Successful Blog

Here is a good place for a call to action.

Net Neutrality 5-02-2006

by

Net Neutrality Links

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

How Real Is the Threat?

Big telco execs are on the record:

AT&T’s Ed Whitacre wants consumers and content providers to pay for use of his network. “The Internet can’t be free … for a Google or Yahoo or Vonage or anybody to expect to use these pipes free is nuts.�

BellSouth’s William Smith told reporters that he would like to turn the Internet into a “pay-for-performance marketplace� where his company could charge for the “right� to have certain services load faster than others.

Verizon CEO Ivan Seidenberg says that Web applications need to “share the cost� of the broadband services already paid for by consumers. “We need to pay for the pipe.�

Net Neutrality Not An Optional Feature of Internet

Imagine the prospects of an info tech industry without “software neutrality� where Intel charged a fee to enhance software performance. Pay Intel and your applications run faster. The incentives driving Moore’s Law disappear in this pay-to-play model. Intel’s profit maximizing incentives become serving the interests of software companies willing to spend the most on “enhancing software performance� not the end users of computers. The meritocracy driving competition between software companies disappears as Intel picks winners and losers based on willingness to pay. Innovation becomes permission based at Intel’s discretion. . . .

The Internet does not exist without net neutrality. Consider the misleading assertion that tinkering with network neutrality simply amounts to adding class of service as in the case of air travel or HOV lanes on highways. . . . The telco and cable companies have in mind creating another type of customer not a class of service. They want suppliers to pay for the right of transit. It amounts to airlines charging Time Warner for the right of readers to take Time magazine on an airplane. It means charging Ford tolls in addition to drivers for the right of Ford cars to use highways.

Sen Stevens tries to sneak the Broadcast Flag into law posted by Cory Doctorow at Boing Boing

Sen Stevens tries to sneak the Broadcast Flag into law
Senator Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) has snuck the Broadcast Flag into a bill on Net Neutrality. The stealth clause authorizes “the FCC to establish a broadcast flag to allow TV stations to protect digital content from Internet piracy.”
What this means is

–ME “Liz” Strauss

Related
NET NEUTRALITY PAGE

Internet Investing

by

All of Your Eggs in the Internet Lobby?

“Right now, I would never invest in a business model that depended on protection from Net neutrality”

— Blair Levin analyst with Stifel Nicolaus.

This quote is from the April 27, BusinessWeek online story by Burt Helm, Tech Giants’ Internet Battles. The story discusses how a “host” of tech companies, including Google, Yahoo, and Intel going up against the telcos, AT&T and the cable companies to prevent them from offering favored service to providers of their choosing.

It’s a little scary.

–ME “Liz” Strauss

Related
NET NEUTRALITY PAGE

Net Neutrality 5-01-2006

by

Net Neutrality Links

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

AT&T and Verizon: We Own Your Congress

The Center for Public Integrity compiled a list of the top 100 money-givers to Congress between 1998 and 2005, and telcos dominate the list.

Here are a few of its findings:

* Verizon Communications Inc. $81,870,000
* SBC Communications Inc. $58,035,037
* AT&T Corp. $53,349,499
* Sprint Corp. $47,276,585
* BellSouth Corp. $33,732,827
* Qwest Communications International Inc. $24,523,480

Policy Analysis: “Net Neutrality� Digital Discrimination or Regulatory Gamesmanship in Cyberspace?

Moreover, far from being something regulators should forbid, vertical integration of new features and services by broadband network operators is an essential part of the innovation strategy companies will need to use to compete and offer customers the services they demand. Network operators also have property rights in their systems that need to be acknowledged and honored. Net neutrality mandates would flout those property rights and reject freedom of contract in this marketplace.

The regulatory regime envisioned by Net neutrality mandates would also open the door to a great deal of potential “gaming” of the regulatory system and allow firms to use the regulatory system to hobble competitors. Worse yet, it would encourage more FCC regulation of the Internet and broadband markets in general.

The Struggle for Net Freedom

To get a sense of the bargain the industry is proposing, imagine if the maker of your toaster had to give a cut of the sales price to the electric company before it could be turned on. Or suppose the post office charged you to mail and receive the same package if you wanted it sent first class.

[Many, many great links here.]

–ME “Liz” Strauss

Related
NET NEUTRALITY PAGE

Net Neutrality 4-30-2006

by

Net Neutrality Links

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

NEW YORKER, TALK OF THE TOWN
THE FINANCIAL PAGE
NET LOSSES by James Surowiecki
Issue of 2006-03-20
Posted 2006-03-13
[via the left coaster]

The Internet has become a remarkable fount of economic and social innovation largely because it’s been an archetypal level playing field, on which even sites with little or no money behind them—blogs, say, or Wikipedia—can become influential. If the Internet turns into a zone of tiered access, it will be harder for noncommercial sites or startup companies to compete with bigger firms.

Broadband providers insist that they have no plans to block access or degrade service to those who don’t pay a premium rate. But if some companies are getting better service, then all the others are getting worse service. Besides, there have already been examples of active discrimination. Last year, a rural telecom company in North Carolina blocked its users’ access to the Internet-based phone service Vonage, and in Canada the telecom company Telus blocked access to a Web site supporting the telecommunications workers’ union. Market forces will offer some check to this kind of interference—if a particular provider goes too far, customers will take their business elsewhere—but, in the world of broadband, market forces are weak, because most cities have only two major providers.

