Successful Blog

Net Neutrality 7-18-2006

by

Net Neutrality Links

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

Technologists square off on Net neutrality

WASHINGTON–Two Internet pioneers dueled on Monday over whether proposed Net neutrality regulations supported by companies like Google and Amazon.com are the best way to prevent “abusive” behavior by broadband providers.

A debate here hosted by the Center for American Progress, a nonpartisan research institute that brags of challenging “conservative thinking,” pitted Google Chief Internet Evangelist Vint Cerf, who co-developed the Internet’s backbone protocols and has emerged as a leading proponent of congressional antidiscrimination mandates for network operators, against Dave Farber, a Carnegie Mellon University computer scientist widely considered to be a “grandfather” of the Internet.

–ME “Liz” Strauss

Related
NET NEUTRALITY PAGE

Scott Karp deserves your attenion.

by

Wondering What’s Changed?

Customer Think Logo

You can argue ideology, but I’ve said for a while that American companies are going to hurt when they realize they no longer have the only access to the largest market in the world. It’s not a hard concept — it’s about quality now, not quanity. Scott Karp says it beautifully in just a few words. Don’t let the big words throw you. Click the title and go read.

Making Sense of the 2.0 Ideological Polemic

Thanks, Scott. I agree completely.

–ME “Liz” Strauss
[via Manage to Change]
Related articles
AT&T & ME w/o DSL — Why AT&T Won’t Fix Problems
Don’t Read Your PR, Read Your Marketing Copy
Do You Know a Customer When You See One?

Net Neutrality 7-17-2006

by

Net Neutrality Links

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

Net Neutrality and the Flat Tax for Google [via Net Neutrality]

Why is an issue so simple on the surface turning into such a partisan one?

Well, here is the answer. It’s about money not censorship. And its about money that powers activism more than lobbying money. The telecom’s lobbying is one that, like most industries, traditionally plays both sides. The new online media, exemplified by Google, does not.

In truth, there are anti-trust and other legal remedies for anti-competitive discrimination that the market won’t sort out. If censorship was the issue, that could likely generate full bi-partisan support. That is not what is at stake however. What is at stake is that the content and web services business are making a killing in earnings by relying on cheap, available bandwidth that is the same cost to them as it is to your and me. Actually, this isn’t really accurate – it is a lot cheaper for them in bulk than it is for our DSL/Cable access. This doesn’t make the providers very happy. They want those really rich (i.e. Google, Yahoo, etc.) to compensate them proportionate to their total “assets” – in terms of users and usage. Basically, Telecom wants the right to progressively “tax” services like Google. After all, Google can always buy their own pipes and equipment if they don’t want to pay. According to many reports, they already are.

Now this is the irony, these same leftists (by their donations and statements) that would likely crow on and on about “the rich paying their fair share” are lining up to have the Congress forbid Telecom for using anything but a “flat tax” on their services. There are no “income brackets” allowed on the Internet according to Google and John Kerry.

–ME “Liz” Strauss

Related
NET NEUTRALITY PAGE

Net Neutrality 7-16-2006

by

Net Neutrality Links

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

Does Patented Chaincast VMR Technology Stomp on Internet Property Rights?

US Patent #6249810 was issued to Chaincast Networks, Inc. for what is called Virtual Multicast Routing or (VMR) Technology. This technology flies in the face of centuries of established property rights and it probably does so because of the newness of the internet and the lack of understanding of how property rights apply to internet bandwidth.

Chaincast technology is used in the distribution of streaming media and is currently most prevalent in the streaming of broadcast radio audio programming on the internet. Some very large radio networks use this technology to “lower their cost of content delivery”. VMR technology is embedded within the unsuspecting users computer when the user is requested to download the VMR hosting service’s “patented media player”.

Once the radio station’s desiring online listener has checked the software provider’s “User License Agreement” checkbox, the media player begins to deliver the audio content. This is not where the story ends. The Chaincast technology takes over and as the name suggests, the radio broadcast is forwarded, using the listener’s bandwidth, to many more online listeners of the radio station. . . .

–ME “Liz” Strauss

Related
NET NEUTRALITY PAGE

Net Neutrality 7-15-2006

by

Net Neutrality Links

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

Cerf, Part 1: Excuse me, but we don’t get a free ride at all

Fortune recently ran an interview with Google’s Vint Cerf (I think it’s in the current issue, it’s not up on the site yet). That was unfortunate for Business 2.0, the magazine where I do interviews, because I had recently completed an interview with him as well. Given that B2 is monthly and Fortune comes out every two weeks, Fortune scooped B2, and now the magazine doesn’t want to run my interview.

Well, that’s great for us. Because B2 said I can run it here, a full month ahead of when it would get through B2’s production process, and at greater length.

Vint, who is Chief Internet Evangelist for Google and is widely regarded as one of the fathers of the Internet, does not mince words in this interview. He’s clearly got a point of view, and he is not afraid to explain it. Of note – Cerf understands the Bellhead point of view personally, he spent a fair amount of time at MCI before joining Google….

Here’s Part 1, more coming as I edit it…

–ME “Liz” Strauss

Related
NET NEUTRALITY PAGE

Net Neutrality 7-14-2006

by

Net Neutrality Links

I’m adding these links to the Net Neutrality Page.

Broadband competition? Not so much

In the first part of this year, the US average for cable modem service was US$39.45 a month, while DSL was slightly less expensive at US$35.38. . . .

The report does note that these are standalone prices, and allows that there might be more competition between the two technologies if bundling deals are taken into account. Both the cable industry and the telcos are offering substantial discounts to customers who sign up for multiple services from the same company, and both have the ultimate goal of providing Internet, telephony, and video services.

. . . It’s because consumers don’t have many options that some form of Net Neutrality provisions are necessary, according to the group’s Art Brodsky. “Federal Communications Commission (FCC) statistics showing that just about everyone who has broadband gets it from either the telephone company or the cable company,” he writes. “The FCC has affirmatively pursued the policy of creating this situation, and it’s one of the main reasons we need a Net Neutrality policy. There is no real choice.”

–ME “Liz” Strauss

Related
NET NEUTRALITY PAGE