Successful Blog

Net Neutrality 9-24-2006

by

Net Neutrality Links

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

Pro-Net Neutrality Nuggets Are Buried in Verizon’s Poll

On behalf of the Net Neutrality community, I’d like to thank Public Opinion Strategies and the Glover Park Group for their recent survey on Net Neutrality. And a fine piece of work it is. On one hand, some of the poll was so over-the-top that it’s easy to discredit. On the other hand, if you look a little deeper, it appears that the Verizon-sponsored work not only bolstered our case, but provided the seeds to start a wider discussion of a new broadband policy for the country.

[ . . .]

There is a common theme through the first three crucial questions.

The first question — “How important is it to you that (Insert State) residents have a choice of service providers when it comes to cable TV – in other words, that there is more than one company to choose from?” In the overall survey of 800 voters, 73 percent said the choice was “very important Separate surveys from 400 voters in Pennsylvania, Ohio and Missouri had similar results.

The second question — “How interested would you be in having more companies to choose from for your cable TV service?” The response was that 50 percent were “very interested” and 26 percent were “somewhat interested.”

For the third question, a multiple choice one, 56 percent of those surveyed said more choices would bring about lower prices, 50 percent said better customer service (not exactly a vote of confidence) and 40 percent, new technologies.

The central theme, and what these questions show clearly, is that consumers want choice. Let’s look at this on two levels. Consumers want choices in Internet applications and services. They don’t want a telephone or cable company deciding for them what Web sites or applications will function better than others. They don’t want a telephone or cable company cutting an exclusive deal . . .

We can look at the choice issue in another way with a word substitution. Imagine if the question read: “How important is it to you that (Insert State) residents have a choice of service providers when it comes to high-speed Internet service – in other words, that there are more than two companies to choose from?” Or what if the second question read: “How interested would you be in having more companies to choose from for your high-speed Internet service?”

[ . . . ]

Once upon a time we had a flourishing, competitive Internet industry, with thousands and thousands of Internet Service Providers. Little by little regulatory decisions . . . whittled the once-flourishing industry down to next to nothing. Most of the country has no choice in broadband. Some places don’t have broadband, and won’t for the foreseeable future.

–ME “Liz” Strauss

Related
NET NEUTRALITY PAGE

Net Neutrality 9-23-2006

by

Net Neutrality Links

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

Congress is clueless about the internet [via The Blog Herald]

So why am I not worried?

Because soon the next generation of elected officials are going to be people my age, people who grew up with the internet, people who instant message their friends. In the next 10, 20, and 30 years the people that are elected to office are going to be people who “get” the internet, people who understand why net neutrality is important.

Laws aren’t irreversible. In 25 years the justices on the supreme court will understand the internet – they can say that laws enacted today are unconstitutional. The people who grew up logging into Facebook and checking email will be more powerful.

The next guy in charge of the RIAA might understand why downloaded music isn’t such a bad thing. . . .

–ME “Liz” Strauss

Related
NET NEUTRALITY PAGE

Net Neutrality 9-22-2006

by

Net Neutrality Links

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

Net Neutrality: Letter to Lorelle

. . . if everything and all the content that was being accessed, was in the same network, nobody really cares. . . . The person who laid that infrastructure is also the one reaping the revenue out of it.

We are talking about a world, that in another few years is going to look very very complicated and simple at the sametime. I could switch between my television and “mobile communication device” in ease. I can flip my video conferencing session from my mobile phone, to the big screen television to get a better view and perspective if I wanted to… all this means, I’ll have to hop between networks, and the amount of effort, energy and money that needs to go into making sure that interoperability is achieved, is enormous – not to mention the billions of dollars that are invested towards that infrastructure.

Simply put, nobody is going to make that investment, unless operators can be sure that out of all these services, they can get some money. . . . Since all the devices will be on IP . . . there cant be a way to differentiate what these services are. That’s basically the reason why these “walled gardens” are being raised – just to make sure that there is some basis for charging your usage, in a fair manner.

. . .

–ME “Liz” Strauss

Related
NET NEUTRALITY PAGE

Net Neutrality 9-21-2006

by

Net Neutrality Links

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

Commerce Poll on Telecom Bill Reeks of Desperation

The Senate Commerce Committee released yesterday, and posted on its web site today, a Verizon-funded push-poll that not surprisingly finds 1. Most Americans want competition in cable and 2. Most Americans are opposed to “onerous” (that’s the word used by the supposedly independent “bi-partisan” write-up of the poll results) net neutrality regulations.

