Successful Blog

Net Neutrality 9-30-2006

by

Net Neutrality Links

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

MORE FROM:
‘Neutrality’ Is New Challenge for Internet Pioneer an Interview on Net Neutrality with Sir Tim Berners-Lee By JOHN MARKOFF Published: September 27, 2006

Q. So there are political consequences [to losing a neutral net]. Are there are also economic consequences? If so, what are they?

A. I think the people who talk about dismantling — threatening — Net neutrality don’t appreciate how important it has been for us to have an independent market for productivity and for applications on the Internet.

Now, if we compare what you can get into your home with earliest modems, it’s maybe 1,000 times as fast. So that market has been very competitive, very successful.

And I think we wouldn’t have seen this explosion in the exciting, tremendous diversity of the kind of things you see on the Web now. So in the future, obviously, we expect to see many more things. We expect to see, very importantly, television streaming over the Internet, which is going to make a very exciting market in television content and maybe entertainment, maybe educational ideas.

The people deploying these things rely on the fact that the Internet is sitting there waiting to carry whatever they can dream up.

MORE TOMMOROW

–ME “Liz” Strauss

Related
NET NEUTRALITY PAGE

Net Neutrality 9-29-2006

by

Net Neutrality Links

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

‘Neutrality’ Is New Challenge for Internet Pioneer andnterview By JOHN MARKOFF
Published: September 27, 2006

SIR TIM BERNERS-LEE was a software programmer working at the CERN physics research laboratory in Switzerland in the 1980’s when he proposed the idea of a project based on hypertext — linking documents with software pointers.

The World Wide Web went online in 1991 and rapidly grew beyond the physics community. In 1994, Sir Tim founded the World Wide Web Consortium at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology to promote open standards on the Internet. Earlier this year, he began speaking out in favor of “Net neutrality.” The term describes one side in the debate in the United States over whether Internet service providers should be able to control the order in which they route packets of data — or even be able to reject those packets — or whether they should be required to be neutral on the matter. For example, in some cases I.S.P.’s have restricted the routing of services provided by competitors like Internet phone calls.

He answered questions earlier this month by telephone from Cambridge, Mass.

Q. Do you think you would be able to invent the Web today, given the barriers that are emerging?

A. You have to imagine the Net without the Web. I think I would be able to invent it today, but if we lose Net neutrality, then imagine a world in which it’s much more difficult to invent the Web.

Q. Is your view that the anti-Net neutrality infrastructure actually threatens political democracy? Does it go beyond just the technical structure of the Internet?

A. Net neutrality is one of those principles, social principles, certainly now much more than a technical principle, which is very fundamental. When you break it, then it really depends how far you let things go. But certainly I think that the neutrality of the Net is a medium essential for democracy, yes — if there is democracy and the way people inform themselves is to go onto the Web.

MORE TOMORROW . . .

–ME “Liz” Strauss

Related
NET NEUTRALITY PAGE

Net Neutrality 9-28-2006

by

Net Neutrality Links

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

Lies, cable TV, and Patrick Hynes

What’s all this about? Well, if you’ve been reading the business sections of the papers over the past year or so, you’ve probably seen a few articles about this stuff. From what I understand, the debates involve delivery of television signals and other high-bandwidth content (i.e., Internet service) to people’s homes. Cable TV has been the dominant player for the last 20 years, thanks to technological issues and municipal-level monopolies, but ISPs and telephone companies are positioning themselves for an era where the Internet is used to deliver paid television programming.

A related issue is how Internet traffic will be treated in the future. Currently the Internet isn’t owned by anyone, but companies do own parts of it. Any network connection that’s part of the Internet treats all traffic – whether email, Google searches, news, music, or video – equally, or relatively equally. From what Borderline has been able to fathom, some companies which own “backbone” connections (kind of like the superhighways of the Internet) as well as potential distributors of high-bandwidth programming — want to be able to segregate traffic by type and price, so things like blogs or free video posted on local websites would be on the slow road with lots of traffic lights, while paid video channels would be on the faster toll road. “Net Neutrality” refers to the efforts to keep the Internet the way it is now, i.e., all traffic is treated in the same way, rather than paid programming getting higher priority.

–ME “Liz” Strauss

Related
NET NEUTRALITY PAGE

Net Neutrality 9-27-2006

by

Net Neutrality Links

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

Net Neutrality Fight Moves to Pennsylvania Legislature

. . . With the Stevens bill looking like it’s going to die and a possible changeover in Congress, the telecom companies are looking for an alternative legislative vehicle so they don’t have to have strong net neutrality protections tacked onto the telecom reform bill next cycle. And that means going to the states. Rather than passing national franchising, the telecom companies are trying to get a bunch of big states to pass state video franchising bills, and then they won’t have to deal with a Federal bill next cycle and net neutrality can just die without legislative action. One of these states is Pennsylvania, and the bill is called SB 1247.

Now, video franchising isn’t bad in itself, but this bill is horrible. It allows redlining, which means that no one will invest in building out broadband to rural areas. The only people who will get cable and internet service over fiber are in high income suburbs and dense urban areas. And obviously, there is no net neutrality protections.

–ME “Liz” Strauss

Related
NET NEUTRALITY PAGE

Net Neutrality 9-26-2006

by

Net Neutrality Links

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

What Scott Cleland (and Co.) Doesn’t Get About Net Neutrality

[ . . . ]

But we want to make it clear, again, what the network neutrality fight is about. It’s having a U.S. digital media system where all forms of content can conveniently and affordably be created & distributed—to TV’s, PC’s, and mobile devices. Network neutrality is a policy where access to content doesn’t depend on the whims of the owners of your network, operating system, or e-commerce provider. It means maximum freedom in the broadband era, an enhancing of our democracy. That includes the right to receive any kind of content you want—now. In the not too distant future, the ability of programmers and political leaders to effectively communicate ideas will depend on their access to the “triple play” distribution system. The battle for network neutrality is to ensure we have no digital gatekeepers—including AT&T, Comcast, as well as Microsoft, Google, Yahoo!, etc.

Mr. Cleland’s backers wish to control that future—otherwise they would have to content themselves with only the (considerable) revenues from fair-minded distribution. Comcast, AT&T and the others all want to be King of the broadband domain. But in a digital democracy—there shouldn’t be lords of the realm, only citizen/users/creators.

–ME “Liz” Strauss

Related
NET NEUTRALITY PAGE

Net Neutrality 9-25-2006

by

Net Neutrality Links

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

US Telecom Bill Is DOA

Net neutrality kills overdue legislation, as new Internet lobby force rises on Capitol Hill.

The Communications, Consumers’ Choice and Broadband Deployment Act looks to be on the verge of extinction.

[ . . . ]

The bill is the first piece of comprehensive telecommunications legislation in a decade. It covers a wide range of telecommunications and regulatory issues such as video franchising, universal service, and municipal broadband.

Still, passage of the bill hinges on Net neutrality, a concept not well understood in both the general U.S. population and the Senate.

A coalition of organizations and individuals led by MoveOn.org, the Free Press, Consumers Union, Gun Owners of America, Google, and Craig Newmark, founder of Craigslist.org, moved the Net neutrality discussion into the mainstream with a relentless Internet-based lobbying effort.

In both the Senate and House committees, Net neutrality dominated the sometimes disjointed debate. Despite the fact that bills passed in both houses that did not include Net neutrality provisions, the SaveTheInternet.com coalition seems to be on the brink of victory.

–ME “Liz” Strauss

Related
NET NEUTRALITY PAGE