Successful Blog

Net Neutrality 5-29-2006

by

Net Neutrality Links

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

A Long Way From Done

Coming Soon: The Web Toll from Popular Science;

“Welcome to the brave new Web, brought to you by Verizon, Bell South, AT&T and the other telecommunications giants (including PopSci’s parent company, Time Warner) that are now lobbying Congress to block laws that would prevent a two-tiered Internet, with a fast lane for Web sites able to afford it and a slow lane for everyone else.‿

In a thought process straight from “the tunnel‿ Christopher Yoo, a professor at Vanderbilt University Law School, argues that “consumers should be willing to pay for faster delivery of content on the Internet, just as many FedEx customers willingly shell out extra for overnight delivery. ‘A regulatory approach that allows companies to pursue a strategy like FedEx’s makes sense,’ he says.‿ Of course he, along with so many others, have yet to answer the “charges‿ that the consumer HAS ALREADY PAID!!!

Adam Cohen drinks the Kool Aid

The New York Times isn’t what it used to be. Rocked by scandal over the made-up reporting of Jayson Blair, torn apart by the dramatic ouster of Howell Raines, and shaken-up by Judith Miller’s megaphoning the Bush Administration’s fantasies about Iraq’s nuclear program, it increasingly relies on sensationalized, drama-queen reporting and opinion to hold on to a piece of market share. The most recent example of the Times’ descent into rank hysteria is a column today by Adam Cohen on the pending destruction of the World Wide Web:

Save Free Speech on the Web from Corporate Greed

And here in America, the greed of the big corporations is just as likely to stifle true democracy and freedom as it is to encourage it. As has been pointed out, for example, a free press is only free to those who can afford to own the press. We’ve all witnessed the growing lack of diversity of opinion in the broadcast media, where one or two large corporations, like Channel One, have bought up most of the smaller, once independent radio stations across the nation. Local programming has fallen and so has the rich mix of different voices and divergent opinions that was once the hallmark of local radio.

Now, the Internet also is being threatened, as this article in today’s New York Times shows. The telecommunications conglomerates want to start charging fees for use of the Web. By charging fees, they would be creating a tiered system that would favor large commercial sites that could afford steep fees while marginalizing smaller, independent sites. Those who couldn’t afford the pricey fees would have access only to lower speeds or perhaps no access at all.

–ME “Liz” Strauss

Related
NET NEUTRALITY PAGE

Net Neutrality 5-23-2006

by

Net Neutrality Links

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

The Internet Inventor Speaks Out!

At one point in the comments, [Tim] Berners-Lee says something that absolutely tickles me!

“Suppose your ISP runs an online auction: is there any reason why it should support traffic to eBay at all, when it has its own auction service? Suppose it runs its own on-demand movies – why should it have to allow through HBO packets? Suppose it has its own search portal — why should it give preference to Google’s packets, when the customer has available its own search service? Suppose the degradation happens now, not only to Skype traffic, but traffic from video sources of stations with particular political views? What happens when your ISP’s platinum partners establish favorable treatment for packets from sites with particular views on evolution? It is a slippery slope, and the bottom end is not nice at all. If there is a way of influencing the browsing choices of people, even slightly, there will be money in it, and when there is money in it there will be unscrupulous people trying to get that control. Do you really want to us to set off down that slope? Sometimes you don’t know what you’ve got till it’s gone.â€?

User Friendly.org Cartoons

THIS IS USER FRIENDLY.ORG
THIS IS USER FRIENDLY.ORG WITHOUT NET NEUTRALITY.

Vile and Revile

I don’t know how there is no law against this. Also, it’s so pathetically transparent that this group is corrupt when their member organizations include Cingular, the American Conservative Union, AT&T, BellSouth, and so on. A tagline like “Join Us and say NO to government regulation of the environment� is sick. I’m so sick. It’s as bad as using religion to play on people’s emotions for political and monetary gain.

–ME “Liz” Strauss

Related
NET NEUTRALITY PAGE

Net Neutrality 5-18-2006

by

Net Neutrality Links

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

The New “Pipes� Are Already Paid For!

This doesn’t feel like an original source but it is informative – from Jason Lee Miller at WebProNews on May 12th. “Telcos Lay $200 Billion Goose Egg.â€?

Jason begins this discertation with this;

� The U.S. is ranked 12th in broadband penetration, says AT&T CEO Ed Whiteacre, and in order to bring America up to speed through fiber-to-the-premises (fttp) wiring, content providers are going to have to pony up to use his “pipes.� He doesn’t mention that the new pipes to be built have already been paid for, and they’re very late in coming.�

Already paid for? . . .

