Michael Weisman

Statement in view of the threats to B92 journalists and newsroom staff

Attacks on B92 and threats to the authors of the B92 Insider investigative journalism show have become even more intensive and brutal, showing no signs of abating even after Serbian President Boris Tadiæ’s statement yesterday that the state would not tolerate violence by hooligans and criminals. Tadiæ pointed out that the state took all the measures necessary to protect journalists going on to say that the state organs would respond in accordance with the law to arrest and prosecute anyone threatening other people’s lives. Minister of Interior Ivica Daèiæ said that the police took all the measures needed

to identify the persons behind the threats to B92. Minister of Justice Snežana Maloviæ also called for the perpetrators to be tracked down and severely punished.

The most recent wave of threats, particularly in social networks online, but also in the form of graffiti sprayed on Belgrade walls, whereby the authors of the Insider show were threatened with rape, slaughter and murder, came about following the broadcast of the investigative journalism show’s first episode entitled “Power(lessness) of the State” last Thursday featuring leaders of football fan groups whose ban had been recently requested  by the

state prosecutor.

This episode presented the content of over a hundred criminal charges against the leaders of football fan groups filed by the police in recent years which, as a rule, have failed to result in effective convictions in a court of law.  The B92 newsroom came into possession of the information thanks exclusively to the

Access to Information Act, and through comparative analysis of the available information the crucial problem was presented to the public– which is the absence of response on the part of the justice system failing to ensure security and safety of the citizens in this country.

Threatening, brutal, vulgar and primitive reactions of these criminals and their followers after the broadcast of the first episode and public statements by senior state officials testify to the fact that they feel secure, beyond the reach of justice. They are effectively sending threatening messages to the institutions of the system themselves, to the democratic processes, thus revealing a dominant ideological background of these groups and individuals drawing on

xenophobic racism, anti-Europeanism and contempt for democracy, while their sexist obsession indicate that these are sociopaths suffering from serious disorders with solely one thing in common – violence.

B92 would like to remind the public that our media company has been constantly exposed to threats and attacks. They were particularly vicious and intense at the times of the unilateral declaration of Kosovo’s independence, Radovan Karadžiæ’s arrest, the gay pride parade which was ultimately cancelled, recent assaults on foreigners and the brutal murder of Brice Tatton, a French citizen, in Belgrade city centre for which the individuals portrayed in The Insider show were charged with. The attacks on B92 ranged from hooligans’ assault on the B92 building and arson attack to physical attacks on our journalists

and associates culminating in serious physical injuries inflicted to our cameraman during B92 coverage of the protest against the arrest of Radovan Karadžiæ.

The police have been guarding the B92 building for the past year and a half. Often some of our journalists have to be provided with direct police protection and escort. Given the circumstances and conditions in which our journalists and newsrooms are working, it is indeed pointless to speak about the state of media freedoms in Serbia. The statements by the President of the Republic, Minister of Interior and other most senior state officials claiming that the state would not tolerate violence as well as that those responsible for the threats and attacks would be identified and prosecuted are welcome, but they are not enough. In the case of attacks on B92, we may no longer speak of isolated incidents but constant pressure to which the B92 employees have been exposed to, while the public at large has borne witness to it in the past years. The physical security of the building and protection provided  by the police for the journalists who are the most at risk are not enough because it is obvious that no one can effectively protect about fifty professional journalists who have to

do their job every day. It is neither possible to constantly monitor dozens of football fan groups that were mentioned in The Insider series. It is necessary that this state, if it is truly committed to democratic reforms and European future, finally expose the individuals behind the attacks on the professional media outlets as well as to bring those responsible to justice.

B92 calls on the democratic public, journalist and media associations, human rights groups in the country and abroad to show solidarity with the journalists of this media company that are subjected to threats, as well as our request for the Serbian government to ensure the conditions in which the journalists of B92 and all other media in Serbia would be able to report to the public on the issues of public interest, but without fear for their lives and personal safety.

Veran Matiæ

B92 CEO and editor-in-chief

“Under the draft proposed rules, subject to reasonable network management, a provider of broadband Internet access service:

1. would not be allowed to prevent any of its users from sending or receiving the lawful content of the user’s choice over the Internet;

2. would not be allowed to prevent any of its users from running the lawful applications or using the lawful services of the user’s choice;

3. would not be allowed to prevent any of its users from connecting to and using on its network the user’s choice of lawful devices that do not harm the

network;

4. would not be allowed to deprive any of its users of the user’s entitlement to competition among network providers, application providers, service

providers, and content providers;

5. would be required to treat lawful content, applications, and services in a non-discriminatory manner; and

6. would be required to disclose such information concerning network management and other practices as is reasonably required for users and

content, application, and service providers to enjoy the protections specified in this rule making.”