[ . . .].

Check out the poll’s loaded question on net neutrality:

Which of the following two items do you think is the most important to you:

Delivering the benefits of new TV and video choice so consumers will see increased competition and lower prices for cable TV

OR

Enhancing Internet neutrality by barring high speed internet providers from offering specialized services like faster speed and increased security for a fee

Faced with this choice, is it any surprise that 66% of the 800 registered voters surveyed (91% of whom were clueless about net neutrality) opted for the delightful delivery of benefits of new video choices over the insidious barring of cool new services such as faster broadband and better security?

The survey, conducted by not one but two bought-and-paid-for political polling firms, Public Opinion Strategies and The Glover Park Group, is just routine message manipulation by the pollsters . . . But the fact that once again, the United States Senate is disseminating corporate propaganda on one of its most powerful committee’s web sites, funded by stiffs like you and me, should get everybody hopping mad.

. . . The Senate Commerce Committee has given up even a thin veneer of working for the public. It’s working for Verizon now.

–ME “Liz” Strauss

Related
NET NEUTRALITY PAGE

Net Neutrality 9-20-2006

by

Net Neutrality Links

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

Politicians battle over network neutrality

Ben Scott, policy director of the media-oriented lobbying and outreach organization Free Press, said . . .

“Imagine what it looks like when you create a multitiered Internet – you create a fast quality of service for people who pay a lot of money,” he said. “Essentially you’re creating Internet that’s best for those who can pay the most.”

In a system without expanded infrastructure, Scott said, that would mean those who cannot pay the most would have a degraded quality of service.

It’s important to distinguish between consumer tiers and those that would be on the Internet itself, Scott said.

“We’re each buying different amounts of bandwidth, but once we pay our fee and get online, it’s the same quality of access,” he said. “No one decides which Web site goes fast, which goes slow.”

[ . . .]

Alok Gupta, department chairman and Carlson School of Management professor of Information and Decision Sciences, said services that are not free now can be provided for free should companies be able to charge for services that require a higher level of access.

“You can not only have more incentives for investment, but you can actually increase social welfare by providing multiple levels of access,” he said.

The real danger in this area is if media companies merge with infrastructure companies, he said.

Implementation of a multitiered system requires some thoughtfulness, Gupta said, as legislators cannot let companies do whatever they want.

“If the network slows down because of high level of activity, that is natural; but purposeful degradation of services should not be allowed,” he said. “That’s the real legislative issue. That’s something we need laws about which we don’t have right now – not that it should be illegal to provide differential services.”

–ME “Liz” Strauss

Related
NET NEUTRALITY PAGE

Net Neutrality 9-19-2006

by

Net Neutrality Links

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

Google will flex political muscles
PAC to raise money for causes, candidates; lobbyists on board

Google filed paperwork Thursday to register its political action committee, Google NetPAC, with the Federal Election Commission. The company intends to use the committee “to support candidates who promote an open and free Internet for our users,” according to Alan Davidson, Google’s Washington policy counsel.

In addition, Google bolstered its clout by hiring former Republican Sens. Dan Coats of Indiana and Connie Mack of Florida as outside lobbyists. The political veterans may go a long way in building Google’s ties with Republicans, a group widely considered to be the opposition based on the overwhelming preference by Google employees to make campaign contributions to Democrats.

[ . . .]

Google’s push in Washington also involves co-sponsoring its first political fundraiser. On Wednesday, the company, along with eBay Inc. and TechNet, a technology industry group, will hold an event for embattled Rep. Heather Wilson, R-N.M., at the Capitol Hill Club, a swanky Republican redoubt in Washington.

[ . . .]

Google’s move is somewhat uncharacteristic given its independent streak, down to its corporate motto, “Don’t be evil.” But as the company has grown into a major presence in U.S. business it has been thrust into political debates on which ride tens of millions of dollars in revenue.

“This is very, very symptomatic of the way high tech has evolved in California,” said Larry Gerston, political science professor at San Jose State University and an expert on Silicon Valley politics. “These companies started out with an entrepreneurial spirit and a feeling that what was important was the product and the people, so they didn’t have to care about politics. But as they become more sophisticated, they realized that politics could either protect them or hurt them.”

–ME “Liz” Strauss

Related
NET NEUTRALITY PAGE