Successful Blog

Net Neutrality 5-13-2006

by

Net Neutrality Links

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

Well since Net Neutrality didn’t pass….

On one hand I agree with the philosophy of the free market. I think it is one of the things that makes this country great.

On the other hand nothing gives a free market a black eye like an out of control monopoly.

And that is what we are up against here. It isn’t that one company has a monopoly. It is that there is an effective monopoly at the county and city market levels.

CIO MAGAZINE The Net Neutrality Debate: You Pay, You Play? BY BEN WORTHEN

Last April, Cisco Systems published a white paper explaining how the companies that own the phone lines and cables that connect homes and businesses to the Internet—the proverbial last mile—could use new routing technology to boost revenue. The technology would allow telephone and cable companies to establish priority lanes . . . and then charge the Googles, Yahoos and Amazons of the world for access to these highway toll roads. Cisco’s paper predicted that this new strategy would allow broadband service providers to create new revenue-sharing business models with any company that sells content online.

The plan had only one problem: It was illegal.

The telecommunications laws that have governed the Internet since its inception require network owners to treat all traffic the same. The laws date to the 1930s and were put in place to force telephone companies to prevent a scenario where one company could refuse to carry calls placed by a rival’s customer. The Internet was designed with the same principle in mind. . . . it was the only thing standing between the telecommunications companies and a vast new revenue stream.

Since then, a Supreme Court ruling and a series of Federal Communications Commission (FCC) decisions have eliminated this barrier, prompting Congress to rewrite the nation’s telecommunications laws. The new bill, which could be finalized as early as the summer, will in all likelihood officially eliminate net neutrality as the legal principle that governs the Internet. “If net neutrality goes away, it will fundamentally change everything about the Internet,” says James Hilton, associate provost for Academic IT Works of the University of Michigan.

The impact of these changes on CIOs and their companies will be profound. The telecommunications and cable companies argue that allowing them to govern their networks as they see fit gives them a financial incentive to innovate at the core of the network, and develop new technologies that could guarantee things that CIOs want, like security and better quality of service. Proponents of net neutrality counter that the principle is the reason that the Internet and the corresponding online ecosystem have developed into the commercial and cultural phenomenon they are today. . . .

The new Internet will certainly make telecommunications decisions more strategic. CIOs will not only need to worry about how much bandwidth to buy, but which lane they want their traffic to travel in. And tiered service is just the beginning. Telecommunications companies will be able to rearchitect their networks however they see fit. Over time, the new architectures and the services that network owners deliver will result in complicated payer/payee relationships between companies and telecommunications companies. And if a telecommunications company decides it wants to introduce a new Internet standard, CIOs may be forced to rearchitect their company’s systems.

. . . For all the talk about equal access and treating all data the same, the net neutrality debate is just window dressing for a less gentlemanly argument over who gets to profit in the online economy. More bluntly, Steve Effros, former president of the Cable Television Association, says, “This is about who pays.”

Big Lie of the Week

Here’s a quick guide to help you cut through the industry spin:

The big telecom companies say: “Is the Internet in Danger? Does the Internet need saving? It keeps getting faster. We keep getting more choices.” . . .

–ME “Liz” Strauss

Related
NET NEUTRALITY PAGE

Belated — State of the Blogosphere 2

by

Move Over English

Though I was at a conference, then deathly sick (note the use of hyperbole), when David Sifry came out with his State of the Blogosphere Part 2 — On Language and Tagging, think there is still important data here to get reported for the record. David’s ability to cut through information on the index of 37.3 million blogs to bring coherent thought to the table is a gift he shares several times a year and we should take advantage of it to get the big picture of how our lives are changing.

For this post, I choose to focus on the analysis of the language data.

David Speaks

He begins by offering a few disclaimers about the data set he’s about to offer. Three important caveats he reminds us to keep in the foreground when studying his data.

