took less than a day for the pre-orders to sell out.

Personal Reflections on the Tragedy in Tucson

I remember wondering over New Year's weekend what the first big news event of the year would be. Major news events have a way of setting the tone, for better or worse, for a specific time in our lives. Last year began with the Haiti earthquake and it touched millions of us as we not only watched the aftermath of the disaster unfold on TV, but we also contributed to the relief effort using text messages, a novelty that will no doubt become standard in such disasters. So, naturally, I wondered what event would kick of this new year and frame it in our minds, setting the tone as our days march forward. Little did I realize that it would be an event in my own city.

A mass-shooting that focuses the attention of the entire country is something that I would normally not have any difficulty writing about. But this event, so close to home and so brutal, leaves me without words. I'm a resident and native of Tucson and although I've moved away for years at a time, I've always called this Southwestern town home. And it goes without saying, nothing like this has ever happened here before.

What can I say that hasn't already been said in our national news media? Should I comment, as so many have, on the need for civility in our national political discourse? Many have done that far better than I could. Should I comment on how as a country we used to have a system for dealing with the mentally unstable rather than just leaving them to their own delusions? The point has been well made by others. Should I comment on the bravery and courage displayed by those who took down the shooter? That has been done as well.

Perhaps the only thing I can really share is insight from my own experiences. As an undergraduate I served as a Congressional intern and that experience demonstrated to me that our elected representatives are a very hard working group of people, far more capable, compassionate and committed to this country than they are usually given credit for. Sure, there are some corrupt and self-serving politicians, but I hope it doesn't surprise you that the majority serve because they sincerely want to make a difference. And while I don't know Representative Giffords personally, I do know people who know her, and they have nothing but praise for her. The tragedy here is that one of the "good guys" was taken out of the fight. And while we hope that her recovery and convalescence will be brief, our greatest challenge is to make sure that dozens, hundreds, thousands, even millions of people step forward in her place with resolve and determination to make this a better country.

We talk a lot of about change in our slogan-dominated political culture, but it's time we realize that the change has to begin with us. We have the power to use words to encourage, to build-up, and not tear down. We have the power of choice to offer solutions and not merely criticize, or worse, demonize our opponents.  We can ask ourselves at the end of each day, "What did I do today to make this country a better place?" That, to me, is the only fitting response to this tragedy.

Image Credit: KVOA.COM

Finished Debates and Taxes

As you know, it's a post-election frenzy in Washington, partisanship is back and threatening to tear apart our tax system. Ok, that may be a slight exaggeration, but it's close. The Democrats want to extend the Bush era tax cuts for the poor and middle class, but not the wealthy. The Republicans want to extend the tax cuts for everyone and they are threatening to shut down the Senate to make their point. And neither party seems to grasp the idea that tax cuts mean less revenue for the treasury at time when we have record levels of national debt. What really bothers me is the idea put forth by Republicans that we should keep the tax cuts for everyone because that would be fair. Of course, our tax system strives to be fair by not treating everyone the same. We have a graduated tax system in this country, meaning the rich pay more taxes than the poor, this is by design and and it represents an effort at fairness. Having a graduated income tax vs. a flat tax is an idea that was debated - and settled - generations ago. It's a done deal. We don't strive to tax everyone the same in American and to suggest that we should is a gross misrepresentation of our system. I think the Republicans really just want to avoid the fact that under their plan some people benefit more than others. Take a look at this graphic from an economist and draw your own conclusions about how fair the Republican plan would be:

Internet Under Attack by Media Lobbyists

The free and open nature of the internet is under attack...again. On the surface, this looks to be yet another battle in the long running war against piracy and copyright infringement. But if you dig deeper you find that it's a power grab that will stifle innovation and directly effect consumers. As a blogger who frequently links to websites to provide the necessary citations that enhance and inform a well written post, this worries me. Why? There are those who don't accept our long established legal doctrine of fair use - the idea that you may use the content of others for limited purposes - and seek to exercise control over any and all use of their content. This bill, currently before the U.S. Senate, would allow the government to create blacklists of internet domains and order that they be taken down. It's a sort of draconian action that runs counter to the support for a free and open internet that President Obama says America stands for. 

