Successful Blog

Net Neutrality 6-04-2006

by

Net Neutrality Links

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

Tangled Web [via Daily Kos]

We follow the story of Blip.tv, an ambitious video-streaming startup. They’re fighting for a corner of the Internet marketplace in the midst of a battle over so-called ‘net neutrality’ — the idea that all Internet content and websites are given the same access to audiences and customers.

If telecommunication giants have their way, companies like Blip.tv might be forced to compete in a marketplace wherein firms with large coffers can buy access to greater bandwidth and faster Internet speeds, leaving sites who can’t afford to pay in the slow lane.

Craig Aaron of Free Press, a media watchdog group, says big telecom companies have declared open season on ‘Net neutrality.’ He’s afraid these companies will dictate how we use the Internet.

“I think one of the beauties of the Internet is that it’s been open to views across the political spectrum. And if you hand the control of the information so that some can be preferred over others, you’re going to be handing that control to the big media companies that already control our television, airwaves, radio, you name it,” Aaron says.

For their part, telecom companies argue that a fast lane on the Internet for those willing to pay will allow them to make a return on their multibillion-dollar investment in broadband infrastructure. At present, companies such as Verizon and AT&T only charge for access to the Internet, but make virtually no money from content.

Net Neutrality Is More Than Meets The Eye

What’s bewildering in the net neutrality debate is that both sides say they have the same goals – they want the Internet to maintain its usefulness, to keep maturing, and to continue to get better. At first glance, it would be easy to think that one side wants that done via government regulation and the other through the free market. But that’s really not the case. Network neutrality is a much more complex issue than “Big Business vs. Consumer Rights” or “Big Government vs. Free-market Competition”.

Realist View on Net Neutrality: Only the Lawyers Win

Ray Gifford offers a realist’s prognostication on the likely effects of network neutrality: only the lawyers win.

Not the end of the world if network neutrality laws pass, not the end of the world if they fail to pass. Only, if network neutrality becomes law, low latency high-speed service will be routed through “private networks” while ordinary traffic travels via the “public network” internet. The distinctions between the two will be somewhat arbitrary, but important to the law, and that is why lawyers win. Overall, a sensible if not too hopeful view.

Compare the calm Gifford tone to the more alarmist sounds of eBay CEO Meg Whitman (that’s her smiling face in the picture) in an email sent to members of the “eBay community”: . . .

–ME “Liz” Strauss

Related
NET NEUTRALITY PAGE

Net Neutrality 6-03-2006

by

Net Neutrality Links

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

This is what started it all

FYI, here’s the article that but a bee in the bonnet of the special interests who’re trying to shackle the Internet with their so-called net-neutrality regulations:

William L. Smith, chief technology officer for Atlanta-based BellSouth Corp., told reporters and analysts that an Internet service provider such as his firm should be able, for example, to charge Yahoo Inc. for the opportunity to have its search site load faster than that of Google Inc.

Or, Smith said, his company should be allowed to charge a rival voice-over-Internet firm so that its service can operate with the same quality as BellSouth’s offering.

Remedial First Amendment For The Net Neutrality Crowd

I’ve noticed lately that some net neutrality advocates have taken to calling neutrality legislation the “First Amendment of the Internet”. Allow me to point out that the first five words of the First Amendment are “Congress shall make no law …”

When it comes to our communications systems, our first priority should be to keep Congress out of it. The First Amendment says, when it comes to speech, the government simply does not make the call. It is not a question of debating right and wrong in the hallowed halls; the Constitution says simply, the government has no say.

Broadband Providers Lobby Against Internet Neutrality

We’ve been enjoying a resource that many have just assumed would continue. Consider some of the other changes that are occuring. Newspapers are going out of business all over America. Many, if not most, big city papers have been bought out by huge multi-media companies. Those media companies have shown an inclination to limit our access to the news to the point that a paid public service statement from the United Church of Christ is rejected by network TV and a book that lists the top 25 censored news stories is published annually in America.

Newspapers and other written media have been an important part of our democracy since Thomas Paine published “Common Sense” and helped light the fire of revolution and independence from a monarchy bent on exploiting, not nurturing it’s colonies. Today we face a different kind of threat. Very few men control virturally all of our news in the mainstream media and they’ve demonstrated a willness to limit even big stories like Downing St. Memos are still not widely known by Americans.

Al Gore characterized our democracy as “hollowed out” by a dearth of editorial variety in the “marketplace of ideas”. He called for the preservation of freedom on the Internet

–ME “Liz” Strauss

Related
NET NEUTRALITY PAGE

Blogger Study — Let’s Get the Data Right

by

Take the Bloggers’ Study

Are you just a little exasperated with MSM news stories that tell — in so many wrong ways about –what bloggers are, do and think? Here is a chance for us all to contribute to the picture that folks have of bloggers and what blogging is. This may be our opporunity to straighten that biased picture frame, get the colors correct, and perspective right.

Diane Ensley at A List Review has featured a study at U Mass Dartmouth. The Center for Media Research, under the guidance Dr. Nora Barnes, is calling for professional bloggers to complete a three-page WORD survey. Imagine that actually asking bloggers rather than asking people who watch from afar. You can get the details and the survey by clicking through on the title below, which will take you to Diane’s post.

