Successful Blog

Net Neutrality 7-6-2006

by

Net Neutrality Links

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

Net Neutrality : Lawyers silence is deafening

Looks like the majority of lawyers publishing blogs are taking the easy way out and taking no stand on net neutrality.

It’s an embarrassment to the legal profession which should act as champions of a citizen’s rights. Heck, even if you against net neutrality so that telecoms can create a tier two Internet system, at least come out and say so.

Senate Scorecard: AT&T 1, Google 0

If the telcos don’t soon match cable’s three-product package of phone, Internet, and video service, they risk falling dangerously behind in the race to win customer loyalty over the next decade. “We expect accelerating access line losses (from phone companies) throughout the next three years” as cable companies are able to market their full lineup of products to their customers by 2007, Bernstein’s Jeff Halpern told analysts in a recent conference call.

FAST TRACK TO TV. Another crucial element of telecommunications law centers on the process of applying for licenses to sell TV services in new markets. Currently, phone companies must apply for franchise licenses on a city-by-city basis—a process that could take years and slow the telcos’ TV rollout to a crawl. AT&T and Verizon want legislation that lets them apply for a nationwide license.

The Senate committee, hoping to stimulate competition, is open to putting phone companies’ TV plans on the fast track. Its bill essentially allows for TV franchising to be determined at the national level by setting a time limit of 90 days for local government to grant the franchise. If not acted upon after 90 days, the franchise is deemed approved for 15 years. But again, Stevens needs full Senate approval, and leaving TV licenses in the hands of national regulators looks as though it faces opposition among some in the full Senate.

–ME “Liz” Strauss

Related
NET NEUTRALITY PAGE

Net Neutrality 6-29-2006

by

Net Neutrality Links

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

Net Neutrality Matters by Scott Russell

Imagine a world where Internet performance is controlled by the company who owns the cables and where speed is sold to the highest bidder. Imagine a world where some Web sites load faster than others, where some sites aren’t even visible and where search engines pay a tax to make sure their services perform at an acceptable speed. That’s the world US Telecommunications companies (telcos) such as AT&T, Verizon, Comcast and Time Warner are trying to create. . . .

To the lay person, it may seem like a laughable proposition. As Cory Doctorow (FreePress) put it, “It’s a dumb idea to put the plumbers who laid a pipe in charge of who gets to use it.” And yet the US congress is swaying towards the view of the telcos, so what’s going on?

Blogtopia “Under Grave and Immediate Threat”

Imagine trying to cope with today’s world without blogs.

On second thought, it’s too painful.

Yet, it may happen sooner rather than later:

Blogs have gained a growing cultural and political impact in the United States and worldwide. In the United States, they’ve been credited with playing a key role in the resignation of a U.S. Senate Majority Leader and the public repudiation of a longtime TV news anchor. Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary of the English language deemed “blog” its word of the year in 2004. The Technorati website boasts that it keeps track of some 28 million blogs worldwide.

Undeniably, blogs and their collective identity known as the “blogosphere” have become an extraordinary phenomenon. And no matter what topics they may discuss or what political leanings they may espouse, they are all under grave and immediate threat.

The Internet’s Oedipal Drama

Fundamental changes have already taken place in the Internet’s traffic load. In the good old days when the Internet was a private club for elite Universities and defense contractors, traffic was light even for the primitive pipes of the day. When congestion collapse appeared it was viable, just barely, to manage it with an end-to-end system that relied on good behavior on the part of the community, because there was a community. The overloaded Internet of the mid 80’s got new life from exponential backoff and slow start in TCP, because the most aggressive consumer of bandwidth was ftp, the files it transferred were short, and users were patient. They didn’t have spam, viruses, worms, or phishing either.

Now that the Internet has to contend with a billion users and multi-gigabyte file transfers with BitTorrent, the honor box model no longer works at all. When BitTorrent is slowed down by backoff, it simply propagates more paths, creating more and more congestion. In another year, the Internet is going to be just as unstable as it was in 1985.

This being the case, the carriers have to implement traffic limits inside the network, building on the mechanisms established as far back as the 1980s with RED and its progeny. This is the only way to control BitTorrent. There is no community and we’re not patient people.

And while they’re doing that, it makes perfect economic and technical sense to implement voice- and video-oriented QoS. Even Berners-Lee acknowledges this, he’s just on the neutrality bandwagon because he’s exercised about third-party billing for web content, a very obscure concern. So whether the phone company manages its links or not, whether they offer third-party billing for QoS or not, and whether the phone company competes with Akamai by offering content caching or not, the Internet will either change or collapse.

