Net Neutrality 7-12-2006

Filed Under Business Life, Community, SOB Business, Successful Blog, Trends | Leave a Comment

Net Neutrality Links

I’m adding these links to the Net Neutrality Page.

Skype and WildBlue – A Case for Citizen (Network) Journalists

The sudden failure of Skype over WildBlue on May 15 and the recent sudden recovery may be a good case for citizen journalists. It MIGHT have implications for the Net Neutrality debate.

Users on the WildBlue Uncensored! Forum report that, starting two weeks ago, they regained the ability to connect to Skype and complete calls. Some of them also report usable call quality. As I posted previously, users say they had generally acceptable VoIP and Skype performance over WildBlue prior to May 15. I wasn’t using WB then so have no firsthand knowledge.

Why did Skype suddenly stop working over WB? Why did it suddenly start again? Did WB block or deprioritize Skype or VoIP packets? Or did a Skype update loose the ability to deal with the extreme latency (delay) expected when a satellite is used? . . .

Feltecomplexities of Network Neutrality n’s paper on the

Ed Felten — the Princeton engineering prof who led the effort to crack the Secure Digital Music Initiative and did yeoman work on the Sony BMG DRM fiasco — has published a fast, ten-page white-paper on the complexities of Network Neutrality. Ed describes the many ways in which Neutrality is hard to enforce, and the ways in which tiered, discriminatory service is likely to have grave outcomes: . . .

. . . Network management is complicated, and many management decisions could impact jitter one way or the other. A network provider who wants to cause high jitter can do so, and might have pretextual excuses for all of the steps it takes. Can regulators distinguish this kind of stratagem from the case of fair and justified engineering decisions that happen to cause a little temporary jitter?

–ME “Liz” Strauss

Related
NET NEUTRALITY PAGE

Share This

Net Neutrality 6-30-2006

Filed Under Business Life, Community, SOB Business, Successful Blog, Trends | Leave a Comment

Net Neutrality Links

I’ve added these links to the Net Neutrality Page today.

Net Neutrality Amendment Defeated in Senate Committee

“We are not going to get it solved with one solution or the other,” telecom analyst Jeff Kagan told the E-Commerce Times. “We have to come up with alternatives and compromises. I don’t know what will be acceptable to both sides.”

A U.S. Senate committee on Wednesday rejected an amendment that would prevent Internet service providers from charging Web firms more for faster service to consumers. The amendment failed by an 11-11 vote. . . .

Psst! The Internet just went corporate

Did anybody feel a disturbance in the Force yesterday? Nope, I didn’t either. But Neo was spinning in his cybergrave: The ‘Net went corporate on Wednesday, with the blessing of the U.S. Congress.

Yes, you can still surf anywhere you want on the Internet. But depending on what you’re looking for, it may take forever to load. See, there’s this bill sponsored by the telecommunications industry (uh-oh) intended to remunerate carriers for their support of the Internet. It all comes down to that wonderfully vague and innocuous term “‘Net neutrality”: Right now, everyone’s site is carried with equal speed and service, whether it’s Google.com or Ihaveapetferret.net. But the telco companies want high-dollar outfits (like Google) to pay for better service. That means Ihaveapetferret.net (and any other small site without Google million$ at its fingertips) likely won’t have the cash to pay up — and will get ghettoized by the carriers. Meaning… unless your blog is a blockbuster, no one’s going to read it. It’ll simply take too long to load.

Has Anyone Read the FCC’s USF for VoIP Order yet? To lift from Stephen Colbert, “Is it bad or the worst thing we have ever seen out of Washington?”

All I can do is ask: Was recent DC activity on Capitol Hill a calculated effort of misdirection of David Copperfield proportions (David Copperfield of modern magic and Claudia Schiffer fame, not the David Copperfield of Dickens fame, although many a VoIP provider might, as a result, find itself living in a Dickensian “Bleak House” as a result)?

How come we couldn’t see the humungo elephant right in front of our eyes? While we were amassing all our troops on the hill trying to protect our flank on the eastern front, we were getting wiped out this week on the western front. Why does the FCC say VoIP providers give us all your money?