  • First that the automated language software they use may not be perfect and my over- or undercount a particular language or group of languages, due to bugs wthin the software. He follows that comment with a statement that Technorati, however, still feels fairly confident in its reliability across the millions of blogs and posts they index each day.
  • One part of the blogosphere, Mr. Sifry is certain that is being under-reported is posts and blogs written in Korean. This is due to the fact that the main services are not indexed by Technorati at this time. A second that is being undercounted to a lesser degree is French language blogs and posts, because Technorati has not yet got a good system for indexing skyblog.
  • This third caveat is that Japanese bloggers write shorter posts. This could be due to their predilection to posting from mobile telephone. This fact could be skewing the results of the data that follows making the numbers higher, as the data tracks quantity of posts not length.

Within these caveats, Dave Sifry aso offers this invitation,

if anyone at these (or other) blogging services is interested in being indexed, please drop me a line.

[Read more…]

Net Neutrality 5-12-2006

by

Net Neutrality Links

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

Ask A Ninja: Special Delivery 4 “Net Neutrality”
[via Advice Library]

Watch the video. Then click the links.

Full text of COPE Act

To encourage broadband deployment and preserve and promote the open and interconnected nature of the public Internet, consumers are entitled to access the lawful Internet content of their choice.

. . . to run applications and use services of their choice, subject to the needs of law enforcement.

. . . to connect their choice of legal devices that do not harm the network.

. . . to competition among network providers, application and service providers, and content providers.

I want my MTV (mobile TV), but not from AT&T

I’m sure AT&T doesn’t really care what I want. Actually, why not broaden that to wireless data carriers in general. Earlier this week it was T-Mobile essentially banning VoIP and IM on their HSDPA network, likely indicating they will be happy to provide you those services in the future at a premium. Today it’s AT&T announcing a deal with MobiTV to provide wireless television at AT&T hotspots for $11.99 a month.

–ME “Liz” Strauss

Related
NET NEUTRALITY PAGE

Net Neutrality: Red Bank TV

by

Who Says Blogs Aren’t Useful?

Tom has lived in Red Bank, New Jersey, since he bought a home there six years ago. He’s not an activist. In fact, he says he has no political affiliation at all. Tom’s just a guy like us, who works with and uses technology. He also cares about negotiations between the town of Red Bank, New Jersey, and Verizon Communications.

So he made a blog.

Why Tom Made the Blog

Tom made the Red Bank TV Blog because he believes that as part of the cable franchise agreement with the town of Red Bank, Verizon Communications should make three promises:

  • Promise to provide A la carte cable service to Red Bank residents
  • Promise not to object to a Red Bank Municipal WiFi network
  • Promise to keep the internet a level playing field by upholding the tenets of Net Neutrality

Tom’s blog got my attention. I bet it got Verizon’s attention too. I hope this article helps it get the attention of Doc Searls, Jeff Pulver, Om Malik, and many others who want to know what local folks are doing. Tom’s blog is a great example of someone following through on what he believes.

Blogs used well are transparent to the purpose they are used for. No one will be wrapping fish in Tom’s blog tomorrow, or the next day for that matter. There’s so much to talk about in what Tom is doing.

I bet if you have a question about how it’s going, Tom will see it and answer it here.

–ME “Liz” Strauss

Related NET NEUTRALITY PAGE

Net Neutrality 5-10-2006

by

Net Neutrality Links

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

Smaller cable firms take aim at Net neutrality fans by Anne Broache
[via slashdot Small Cable Groups Seek To Break Net Neutrality via Advice Library]

Rocco Commisso, CEO of New York-based Mediacom Communications, delivered the latest commentary in the ongoing Net neutrality fray at an annual Washington, D.C., summit organized by the American Cable Association, a lobbying group for small and medium-size independent cable companies. Mediacom, which bills itself as the nation’s eighth-largest cable television provider, counts 1.5 million basic-cable subscribers across 23 states, according to its Web site.

“I think what the phone industry’s saying and what we’re saying is we’ve made an investment, and I don’t think the government should be coming and telling us how we can work that infrastructure, simple as that,” [Rocco] Commisso said during a panel discussion about issues faced by companies like his, adding, “Why don’t they go and tell the oil companies what they should charge for their damn gas?”