–ME “Liz” Strauss

Related
NET NEUTRALITY PAGE

AT&T & ME w/o DSL — Why AT&T Won’t Fix Problems

by


The Problem

Customer Think Logo

5:30a.m. Up and to the kitchen. Turn on the coffee. To the office. Turn on the computer. Take a shower.

5:45a.m. Get coffee. Get to work. OR NOT!

Wait a minute. What’s wrong here? Walk to the router. I have no DSL. I have things to do. It’s still DARK OUT.

6:00a.m. Consider options. Start to execute. Then envision images of screwed system. Recall pact that I will die first, because I’ll never be able to figure out how this home network is configured.

6;30a.m Wake up IT husband. Tell him we have no DSL.
He gets coffee, looks at router, see light off, and confirms it.

6:45a.m. Call AT&T. Listen to recording. Punch in numbers. Answer questions. Find out that we need to call another number.

7:00a.m. Call AT&T Number 2. Listen to recording. Punch in same numbers. Answer same questions. Finally get a person on the line. Start by saying the following.

ME: Hi, before we begin, could I just say that we have a sophisticated system here, that it was working at midnight, that everything is correctly connected, and that I’ve turned things off and on again.

AT&T SHE: Can I call you by your first name? [Read more…]

Net Neutrality 6-17-2006

by

Net Neutrality Links

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

Inside The Beltway Newspapers Lying About Net Neutrality? What A Surprise

Two separate editorials from DC newspapers both oppose net neutrality efforts — and yet, both seem to be filled with outright lies or misleading half-truths. As we’ve said repeatedly, the real issue with net neutrality is that there isn’t enough competition in the broadband space. If there were real competition, network neutrality wouldn’t even be on the table for discussion. The Washington Post tries to get by this point by claiming that there is real competition in the broadband space, stating that 60% of all zip codes have four or more choices. Of course, reading that language, you can tell immediately that it’s coming from the FCC’s discredited broadband penetration numbers. . . .

Then, the Washington Times chimes in with its own anti-network neutrality screed, saying that we shouldn’t worry about network neutrality because there’s no problem yet. This, of course, has been the argument that the telcos have raised for many years, just more vocally these days. As we’ve noted, there is some truth to this — but that doesn’t mean network neutrality issues deserve to be ignored. As some have pointed out there are plenty of “speculative” dangers that the government decides are worth paying attention to, such as potential terrorist attacks or bird flu. And, in the case of network neutrality, the executives of AT&T, Verizon and BellSouth have all stated very publicly that they would like to break the basic concepts of network neutrality, and make Google pay again for the part of the internet you already pay for.

Internet Neutrality – Tough Issue [via Doc Searls]

If the telcos have their way, the Internet in the US COULD become as innovation-free as the phone networks and as content-challenged and inflexible as the cable networks. On the other hand, legislation to prevent these companies from doing what they MAY not be able to do anyway could be a cure that’s worse than the disease.

Unless your livelihood depends on preventing further creative destruction resulting from Internet innovation, it’s almost impossible to be against the principle of Internet neutrality, the principle that underlying networks should treat all packets in the same way regardless of content.

Make no mistake, the future of US telcos, at least in their present form, DOES depend on putting the Internet genie back in the bottle. And their monopoly on lobbying strength now that AT&T and MCI are gone is even more frightening than their share of the local access duopoly. Not only is VoIP removing any vestige of an excuse for the greatly inflated rates charged for traditional voice traffic while providing richer and more disaster-resistant service; Internet TV (IP TV) obsoletes the telco’s strategy of providing cable-TV like service as a new revenue source.

netvocates (4): tying some details together

Deconsumption has made another excellent post in follow-up, and furtherance, of the netvocates thing. I followed a link to a post about “anti-network neutrality astroturfing comment spam” on The Abstract Factory. Commentors there reckon that a person calling themselves “Stevens33” and another going by the name of “Net Chick” are going around posting suspicious comments. You’ll find one from Stevens33, on a post about net neutrality, on danablankenhorn’s blog.

Another blog, a bit tasty, posted about net neutrality and ended up in awe of the response: “look at all this boom and chat on my little blog. I will comment on all of your comments soon.” Guess who was amongst the suddenly appearing commentors?: Stevens33 and NetChick (see 17 May 8.29pm and 8.40pm). Both Stevens33 and NetChick can also be seen on ipdemocracy commenting on a thread about, you guessed it, net neutrality.

–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 6-04-2006

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