Successful Blog

Net Neutrality 9-09-2006

by

Net Neutrality Links

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

Senate Commerce Committee Circulating Astroturf? [via freepress]

[ . . . ]

One interesting bit in all the noise: Public Knowledge points to this promotional pdf that is being circulated by the Senate Commerce Committee itself to “sell” its Senate Communications Act of 2006. You’ll note that among the list of supporting “consumer groups” are some familiar faces (like Consumers for cable choice) who are actually incumbent lobbyists dressed up as consumer groups. You’ll also notice that for whatever reason, the impartial committee promotional pdf features editorials solely against net-neutrality.

[ . . . ]

–ME “Liz” Strauss

Related
NET NEUTRALITY PAGE

Net Neutrality 9-08-2006

by

Net Neutrality Links

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

Fight For the Internet Freedom Heats Up [via 3quarksdaily]

As the return of Congress loomed, however, the Alaska senator took a poke from the largest daily newspaper in his state, the Anchorage Daily News, which bluntly declared in a September 4 editoral that: “Net Neutrality is a good idea. Sen. Ted Stevens should support it.”

“Sen. Stevens has said he doesn’t see an immediate problem that requires regulation. In other words, he’s reluctant to have the government set the playing rules until more companies are caught cheating. Apparently he thinks competition can be counted on to prevent any abuses,” explained the editorial. “Only problem is, local Internet service is not a fluid, totally free market with a lot of competitors. Many markets are served by only one or two high-speed Internet companies. Switching providers is not as easy as driving to the next gas station or grocery store. Special expertise and special equipment are required to switch. Many consumers may not even be sophisticated enough to know when their Internet service is playing favorites in sending content.”

The Anchorage Daily News concluded that, “Net Neutrality is hardly a heavy-handed government intrusion into the free-wheeling world of the Internet. It is a simple antitrust rule that protects consumers by keeping Internet companies from exploiting their control over connections. Congress should get ahead of the curve and ensure net neutrality before abuses begin to spread.”

–ME “Liz” Strauss

Related
NET NEUTRALITY PAGE

Are Telcos Changing Their Ways Now?

by

AT&T Call Number One

Customer Think Logo

About 6 weeks ago, I paid my ATT bill online, as I have for months. I finished. I got a receipt that said, “Successful.” I put it with the bill in the file where such things go. It was 3 weeks later when I got a notice saying my bill was unpaid.

I wasn’t happy. I called them up.

My first surprise was that my call didn’t cross an ocean. My second was that the person at that end listened and wanted to help. She was patient and as perplexed as I was at what happened. She gave me the time I needed to be sure that no money was taken from any of my accounts.

We settled the amount due. She removed the late fee. Subject closed. I said thank you for a most pleasant call. I meant it too.

I was surprised that things went so well.

AT&T Call Number Two

This morning I received the usual update reminder. It’s the one that tells me that my next online bill was about to come due. The “wonky” amount was sitting there again. “Too good to be true,” were the words in my head.

I wasn’t happy. I called them up.

My first surprise was that AGAIN my call didn’t cross an ocean. My second was that AGAIN the person on the other end listened and wanted to help. She assured me that my account was fine.

Then she let me know how I could get FASTER INTERNET SERVICE AT A LOWER PRICE. Did I want that?

Our conversation was professional and pleasant — so much so that I asked her whether AT&T had moved their outsourced calls back to the US. She said that they never had all of them there, but that yes they had moved many calls back here now.

She sounded like a telephone blogger — authentic, transparent.

I’m thinking that NET NEUTRALITY and bloggers have their attention. I’ve never enjoyed a conversation with AT&T until these two — I was thoroughly frustrated with them as recently as June 22, 2006. — Now I’ve just enjoyed talking to them twice in a row!

I’m not at all sure what to think, or what to do with this information. If they start actually doing customer service, I’m not sure I’ll remember how a customer acts.

–ME ‘Liz Strauss

Related articles
AT&T & ME w/o DSL — Why AT&T Won’t Fix Problems
See Net Neutrality Page I and Net Neutrality Page II.

Net Neutrality 9-07-2006

by


Net Neutrality Links

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

Net Neutrality Wins More Senators

The Net Neutrality movement is gaining support among U.S. senators. At the close of the August recess, the SaveTheInternet.com coalition added four previously uncommitted legislators to the cause.

According to the website, that brings the tally to 26 senators in favor of the Snowe-Dorgan amendment to Senator Ted Stevens’ sweeping telecom bill. There is ground left to make up, though, with half the Senate still uncertain.

The split is almost entirely according to party lines. All 14 of the senators who’ve made a stance against Net Neutrality are Republican. Of the 26 senators in favor, 24 are Democrat. Fifty-six are still uncommitted, and four straddle the fence.

[. . . ]

“Powerful telephone company lobbyists will tell you one of two things – both of which, of course, are false,” said [David] Petit [of the Public Interest Research Group.] “First, they will tell you that the Stevens bill already preserves Net Neutrality. This is completely not true. Second, they might say ‘don’t regulate the Internet. Let the market decide.’ … All we want to do is reinstate the Net Neutrality principles that guarantee that the Internet treats everyone fairly.”

–ME “Liz” Strauss

Related
NET NEUTRALITY PAGE

Net Neutrality 9-06-2006

by

Net Neutrality Links

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

Slashdot: Net Neutrality is Just “Mumbo Jumbo”

[ . . .]

Nerds are mumbling about the jumbo scam being run on Americans in their name.

DocGonzo’s diary :: ::
“Net Neutrality” started as an empty buzzword, meaning the current open state of Internet, threatened by giant ISPs in many ways unique to their vested interests. If it remained just some backroom horsetrading among congressmembers, . . . giant ISPs would have gotten their wishlist from their “partner” legislators.

But a funny thing happened on the way to the Senate – “Net Neutrality” wound up in Internet forums. Now the public has surprised the geeks and the wonks, finding an interest in an issue not only esoteric and technical, but not even fully formed. Many in the public realize that “Net Neutrality” is the Internet we have already, that we have a right to have, that we got right the first time. That we make the laws to protect our rights, not to rip us off.

We’ve had the Internet long enough that we’re starting to understand intuitively some of its basic technical benefits, like open end-to-end universal access regardless of content or endpoints. Like we understand after a century of driving cars that we can’t have ones with the hood welded shut . . .

–ME “Liz” Strauss

Related
NET NEUTRALITY PAGE

Net Neutrality 9-05-2006

by

Net Neutrality Links

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

I’ll be Posting this both in the chronology and to the Top of Neutrality I. Thank you Cat Morley for finding and sharing it.

SW Virginia Law Blog: Net Neutrality — Detailed Research [via Net neutrality outlined]

This comprehensive outline on net neutrality was compiled by Steve Minor, of the SW Virginia Law Blog.

1. What is net neutrality?
2. Strange bedfellows (who’s for it; who’s against it)
3. What the FCC is doing and isn’t doing
4. What Congress has been doing and hasn’t been doing
5. On doing nothing (If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it)
6. On doing something
7. On doing something else
Conclusion

–ME “Liz” Strauss

Related
NET NEUTRALITY PAGE