Why Even Bells Need Net Neutrality by Daniel Berninger

Another interpretation to the plain language requiring a public purpose for right-of-way concessions does not exist. Does anyone believe government should grant public assets to private entities for private purposes? The loss of net neutrality changes the terms under which the Bells enjoy access to right-of-way. The non-neutral private network deployments associated with the Bell company broadband offers look like the non-common carrier networks of the cable companies.

Democratic senator wants Net neutrality regulations by Anne Broache

As many as 600,000 letters from constituents related to the Net neutrality issue have streamed into the offices of congressional members since the House Energy and Commerce Committee’s recent approval of its own telecommunications bill, said Johanna Shelton, the committee’s Democratic counsel.

Rep. John Dingell, the committee’s senior Democrat, is still evaluating the best legislative approach but is “deeply concerned” about the potential for extra fees being imposed on Internet content and application providers and the subsequent effect on consumers, Shelton said.

“It would be unthinkable for the government to insert fees into the way the Internet is now, but yet there are a number of people who would be fine with private entities doing so and being able to selectively pick and choose and treat others differently for any reason they see fit,” she said.

Howard Waltzman, the committee’s chief counsel, viewed the House’s approach in a different light. He said the committee struck an appropriate balance with its bill by including language prohibiting the FCC from making new rules on Net neutrality but granting it the power to vet complaints of discrimination and impose penalties.

–ME “Liz” Strauss

Related
NET NEUTRALITY PAGE

Net Neutrality 5-09-2006

by

Net Neutrality Links

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

COPE Telecom Bill Affects Net Neutrality, Local Cable Franchises and Funding for Public Access
[via Cause we all know how well it worked with radio…]

AMY GOODMAN: Is this a reprise of what happened when Michael Powell, the son of Colin Powell, who used to head the F.C.C., tried to push through the media consolidation rules, the changes in them?

ROBERT McCHESNEY: I really think it is, because I think what we’re seeing is this across-the-board outrage at the corruption of the process in which powerful special interests sneak through these privileges that benefit only them. And their public relations, when it’s subject to scrutiny, is laughable. It doesn’t hold up. And that’s why they have do it secretly, because they know if once the public hears about this and they go to the websites like savetheinternet.com, which is the intersect that all this coalition, right and left, has come together, where all of the information is collected. Once people hear about this, they absolutely are outraged, and the big guys can’t win, and that’s their main worry now, because we have to stop these bills this summer. We can’t let this go through and force Congress to go through an election cycle this fall and have to answer for this before the voters of this country and then come back next year.

Information Toll Road

Who is in favor of network neutrality, Microsoft, Yahoo, ACLU, Amazon, Guns Owners of America just to name a few. Who is against it, AT&T, TimeWarner, Comcast, and Verizon.

This is not a blue state or red state issue, nor is it a capitalist vs. Socialist, it is the battle of who controls information. As of right now, the information superhighway is open to anyone who wants to pay a small fee for service or to a company to host a site, if this bill passes congress and the senate, the superhighway will turn into a slow toll road.


John Carroll On Net Neutrality by Broadband Issues

Ladies and Gentlemen, Mr. John Carroll of ZDNet:

The Internet is not threatened by access tiers. In fact, it can be enhanced by making new bandwidth-heavy services more economical and reliable in ways that would be impossible given a naive enforcement of “net neutrality” rules.

I could not have said it better myself. I am terrified of this becoming a large, politically charged issue, in which all rational technical discussion is thrown aside because the Technorati love Google and whatever Google wants, Google gets. I just can’t possibly see how the government can do a better job regulating this problem than the market.

Let’s say, for example, that Comcast decides to degrade all VOIP services except their own. Do you have any idea how loud the outcry would be from their customers? Would they really shoot themselves in the foot like that? Are we all so naive as to think that large businesses truly hate their customers?

–ME “Liz” Strauss

Related
NET NEUTRALITY PAGE