Successful Blog

Net Neutrality 7-30-2006

by

Net Neutrality Links

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

VoIP Over WiFi WILL Disrupt the Cellular Industry

It’s official. You can read all about it in The New York Times today.

“What if, instead of burning up minutes on your cellphone plan, you could make free or cheap calls over the wireless networks that allow Internet access in many coffee shops, airports and homes?” asks Matt Richtel.

The Times has recently discovered what you probably already knew, The next generation of cell phones have WiFi access built into them. Although there are some nasty non-technical details to be worked out, these phones can go online via a hotspot as easily as they connect to a cell tower.

But, here’s the rub for the cellular industry: when these phones log on in a hotspot, they can become VoIP phones as in free or very cheap calling, as in Skype. Telco have invested their typical borrowed billions in wireless frequency auctions and in so-called 3G services. These investments were made on the premise that wireless prices for voice and some services would stay astronomically high compared to landline and Internet connections. Whoops. You can hear the write-offs and bankruptcies coming! . . .

–ME “Liz” Strauss

Related
NET NEUTRALITY PAGE

Net Neutrality 7-29-2006

by

Net Neutrality Links

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

VA-Senate: Jim Webb Comes Out for Net Neutrality

I just got this statement from Virginia Senate candidate Jim Webb on net neutrality:

. . . . The internet has been open and free since its inception, and it should remain open and free moving forward. Just as importantly, the blogosphere provides strong checks and balances on the corporate media and on governmental power. . . .

–ME “Liz” Strauss

Related
NET NEUTRALITY PAGE

Net Neutrality 7-28-2006

by

Net Neutrality Links

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

Net neutrality ‘weaklings’ must answer to shareholders – FEAF

Tom Borelli, [The Free Enterprise Action Fund] FEAF portfolio manager, told The Register FEAF thinks companies that “run” to government – especially Microsoft who has a habit of usually going in the opposite direction when it comes to officials and regulation – are acting against “innovation.” They should focus on improving their products not legislation, he said.

“Our antenna goes up when big companies seek regulation. In our view that’s a sign of weakness. A free market should be out there competing and innovating, rather than running to the government to protect the market. That’s a defense strategy.” . . .

[snip]

The group has already used the shareholder resolution tactics over General Electric’s policy on global warming, which FEAF believes is damaging shareholders’ value, at an annual meeting in April. FEAF believes GE has succumbed to non-government organizations and environment advocates who Borelli calls “looters” interested in using GE’s resources to “achieve their social and political agenda.”

FEAF’s actions can be seen in a broader US context. With the argument over net neutrality breaking down along partisan lines, lobbyists and other interested parties are now springing to the fore to shape the issue.

–ME “Liz” Strauss

Related
NET NEUTRALITY PAGE

Net Neutrality 7-27-2006

by

Net Neutrality Links

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

Influencing the political process for advancment of technology

Need an example? Think about IM in the context of what it really is…delivering text messages. How much revenue do you think the Netheads make from IM? Combine AIM, MSN and Yahoo all together. How much revenue do you think the wireless carriers make from text messagin? Who wins the revenue war?

That isn’t the only place the Bellheads win. Look to political process. I’ve often wondered about our own ranks. Jeff Pulver. David Isenberg. Tom Evslin. Several others. Leading voices fighting the battle from without rather than stepping into the political fray of politics to redirect the system from within. If we’re going to win some measure of control away from the Bellheads, there is only one way. The political power base needs to shift. Netheads have to become the influencers of policy, something we are clearly not today.

–ME “Liz” Strauss

Related
NET NEUTRALITY PAGE

Net Neutrality 7-26-2006

by

Net Neutrality Links

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

No, it’s “In the Beginning…”

. . . The Net, as Bob Frankston puts it, is the real infrastructure. It’s the superset, not the subset. It’s the ultimate context. TV, phone, radio, publishing, commerce and everything else will eventually come to you over the Net, if it doesn’t already.
The problem is, the Net is really nothing more than the shortest data path between two devices. You want fast and free Internet for the same reason you want a fast and free connection between your computer and your keyboard and your screen.
Think of the Net as a giant three dimensional zero. Everything across it is zero distance from everything else. The cost of using it isn’t zero, but once it’s built, that’s what it rounds to. (As I explained here a few days ago.)
How do we build that out, and who do we trust to do it, without screwing it up? There is plenty of business in building it out, as there is in all forms of construction. But maintenance shouldn’t look like the cable TV or phone businesses, any more than highway maintenance should look like a theme park.
More to the point, why trust building the “first mile” of the Net to people who never wanted it in the first place, who have always felt threatened by it, who can imagine their customers as nothing other than “consumers” of one-way “content”, and who want to create scarcities and insert billing valves everywhere they can? Because they’re the only ones in a position to do it? That’s not a good enough reason. It’s also not true. . . .

–ME “Liz” Strauss

Related
NET NEUTRALITY PAGE

Net Neutrality 7-25-2006

by

Net Neutrality Links

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

Today’s cell phone system argues for retaining network neutrality

Net neutrality proponents foretell a grim future for the Internet if net neutrality is scrapped: one where technology stagnates because of high entry barriers and one where a small oligarchy controls what consumers can and cannot experience. . . . wouldn’t it be nice if history provided some guidance from which to evaluate these claims?

It turns out that we have a privately owned and controlled network all around us, one that closely mirrors the technical functionality of the Internet, but where there has never been a requirement for net neutrality: the US cellular phone network.

. . . So why aren’t there a wealth of amazing and interactive services available for mobile devices? Why is there no MySpace, Craigslist, Amazon, Flikr, or eBay accessible through this network? Why are cell phone payment systems and email systems nearly nonexistent? Why haven’t charities raised money or awareness of their causes through this system?

It’s simple. Because the cell phone carriers control what services are allowed to use their networks. There is no net neutrality on the cell phone network.

Read this one to find out what you would pay to set up the same thing you’re already doing via the cell phone carriers.

–ME “Liz” Strauss

Related
NET NEUTRALITY PAGE