Arizona

I’ve posted this as an update on the original post, but it’s also worth bringing out as a separate posting. I’ve made a few minor changes here (e.g., to insert the point about Cable America that is made elsewhere in the original post). Douglas Ross (directorblue) has called this list “bogus” and claimed that only two of the options (Qwest and Cox) actually count. He rightly dismisses Cable America from the list on the grounds that Cox entered into an agreement to acquire them in January of this year–I grant his point and that reduces the number of broadband providers by one. He dismisses Covad because it uses Qwest last-mile wires, but goes on to say, inconsistently, that he would count other cable resellers if the Brand X decision had gone the other way and providers like Cox were forced to enter into relationships like Covad has with Qwest. My observation is that if those reseller relationships exist and the reseller provides access to its own Internet network, then that is enough to foster a competitive environment. It doesn’t matter whether it’s government-mandated, it matters whether it exists. Doug rejects all the wireless options out of hand on the grounds of Verizon’s EVDO terms-of-service. (His section about why WiMax isn’t viable doesn’t actually discuss WiMax at all, only EVDO terms-of-service.) He misses the point that Sprint Broadband and Sprint EVDO are two different services–he doesn’t actually give a reason to reject Sprint Broadband. He says he doesn’t understand why I put the City of Tempe’s municipal WiFi network in the list–I did so because Tempe is right in the middle of the Phoenix metropolitan area (and noted Chandler’s metro WiFi in-development, which is just south of Tempe, for the same reason). These are real options for people moving to the Phoenix area and for anyone who is willing to move to get different broadband service. (And certainly broadband options in an area are an important factor in choosing a place to live.) Finally, he rejects HughesNet because it is unsuitable for VOIP or P2P. At least he doesn’t say that HughesNet should be mandated to change the laws of physics in order to provide those services under net neutrality. Doug’s position on net neutrality appears to be that nothing counts as broadband unless it supports every application he wants to use. But it’s important to note that the net neutrality bills in Congress do count all these options and place regulations on them–they count anything as broadband that is greater than 200kbps in one direction, whether wired or wireless. I don’t see Doug volunteering to exempt things he doesn’t count as valid broadband options from broadband net neutrality restrictions. It appears to me that Doug’s position is that whoever builds an infrastructure capable of supporting what he wants has to provide it to him, without recovering the costs of that infrastructure by charging any third parties. But I bet he also is unwilling to pay an unsubsidized rate to use such a service. (UPDATE: I was just looking at Doug’s blogroll, and he’s pretty strong evidence that net neutrality positions don’t necessarily correlate with political positions. Doug’s political blog links include Michelle Malkin, Little Green Footballs, and the dishonest nutcases at “Stop the ACLU.”) ...