Now first of all, let’s give the FCC a great big hand for doing such a fine job putting the definition of network neutrality into words, and going much further than most folks would have imagined.  Now, the way the FCC phrased it, they made all six principles subject to the prefatory phrase ‘reasonable network management.’  That is not the way I would do it.  Only principle 5 (OK maybe 4, too) needs to be made subject to reasonable network management, because none of the rest of the  principles implicate any kind of network management at all.  I would like to see the Commission simply take the phrase ‘subject to reasonable network management’ and move it down to principle 5.  Then there would be no confusion that any of the other principles would somehow be compromised by allowing the network operators to ‘manage’ them.

If we can define network neutrality in six pithy phrases, I don’t see why we can’t take a whack at defining reasonable network management in a few pithy phrases also.  My framework for this is based on my research concerning comparative telecommunications laws, and specifically the European Union Framework Directive and Access Directive.  I’m not going to dissect the EU directives here, but I wanted to give some background.

The basic principles for reasonable network management:

1.  The management must be directed to traffic on the network.  It must be directly related to a specific, identifiable traffic problem existing on the network.  If audited, the operator should be able to show what the problem was; it is an identified situation.  This excludes peremptory management, for example taking actions to prevent a traffic problem.  The correct action to peremptorily address traffic is to expand the capacity on the network.  The rule is addressed this way intentionally, so that a network operator will be forced to open or expand capacity to solve traffic congestion.   Network management must stop as soon as the congestion has cleared.

2.  The network operator cannot discriminate between one kind of data and another to management traffic congestion.  The operator must act to remove the congestion, not the data.

3.  To help improve service during periods of congestion, the operator can prioritize certain data.  For example, if an episode of congestion made it hard for voice data to travel over the network (thereby rendering some voice-over-IP apps inoperable), the operator could prioritize voice data.  But the operator cannot retard other data.  Actually, the scenario painted by US ISPs of slowing some data to somehow create some space (??) for other data to move faster, like on a freeway, just doesn’t make sense.  That is not how a data network works.  The analog between freeways and networks breaks down.

4.  The operator cannot act to improve the ‘user experience.’  Since the operator is handling data for all kinds of users, who are sending data as well as receiving it, the operator would have to pick and choose which users’ experience to improve.  Obviously, this can’t be done because how do you choose?  This may also violate the rule against peremptory management.   Network management must occur on the network, not at the user.

5.  All management must be transparent.  Operators are limited to the use of management that meets the technical standards and specifications laid down by the Commission.   Operators must provide a complete description of the methodology they use for network management to anyone who asks.

6.  A network operator cannot refuse network access based on ‘reasonable network management grounds.’ “Where obligations are imposed on operators that require them to meet reasonable requests for access to and use of networks elements and associated facilities, such requests should only be refused on the basis of objective criteria such as technical feasibility or the need to maintain network integrity.”  (EU Access Directive)  When you send a message to someone on another network, you are ‘accessing’ the network.

7.  Network operators cannot manage the network in any way that distorts competition.  For example, they cannot refuse access or slow down access from some competitors, but not others.  They cannot favor their own traffic over others’.

That is pretty much it.  If the FCC wants to define the terms of reasonable network management, I see no reason they cannot.  I strongly urge the Commission to regulate network management in a way that is consistent with the rest of the world.  There is no US Internet or EU Internet.  There is just an Internet, and network operators and users should be able to use it the same way wherever they are.

]]> http://klopt.wordpress.com/2009/11/26/what-is-reasonable-network-management/feed/ 0 Uncle Mike http://klopt.wordpress.com/2009/10/22/bastille-goes-back-and-fixes-the-happy-hour-menu-a-little/ http://klopt.wordpress.com/2009/10/22/bastille-goes-back-and-fixes-the-happy-hour-menu-a-little/#comments Thu, 22 Oct 2009 00:54:31 +0000 Uncle Mike http://klopt.wordpress.com/2009/10/22/bastille-goes-back-and-fixes-the-happy-hour-menu-a-little/ ]]> I can’t claim the credit, but they have put some of the favorite back on the HH menu, at HH prices. The portions are reduced, and fries no longer come with the lamb burger, but it’s a step in the right direction.

A least one signer has already made signs of his intent to possibly repudiate his signature on the letter. I guess in this age of the Internet, he had received assurances the telcos would block any comments about his signature. They can do that, right? Not yet, Rep. Jared Polis, sorry.  But we know where you want go, now.

It’s a surprise Larsen would sell out to the telco/cableco sock puppets.  His district used to have dozens of independent ISPs.  Now, there are nearly none, and the nascent high-tech industry that was developing in this beautiful area of Washington State is gone.  Larsen’s district suffers from lack of high-speed Internet service; I know because I’ve met with the leaders in the area.  Lack of quality Internet has hampered job creation and made it impossible to create or relocate the kind of jobs that would permit young people to remain in the area.  And the few success stories (Bellingham’s fiber to the industrial park project, San Juan County’s decision to build it themselves) are public efforts to get around the tail-dragging, dishonest, manipulative telcos.  Thanks Rick Larsen, you outed yourself as a telco sock puppet.

