Net Neutrality Links
I’ve added these links to the Net Neutrality Page today.
On other internet-related news, there continues to be rumblings that ICANN, which currently is the US-controlled body that governs the internet, may have to cede some or even all of its power to a UN body. The UN Working Group on Internet Governance has laid out four options for the future governance of the internet:
Option One – create a UN body known as the Global Internet Council that draws its members from governments and “other stakeholders” and takes over the US oversight role of Icann.
Option Two – no changes apart from strengthening Icann’s Governmental Advisory Committee to become a forum for official debate on net issues.
Option Three – relegate Icann to a narrow technical role and set up an International Internet Council that sits outside the UN. US loses oversight of Icann.
Option Four – create three new bodies. One to take over from Icann and look after the net’s addressing system. One to be a debating chamber for governments, businesses and the public; and one to co-ordinate work on “internet-related public policy issues”.
Michael Copps of the FCC has two messages: All is not well in Washington, and we “need to do a lot more about that.”
Access to the Internet could reasonably be considered a civil right, he says. The Net is crucial, yet the US is falling in terms of per capita access to broadband. And the FCC counts 200kb as broadband. And if there’s a single person with broadband in a zip code, the FCC counts the entire zip code as having access to broadband. He says we’re the only industrialized country that has no national strategy for getting the country connected. He suggests that other countries have better competition policies or incentives.
“Let’s get the facts, do the research, do the analysis, consider our options” and implement.
“Decentralized end user control is increasingly at risk.” “The concentrated providers have the ability to build networks with traffic policies that restrict how you and I use the Internet.” Although they say they’re not going to do that, but history shows that concerns with the ability and the incentive frequently give it a try, he says.
If youÃ¢â¬â¢re a business ownerÃ¢â¬âhome, small, medium, or largeÃ¢â¬â$20 per month as a backup policy against a broadband outage or a line cut that would take down a wired service is a pretty low price to pay just to have it immediately available as needed.
Remember that many of the RFPs issued by municipalities require net neutrality to be enshrined in proposals. Which, in most cases IÃ¢â¬â¢ve read, includes an explicit mention that any device may be attached to the network and used for any legal purpose. Thus sharing a single network connection when a businessÃ¢â¬â¢s wired line goes down is perfectly legitimate.
The municipal architecture for most cities is either switched or mesh throughout, and itÃ¢â¬â¢s only dependent on a supply of powerÃ¢â¬âI donÃ¢â¬â¢t know city-by-city requirements for backup power on mesh nodes, and I think thereÃ¢â¬â¢s essentially no requirement for this. In Tempe, I believe six fiber drops serve the MobilePro network, with at least one dedicated to city purposes. Because theyÃ¢â¬â¢re switched, even multiple fiber cuts wouldnÃ¢â¬â¢t damage the network. Likewise, a network like PhiladelphiaÃ¢â¬â¢s, according to EarthLinkÃ¢â¬â¢s description, will be almost entirely wireless until you hit some fiber points of presence.
–ME “Liz” Strauss
NET NEUTRALITY PAGE