Successful Blog

Net Neutrality 12-06-2006

by

Net Neutrality Links

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

The Unrecusal of Commissioner McDowell

The unseemly political pressure to try to force FCC Commissioner Robert McDowell to participate in the AT&T takeover of BellSouth is increasing with each hour. So far, McDowell has stuck to his decision not to participate because he recently represented CompTel before the Commission and because of ethics concerns from the Virginia Bar Association.

FCC Chairman Kevin Martin has sent a letter to Capitol Hill saying he’s asked the General Counsel, Sam Feder, to determine whether it’s possible for McDowell to participate, citing a 2000 precedent of then-Chairman Kennard having been authorized to break a 2-2 tie. AT&T sent a letter to the Commission saying that competitors are holding up the merger despite all that AT&T has been willing to concede. These two items, both dated Dec. 1, are of course related. Martin wants the merger, as does AT&T. They are also related in that each makes claims that don’t hold up under further scrutiny.

[ . . . ]

We have defined Net Neutrality all along as applying to the last mile. We don’t want any network provider to make a decision for a customer on how well a service or application will function based on a financial arrangement between the network company and the provider. It’s that simple. We have always endorsed the ability of companies to charge customers, whether residential or commercial, for the bandwidth they use. We wish the market were more competitive, but that’s another story. No one has talked about rates in terms of cost recovery. We use the term non-discrimination.

Want to know what you can do?
MA Bell Monopoly Versus the Free Internet — Tell the FCC Net Neutrality Is Not Negotiable

–ME “Liz” Strauss

Related
NET NEUTRALITY PAGE

Net Neutrality 12-05-2006

by

Net Neutrality Links

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

Turning net neutrality upside-down

. . . In this particular case, the CRTC determined, in effect, that Sportsnet’s deal with Bell would need to be on terms “that are no less favourable than those accorded [Rogers Cable].”

It strikes me that a different twist on the net neutrality issue arises from this kind of decision.

We tend to think of net neutrality as seeking to ensure that ISPs don’t engage in bit-boinking – degrading the traffic of content providers that refuse to pay for protection. Is there a corollary that examines whether content providers can or should deny an ISP access to their content on equivalent terms to other ISPs?

Want to know what you can do?
MA Bell Monopoly Versus the Free Internet — Tell the FCC Net Neutrality Is Not Negotiable

–ME “Liz” Strauss

Related
NET NEUTRALITY PAGE

Net Neutrality 12-04-2006

by

Net Neutrality Links

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

Net Neutrality Update — Markey’s back

Net Neutrality champion Ed Markey will take the reins of the House Telecom and Internet Subcommittee.

[ . . . ]

His welcome announcement comes as the Government Accountability Office issued a new report finding there’s less telecom competition out there than we thought in the big-business market, which was supposed to be more competitive than consumers have at home. The report also chastized the FCC for not keeping up with what’s going on in the telecom industry.

Want to know what you can do?
MA Bell Monopoly Versus the Free Internet — Tell the FCC Net Neutrality Is Not Negotiable

–ME “Liz” Strauss

Related
NET NEUTRALITY PAGE

Net Neutrality 12-01-2006

by

Net Neutrality Links

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

Ofcom report

Ofcom just released a report today about global telecommunications developments. Key findings here.

[ . . . ]

But on a serious note, this:

Next-generation networks (NGNs) will be able to carry the full range of current communications services via data packets, and the nature and timing of NGN deployment will depend partially on the policy decisions regulators make about whether to intervene (and in what manner) in relation to these infrastructure upgrades.

[ . . . ]

What? The internet already can carry any packet. With enough bandwidth installed, any kind of communication can be watched and interacted with enjoyably. So what’s missing that requires an acronym? Why not say we’re deploying bandwidth — why invoke a whole slew of centralized standard-setting exercises?

Much to ponder, at any rate

But on a serious note, this:

Next-generation networks (NGNs) will be able to carry the full range of current communications services via data packets, and the nature and timing of NGN deployment will depend partially on the policy decisions regulators make about whether to intervene (and in what manner) in relation to these infrastructure upgrades.

What? The internet already can carry any packet. With enough bandwidth installed, any kind of communication can be watched and interacted with enjoyably. So what’s missing that requires an acronym? Why not say we’re deploying bandwidth — why invoke a whole slew of centralized standard-setting exercises?