Well, here you go – Jason points to Bruce Kushnick’s book “$200 Billion Broadband Scandal. This book documents the largest fraud case in American history!â€?

“Starting in the early 1990’s, the Clinton-Gore Administration had aggressive plans to create the “National Infrastructure Initiative� to rewire ALL of America with fiber optic wiring, replacing the 100 year old copper wire. The Bell companies — SBC, Verizon, BellSouth and Qwest, claimed that they would step up to the plate and rewire homes, schools, libraries, government agencies, businesses and hospitals, etc. if they received financial incentives.�

Wall St. Journal gets it [also via Wall Street Journal Straight Up]

From the mountaintop [the Wall Street Journal], straight talk on Internet regulation:

Don’t kid yourself that the issue here is “censoring� the Web. The issue is Internet survival. AT&T talks about the coming Multimedia Explosion as new forms of video traffic rapidly overtake Web-surfing, file transfer and email as the prime users of backbone capacity. Literally, “net neutrality� would result in an increasingly unreliable Internet as more and more high-bandwidth applications contest for space on networks that nobody would have an incentive to expand.

The real issue is where will the big bucks come from to create an Internet capable of handling the services now envisioned, let alone those not yet dreamed up. BellSouth’s Chief Architect Henry Kafka told an audience in March that a typical broadband user today consumes about two gigabytes of data a month, at a network cost of $1. Once TV has gone high-definition and on-demand, a typical user will consume about 1,120 gigabytes a month at a cost of $560 (that’s in addition to the administrative, sales and service costs that today make up the lion’s share of the user’s bill). “Clearly that’s not what the average user is going to pay per month for their video service,� Mr. Kafka said. “That’s why we need help.�


Net Neutrality, and the hope the US could learn some lessons from African experience

As I think back on it, the vast majority of the policy work I did in Africa was, on one level or another, net neutrality work. As Voice over IP became increasingly important in African nations, I was concerned that phone companies would claim authority over any electronic voice traffic, forcing one of the most interesting developments in telephony into illegality to protect their lucrative monopolies… which is precisely what happened in most countries. Some countries are now discovering they have to undo these decisions and make VOIP possible now, because it’s such a powerful technology and economic force, letting people communicate with families overseas because technical innovation and invention has lowered the price of voice transmission.

It would be a shame to see the US make the same mistake many developing nations made almost a decade ago.

–ME “Liz” Strauss

Related
NET NEUTRALITY PAGE

Net Neutrality 5-14-06

by

Net Neutrality Links

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

World of Ends: What the Internet Is and How to Stop Mistaking It for Something Else by Doc Searls and David Weinberger

Other mistakes we insist on making over and over. For example, thinking that:

…the Web, like television, is a way to hold eyeballs still while advertisers spray them with messages.
…the Net is something that telcos and cable companies should filter, control and otherwise “improve.”
… it’s a bad thing for users to communicate between different kinds of instant messaging systems on the Net.
…the Net suffers from a lack of regulation to protect industries that feel threatened by it.
When it comes to the Net, a lot of us suffer from Repetitive Mistake Syndrome. This is especially true for magazine and newspaper publishing, broadcasting, cable television, the record industry, the movie industry, and the telephone industry, to name just six.

Thanks to the enormous influence of those industries in Washington, Repetitive Mistake Syndrome also afflicts lawmakers, regulators and even the courts.

Telcos Seek to Deceive Bloggers with Cartoon

Coming to a blog near you is a telecom-sponsored advertisement dressed up as an underground cartoon. It’s the latest in the ongoing campaign by large phone companies to pull the wool over the eyes of the American public.

The cartoon is a product of a front group funded by AT&T and BellSouth. The group, Hands Off the Internet, is headed by Mike McCurry, the former Clinton Press Secretary who has been widely discredited for selling out his integrity to become the telephone industry’s spokesmodel.

McCurry’s group is now attempting to buy its way into the blogosphere, spending tens of thousands of dollars on a misinformation campaign against network neutrality — the principle that keeps the Internet free and open to all.

Hands Off the Internet

Hands Off The Internet is a nationwide coalition of Internet users united together in the belief that the Net’s phenomenal growth over the past decade stems from the ability of entrepreneurs to expand consumer choices and opportunities without worrying about government regulation. We believe consumers across America see the results of this “hands off” approach – through such benefits as expanded distance education opportunities, improved access and speed to almost any information, on-line commerce, and an easier and inexpensive way to communicate with family and colleagues.

[All links today via The Advice Library]

–ME “Liz” Strauss

Related
NET NEUTRALITY PAGE

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 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