Successful Blog

No Worries

by

I've been thinking . . .
When I was traveling to other countries, what I was most likely to bring home were a tiny change in my accent and a word or phrase that became mine forever. I also bought lots of books and an occasional other thing, but who knows where they went?

Considering my love of words, I think I ended up with a nice collection of souveniers.

One word I got from the Brits was Brilliant! It’s a lovely word for describing something wonderful and magical.

From the Italians, I carried home a pair Prego, Grazie. How much more musical could welcome and thank you sound? I want a life filled with the two of them.

In OZ, the land of the Australians, I couldn’t leave without No Worries. They’ve become my weekend words.

“No Worries.”

I worked out a while back that worrying about things I can’t change doesn’t make stuff any better and doesn’t make me feel good either. In fact, worrying makes me cranky. I get to feeling sorry for myself.

Talk about a way to blow weekend — being cranky ranks right up there.

So I subscribe to “No Worries” weekends.

(I have my meltdowns on Thursdays, if I really need one.)

Liz's Signature

Net Neutrality Grade 3 by Scott Ahlsmith

by

Net Neutrality

A link to this post will be added to the Net Neutrality page.

You may recall this document from the comment section earlier this week. It’s too important to leave undercover. I bring out because of how and why it was built.

A few weeks ago, I met Scott Ahlsmith. Over lunch, we talked about his work with Congressman Pearce and the U.S. loss of international tourism. A week or so after, Scot asked if I might send him documents outlining the basics and basis of net neutrality. Now that he’s finished using what I sent, I’ve him to let you in on what he’s doing and why this document came to be.

Scott Ahlsmith Tells the Story of this Story

Washington, DC, Federal Government, and politics have always scared me. That changed last April when Congressman Pearce (R-NM) invited me to testify before his oversight sub-committee investigating declining National Parks’ visitation. It was a great experience and to conclude my testimony I said, “Congressman Pearce, you have restored my faith in Federal Government because you run this sub-committee like I run my small business. You identify opportunities and act on them without hesitation.”

Since then, I’ve worked with the Congressman, his staff, and his extensive network of talented and dedicated public servants. I was invited to testify again in September. The Travel Industry of America (TIA) was also involved and briefed me on their lobbying efforts to promote international travel and tourism to the United States. I asked the TIA lobbyists why they were not lobbying for Network Neutrality. Their blank stares spoke volumes.

They didn’t know about the legislation. When they read their traditional sources, they knew even less. They were confused by the jargon and technical language, but they knew that travel and tourism depended on the global free flow of data, regardless of whether it contained voice, video, graphics, or text. That was the beginning of the 3rd grade show & tell piece.

This piece has been distributed to Congressman Pearce’s office and the TIA lobbyists. We will also feature this piece at a press conference the Congressman has scheduled immediately following the November elections.

Net Neutrality Grade 3 by Scott Ahlsmith

“So, class, please put away your crayons. Art period is over, and here’s Scott with our first show-and-tell this afternoon. He’s going to explain why Network Neutrality is so important to your future and especially to your promotion to the 4th grade. Here’s Scott . . .

Thank you, Miss Francis.

[Read more…]

Net Neutrality 10-12-2006

by

Net Neutrality Links

I’m adding this link to the Net Neutrality Page.

Cable Ties Itself Up in Net Neutrality Knots [via freepress]

The five companies, Advance, Charter, Cablevision, Cox and Insight, told the [Federal Trade] Commission in a Sept. 27 filing their Voice over IP services are at risk because of what the telephone companies might do to thwart competition. The filing noted: “In the head-to-head competition with cable, the ILECs (incumbent local exchange carriers, aka telephone companies), have a powerful weapon – their ability to discriminate against cable’s voice service by imposing unreasonable, costly interconnection requirements. This is clearly the case with AT&T.”

This merger, the cable companies said, “will increase AT&T’s incentives and ability to wield its market power over interconnection against its cable competitions. AT&T has the incentive and ability to discriminate against cable’s voice service to retain its own customers.” The companies want the Commission to impose detailed conditions on the merger which govern interconnection, traffic flow and the like.

[ . . . ]

The sympathy meter drops a few more notches when the cable industry further declines to realize that the “incentive and ability to discriminate” principle they oppose on the part of the telephone companies is the same principle at the heart of Net Neutrality.

–ME “Liz” Strauss

Related
NET NEUTRALITY PAGE

Net Neutrality 10-11-2006

by

Net Neutrality Links

I’m adding this link to the Net Neutrality Page.

Preserve the Internet Standards for Network Neutrality | Two Types of Neutrality

So far, much of the argument over “net neutrality” has been over whether service providers should be allowed to favor one application, destination or Internet service over another. This is Net neutrality at the application layer. But the real issue is the neutrality of the IP layer where routers treat alike bits from every type of application. This neutrality is what makes the Internet flexible — while it also assures uniform treatment of information flow. If this neutrality is not maintained, the Internet will be changed fundamentally. It will no longer be the flexible, open platform that allows anyone with a good idea to compete on a level ground.

IP-layer neutrality is not a property of the Internet. It is the Internet. The Internet is a set of agreements (protocols) that enable networks to work together. The heart of the Internet protocol is the agreement that all data packets will be passed through without regard to which application created them or what’s inside of them. This reliable, uniform treatment of packets is precisely what has made the Internet a marketplace of innovation so critical to our economy.

[ . . . ]

We call on Congress to end the confusion and protect not only the Internet but the tens of millions of American citizens who need to know that when they buy Internet access, they’re getting access to the real Internet. Network providers who offer services that depend on violating IP-layer neutrality should be prohibited from labeling those services as “Internet,” as their doing so will only undermine the weight of consensus authority presently accorded to the existing standards. The term “Internet” represents specific standards that provide IP-layer neutral connectivity that supports the openness of access and innovation that have been the defining characteristics of the Internet since its origins.

To that end, we present the attached draft legislative language and call for concerned citizens and members of Congress to offer their support for passing it into law.

Contact:
[info given at the blog]

–ME “Liz” Strauss

Related
NET NEUTRALITY PAGE

Net Neutrality 10-10-2006

by

Net Neutrality Links

I’m adding this link to the Net Neutrality Page.

Telco Strategy Shift: To the States

We beat them in Congress, and depending on what happens on November 7th, we may win a full victory next session. The telcos are already changing their strategy to head off a Democratic Congress. This is from Tech Daily:

Lead Verizon Communications lobbyist Tom Tauke announced that the company is likely to halt its efforts in pursuing federal rules on video franchises should pending legislation fail this year. Bloomberg News reports that Tauke said the company instead would shift its focus to obtaining statewide agreements in Massachusetts, New York and Pennsylvania. Although federal language that would help telephone companies like AT&T and Verizon offer video services has broad support, the proposal has stalled because of various objections to the broader bill. “It is unclear whether there will be an opportunity” to pass a bill this year, Tauke said. “I do not expect we will mount an effort for federal legislation in 2007.”

This is essentially a threat to Congress – if you don’t pass something soon (in the lame duck session, for instance), we’re going to bypass you and go directly to the states. This has been coming for some time.

Gives new meaning to the PoliBlog. Doesn’t it? Tom Tauke writes there.

–ME “Liz” Strauss

Related
NET NEUTRALITY PAGE