In practical terms for bloggers, I see it as an attack on the link culture of the internet. How many of you think nothing of linking to online content, sharing a link on Twitter, sending a movie review to friends, sharing a news report on Facebook, or sharing a video on YouTube? Link culture is fundamental to our modern way of communicating, yet there are those in the old media industries who seek to exercise control of their content so that sharing it, excerpting it, quoting it or tweeting it without their permission would be illegal. In other words, if I provide the following text from CNet News, some may find that to be infringing:

Killing legislation that would enable the government to shut down Web sites accused of piracy was a top priority for many technology trade groups today. Last week, a Senate committee stunned the tech sector by announcing it would try to fast-track a bill designed to grant the U.S. Department of Justice wide authority to combat illegal file sharing and counterfeiting. The bill, which was introduced in the Senate Judiciary Committee and backed by the committee's chairman, Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), could go to a vote in the Senate as early as tomorrow. Critics say the proposed legislation, known as the Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act, is nothing more than censorship and would heap the copyright-protection problems on companies that shouldn't bear the burden.

And, even more context from The Washington Post:

Some of the rock stars of Internet engineering (yes, they exist) on Tuesday protested a Senate bill aimed at fighting online piracy, saying the legislation could lead to censorship and destabilize the architecture of the Web. In their letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee, the 89 engineers said a bill proposed by Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) that would block the domain names for sites that engage in piracy and copyright infringement threatens to cause far-reaching harm. Specifically, early Internet systems creator David Reed and others said the bill could destabilize the domain name system used as an underlying infrastructure for the Web. The engineers said the measure could wipe out entire domain names, which are used to translate sites like www.washingtonpost.com into the Internet addresses used by computers to communicate with each other.

Will the Senate listen to those who actually created the internet, or will they listen to the well-paid lobbyists of the music and movie industries? It's time for some grass roots action before old media lock down the internet. Please join me in standing up for internet freedom and call your senators and tell them to oppose Senate Bill 3804.

In Praise of Taxes

I voted today to raise taxes. No, I'm not ashamed of it. In fact, I feel pretty good about it. See, my state, like a lot of states in these United States of America, is in trouble. See the below video if you doubt it. The politicians that run the state have convinced themselves that raising taxes is somehow wrong. They are cutting spending instead. At every level of state government they've cut spending and the budget cuts are gutting education (teachers are being let go), public safety (police, fire and EMS are all losing people and resources) and other government services.

I happen to believe that taxes are the only legitimate and moral way for a government to pay for those services we citizens are entitled to under our social contract with the state. You can read that contract, it's called the Constitution, and every level of government has one outlining the powers and responsibility of government as well as the means of funding them. For example, at the federal level, we are entitled to a national defense and at the local level, police protection, and legislatures are expected to levy taxes to pay for these services. My state legislature is controlled by people who don't understand the basic legitimacy of taxes and so they refuse to increase taxes even though the only alternative is to borrow money to pay for services. So, even though they are running a deficit and can't pay their bills, they actually believe it's better to borrow more money rather than raise taxes, and they feel some kind of perverse virtue about it. I suppose you have to be a politician to understand the logic of that. Many people agree this is wrong and a special election was called to vote on a ballot initiative to increase the state sales tax by $.01 to fund basic services like police, education and health care. So fearful were the organizers of the anti-tax sentiment that they made it a one cent increase...and it's temporary. Wow, bold stuff. Ordinarily, I'm against ballot initiatives because most of them mandate programs without providing funding, but in this case, it provides funding for necessary programs, so I voted for it.

Yes, I want there to be teachers in schools and police on the beat and emergency medical services in my community and I'm willing to pay for that. I voted for increased taxes...you betcha!

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Arizona Immigration Angst

I've been watching the national media coverage of the Arizona immigration law with a mix of amusement and dismay. As a resident of Arizona, I don't recognize the state they are describing and I'm shocked at how the national media and activist groups have been able to mischaracterize the law. The dominant narrative seems to be that this is a racist law that gives the police authority to question people - namely Mexicans or anyone who looks Mexican - about their immigration status. Take, for example, this statement in The New York Times:

Now, after passing the nation’s toughest immigration  law, one that gives the police broad power to stop people on suspicion of being here illegally, the state finds itself in perhaps the harshest spotlight in a decade.

Brian Williams told the national audience of NBC Nightly News that: Police can stop people just on the suspicion that they might be here illegally.