Net neutrality advocates claim that telcos (meaning the local telco providers) have a “virtual monopoly” on consumer broadband, or that they have a duopoly with the cable companies. In many regions, this is true, or nearly so (thus the “virtual” qualifier). (Note, however, that the statement becomes transparently false if it’s not restricted to consumer broadband. There are far more options for Internet service for businesses, especially businesses that can put equipment into colo facilities.) But if you look at the metropolitan Phoenix area, there are quite a few competing consumer broadband providers, e.g.: * Qwest, the Regional Bell Operating Company formerly known as U.S. West, provides DSL services (as well as higher bandwidth wired connections from fractional T1 and up, and I think they still offer ISDN). This is one of the evil telcos that is enemy number one for many net neutrality advocates. * Covad, a DSL provider that uses Qwest’s last-mile network in Phoenix. In 2003 Covad acquired all of Qwest’s business DSL customers, and it appears that they will or have exited the consumer broadband market–however, they can provide business-class DSL service to my residence (which is interesting because Qwest says they can’t). Covad is also actively pursuing WiBro (wireless broadband, a Korean standard) and WiMax (wireless broadband, an Intel standard that will now be compatible with WiBro). * Cox Communications, a cable company, provides cable modem services. (They also have higher speed connections for businesses.) Cox has done very well in recent years in taking away customers from Qwest for voice telephone services, as well as out-competing Qwest’s DSL offering for consumer Internet access. I currently use Cox Business Services to my home. * Cable America, a competing cable company, provides cable modem services in parts of the east Valley. (UPDATE May 27, 2006: As Douglas Ross (directorblue) has pointed out, Cox entered into an agreement to acquire Cable America in January 2006, so this doesn’t really count as an independent broadband provider.) * Sprint Broadband, a long distance and wireless provider, offers a point-to-point wireless broadband service (previously People’s Choice, which Sprint acquired). Sprint also offers EV-DO mobile wireless service. * Alltel, a wireless provider, offers EV-DO mobile wireless service (which is actually using Sprint’s EV-DO network). * Verizon Wireless, a wireless provider, offers EV-DO (3G) mobile wireless service. * HughesNet, a satellite-based wireless provider (previously DirecWay, and DirecPC before that), offers satellite connectivity (with high latency as a drawback imposed by the laws of physics). * City of Tempe municipal wireless service, provided and managed by NeoReach. Similar service is being deployed to the City of Chandler, also by NeoReach. There are no doubt others I’ve missed–if you’re willing to pay for business service, many providers can get that service to your home, which includes services like a T1 connection (where your provider, if not Qwest, will have to pay monthly local loop charges to Qwest and pass that along in your bill) and may include other sources of wireless service. When I had a Global Crossing T1 to my home, the local loop costs were slightly over $200/mo–consumer broadband, by contrast, costs substantially less for more bandwidth, at least in the downstream direction, when delivered to a residence. On the other hand, bandwidth costs in a colo facility can be as low as $10/Mbit/mo, in quantity, i.e., $1000/mo for a 100Mbps Ethernet port. You pay more per Mbit to get data to your residence because of the costs of getting the data out to all those residences and the overhead of dealing with a lot more customers whose individual bills are much smaller than those of a business, and who, on the average, need a lot more hand-holding and support. Salt River Project, a power generation and transmission company (and a water delivery/irrigation company) that operates in Phoenix, also has about 1,000 route-miles of fiber throughout the city. It resells its excess capacity to businesses (including Qwest) from the entity SRP Telecom. I don’t know if they would ever consider using their network to provide consumer services themselves, but there’s clearly the potential for a consumer broadband provider to purchase capacity on their network in order to move data around the city. In Phoenix, if one provider decided to start blocking access to or degrading certain kinds of services that their customers want, there are multiple alternative options. Any provider that engaged in such behavior would see an increase in churn, to the benefit of its competition. UPDATE (May 27, 2006): Douglas Ross (directorblue) has called this list “bogus” and claimed that only two of the options (Qwest and Cox) actually count. He dismisses Covad because it uses Qwest last-mile wires, but goes on to say, inconsistently, that he would count other cable resellers if the Brand X decision had gone the other way and providers like Cox were forced to enter into relationships like Covad has with Qwest. My observation is that if those reseller relationships exist and the reseller provides access to its own Internet network, then that is enough to foster a competitive environment. It doesn’t matter whether it’s government-mandated, it matters whether it exists. Doug rejects all the wireless options out of hand on the grounds of Verizon’s EVDO terms-of-service. (His section about why WiMax isn’t viable doesn’t actually discuss WiMax at all, only EVDO terms-of-service.) He misses the point that Sprint Broadband and Sprint EVDO are two different services–he doesn’t actually give a reason to reject Sprint Broadband. He says he doesn’t understand why I put the City of Tempe’s municipal WiFi network in the list–I did so because Tempe is right in the middle of the Phoenix metropolitan area (and noted Chandler’s metro WiFi in-development, which is just south of Tempe, for the same reason). These are real options for people moving to the Phoenix area and for anyone who is willing to move to get different broadband service. (And certainly broadband options in an area are an important factor in choosing a place to live.) Finally, he rejects HughesNet because it is unsuitable for VOIP or P2P. At least he doesn’t say that HughesNet should be mandated to change the laws of physics in order to provide those services under net neutrality. Doug’s position on net neutrality appears to be that nothing counts as broadband unless it supports every application he wants to use (even though the proposed net neutrality bills count anything as broadband that is greater than 200kbps in one direction–they don’t restrict it to wireline services), and that whoever builds an infrastructure capable of supporting what he wants has to provide it to him, without recovering the costs of that infrastructure by charging any third parties. But I bet he also is unwilling to pay an unsubsidized rate to use such a service. ...