Internet Freedom Opponents Propose Regulation of Search Engines?

This is amazing. Charlie Gonzales proposed and 10 other Congressmen voted for an amendment to investigate search engines.

Mike McCurry’s Reiterates His Lies

The coalition is moving forward, collecting more blogs and more friends on this cause. By contrast, the telcos have been quite taken aback by how much popular outrage there is at their land grab. Over 1500 blogs have rallied to the cause of internet freedom. They are losing, and they know it. I’ve had several disgusted insiders contact me about the low morale and dismay the lobbyists are feeling. They really don’t know what to do, so they are going to the bag grab of tried and true dinosaur tactics.

Onward by Susan Crawford

The amendment requires broadband providers “not to block, interfere with, discriminate against, impair, or degrade the ability of any person to use a broadband connection to access, use, send, post, receive, or offer any lawful content, application, or service made available via the Internet.”

That’s good, yes. But the bill goes on. It provides that network providers:

(1) are allowed to offer “to users a broadband video service or other service that requires prioritization of content, applications or services,” (as long as those video services don’t amount to bocking or interfering),

(2) are allowed to prioritize in a most favored nation sense (nonaffiliates get the same quality of service as affiliates),

(3) are allowed to discriminate based on “type of application,” and

(4) aren’t required to provide symmetric transport up and down. . . .

–ME “Liz” Strauss

Related
NET NEUTRALITY PAGE

Net Neutrality 4-29-2006

by

Net Neutrality Links

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

Sneaking In The Back Door

Well, surprise, surprise! Two of the leaders of the fight to have Markey’s amendment voted down certainly appear to be in the back pocket of a couple of telecommunications giants who have a direct interest in seeing the amendment defeated! How about that?

December 15, 2005 At Stake: The Net as We Know It

. . . network operators figure they can charge at the source of the traffic — and they’re turning to technology for help. Sandvine and other companies, including Cisco Systems (CSCO ), are making tools that can identify whether users are sending video, e-mail, or phone calls. This gear could give network operators the ability to speed up or slow down certain uses.

That capability could be used to help Internet surfers. BellSouth, for one, wants to guarantee that an Internet-TV viewer doesn’t experience annoying millisecond delays during the Super Bowl because his teenage daughter is downloading music . . .

. . . But express lanes for certain bits could give network providers a chance to shunt other services into the slow lane, unless they pay up. . . .

That could result in an Internet of haves, who can afford to pay the network operators more to ensure smooth service, and have-nots. Trouble is, those have-nots may include the Next Big Thing . . . The fewer innovative services on the Net, the less reason Web users have to want broadband. Both the network operators and the Internet could lose out in the end.

Tech Giants’ Internet Battles

Pushing such regulation through will be difficult for the Internet companies, says Blair Levin, analyst with Stifel Nicolaus. Consider Supreme Court rulings like the National Cable & Telecommunications Assoc. vs. Brand X in June, 2005, which gave cable operators autonomy in sales of broadband services, and similar allowances by the FCC last summer for telecom operators. . . .

Plus, the Internet companies — whose lobbying efforts have been close to nonexistent up until a few years ago — are going up against some of the most well-funded and experienced lobbyists in the business, making for a fairly lopsided battle. “Right now, I would never invest in a business model that depended on protection from Net neutrality,” says Levin.

–ME “Liz” Strauss

Related
NET NEUTRALITY PAGE

Net Neutrality 4-28-2006

by

Net Neutrality Links

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

Net Neutrality” under siege

Congressmen Barton and Rush have been put under the microscope by opponents lately for their financial relationships with the telecommunications industry. Both vocal opponents of Net Neutrality provisions in the Commerce Committee, Barton and Rush led the charge in defeating the Markey Amendment.

Many find it no small coincidence that out of Barton’s top three campaign contributors, the second and third largest ones are SBC Communications (now AT&T) and Comcast Corporation. Tied for 12th among contributions is the National Cable & Telecommunications Association.

The Chicago Sun-Times points out that Bobby Rush, the only Democrat to sponsor the bill, recently “received a $1 million grant from the charitable arm of SBC/AT&T” for a community organization Rush is associated with called the Rebirth of Englewood Community Development Corporation.

Net Neutrality: Congresswoman Lois Capps Responds by Marksb of Daily Kos quoting a response to his concerns by his Congresswoman Lois Capps

The Energy and Commerce Committee, on which I serve, recently considered the Communications Opportunity, Promotion, and Enhancement Act of 2006, which would update the nation’s telecommunications laws. I voted for an amendment, sponsored by Rep. Ed Markey (D-MA), that would require that high-speed internet service providers operate their network in a non-discriminatory fashion. Unfortunately, this amendment was defeated on a 22-34 vote. Partly because of the lack of network neutrality provisions, I voted against the bill on final passage, but it passed 42-12.

I am committed to an internet that remains open and equally accessible to all. Network providers should not create shortcuts in the internet for preferred content, which would undermine the internet’s democratic nature.

Taking sides on Net neutrality

And this Proponents say such laws are needed to prevent broadband providers from abusing their control over Internet access by blocking traffic or charging content providers extra for special service. An amendment concerning those issues had received support from companies including Microsoft, Amazon.com and Google.

But opponents say the fears are overblown, and warned that the proposed legislation gave the Federal Communications Commission too much power to regulate the Internet.

–ME “Liz” Strauss

Related
NET NEUTRALITY PAGE