First, you don’t actually get a half chicken. You get about a third of chicken.  A small breast and part of the thigh.  I assume they use the rest for sandwiches and stock.  The chicken is tender, and tiny, and extremely dry, and undercooked.  Since it is undercooked, you can’t eat all of it.  Potatoes good; the vegetable consist of a pice of onion.  For $18.   This is their signature meal.  I’ll never order it again.  What a waste.

Bastille used to offer one of the better happy hours for the first few weeks it was open.  Moules and frites, Lamb burgers, Mac&Cheese, etc.  Now, just moules, no frites for $6.  No frites.  Frites are extra, $4 at happy hour.  So to get the ‘old’ half price moules and frites, regularly $12, now you pay $6 for the moules, and $4 for the frites, for $10, a discount of two bucks off full price (and a larger portion?)

Same for the half price lamb burger and fries, which used to be $6.  Now its $10 with the fries.  The mac and cheese is now reduced to a tiny little ramekin of a taste of mac & cheese’lette!   Used to be a decent plate of food.  And no discounted price anymore, you pig.   Removed completely from the happy hour menu is the falafel, and the poutine.  And the discounts all around are reduced.

Bastille has had major problems since opening.  It severely restricts the number of diners for dinners, leaving most folks stuck with over-priced appetizers in the bar area.  Dinner is essentially a reservations only affair, and even then they severely restrict the number of diners “because the kitchen can’t handle it”.  (I recently had dinner at Le Gourmand, because Bastille was too hard to get into!)  The fancy filtered water system (both still and gaseous) is not hooked up to the bar, so you can’t get that nice sparkling water in your drink.  The kitchen frequently runs out of food.  Service is mediocre or worse.  And of course, prices keep going up and the happy hour specials, which were a good way to entice people to try the food, are essentially gone.  And what is with smaller portions?

How long can Bastille keep going like this?  When it opened the restaurant was hailed for its reasonable prices, making it an affordable and frequent stop for locals.  Bastille has apparently decided that locals filling the place weren’t enough for them, so now they are going after the tourist crowd.  In a location way off the beaten path, with no parking, I say good luck. You will need it.

For the fourth time in two weeks, I was refused dinner service.  This time, I was sitting at the bar.  After failing to get the bartender’s attention for about an hour, I finally asked if I could order their chicken dinner and was told that I could only order from the bar menu.

Here is what Bastille needs NOW (like last week):

1. A back bar in the kitchen for filling orders of wine, champagne, beer, carafes, etc.  There is no reason these orders are being filled at the front bar, where the bartenders don’t have the time.

2.  The bartenders filling orders for the dining room means there is poor service for people sitting at the beautiful zinc bar.

3.  Not that you would want to because you don’t have the space, but you can’t order off the extensive dinner menu at the bar.   And since they won’t seat you in the dining room absent a reservation and, you know, lagniappe, then you are fucked.  Six times visiting this place and I still haven’t had a full meal entree there.

4.  Basically, only a few people can eat off the menu posted on the front window because you can’t get a seat.  So nice menu.  Too bad it is kind of a bait and switch situation.

5.  This is an extremely loud restaurant even when it is quiet.  WHY ARE THEY PLAYING MUSIC IN THE BACKGROUND??!!

6.  If they are really going to be a sports bar, they need another TV.

7.   Live music out on the patio tonight.  Too bad almost no one could hear it because it was only outside!!  The outside tables are set far apart, so there are fewer of them.  What a waste.   Although there were several empty tables.  Reserved I suppose.  No one asked if I wanted to sit there.  This is just a colossal management fuck up.

8.  Bastille Day should have been the biggest day yet.  But they have been successful at keeping the customers away in this ‘soft opening’ (I thought that was a sex position?)  The place was not full and still the staff was barely able to manage.  They don’t have a first string wait staff and I can kinda see why now.  Are the better waiters staying away?  Do they know something?

9. The Bastille authentically recreates that Paris feel:  bad and surly service, abusive wait staff and bartenders.  Ignores singles totally.  Singles have to sort of elbow their way in.  But good food so everyone ignores the bad service.

Except Seattle has many excellent french restaurants where you don’t have endure abuse; Viola, Cafe Presse, Le Pichet, Anita’s, 911 Supreme, etc.  I appreciate Bastille has spent a butt load of money and created a wonderful environment.  But this restaurant is going in the wrong direction, getting worse each week instead of better.  C’est la vie.

“Meanwhile, just as the petting party is heating up, Verizon, Comcast, at&t (among others) are lobbying state legislatures to prohibit municipal broadband. At the front of the lobbying is Connected Nation, which counts Verizon, Comcast, at&t and the National Cable Telecommunications Association among its advisors, according to http://www.BNet.com.

Karl Bode of http://www.DSLReports.com is quoted as saying “[Connect America] takes state taxpayer funds under the pretense of effectively mapping state broadband services, but then acts by and large as an extension of the incumbents — obscuring data they don’t want public, while lobbying state lawmakers on carriers’ behalf.”

Mmmm…where have we seen that before? Can you say statewide cable franchising? $50 to the first person who connects Dick Armey with Connected Nation! No really, I will send you $50. ”

And I will up the ante and send you… a big attaboy!  Read more here