Not sure whether you qualify as a professional blogger? I wouldn’t use money as a measure. Why not download the survey and see whether you can answer the questions? They need to have ALL of the the data they can get in order to have a clear picture. Let’s not self-select ourselves out before we even start.

A major study could lend some real credibility to blogging.

Thanks Chartreuse (BETA), for finding this.

–ME “Liz” Strauss

See the
New Internet & MSM Page

Net Neutrality 6-01-2006

by

Net Neutrality Links

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

AstroSpammers” Attack Net Neutrality Posts

. . . Well, I’m not sure who coined the related term “astrospammers”, but we seem to have this new twist on the phenomenon showing up in blogs discussing net neutrality issues. I first read about these kind of suspicious comments showing up on net neutrality-related blog postings over on IP Inferno, where Ted Shelton noted that after a recent post he wrote about net neutrality three random anonymous strangers went to the trouble of creating brand new blogger accounts in order to post pro-telco comments on the subject.

The Abstract Factory did some sleuthing on one of the new net neutrality commenters called “Net Chick”, and concludes that is likely this persona is a paid spammer supporting an astroturf-like campaign against net neutrality . . .

behind netvocates (and it’s link to customscoop)

I was looking at inbound links this evening and came across one originating behind the firewall of a company called NetVocates which is a “blog intelligence and advocacy service”. The website blurb says, reasonably enough:

“…blogs frequently impact an organization and its products and image in uncontrolled and often unexpected ways. In addition, the sheer volume of blogs, message boards, and other discussion forums makes it difficult for organizations to effectively monitor the activity relevant to them.”

Organisations want to know what people are saying about them online – that makes perfect sense. However, I spent a bit more time on the NetVocates site and found this:

“NetVocates then recruits activists and consumers who share the client’s views in order to reinforce those key messages on targeted blogs – and rebut misinformation when appropriate.”

FAQ on Net Neutrality

Here are five frequently-asked questions about net neutrality. Your challenge: answer each in 150 words or less. Here’s my cut.

1. What does net neutrality actually mean? Is it a meaningful protection for the web, or, as some say, a romanticized ideal that’s getting in the way of progress?

Think of the pipes and wires that you use to go online as a sidewalk. The question is whether the sidewalk should get a cut of the value of the conversations that you have as you walk along. The traditional telephone model has been that the telephone company doesn’t get paid more if you have a particularly meaningful call — they’re just providing a neutral pipe.

This argument is about whether companies selling highspeed transport mechanisms for the internet should be allowed to price discriminate — charge different “content providers” (like YouTube) for the privilege of reaching you and me. Because Americans have so few choices of broadband access providers, allowing these providers to leverage their market power over transport in order to have exclusive control over “programming” online is a matter of great concern.

The risk is that the network providers will keep everyone who hasn’t paid protection money to them at 2001 speeds.

–ME “Liz” Strauss

Related
NET NEUTRALITY PAGE

Trendspotting — Where 97.9% Fail

by

Learn Everything

Trendspotters 101 logo

We all want that ability to be able to see the next big trend before it happens — what people will be wanting, doing, needing, going to, and buying NEXT. We want to be there ready and waiting for those customers.

Some folks can see that next trend and hit it fairly often. No one can do it 100%. No one can get any customer base to behave 100% predictably.

Good morning, Class.
Find the next trend. Oh yes, 97.9% of you wll fail this test.

[Read more…]

Net Neutrality 5-31-2006

by

Net Neutrality Links

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

Price, Competition and Net Neutrality

In the comments to that post, I said I really didn’t have an issue with network services differentiated by ability to pay for bandwidth, as long consumers had access to the same services, at whatever bandwidth. That is, I’m not opposed to tiering quality of service based on price. Tiering access to services based on price is a different issue.

In a new comment, Richard Bennett points out that bandwidth is not the only service differentiator.

That’s correct. I’m stating my desire that — where technically possible — all customers at all price levels have access to the same services.

Visicalc co-founder offers a modest proposal

What stands in the way of all this are the Bells. They insist that the phone lines built under regulated monopoly are “theirs,” that no one else (OK, maybe a cable franchise) should be providing that service, and that they should be allowed to use their monopoly power for their own private enrichment.

Into this argument steps Bob Frankston. The Visicalc co-founder has written a satire, in the tradition of Jonathan Swift’s A Modest Proposal, called Paying by the Stroll.

Sidewalks: Paying by the Stroll

I’ve been immersed in so-called tele-communications issues for a long time but I haven’t posted too much lately because I’m not satisfied with net neutrality and am trying to figure out how to explain that the problem is more fundamental (as in “Telecom Phrase”). How come I have to plead for neutrality when we’re talking about infrastructure that we should own?

One of the classic marketing clichs is that people don’t buy the drill, they buy the hole. A good marketer or, for that matter, politician, knows that people want solutions rather than having to worry about every detail themselves. I must’ve been thinking too much about those who want to do us too much good when I went to sleep last night …

Morning of my First Day in At Your Service Village!

–ME “Liz” Strauss

Related
NET NEUTRALITY PAGE