I received a mailing today from the “Protect 21 Coalition” asking me to contact my legislators to tell them to oppose Senate Bill 1276, which it describes as “alcohol deregulation.” The bill actually legalizes Internet-based sale of wine by Arizona wineries in the aftermath of the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Granholm v. Heald (which was combined with two other cases, including the Institute for Justice’s case from NY, Swedenburg v. Kelly), which held that state regulation of Internet-based wine sales must be the same for in-state and out-of-state wineries. A 1982 Arizona law permits only in-state wineries to ship wine to restaurants and retail stores, and so is unconstitutional under that decision. The Protect 21 website argues for a three-tier model of alcohol distribution (manufacturers, distributors, and retail sales) on the grounds that it is somehow better able to protect communities and prevent underage drinking. Actually, this model is an anti-competitive model held in place by regulations which benefit the middleman, whose role would otherwise disappear. Their main argument is that allowing wine sales over the Internet will lead to underage drinking, despite the fact that purchases require credit cards and deliveries require a signature and ID verification, same as a retail store purchase. (For more on this argument and discussion, see this Jacob Sullum post at Reason magazine’s blog.) And who would you guess is behind the Protect 21 Coalition? The two people who testified against Senate Bill 1276 on February 15 were Howard Romm, the president of Republic Beverage Company, and Marcus Osborn, the “Manager of Governmental and Public Affairs” of the Protect 21 Coalition. Actually, Osborn’s title is for his position at the Phoenix office of R&R Partners, a Las Vegas-based advertising and lobbying firm. Osborn is a busy lobbyist, who also testified on behalf of the “PACE Coalition” in favor of H.B. 2383, a bill for a “Program for All-inclusive Care for the Elderly” at taxpayer expense, on the same day. He’s also lobbied the Arizona legislature for Jack-in-the-Box restaurants and YUM brands. You can see Osborn’s lobbyist record with the state of Arizona here. The protect21.org domain was registered by R&R Partners, and the group’s mailing address listed on its website is a commercial postal mailbox at a branch of The UPS Store in downtown Phoenix. And who is a client of R&R Partners (though not listed on their website)? Republic Beverage Company, of course. If you’re in Arizona, contact your legislators and let them know that you’d rather not have your tax money spent to funnel money into the pockets of middlemen through archaic regulations, especially not to middlemen who hire lobbying firms to create fake grassroots efforts to promote their positions to the legislature. In 2004, expenditures by lobbyists had grown by 30% from 2003 to over $3 million, according to a study by the Center for Public Integrity.

Today’s Arizona Republic has a story reporting that the large supply of cheap parking downtown may hurt the light rail project, as people would prefer to drive their cars than use mass transit. The real irony here is that it was deception by the City of Phoenix that allowed it to build a massive parking garage across the street from Bank One Ballpark (now Chase Stadium). By falsely claiming that the 3,000-space parking garage was necessary for the Arizona Science Center and the Civic Plaza, the city effectively gave a $40 million gift to Arizona Diamondbacks owner Jerry Colangelo. The ballpark did not have sufficient parking for itself, but because it would require voter approval for any additional spending under Proposition 200, the city hired Kaku Associates to conduct a study to determine the need for spaces for the Arizona Science Center, and jiggered the assumptions of the study until they got the result they wanted for the ballpark. The February 1994 draft report from Kaku stated that “If the baseball stadium is not built, it would be difficult to justify a parking garage of any size within the study area in general.” The City then told Kaku to change its assumptions, by disregarding existing parking spaces outside a two-block radius from the Science Center, assuming that crowds to the Civic Plaza convention center would double, and pretending that the city would also build a downtown aquarium. Adding these assumptions led to the conclusion in June 1995–in the seventh draft of the study–that there would be 1,300-1,600 space parking deficit, and therefore the city could go ahead and build a parking garage without voter approval. Oh, but there was one more catch–the land where they wanted to build the garage was the site of the Greyhound bus terminal, on land owned by the Dial (now Viad) Corporation. The city condemned the Greyhound site and passed a zoning change to prevent Greyhound from relocating to another site downtown. In Greyhound’s legal response, they pointed out the obvious fact that the city was cheating in its argument for the parking garage, stating “The city’s arrogance in proceeding to do whatever it damn well pleases by pretending that the garage is for the Civic Plaza and not the baseball stadium ought to offend the sensibilities of any honest thinking individual.” They further pointed out that the city’s action was a violation of Proposition 200 whether the parking garage was for the ballpark or for the convention center–to which the city responded that the Civic Plaza and Convention Center is not actually a convention center, because only 5.8% of attendance at Civic Plaza events between 1988 and 1995 was related to conventions. In the end, the city offered Greyhound a settlement that it accepted, and got its parking garage on the site, which loses an average of $283,000 a month, paid for by the city (and indirectly by its residents). The city has continued to engage in deals which largely supply private benefits directly to Jerry Colangelo, most recently with a similar deal for the city to spend millions to build a hotel downtown–even though similar projects in other cities have lost money. Phoenix City Manager Frank Fairbanks and former Deputy City Manager Sheryl Scully (now City Manager of San Antonio, Texas) are two of the main people to thank for these boondoggles. (Most of the above is derived from the excellent reporting of John Dougherty of Phoenix’s New Times weekly newspaper. For some reason, the Arizona Republic can almost never be counted on to dig up and provide such information.)

