Successful Blog

Net Neutrality 8-31-2006

by

Net Neutrality Links

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

Net Neutrality Heads Toward Showdown In Senate; May Get Sidelined

. . . Is Internet neutrality a solution without a problem? The hardware companies think so. They haven’t invoked the hoopla around the Y2K debacle, but that’s about the position that they’re taking. “We won’t direct traffic away from the content/service providers”

On the other hand, Internet neutrality groups cite as a battle cry the words spoken last November by AT&T Chairman Edward Whitacre Jr., who said content providers were “nuts” if they thought they could use “my pipes” without paying extra, referring to AT&T’s broadband and telephone DSL services.

The United States Supreme Court opened the battlefield for Congress to step in last year in its Brand X decision, which affirmed the FCC’s decision classifying cable broadband Internet access an information service and not telephone service. The consequence of the decision was not lost on Congress: According to the Supreme Court, cable is not a common-carrier and therefore does not require equal access to its “pipes.”

So, Congress has stepped in with the Communications, Consumer’s Choice, and Broadband Deployment Act of 2006 to solve what some Senators see as the problem. The act seeks to allow phone companies to negotiate national cable franchise agreements instead of the way cable companies must do now: negotiating city-by-city franchise rights. . . . Wags predict it the bill may get sidelined until next year

–ME “Liz” Strauss

Related
NET NEUTRALITY PAGE

Net Neutrality 8-30-2006

by

Net Neutrality Links

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

Schumer On Net Neutrality

. . . I’m no fan of Chuck Schumer’s political decision-making, as many of you know. As a legislator, though, he can be great sometimes. . . . he’s out on net neutrality.

“. . . As the Internet continues to grow and evolve, we must make sure that average consumers can still use the web to learn, shop, and communicate. The Internet has the power to enhance one of the most fundamental values of our democracy: freedom of speech. . . . I will oppose the flawed and limiting provisions in Senator Stevens’ bill, S. 2686, which would allow Internet providers to discriminate against the websites of their competitors . . . If the Stevens bill is not changed to protect network neutrality, I will oppose it. Network neutrality has allowed the Internet to be an engine of economic innovation, democratic participation, and free speech. Eliminating it would be a serious mistake.”

This is a very very good thing. A thank you call to his Washington office at 202-224-6542 would help Schumer understand that net neutrality is something voters care about.

–ME “Liz” Strauss

Related
NET NEUTRALITY PAGE

Net Neutrality 8-29-2006

by

Net Neutrality Links

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

The Future Network Will not be Neutral.

Let me start off with some facts:
British Telecom makes sure that no other VoIP service can work on their network by blocking commonly used ports. Sify India, blocks all RTP packets to make sure that no other VoIP service is used on their network

The US charges developing countries per bandwidth, which is a major deterrent for growing economies to adopt faster connectivity. There are a lot of ISPs in the US, who make sure that Vonage doesnt work on their network.

Etisalat blocks off most sites, and no voice related service, including MSN, Yahoo, or Skype could work on their network

This is today. And this is not a Net Neutral reality. What makes you think that the future is going to be any different?

–ME “Liz” Strauss

Related
NET NEUTRALITY PAGE

Net Neutrality 8-28-2006

by

Net Neutrality Links

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

Telcos, Net Neutrality and fair business practices

This morning, I received an email from Verizon, concerning my DSL service.
The email alerted me to the fact that the federal tax known as FUSF (Federal Universal Service Fund) was no longer to be collected. Depending upon your level of service, this was a fee of $1.25 or $2.83 per month. This was part of a decision last year by the FCC to stop regulating DSL, therefore eliminating the need for the FUSF fee to be collected. Based upon this, consumers should have expected to see a modest reduction in their monthly bills, due to the elimination of the FUSF.

However, in reading my Verizon DSL email, it appears that they couldn’t bear to pass that reduction on to their customers. Instead, they indicate that . . . In essence, they’ve taken the amount of the tax (which they had to remit to the government) and shifted it into a new line item as a fee.

If people can’t understand why we need Net Neutrality, this is just another example of how the telcos operate and why we can’t let them change the playing field.

Update: Apparently the FCC is not too thrilled with Verizon and BellSouth efforts to mask price increases as fees. Also see comments from TechDirt on the matter.

–ME “Liz” Strauss

Related
NET NEUTRALITY PAGE

Net Neutrality 8-27-2006

by

Net Neutrality Links

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

Not so long ago

AT&T used their monopoly over local service (the telephony last mile) to make it impossible for competition to emerge in long distance or the manufacture of equipment.

It was all so complicated that the FCC was completely overpowered — at the antitrust trial before Judge Greene, DOJ called a bunch of former FCC-ers to testify that they couldn’t supervise the Bell System. This wasn’t market failure, this was regulatory failure. Complete inability to cope.

So Judge Greene drove them through discovery and trial with a firm hand, and after 11 months DOJ and AT&T came up with a consent decree. It separated the local telephone part from everything else (putting local service into the hands of seven operating companies made up of 22 former operating companies). It specifically said that those operating companies couldn’t get into offering content, or manufacturing equipment, or operating long distance service — because they couldn’t be trusted not to discriminate in favor of their own stuff. After the decree and the complicated process of splitting up the company, long distance prices plummeted, a vibrant market for equipment emerged, and the internet arrived.

[. . . ]

So where are we now? The seven operating companies crept back into long distance service, got rid of the consent decree (and Judge Greene’s firm hand) in the 1996 Act, manipulated/litigated their way out of allowing competitive local service to emerge, and now …. they’re mostly reconsolidated. We really have two phone companies in the US: Verizon and AT&T.

And they don’t really have competitors for broadband access — just gentle telco/cableco giants. Maybe colluding gentle giants — the gentlest of all.

[. . . ]

–ME “Liz” Strauss

Related
NET NEUTRALITY PAGE

Net Neutrality 8-26-2006

by

Net Neutrality Links

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

Save the Internet

Here are two YouTube videos to check out. Thery’re both short and worth a look.

RE: Save The Internet by KGP
00:16
From: knifegunpen
Views: 1209

Save the Internet! by StuEvo
02:12
From: StuEvo
Views: 293

–ME “Liz” Strauss

Related
NET NEUTRALITY PAGE