Successful Blog

Net Neutrality 8-25-2006

by

Net Neutrality Links

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

Welcome to the neutral net

We pointed out the other day that net neutrality fiends want public ownership of the Internet access network. Here’s a report from Broadband News on what that looks like:

Culver City, California was the first Los Angeles municipality to offer the public a free all-access Wi-Fi network. They’re also the first to ban all porn and p2p from that network, according to an announcement made yesterday.

–ME “Liz” Strauss

Related
NET NEUTRALITY PAGE

Net Neutrality 8-24-2006

by

Net Neutrality Links

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

Federal Trade Commission examines net neutrality
Move welcomed by consumer groups

“We certainly look forward to the analysis of an agency that exists to protect competition of the broadband market in which 98 percent of customers receive their service from either the telephone company or the cable company, if they have that choice at all,” Public Knowledge President Gigi Sohn said in an email. “There are no market forces at work here, much as Chairman Majoras wishes there to be.”

The FTC will host a conference, from 6 to 8 November, focusing on protecting consumers in an era of converging technologies, Majoras also announced. The conference, named “Protecting Consumers in the Next Tech-Ade”, will focus on emerging trends, applications, products, services and tech issues in the next decade, she said.

The preliminary agenda can be found here.

–ME “Liz” Strauss

Related
NET NEUTRALITY PAGE

Net Neutrality 8-23-2006

by

Net Neutrality Links

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

FTC Chairman Addresses Issue of “Net Neutrality”

Federal Trade Commission Chairman Deborah Platt Majoras today told a meeting of the Progress & Freedom Foundation that she has formed an Internet Access Task Force to examine issues being raised by converging technologies and regulatory developments, and to educate and inform the enforcement, advocacy and education initiatives of the Commission. “I also have asked the Internet Access Task Force to address what is likely the most hotly debated issue in communications, so-called ‘network neutrality,’” she said.

“The FTC’s Internet Access Task Force is looking carefully at the issues raised by calls for network neutrality laws. . . . I urge caution in proceeding on the issue. I . . . question the starting assumption that government regulation, rather than the market itself under existing laws, will provide the best solution to a problem,” Majoras said.

Majoras said there are points that should be considered before enactment of legislation to regulate the Internet, since regulation will have impact “for years to come.”

[. . . ]

“While I am sounding cautionary notes about new legislation, let me make clear that if broadband providers engage in anticompetitive conduct, we will not hesitate to act using our existing authority. But I have to say, thus far, proponents of net neutrality regulation have not come to us to explain where the market is failing or what anticompetitive conduct we should challenge; we are open to hearing from them,” she said.

Majoras also said the FTC will host a conference with “an array of experts from around the world to inform us about what they see as emerging trends, applications, products, services, and issues over the next ten years.” A preliminary agenda for the hearings, named “Protecting Consumers in the Next Tech-Ade,”is being released today. Copies of the agenda can be found at http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/workshops/techade/tech-ade_agenda_preliminary.pdf

–ME “Liz” Strauss

Related
NET NEUTRALITY PAGE

Net Neutrality 8-22-2006

by

Net Neutrality Links

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

The Internet Consumer Bill of Rights

A Bill of Rights follows the U.S. Constitution to protect us from the depredations of a powerful government to which we have ceded authority. The existence of a Bill of Rights assumes that there’s a powerful entity against which we need protection.

In the draft Stevens bill, the Consumer Internet Bill of Rights assumes that the broadband network access providers are powerful — but it’s not clear that the IBR provides much protection.

First, labeling: users are “consumers” (not creators) or “subscribers” (think packaged content), and the IBR doesn’t apply to video services “in which Internet service is not the primary service.” Because the chief goal of this amendment is to put the incumbent telcos in a position to become broadband video service providers, this exception substantially lessens whatever protections the IBR creates.

The preamble re-uses language that leads into Section 230 — a section that shields interactive computer services like Yahoo! and eBay from liability for material created by others — to suggest that network providers should not be subject to regulation. This is the call of the network companies: protect us from regulation, and you’ll be protecting the internet! If there were true competition for broadband access, that call might make sense — as it is, it seems cynical. . . .

–ME “Liz” Strauss

Related
NET NEUTRALITY PAGE

Net Neutrality 8-21-2006

by

Net Neutrality Links

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

Net Neutrality… another oversimplification

Why not let corporations build their second tier with a TIME LIMIT on their right to charge tariffs? Each new line of fiber or clutch of super-servers could initiate a sliding scale, similar to depreciation, after which they become part of an ever-growing commons?

This is the sort of thing that should have been done, 20 years ago, in CABLE so-called deregulation. The so-called “reform” of that time did nothing to foster competition. Rather, it provided each cable company with safe zones of monopoly! Suppose that the bill had included this simple provision, though:

“Starting now, each company is allowed to “invade” its neighbors’ territory (by laying new cable or by sharing existing lines) by half a mile per year. Five years after this bill has been passed, the companies will be REQUIRED to invade each others’ territory by half a mile per year.”

Yes, it would have cost them money. Yes, they would have been forced to cut prices everywhere their territories overlapped. And the problem is….?

Two sentences. Just two.

–ME “Liz” Strauss

Related
NET NEUTRALITY PAGE

Net Neutrality 8-20-2006

by

Net Neutrality Links

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

Net Neutrality Opposed by National Conference of State Legislatures Over My Objections by State Rep Mark Cohen Dem PA

State Rep Mark Cohen Dem PA’s diary :: ::
I was the only legislator present who was familiar enough with net neutrality issues to argue in its favor. In a voice vote, in which each legislator casts an individual vote, it seemed to be a close call as to which side had the majority. When I called for a roll call vote by states, a majority of 33 state delegations voted against network neutrality, while a majority of ten states voted for network neutrality.

As a 3/4 vote is needed for the National Conference of State Legislatures to take a position, a change of the majority in only one state that voted would have defeated the resolution. The vote was the equivalent of the 2000 Presidential election in the electoral college.

The effect of this resolution is that lobbyists for the National Conference of State Legislatures–the mainstream organization representing state legislatures–will be in opposition to network neutrality for the next year, when the resolution expires.

–ME “Liz” Strauss

Related
NET NEUTRALITY PAGE