The number of homes for sale has gone over 40,000 (at last check it was 37,217 on March 6). Home builders are offering incentives like a free car or free upgrades (like granite counters, flooring, and cabinets) in order to avoid reducing prices, but price reductions are inevitable. And when price reductions occur, those who’ve already signed contracts at higher prices will be more likely to walk away… the rational response when an asset class you want to buy is deflating in price is to wait as long as possible, because the deals will only get better. (That’s why I’m content to live with year-or-more-old computer technology; my last upgrade for a home system was to buy somebody else’s used system.) More at Ben Jones’ Housing Bubble Blog.

We’ve now completed our second weekend event attempting to get all the oranges picked from our trees–an annual struggle, as we have many (see photo, which shows most of the backyard trees). A few weeks ago, United Food Bank sent out volunteers to try to fill four large bins which each hold 1,000 pounds of oranges. We filled one and part of another one in the course of the day–the volunteers were four families and their children, who picked oranges for several hours along with us. This week, we had signs out advertising free oranges, all you care to pick, and also advertised it on Craig’s List. We put out the two remaining United Food Bank bins to be filled with oranges we picked ourselves, and for any donations others cared to drop in. Unfortunately, a woman who spoke only Spanish came by while we were inside and took all of the fruit out of the bins, so when the Food Bank comes to pick them up on Tuesday they’ll only get whatever Kat and I pick between now and then. We had quite a few people come by and pick bags full of oranges, but the trees still appear to be as full as ever. If you’re in or near South Phoenix and would like to pick some oranges and take them home (or to donate to a food bank), let me know. If you’re from somewhere other than Phoenix and ever plan to be here in March, April, or May, those are the months these Valencia oranges are ready for picking.

I don’t know how they got my email address–I’ve never been (and never will be) a registered Republican. From: “Chairman Matt Salmon” [email protected] To: [my email address] Subject: Arizona Republican Party Roundup - March 15, 2006 Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2006 10:53:37 -0600 Attention Republican Clubs and Organizations - Submit your events to [email protected] In This Issue: Chairman Salmon on the Death of State Senator Marilyn Jarrett Capitol Update Kyl Immigration Provisions Moving Forward … Paid for by the Arizona Republican Party (602) 957-7770 Not authorized by any candidate or candidate committee. —————————————- This email was sent by: Republican Party of Arizona 3501 N 24th Street Phoenix, AZ, 85016, USA/[email protected] actual email came from ExactTarget.com, whose anti-spam policy says: Anti-SPAM at ExactTarget ExactTarget believes, practices, and requires its clients to practice only permission-based e-mail marketing. Our clients certify that they will use our software only to send e-mails to customers and prospects that have directly consented (opted-in) to receive their e-mail. They are forbidden to transmit unsolicited commercial e-mail (spam) via our system. ...