This is simply inaccurate, the law does not give police authority to do that. First, before I go any further, let me tell you that I'm a native Arizonan and have lived in three cities in southern Arizona, one of them a border city. I've had friends and family on both sides of the border. I'm telling you this so you will know that I'm an informed observer and I know this state. As a native of Arizona I've taken the time to read the law that has so changed public opinion about Arizona and I can tell you that the quotes above are 100% false.

So, what does the law do? Simply put, the law applies existing federal law to the state level. It was a federal crime to be an illegal immigrant in the U.S. and now it's a state crime in Arizona to be an illegal immigrant. You may have heard the law called "a tough new immigration law" or a "radical law" or some similar (and pejorative) terminology, but whatever they call it, apply that term to federal law, because it's the same law. Arizona did not come up with a brand new immigration policy, they are merely enforcing federal law at the state level. Specifically, the law:

• makes it a state crime to be in Arizona illegally
• the police can check immigration status if there is probable cause of a criminal offense having been committed
• foreign nationals must carry proper documentation (ie. a passport, green card)

Let me also tell you that I'm a civil libertarian, I take very seriously the notion that we need to protect and defend our liberties and so I looked into that second point, just to double-check what I really means. I found that the police, in the normal course of investigating a potential violation, can check immigration status if there is probable cause. In other words, if a cop pulls someone over for speeding and finds a van packed with 40 illegal immigrants, then there is reasonable suspicion that immigration issues may be involved. One of the drafters of the law uses this as an example of how the law would be enforced and you can't go to a better source than that. The law does not mean that the police will accost people who are walking down the street, minding their own business, and ask them about their immigration status.

The law is not a radical departure from existing law, it has not created new policy nor has it mandated any new kind of documentation or identification, foreign nationals are asked to show the same kind of documents that they would be asked to show a federal INS agent.

So, why all the fuss? I've concluded that the answer to that question rests with the media fixation on a sensational story and the rise of well funded activist groups out to promote their own agenda. The two combined to create a dominant narrative at odds with the facts but it makes for a good story.

As a resident of Arizona I can tell you first hand how life in border communities changed dramatically in the late 1990s when the drug wars started heating up. Well armed drug cartels now cross the Arizona border freely and ruthless human traffickers take advantage of immigrants, stashing them in safe houses by the hundreds and leaving hundreds more to die in the Arizona deserts without food or water. The dominant media narrative would have you believe that right wingers in Phoenix enacted a racist law because they don't like Mexicans, but the truth is it's the towns and cities on the border that most want protection. Those border communities are not anti-Mexican, their local economies are intimately tied to trade with Mexico, but they know the one fact that the national media is overlooking - the drug trade and human trafficking are a growing threat to the people of Arizona. That is why this law was enacted.

I know there are good people on all sides of this debate, it's my hope that we can move beyond media sensationalism and activist spin and get back to having the federal government enforce national immigration law and provide for border security, you know, like they are supposed to do.

Image Credit: The New York Times

Saluting National Grammar Day

In recognition of National Grammar Day, I'd like to call attention to the alarming rise of free floating parenthetical statements. This shocking and illegal activity is a national epidemic (you can catch it from doorknobs!) and needs to stop now. We all know that a parenthetical statement can be thrown into a sentence as an aside and is used to note a tangent that may be related to the subject of the sentence but is not the primary thought. By definition, a parenthetical statements is part of a sentence. I've noticed recently that editors are letting parenthetical statements appear outside the bounds of a sentence as if (perish the thought) it was a sentence that could stand on its own. Take, for example, the free floating parenthetical statement appearing in this report from The New York Times:

The journal Pediatrics has published its annual report on birth and pregnancy in the United States, and it found that the number of babies born in 2007 — 4,317,119 — was the highest ever recorded. The birthrate rose in all age groups, including teenagers, whose birthrate had been declining since 1996. (A Guttmacher Institute report last month came to a similar conclusion.) Rates for women in their 30s were the highest since 1964, the last year of the postwar baby boom.

The parenthetical statement noting the Guttmacher Institute report should be included in the sentence that comes before it. Why is this happening? Have editorial standards become lax or has some arbiter of taste and syntax decided that parenthetical statements have grown up and can stand on their own? Let's just all agree that parenthetical statements should go back to being safely ensconced in their sentences. No parenthetical statements outside of sentences! So say we all. Ok, I've done my part. Long live Conjunction Junction!