3 ms·

Amusingly, it seems that he allowed his blog's domain/hosting to lapse. You can find some of it on archive.org: http://web.archive.org/web/20110206171653/http:/

Amusingly, it seems that he allowed his blog's domain/hosting to lapse. You can find some of it on archive.org: http://web.archive.org/web/20110206171653/http://www.mobilemusings.net/2010_12_01_archive.html http://web.archive.org/web/20110206171653/http://www.mobilem... I've only been able to access a subset of the posts, and I can't find the particular post that really convinced me that he wasn't the example of lobbyist/regulator revolving door that everyone was saying he was. I wasn't on HN at the time. However, I did post links to his blog on reddit in the relevant threads, my posts linking to his blog just didn't get much traction. They got mildly upvoted and started a few small conversations, but absolutely nothing compared to the witty one-liners and ranting about lobbyists, shills, and Obama being a sellout.

justratsinacoat 10y ago
I hope you don't take this the wrong way, but showing me that the blog you're describing exists yet somehow doesn't have the thing you're trying to show me doesn't really fill me with surety. The post itself is hardly a smoking gun, either. It's hard to tell whether a soft-SIM, as described in the 2010 blogpost, would be pro-consumer or pro-Big Whatever. In the post, Mr Wheeler characterizes it as "handset subsidy vs consumers' ability to switch cell providers at will". Is that the part that's supposed to dramatically reveal that he was on our side all along? My understanding of current 'soft-SIM' deployment is that it's basically only present in newer iPads and isn't really a soft-SIM. Sorry, but I still see no proof that Wheeler was 'obviously' pro-consumer. For all that we love to bash reddit et al, I still think that if there was obvious proof that the pro-hivemind opinion was wrong, someone would post it and contrarians would get it to the top post. I presume you deleted the reddit account in question?
- dsharlet 10y ago
  I read a bunch of the posts that are still accessible, I still think it makes the point: it's not surprising that Wheeler is reasonably pro-consumer. It's just that I can't find the particular post that has stuck in my head all this time.
  - justratsinacoat 10y ago
    I'm shocked that Wheeler's pro-consumer leanings are so obvious to everyone but me. I wonder if we're reading the same archived blog?
    - dsharlet 10y ago
      Would you still say this: > I'm not sure Wheeler's turncoat, pro-consumer behaviour was predictable (or, for that matter, predicted) by anyone, you or otherwise. After reading this[1], written by Wheeler? > Back in the original analog-to-digital days I can remember AT&T’s representatives warning of catastrophic job losses and damage to the national security if innovative competitors were allowed into their business. The same echoes surround the proposed NASA changes. Many of the Old Guard, launch system contractors, and their congressional supporters are bemoaning the thought of a competitive manned launch environment. We’ve heard all that before at the time of another “analog-to-digital” conversion. The earlier warnings not only failed to materialize, but just the opposite occurred as new, innovative and less expensive services came forward and economic growth and a new generation of jobs exploded. Is it really that surprising that someone who wrote that turned out to be a regulator with reasonable positions on things like net neutrality? Maybe "obvious" was a bit strong of a word (Wheeler's writing is a bit heavy on long-winded metaphors...) but I also definitely do not think that the vitriol directed at him starting the day of his nomination was warranted, and I do not think that Wheeler's behavior was so unpredictable. 1. http://web.archive.org/web/20110206170617/http://www.mobilemusings.net/2010_05_01_archive.html http://web.archive.org/web/20110206170617/http://www.mobilem...
      - justratsinacoat 10y ago
        Uh, yeah, totally! Note the language used in your excerpt -- it's all finance and macro-scale consequences, job loss and less expensive services and economic growth. He talks about NASA trying to import "Internet age" thinking (by which he means, of course, entrepreneurship and disruption) into an analog world. Read some of the other posts and they're awash with the same language. >Is it really that surprising that someone who wrote that turned out to be a regulator with reasonable positions on things like net neutrality? No, not at all! The position I've been trying to take throughout this thread is that the perception of Wheeler being an ascended lobbyist (read: hostile to consumer interests) was reasonable, in the absence of mainstream knowledge otherwise (like eg this blog we're discussing). After reading the post from which you've excerpted, I still think that perception holds. He's not pro-consumer, he's pro-capitalist. Just because the view espoused here ("established corps should not have the ability to extinguish potential competition, via regulation or fearmongering or citing national security") happens to benefit consumers does not mean he's taking those actions for consumer benefit. >Maybe "obvious" was a bit strong of a word (Wheeler's writing is a bit heavy on long-winded metaphors...) Really? I think I've established myself as a fellow sentient, but whatever, maan.

