Successful Blog

Net Neutrality 6-14-2006

by

Net Neutrality Links

I’ve added these links to the Net Neutrality Page today.

ONLY ONE LINK TODAY SO THAT YOU WILL LISTEN TO IT.

DOWNLOAD A NEW TUNE BY INDEPENDENT ARTISTS
WHILE YOU STILL CAN!!! [via Mark Wade ]

Three singer/songwriters met at a Los Angeles recovery center for those suffering from internet-related anger issues. How could Congress vote to destroy one of the only good things left in America? This made no sense! How could so few people be enraged? What were people doing to keep network neutrality the law of the land?

They realized that they had found kindred spirits in one another and needed to work through their newfound political rage. Their counselor suggested that they could channel their frustration through song, interpretative dance, screaming or simply calling Congress over and over. When they discovered that Michelle was afraid of morons, they decided to just do the singing part. And thus The BroadBand was born.

–ME “Liz” Strauss

Related
NET NEUTRALITY PAGE

17% of Everyone’s Time — 18-50++ Got Model?

by

Not Just a Survey

When Ball State University Center for Media Design did a new study on how we use media, they didn’t want to take a survey. Surveys have that problem of people self-reporting their behavior — sometimes folks aren’t, well, accurate. Hoping to avoid that issue the Center for Media Design took a slightly different approach. They followed subjects for an entire day to observe behaviors as they happened.

In his BusinessWeek|online article “How We Use the Web Today,” Carlos Bergfeld reports on the study.

The study, they say, gives one of the clearest glimpses of the Internet’s media influence, especially during the working day. More than 60% of participants use the Web during the day, vs. 40% for newspapers, and about 30% for magazines, according to the study, commissioned by the Online Publishers Assn., of which BusinessWeek.com is a member. And at work, the Web dominates media consumption, the researchers say.

People are spending a lot more time during the day on the Web, too — on average about 120 minutes. That’s less than they listen to the radio, but much longer than the roughly half hour they read newspapers or magazines. (TV is still the media king, gobbling more than 240 minutes of a viewer’s day.) A decade ago, people were spending less than an hour on the Web, the study says.

Two important facts that came out of the study were that [Read more…]

Net Neutrality 6-13-2006

by

Net Neutrality Links

I’ve added these links to the Net Neutrality Page today.

Out Of Control!

The discussion, debate, battle, whatever, over Net Neutrality is completely out of control! And those who favor anti-Net Neutrality (yeah, figure that out) still haven’t answered the question – Where’s the $200 BILLION??? Or – why aren’t 86 million households which should have been rewired by 2006 with a fiber optic wire, capable of 45 Mbps, in both directions, wired that way now??? Which leads to – what did the Telco’s do with that money??? And follows with – why won’t anyone open up about it?

Net neutrality

Nothwithstanding all of the above, net neutrality legislation is not the answer – it is more like ‘casting out a devil with the devil’. There is no fundamental understanding of the internet as a space, marketplace, world or a frontier (for more on this see Doc Searls’ article on Saving the Net). The debate should not be about the internet as a sum of pipelines and wires and content and packets delivered across an infrastructure. It should be in terms of protecting the space in which the individual has been empowered and the emergent benefits of interactions among those individuals that are having an increasingly sociall impact.

Net neutrality debate to carry on

Alan Davidson, Washington counsel for Google, said that the House vote should be taken as “a wake-up call” by the public and businesses about how the internet could be regulated in the future. “As more consumers and small businesses learn about this, I think we’ll see more concern,” he said.

Jeannine Kenney, senior policy analyst for Yonkers, N.Y.-based Consumers Union, said that the “grass-roots campaign is only gaining steam” and that the telecommunications and cable companies still have a fight on their hands.

“I think that in the Senate there is a better understanding of the idea of net neutrality,” although many members are still on the fence on the issue, she said.

–ME “Liz” Strauss

Related
NET NEUTRALITY PAGE

Net Neutrality 6-12-2006

by

Net Neutrality Links

I’ve added these links to the Net Neutrality Page today.

Why has Web 2.0 Been (Relatively) Quiet on Net Neutrality??

The point is that I searched through Technorati, and could not find the usual Web 2.0 suspects writing, but just pointing people to fun videos that are cutesy; they are not really taking the banner of Net Neutrality.

I have discussed this with a couple of other bloggers – and wonder if Web 2.0 has not rushed to this because they are so caught up with themselves. Do they think that the banners of open source, community Web, and whatever the buzz words du jour are going to save their companies? If you look at the Web 2.0 sites -Facebook, Riya, YouTube, Second Life, Songbird, BitTorrent and others – they are total bandwidth hogs. Look at how much Second Life is growing, to the point that it is holding virtual conferences, virtual concerts. But at least is it suited to find ways around the potential costs of the loss of Net Neutrality, as it already charges for membership.

And, well, since Friday it is even a bigger issue since the House rejected Net Neutrality.

Now, while the big Net companies – MSFT, Google, Yahoo – have been to the hill to fight for Net Neutrality, the other side of the debate has just been as active. But is smarter and better at lobbying. Just imagine if the Web 2.0 companies rallied their users to send a letter or email to their Senators and Congressman. Would not those voices be heard, or am I a little too Mr. Smith Goes To Washington?

Net Neutrality: Who voted for What?

The largest telephone and cable companies such as AT&T, Verizon, Comcast, and Time Warner want to be able to decide which websites run fast, slow or not at all. They want to be able to charge extra money for fast service and if web sites don’t pay extra then they’ll be doomed to a slow connection.