–ME “Liz” Strauss

Related
NET NEUTRALITY PAGE

Share This

Net Neutrality 5-18-2006

Filed Under Business Life, Community, Successful Blog, Trends | 2 Comments

Net Neutrality Links

I’ve added these links to the Net Neutrality Page today.

The New “Pipes� Are Already Paid For!

This doesn’t feel like an original source but it is informative - from Jason Lee Miller at WebProNews on May 12th. “Telcos Lay $200 Billion Goose Egg.�

Jason begins this discertation with this;

� The U.S. is ranked 12th in broadband penetration, says AT&T CEO Ed Whiteacre, and in order to bring America up to speed through fiber-to-the-premises (fttp) wiring, content providers are going to have to pony up to use his “pipes.� He doesn’t mention that the new pipes to be built have already been paid for, and they’re very late in coming.�

Already paid for? . . .

Well, here you go - Jason points to Bruce Kushnick’s book “$200 Billion Broadband Scandal. This book documents the largest fraud case in American history!�

“Starting in the early 1990’s, the Clinton-Gore Administration had aggressive plans to create the “National Infrastructure Initiative� to rewire ALL of America with fiber optic wiring, replacing the 100 year old copper wire. The Bell companies — SBC, Verizon, BellSouth and Qwest, claimed that they would step up to the plate and rewire homes, schools, libraries, government agencies, businesses and hospitals, etc. if they received financial incentives.�

Wall St. Journal gets it [also via Wall Street Journal Straight Up]

From the mountaintop [the Wall Street Journal], straight talk on Internet regulation:

Don’t kid yourself that the issue here is “censoring� the Web. The issue is Internet survival. AT&T talks about the coming Multimedia Explosion as new forms of video traffic rapidly overtake Web-surfing, file transfer and email as the prime users of backbone capacity. Literally, “net neutrality� would result in an increasingly unreliable Internet as more and more high-bandwidth applications contest for space on networks that nobody would have an incentive to expand.

The real issue is where will the big bucks come from to create an Internet capable of handling the services now envisioned, let alone those not yet dreamed up. BellSouth’s Chief Architect Henry Kafka told an audience in March that a typical broadband user today consumes about two gigabytes of data a month, at a network cost of $1. Once TV has gone high-definition and on-demand, a typical user will consume about 1,120 gigabytes a month at a cost of $560 (that’s in addition to the administrative, sales and service costs that today make up the lion’s share of the user’s bill). “Clearly that’s not what the average user is going to pay per month for their video service,� Mr. Kafka said. “That’s why we need help.�


Net Neutrality, and the hope the US could learn some lessons from African experience

As I think back on it, the vast majority of the policy work I did in Africa was, on one level or another, net neutrality work. As Voice over IP became increasingly important in African nations, I was concerned that phone companies would claim authority over any electronic voice traffic, forcing one of the most interesting developments in telephony into illegality to protect their lucrative monopolies… which is precisely what happened in most countries. Some countries are now discovering they have to undo these decisions and make VOIP possible now, because it’s such a powerful technology and economic force, letting people communicate with families overseas because technical innovation and invention has lowered the price of voice transmission.

It would be a shame to see the US make the same mistake many developing nations made almost a decade ago.

–ME “Liz” Strauss

Related
NET NEUTRALITY PAGE

Share This

Net Neutrality 5-17-2006

Filed Under Business Life, Community, Successful Blog, Trends | Leave a Comment

Net Neutrality Links

I’ve added these links to the Net Neutrality Page today.