Much to ponder, at any rate

Want to know what you can do?
MA Bell Monopoly Versus the Free Internet — Tell the FCC Net Neutrality Is Not Negotiable

–ME “Liz” Strauss

Related
NET NEUTRALITY PAGE

Net Neutrality 11-30-2006

by

Net Neutrality Links

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

No Slam Dunk for Net Neutrality (with apologies to George Tenet)

What isn’t yet known is who will chair the pivotal Telecommunications and Internet Subcommittee. If it’s Ed Markey (D-Mass.), then you have a strong Bell opponent, strong Net Neutrality proponent and some momentum. But, Markey has a lot of options. He could try for the chairmanship of the full Resources Committee, and he also has seniority on the Homeland Security committee.

Depending on what Markey does, the Telecom Subcommittee could be led by Rep. Rick Boucher (D-Va.). Boucher, like Markey, is a strong Net Neutrality proponent. But unlike Markey and very much like Dingell, Boucher tends to favor the Bell companies on many other issues.

[ . . . ]

With some positive Net Neutrality leadership in place, then the question becomes, what would be in any overall telecom legislation, and there the picture gets lots more murky. Let’s start with video franchising. This is the concept behind the Bells’ push for a bill this year. They want to get into the cable business, providing TV programming over their fast networks, and they don’t want to negotiate with 30,000 local authorities to get permission as the real cable providers had to do. So the Bells pushed the bill that gave them, and cable, a free pass nationally to enter cable business, pushing aside objections from local governments.

[ . . . ]

Remember, the Bells still have a lot of friends and a lot of votes in Congress, whether on Net Neutrality or not. There are many legislators of both parties, on the relevant committees or not, who will vote the Bell line regardless. Net Neutrality isn’t a slam dunk. The key will be how much the Bells will be willing to deal. They didn’t feel the need in the last session of Congress. Now, with the leadership against them, they may have a different calculus, of trying to get the best bill they can.

By now, the Bells have realized how important Net Neutrality is to a great many people and organizations, ranging from large companies like Google and Yahoo, to public interest groups like Public Knowledge (my day-job employer), something they probably didn’t count on this year. If they try in good faith to negotiate a reasonable Net Neutrality provision next year, the Bells could gain some of their goals despite themselves.

Want to know what you can do?
MA Bell Monopoly Versus the Free Internet — Tell the FCC Net Neutrality Is Not Negotiable

–ME “Liz” Strauss

Related
NET NEUTRALITY PAGE

Net Neutrality 11-29-2006

by

Net Neutrality Links

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

There Is A Utopia For Net Neutrality

In this case, we’re talking about a real UTOPIA, the clever acronym for the Utah Telecommunication Open Infrastructure Agency, a group of 14 cities which banded together to build a fiber-to-the-home network that will eventually provide 100 mbps service.

[ . . . ]

From the start, UTOPIA’s developers thought through the public policy issues, particularly the competitive ones. Their answer was not to compete with private-sector companies, but to provide a platform for them.

UTOPIA said in its background materials it solves the competitive issue very simply, “by offering a network that is open to a variety of competitors that vie for customers based on the price, quality, and innovativeness of their services rather than on the basis that the customer has no other choice.”
[Keith Wilson, president of DynamicCity, the network’s operator] said the wholesale model eliminates the Net Neutrality objection right from the start because any service provider can get access to the UTOPIA network. That’s where the “Net Neutrality on steroids” description comes from. The fact that any provider can get on the network “takes the wind out of the sails of the incumbents,” Wilson said.

[ . . . ]

The individual service providers aren’t bound by the Net Neutrality, Wilson said, “The [Net Neutrality] problem exists when the network owner is wielding influence. When the owner is inherently open to all providers, then they [the providers on the network] can shoot themselves in the foot. They have to take the risk with their users who might be offended [by violations of Net Neutrality] and go to someone else.”

There are so far five service providers using the UTOPIA network. Four are local, MStar, Sisna, Veracity and XMission. AT&T is also offering service. MStar is the only one offering data, phone and TV.

How do customers make out with UTOPIA? Here’s a brief comparison. Comcast charges $68 per month for 3 mbps service. Qwest charges $54.99 for 3 mbps or $44.99 for 1.5 mbps.

On the other hand, MStar charges $39.95 for 10 mbps, XMission charges $40 for 15 mbps, and even AT&T can charge $39.95 for 15 mpbs.

–ME “Liz” Strauss

Related
NET NEUTRALITY PAGE