Successful Blog

Net Neutrality 5-08-2006

by

Net Neutrality Links

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

Mike McCurry — Hurting The Internet, Hurting His Admirers
[via Misinformation in defense of net neutrality ]

The Online Reporter carried this headline, “Telcos freed from FCC broadband regulations.” The article began:

The FCC said that phone companies such as Verizon, SBC, BellSouth, Qwest and other local telcos will no longer be regulated by traditional telephone rules when it comes to their DSL broadband services. The FCC agreed unanimously to classify DSL broadband as an “information service” rather than a telephone service. Phone companies will no longer be required to open their broadband networks to access by third-party ISPs.

After a one-year transition period, the phone companies can arbitrarily end any agreements they were forced to make with independent ISPs.

In other words, the FCC re-wrote the definitions to exclude telecom companies from our nation’s telecom laws! And we are now 9 months into a 12-month period, at the end of which a radical shakeup of the Internet will take place. Mike McCurry knows that the free and open Internet most Americans think is the “status quo” is actually GONE in 3 months. [emphasis L. Strauss]

So it’s more than a little bit deceptive when McCurry asks, “What service is being degraded? What is not right with the Internet that you are trying to cure?” McCurry is implying the exact opposite of what he knows to be true. That’s a lie, and it’s a genuinely sad sight for those who once admired him.

Academics for net neutrality by Open Access News

Many college presidents find themselves caught in the middle of the debate, confides a college lobbyist who asked not to be identified. On the one hand, they want to maintain good ties with AT&T, Verizon, and other broadband carriers because in many cases, they provide communication services to campuses. Some college presidents may even serve on the companies’ boards. On the other hand, the presidents do not want their distance-learning and research programs to suffer because of a tiered Internet that would cause their institutions to pay more than they can afford for reliable, fast Internet service.

Reporters Without Borders: Introduction Internet – Annual Report 2006

Everyone’s interested in the Internet – especially dictators

The Internet has revolutionised the world’s media. Personal websites, blogs and discussion groups have given a voice to men and women who were once only passive consumers of information. It has made many newspaper readers and TV viewers into fairly successful amateur journalists. Dictators would seem powerless faced with this explosion of online material. How could they monitor the e-mails of China’s 130 million users or censor the messages posted by Iran’s 70,000 bloggers?

–ME “Liz” Strauss

Related
NET NEUTRALITY PAGE

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 4-28-2006

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