justratsinacoat 10y ago

I hope you don't take this the wrong way, but showing me that the blog you're describing exists yet somehow doesn't have the thing you're trying to show me doesn't really fill me with surety. The post itself is hardly a smoking gun, either. It's hard to tell whether a soft-SIM, as described in the 2010 blogpost, would be pro-consumer or pro-Big Whatever. In the post, Mr Wheeler characterizes it as "handset subsidy vs consumers' ability to switch cell providers at will". Is that the part that's supposed to dramatically reveal that he was on our side all along? My understanding of current 'soft-SIM' deployment is that it's basically only present in newer iPads and isn't really a soft-SIM. Sorry, but I still see no proof that Wheeler was 'obviously' pro-consumer. For all that we love to bash reddit et al, I still think that if there was obvious proof that the pro-hivemind opinion was wrong, someone would post it and contrarians would get it to the top post. I presume you deleted the reddit account in question?

dsharlet 10y ago
I read a bunch of the posts that are still accessible, I still think it makes the point: it's not surprising that Wheeler is reasonably pro-consumer. It's just that I can't find the particular post that has stuck in my head all this time.
- justratsinacoat 10y ago
  I'm shocked that Wheeler's pro-consumer leanings are so obvious to everyone but me. I wonder if we're reading the same archived blog?
  - dsharlet 10y ago
    Would you still say this: > I'm not sure Wheeler's turncoat, pro-consumer behaviour was predictable (or, for that matter, predicted) by anyone, you or otherwise. After reading this[1], written by Wheeler? > Back in the original analog-to-digital days I can remember AT&T’s representatives warning of catastrophic job losses and damage to the national security if innovative competitors were allowed into their business. The same echoes surround the proposed NASA changes. Many of the Old Guard, launch system contractors, and their congressional supporters are bemoaning the thought of a competitive manned launch environment. We’ve heard all that before at the time of another “analog-to-digital” conversion. The earlier warnings not only failed to materialize, but just the opposite occurred as new, innovative and less expensive services came forward and economic growth and a new generation of jobs exploded. Is it really that surprising that someone who wrote that turned out to be a regulator with reasonable positions on things like net neutrality? Maybe "obvious" was a bit strong of a word (Wheeler's writing is a bit heavy on long-winded metaphors...) but I also definitely do not think that the vitriol directed at him starting the day of his nomination was warranted, and I do not think that Wheeler's behavior was so unpredictable. 1. http://web.archive.org/web/20110206170617/http://www.mobilemusings.net/2010_05_01_archive.html http://web.archive.org/web/20110206170617/http://www.mobilem...
    - justratsinacoat 10y ago
      Uh, yeah, totally! Note the language used in your excerpt -- it's all finance and macro-scale consequences, job loss and less expensive services and economic growth. He talks about NASA trying to import "Internet age" thinking (by which he means, of course, entrepreneurship and disruption) into an analog world. Read some of the other posts and they're awash with the same language. >Is it really that surprising that someone who wrote that turned out to be a regulator with reasonable positions on things like net neutrality? No, not at all! The position I've been trying to take throughout this thread is that the perception of Wheeler being an ascended lobbyist (read: hostile to consumer interests) was reasonable, in the absence of mainstream knowledge otherwise (like eg this blog we're discussing). After reading the post from which you've excerpted, I still think that perception holds. He's not pro-consumer, he's pro-capitalist. Just because the view espoused here ("established corps should not have the ability to extinguish potential competition, via regulation or fearmongering or citing national security") happens to benefit consumers does not mean he's taking those actions for consumer benefit. >Maybe "obvious" was a bit strong of a word (Wheeler's writing is a bit heavy on long-winded metaphors...) Really? I think I've established myself as a fellow sentient, but whatever, maan.