Net Neutrality wants to ensure that all sites get equal treatment.
The supporters of Net Neutrality include leading high-tech companies such as Amazon.com, Earthlink, EBay, Google, Intel, Microsoft, Skype, Vonage and Yahoo. Prominent national figures such as Internet pioneer Vint Cerf, Stanford law professor Lawrence Lessig and FCC Commissioner Michael Copps have called for stronger Net Neutrality protections.

For More Information check out the Net Neutrality FAQ
Yesterday the House of Representatives voted NO for Net Neutrality. The list below shows the people who voted. I have arranged them by state so you can easily see how your representative voted. If you are FOR Net Neutrality and your representative voted NO then don’t vote for him/her in the next elections.
[THE COMPLETE VOTING LIST FOLLOWS]

The Marching Morons Strike Again [Read more…]

Net Neutrality 6-11-2006

by

Net Neutrality Links

I’ve added these links to the Net Neutrality Page today.

absolutely nuthin but net neutrality

two things: first the internet is the most democratic medium in the history of all media.

caveat, there are still vast swaths of population without access.

secondly, the internet is democratic because it’s end-to-end. the internet was designed with no gatekeepers. it’s based on a layered end-to-end model with no central control (inventor of the internet said that, no not al gore, but i didn’t get the guy’s name).

consumers take it for granted that every application and website are treated equally because it’s always been that way. title 2 of the communications act provides for non-discrimination of information.

the problem is that these rules are about to change in the communications language moving through congress.

the communications company want to get into video over broadband, and turn the internet into a cable tv model.

Net neutrality extremists should stop playing engineers

Our own VoIP blogger Russell Shaw has decided to rebut my position on Net neutrality. Here is my response to Russell.

Russell Shaw says:
George then adds that if everyone is contending for the same bandwidth on an Internet backbone at the same moment in time, then the priority-service packets should never exceed half the total available bandwidth. He feels no network provider that uses their senses would violate such a policy, because that would cause service to degrade to the point that many customers would be alienated.

Here’s where I differ. I don’t think the designation of priority packets should be permitted. That opens up at least the possibility of favored Internet access to content partners. Plus, because of hubris, as well as the law of unintended consequences, I think that network providers may overestimate their ability to maintain system-wide quality for those packets that have not been blessed with what I could colloquially call “most favored packets” standards.

Russell, of course you don’t think this is a good idea when you have no understanding of traffic engineering. One of the comments made to me in my blog was that instead of implementing QoS, a Telco should simply add bandwidth to solve the problem. The knee jerk reaction to this would be “this sounds great” but the problem with this line of thought is that you can add 10 times more bandwidth and you’ll still need QoS.

Unspun: Jim Cooper so totally on notice
[Read more…]

Net Neutrality 6-10-2006

by

Net Neutrality Links

I’ve added these links to the Net Neutrality Page today.

Hands off whose Internet?

I find it fascinating that whenever corporations are forced to act in an egalitarian manner they resort to the ‘stifling innovation’ argument. Yet it is patently absurd to assume that governmental enforcement of net neutrality or lack thereof will have any marked effect on this hypothetical ‘next generation’ internet. It will come when it comes, no sooner and no later, and it will be the telecom companies who pay for it or somebody else will swoop in and do it for them. Why? Because there is money to be made and an entire global economy with which to keep pace, that’s why.

Assume if you will that net neutrality fails and the big telecoms are allowed to run amok with their plans to create a tiered internet system. With all that extra money, is it more likely that they will reinvest in the infrastructure and create a better product? Or will they do the same thing they do with their Bush tax cuts and buy an extra Porsche or twelve? Besides, do you really want your next-gen internet molded in the vision of telecom corporations or would you rather have one created democratically, even if it takes a few months (at the most) longer?

To take the other side, if net neutrality passes and the big telecoms are forced to keep the internet traffic moving as it already is – in other words, do nothing different than they have been doing from the beginning – do you really think they won’t lay the infrastructure for next-gen internet? Of course they will! They are just as much in competition with each other for your patronage and when the technology comes of age they will all battle to be the first to offer enhanced service. And if they act like spoiled brats and follow through with their threats then other companies and investors will seize the opportunity and render the existing telecoms obsolete. I mean, how many wagon wheel companies refused to get into the auto trading business. Adios Antiguos!

Defeat for net neutrality backers

US politicians have rejected attempts to enshrine the principle of net neutrality in legislation.
Some fear the decision will mean net providers start deciding on behalf of customers which websites and services they can visit and use.

The vote is a defeat for Google, eBay and Amazon which wanted the net neutrality principle protected by law.

Setback for Internet coalition
House OKs bill to make subscription TV market more competitive

The measure spells out new rules that would create national franchises, allowing telephone companies to get into the cable television business without first having to obtain licenses from municipal authorities, as is currently the case.

In the floor debate Thursday, several Democrats spoke out in favor of the bill’s trade-off — a free hand to telephone companies when it comes to pricing new Internet services in return for their entry into the cable market.

“This bill does a lot and goes a long way to making sure that the cost of cable television will be reduced,” said Rep. Bobby Rush, D-Ill.

Reps. Anna Eshoo of Palo Alto and Zoe Lofgren of San Jose expressed bewilderment that the House would vote, as Lofgren said, to “turn the Internet into the equivalent of cable TV.”

Now the Internet coalition, which includes such Silicon Valley giants as Google, eBay and Yahoo, must focus on the Senate, where it faces an uphill battle. The House added language that acknowledges the importance of network neutrality but stopped short of giving the FCC the regulatory powers that Markey had sought.

The current Senate bill has less language on network neutrality.

–ME “Liz” Strauss

Related
NET NEUTRALITY PAGE