The Arizona Republic reports today that a number of Arizona legislators have been sponsoring bills on behalf of Scientology’s Citizens Commission on Human Rights (CCHR), an anti-psychiatry group. Several of them have taken trips to Scientology events at the Celebrity Center in Los Angeles to meet with John Travolta. The CCHR and Scientology have a religiously-based opposition to psychiatry and medicine pertaining to mental health. This derives from L. Ron Hubbard’s own opposition to psychiatry and his development of Dianetics as an alternative to psychological therapy. When he created Scientology (after having temporarily lost control of his Dianetics organization to his partner Don Purcell of Wichita, Kansas), he adopted the trappings of religion and invented a cosmology involving evil intergalactic psychiatrists who assisted the warlord Xenu in order to eliminate those who opposed him. They did this by injecting billions of people with alcohol and glycol, loading them onto space planes that looked just like DC-8s, and flying them to planet Teegeeack (Earth), where they were dumped into volcanoes and blown up with hydrogen bombs. Their souls (or “thetans”) departed their bodies and are still here, attached to our own souls and causing all manner of psychological ills for us. Psychiatry and psychology, according to Scientology, are bogus methods which do nothing to address the real problems caused by these “body thetans” attached to us–only the Scientology process of auditing with an e-meter can free us from them. (You can find more details about Scientology’s cosmology at Wikipedia, which has a very comprehensive set of articles about the religion, as well as at Operation Clambake. I also highly recommend Russell Miller’s book about L. Ron Hubbard, Bare-Faced Messiah, which is online in its entirety.) So who are the Arizona legislators working with CCHR and attending Scientology functions? Sen. Karen Johnson (R-District 18, Mesa). Karen Johnson is on the Family Services, Finance, Appropriations, and K-12 Education committees. She is one of the nuttier fundamentalists in the legislature, a member of Concerned Women for America and in tight with James Dobson’s Focus on the Family and Gary Bauer’s Family Research Council. Johnson has gone so far as to lend her name to the CCHR’s Advisory Board. Sen. Linda Gray (R-Glendale, District 10), who is on the K-12 Education, Higher Education, Government, and Family Services committees and is a big supporter of Mothers Against Drunk Driving. She has degrees in recreation administration and sociology. Sen. Carolyn Allen (R-District 8, Scottsdale), who is on the Commerce and Economic Development, Health, and Transportation committees. Sen. Marilyn Jarrett (R-District 19, Mesa). She just died on Friday after having a stroke in her office on Thursday. Sen. Albert Hale (D-District 2, Window Rock). Former president of the Navajo Nation, on the Government Accountability and Reform, Government, and Higher Education committees. Rep. Tom Prezelski (D-District 29, Tucson). On the Counties, Municipalities, and Military Affairs, Federal Mandates and Property Rights, and Transportation committees. Rep. Pamela Gorman (R-District 6, Anthem). A member of “Pure Heart Christian Fellowship,” the Arizona Women’s Shooting Association (she holds a concealed carry permit), and Concerned Women for America. She’s on the Appropriations, Transportation, and Ways and Means committees. Rep. Russell Pearce (R-District 18, Mesa). A pro-lifer and strong advocate of English-only and against illegal immigration. Sen. Thayer Verschoor (R-District 22, Gilbert). On the Family Services, Government Accountability and Reform, Higher Education, and Transportation committees. Verschoor is the guy who introduced a bill to require state universities to “provide a student with alternative coursework if the student deems regular coursework to be personally offensive” where “a course, coursework, learning material or activity is personally offensive if it conflicts with the student’s beliefs or practices in sex, morality or religion.” He didn’t introduce this over the issue of evolution, but because of the book The Ice Storm, which features a 1970s “key party.” He missed the point that it was not portrayed in a favorable way. Rep. Lucy Mason (R, District 1, Prescott). She’s on the Appropriations, Natural Resources and Agriculture, and Universities, Community Colleges and Technology committees. Kudos to Sen. Robert Cannell (D-District 24, Yuma), the only M.D. in the state legislature, for calling them on this. Any legislator dumb enough enough to promote bills based on Scientology advocacy and pseudoscience is unfit for public office and should be voted out at the earliest opportunity. (By the way, this doesn’t mean that every position the CCHR advocates is wrong–but when they’re right it’s generally not for the right reasons, and they are completely unreliable on the science.) (My previous blog entry on Scientology recounted my experiences interacting with the church when it decided to declare war on the Internet, and an earlier one reported on the updated “Space opera in Scientology” Wikipedia entry.) ...

It finally started raining last night, ending a five-month drought in Phoenix. It last rained on October 18, 2005, which was while I was having my house hooked up to the city sewer system (I have an older home that had two cesspools). Despite this long drought, the area’s lakes and water reservoirs have still been filled to greater capacity than they had been for the last several years, which had caused Salt River Project to reduce irrigation deliveries an unprecedented two years in a row, returning to a normal schedule in February 2005.

Not only are there 33,270 homes for sale in Phoenix, 14,601 of them are currently vacant. Many speculators purchased homes and never lived in them so that they could be resold in “new” condition. The average price of homes listed for sale is $484,594. The number of pending sales is 8,125. The average price of the pending sale homes is $378,573. (From Ben Jones’ Housing Bubble Blog.) Lippard (2006-12-09): Forgot to link to previous #'s:/2006/01/phoenix-housing-inventories-for-sale.htmlAnd the ziprealty numbers for Phoenix listings are higher (continuing from where the previous left off):1/31/2006 32,5632/1/2006 32,6842/2/2006 33,0872/3/2006 33,1452/4/2006 32,9532/5/2006 33,3682/6/2006 33,5762/7/2006 33,5502/8/2006 33,6842/9/2006 33,8442/10/2006 34,2342/11/2006 34,5882/12/2006 34,7532/13/2006 34,8152/14/2006 34,8152/15/2006 34,8162/16/2006 34,8162/17/2006 35,1442/18/2006 35,4272/19/2006 36,2602/20/2006 35,4432/21/2006 35,6422/22/2006 35,5032/23/2006 35,3242/24/2006 35,1782/25/2006 36,3882/26/2006 36,5242/27/2006 36,6392/28/2006 36,1743/1/2006 36,3893/2/2006 36,2833/3/2006 36,8113/4/2006 36,9003/5/2006 37,0643/6/2006 37,217 ...