Successful Blog

Net Neutrality 12-29-2006 — AT&T Gives Way On Net Neutrality

by

Net Neutrality Links

I’m adding this link to the Net Neutrality Page.

AT&T compromise may get merger approved

WASHINGTON — AT&T Inc. has offered a new set of concessions that are expected to satisfy the two Democrats on the Federal Communications Commission and lead to approval of the company’s $85 billion buyout of BellSouth Corp. Approval by the full commission could happen as soon as Friday.

AT&T filed a letter of commitment with the agency Thursday night that adds a number of new conditions to the deal, including a promise to observe “network neutrality” principles, an offer of affordable stand-alone digital subscriber line service and a promise to give up some wireless spectrum.

Final approval still requires a vote of the commissioners, which can happen at any time via computer. The proposed deal is the largest telecommunications merger in U.S. history.

[ . . . ]

Among the promises made by the company:

_An offer of stand-alone, high-speed Internet service to customers in its service area for $19.95 per month. The “naked DSL (digital subscriber line)” offer would allow those who live in AT&T and BellSouth’s service areas to sign up for fast Internet access without being required to buy a package of other services.

_A greater commitment to network neutrality, or nondiscrimination involving Internet traffic. AT&T said it would “maintain a neutral network and neutral routing in its wireline broadband Internet access service.”

_To freeze rates for “special access” customers, usually competitors and large businesses that pay to connect directly to a regional phone company’s central office via a dedicated fiber optic line, for 48 months.

_To “assign and/or transfer to an unaffiliated third party” all of its 2.5 GHZ spectrum currently licensed to BellSouth within one year of the merger closing date.

_To “repatriate” 3,000 jobs that were outsourced by BellSouth outside the U.S. by Dec. 31, 2008, with at least 200 of those jobs to be located in New Orleans.

Ben Scott, legislative director for Free Press, a reform group that has fought the merger, said the network neutrality provision was a “big step forward for the supporters of an open Internet.”

–ME “Liz” Strauss

Related
NET NEUTRALITY PAGE

Net Neutrality 10-03-2006

by

Net Neutrality Links

I’m adding this link to the Net Neutrality Page.

The telecom slayers [via Eat4Today]

For more than a year, telecom lobbyists, who include former Bill Clinton press secretary Mike McCurry, have outgunned Scott and his ragtag army of bloggers, Internet entrepreneurs and consumer-rights activists on Capitol Hill. But on this fall day in his bare-bones office in Washington, Scott is grinning in victory. He knows he has succeeded in tripping up the lobbying goliaths with a simple weapon that couldn’t be more appropriate in the battle over the Internet: a low-budget video posted on YouTube.com.

In the unadorned black-and-white film, college kids sit in front of a webcam and talk about the evils of an Internet without Net neutrality. “Do you want companies to control your clicks?” a goateed young man asks the camera. “This means slower connections to sites that are under competing ISPs,” another says. “Let’s keep the Internet free!” After a guitar solo and a hazy image of the American flag, the video goes black and directs viewers to SavetheInternet.com.

In the first week after it was posted on YouTube on Aug. 17, the video was viewed over 350,000 times, according to figures provided by the site. By comparison, the infamous “macaca” video of Virginia Sen. George Allen calling a man of Indian decent the racial slur, was viewed 200,000 times in roughly the same amount of time. A testament to the power of viral marketing, the Net neutrality video “is doing the work of 30 full-time communications professionals,” [Ben] Scott [coordinator of SavetheInternet] says. “And the best part is, I have no idea who made it.”

In fact, the video was made in a little over an hour by Ben Going, a 21-year-old waiter from Huntsville, Ala., and an aspiring Internet filmmaker. Going says he pieced the video together because he feels that his hobby, his business, his way of life, is under attack. He is not alone. All summer long, hundreds of Web users like Going have flooded the Internet with videos and blog postings. An online petition in favor of Net neutrality has gathered more than 1.1 million signatures, and a letter-writing campaign spawned online has resulted in a flood of letters to Congress members. Barry Piatt, communications director for Sen. Byron Dorgan of North Dakota, a leading Net neutrality advocate, says his office has received close to 1 million letters on Net neutrality, “a virtually unprecedented level” of mail for any issue, let alone one as technical as this one. And the “overwhelming majority” of the letters, Piatt says, favor Net neutrality.

[ . . . ]

The battle erupted in the wake of a 2005 Supreme Court ruling, which changed the regulatory classification of ISPs and removed the nondiscrimination protections on the Internet. Facing fewer restrictions on how they could govern the Internet, the likes of AT&T and Verizon made no secret that they intended to create a lucrative Internet fast lane, open only to Web sites that can pay. Critics quickly responded that an Internet where only those who can pay the rent can display their wares will stifle innovation and choice. “Consumers will have all of the choices and selection of a former Soviet Union supermarket,” says Maine Sen. Olympia Snowe, a key ally of Net neutrality.

Here is the link for the above referred to YouTube videol: Save the Internet

–ME “Liz” Strauss

Related
NET NEUTRALITY PAGE

Net Neutrality 9-20-2006

by

Net Neutrality Links

I’m adding this link to the Net Neutrality Page.

Politicians battle over network neutrality

Ben Scott, policy director of the media-oriented lobbying and outreach organization Free Press, said . . .

“Imagine what it looks like when you create a multitiered Internet – you create a fast quality of service for people who pay a lot of money,” he said. “Essentially you’re creating Internet that’s best for those who can pay the most.”

In a system without expanded infrastructure, Scott said, that would mean those who cannot pay the most would have a degraded quality of service.

It’s important to distinguish between consumer tiers and those that would be on the Internet itself, Scott said.

“We’re each buying different amounts of bandwidth, but once we pay our fee and get online, it’s the same quality of access,” he said. “No one decides which Web site goes fast, which goes slow.”

[ . . .]

Alok Gupta, department chairman and Carlson School of Management professor of Information and Decision Sciences, said services that are not free now can be provided for free should companies be able to charge for services that require a higher level of access.

“You can not only have more incentives for investment, but you can actually increase social welfare by providing multiple levels of access,” he said.

The real danger in this area is if media companies merge with infrastructure companies, he said.

Implementation of a multitiered system requires some thoughtfulness, Gupta said, as legislators cannot let companies do whatever they want.

“If the network slows down because of high level of activity, that is natural; but purposeful degradation of services should not be allowed,” he said. “That’s the real legislative issue. That’s something we need laws about which we don’t have right now – not that it should be illegal to provide differential services.”

–ME “Liz” Strauss

Related
NET NEUTRALITY PAGE