Successful Blog

Net Neutrality 11-05-2006

by

Net Neutrality Links

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

Mudwrestling At The Goldberg’s

. . . The issue seems pretty simple. Videotron wants to preserve the gatekeeper status they enjoy as a cable television provider. That’s why they oppose net neutrality. In a world where many competitive alternatives exist, that might be tolerable. In our world — the world where your choices are cable or the incumbent telco — it shouldn’t even be on the table.

Do we, as consumers and producers of content, want a return to the end-to-end integrated model of the entertainment networks, or do we want choice? There’s enough crap on the tube. Let’s vote for choice and see what happens.

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

When Did AT&T Become Not For Profit? Was I Absent that Day?

by

Net Neutrality Links

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

Tom Evslin at Fractals of Change has been following Mr. Whitacre of AT&T more closely than I have. Tom’s detailed account of the merger with BellSouth is quite clearly focused. I’ve only pulled highlights. Read his analysis at at&t Blames Commercial Entities for FCC Delay.

Mr. Evslin’s report begins with the fact that the FCC has again delayed voting on AT&T’s merger/acquisition with/of BellSouth. He includes these lines from the NY Times in which AT&T is quoted as saying:

“While we regret that the merger has been delayed by the self-interest of commercial entities and their litany of unreasonable demands, we look forward to the F.C.C.’s approval so that we can get about the business of providing the overwhelming benefits the merger represents to consumers, to the economy and to the public interest.”

. . . we regret self-interest of commercial entities?

Excuse me? Are you implying you’re not part of that group? When did AT&T become not for profit? Was I absent that day? If you’re going to imply something untrue to me, please have the decency to be convincing.

Dear Mr. Whitacre, CEO of AT&T, first you said you will charge me and my destination to use “your pipes.” Now your company says that commercial entities are in the way of your “overwhelming benefits to the public interest.”

Tom Evslin says,

It’s the hypocrisy that’s annoying. Much more important is that this acquisition is significantly anti-competitive and is NOT in the public interest, far from it.

I have to agree with him.

Refusing emergency wireless voicemail access is only one in the list of things NOT “in the public interest” AT&T and BellSouth have done to date. MA Bell is back. Do read on. I missed most of this until Tom Evslin put it in one place.
[Read more…]

Net Neutrality 11-03-2006

by

Net Neutrality Links

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

The Banned Site tool turns up something interesting

Over on Threadwatch they were discussing the newest MSN seach parameter, which allows the parameter LinkFromDomain. Russ Virante, one of the commenters, posted his newest tool based on that parameter, which will show you which of your outbound links that are banned from Google, pretty useful if you want to weed them out, though it only shows the first hundred, and this site has more outbounds than that. Be that as it may, it was useful in weeding out one from my webgeek directory.

also ran it on the Bitchslappin Political Blog to see what turned up over there. . . . But the other surprise was the Verizon PoliBlog, which I won’t link to, but you can find here:

http://poliblog.verizon.com/PoliBlog/blogs/poliblog/default.aspx

Hmm, one has to wonder why that is? Is it something in the algorithm? Did they do something shady? Have they been spammy? Or could it have something to do with Verizon’s stance on Net Neutrality?

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 11-02–2006

by

Net Neutrality Links

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

Net Neutrality: Doc Searls : Saying What and How

I’ll cop to giving more weight to the future than to the present (because I prefer growth and dynamism over stasis). And to having a personal agenda: wanting the Net to be more than gravy on telephony or cable TV from the local duopoly. In both cases I want the marketplace to be free and open and not your-choice-of-silo.

How do we get that? I think we need something other than a choice between carrier regulation and carrier protectionism, which is how the two sides seem to line up right now.

As for evidence of harm, I’d cite the carrier’s asymmetrical bandwidth provisioning (not to mention port blockages) and tendentious arguments — “It’s what the market wants” — when the market has no other choice. The Net needs to enable and support production as well as consumption. It needs to support and not just prevent (or make difficult) new business in small and home offices. To name just two pro-market moves.

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 11-01-2006

by

Net Neutrality Links

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

Everything on IP

All telephone communications will become IP based Jeff Pulver, Jeff Pulver Blog, October 23, 2006, quoted from Jeff Pulver: All telephone communications will become IP based By Randy Howard, Barbados Advocate, Mon Oct 23 2006

I don’t know what’s more remarkable: that someone clearly says what is the case, or that a newspaper got it right.
Then there’s the corollary: dropping long distance rates incented telcos to abrogate net neutrality, so that they can get their monopoly back without having to come up with new value added services to make money.

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 10-30-2006

by

Net Neutrality Links

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

Don’t nix net neutrality

. . . Last year, a Supreme Court ruling and Federal Communications Commission decision declared that the Internet does not fall under existing communication service laws, putting Internet regulation in legal limbo. Since then, cable and telephone companies have been discussing how to profit from this decision. One of their ideas is to create a “multitiered” Internet.
That sound you’re hearing is the death knell of equality, or net neutrality, on the Web. Net neutrality means that after paying for service, everyone can access the Internet as fast as their connection will allow, without artificial handicaps from the Internet provider. . . .

This would give a huge advantage to content providers with deep financial resources, and make it unlikely for upstart ones like Youtube.com to succeed.

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