Pro-Internet Democracy Blogs Run Ads for Corporate Takeover of Net: Another Example of Why BuzzFlash Won’t Accept Advertising
[via Truth Dig ]

The ad in question leads to an Orwellian flash that tries to convince the viewers that the government is trying to “interfere” with the Internet and that this will destroy it, which is exactly what the people behind the ads are trying to do. . . . (See http://www.dontregulate.org/)

If you watch the ad, you find it is sponsored by a coalition misleadingly called “Hands Off the Internet”.If you look at the members of “Hands Off the Internet,” they are the very Telecom companies who have given large donations to members of Congress to pass legislation — now having cleared a House Committee — to allow them to squeeze democracy out of the Internet in order to increase their profits. Members of the cynically named “Hands Off the Internet” coalition include AT&T, BellSouth and Cingular, along with some “front” organizations that again employ the Bush tactic of sounding like they are on your side when they are trying to get away with grand larceny (see
http://www.handsoff.org/hoti_docs/aboutus/members.shtml). As many on the Net have noted with contempt, the group is masterminded by former Clinton Press Secretary Mike McCurry.

A BuzzFlash reader pointed out this entire scam to us and how he had tried to get the progressive sites to have the ad removed on their sites, but to no avail.
The ad is part of a package offered by a company known as BlogAds. (See this url if you want to know which liberal blog sites financially benefit from BlogAds: http://www.blogads.com/advertise/liberal_blog_advertising

Proposed Rule Changes Would Tangle the Web

Many people believe the Internet’s decentralized structure guarantees that no company or oligopoly could control it. Internet censorship - whether by corporate or state interests - simply sounds impossible. Yet not only is it theoretically possible, but the history of telecommunications regulation tells us it is probable. By the time the telecoms start changing what you see on your screen, it will be too late to complain.

PDF Panel On Net Neutrality
[via The Original Blog]

Like it or not, the Internet is not a public entity. It is not a company for which others provide service and it is not a public good. It is a nebulous arrangement of interconnections between private networks. If the net neutrality guys would like the government to compensate the private companies that have invested hundreds of billions to make it work, and declare those pipes a public good, that’s fine. The tab will be staggering.

That will do wonders for the deficit and guarantee great service. After all, the government does everything really well, right?

If, instead, you want a competitive environment, then you keep what you have. Existing competition has moved us this far, so why not let it continue? Some suggest the answer is because there are only two competitors - cable and telcos. That ignores the possibility that the DBS guys will ever develop the technology to compete. That ignores the possibility that governments will provide wi-fi as a public good, and it ignores the possibility that Google or someone else will provide wi-max to compete with the cable and telco guys?

It also assumes that two competitors is somehow inadequate for real competition. Honestly, I think a football field would get crowded with four teams.

. . . Cable faces different competition on the programming side. They face competition from satellite and now telcos on video. They face competition for phone service from wireless, VoIP, and the telcos. They face competition for data services from telcos, cities increasingly providing wi-fi, PC by satellite (which admittedly is inferior currently, but that will change shortly), etc.

Competition works. But you have to let it. For Congress to act now, absent an actual threat, would be the height of folly.

–ME “Liz” Strauss

Related
NET NEUTRALITY PAGE

Share This

Net Neutrality 5-12-2006

Filed Under Business Life, Successful Blog, Trends | Leave a Comment

Net Neutrality Links

I’ve added these links to the Net Neutrality Page today.

Ask A Ninja: Special Delivery 4 “Net Neutrality”
[via Advice Library]

Watch the video. Then click the links.

Full text of COPE Act

To encourage broadband deployment and preserve and promote the open and interconnected nature of the public Internet, consumers are entitled to access the lawful Internet content of their choice.

. . . to run applications and use services of their choice, subject to the needs of law enforcement.

. . . to connect their choice of legal devices that do not harm the network.

. . . to competition among network providers, application and service providers, and content providers.

I want my MTV (mobile TV), but not from AT&T

I’m sure AT&T doesn’t really care what I want. Actually, why not broaden that to wireless data carriers in general. Earlier this week it was T-Mobile essentially banning VoIP and IM on their HSDPA network, likely indicating they will be happy to provide you those services in the future at a premium. Today it’s AT&T announcing a deal with MobiTV to provide wireless television at AT&T hotspots for $11.99 a month.

–ME “Liz” Strauss

Related
NET NEUTRALITY PAGE

Share This

keep looking »