Successful Blog

Net Neutrality 6-27-2006

by

Net Neutrality Links

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

How can we keep the Bells from committing net-neutricide?

How do you detect when the Bells are committing neutricide? It can’t be as simple as measuring throughput. There’s a host in China that I can’t reach from my ISP in London because of an incorrectly configured router at Sprint. That’s stupid and painful, but it’s not the same thing as anti-neutral. Distinguishing stupidity from malice from outside is going to be very hard.

One thing we don’t want is something like the SEC’s anti-insider-trading rules. Network neutrality rules won’t have much practical use if the only way to get them enforced is to convince a bureaucrat at the FCC to raid AT&T’s sales office, seize its files, and investigate your suspicions of wrongdoing. . .

Hyperbolic neutrality nonsense

Netflix founder Reed Hastings wants to move his company’s video distribution system off the postal system and onto the Internet, where it would become a major consumer of bandwidth. He’s worried about traffic-sensitive pricing, so he invokes the all-singing, all-dancing Wonder Principle, “net neutrality”, on the opinion pages of America’s most credulous newspaper:

Today, forces are at work to stake out future control of Web site traffic and eliminate the Internet’s longstanding openness. . . .

. . . While I can sympathize with Mr. Hastings’ desire to have Fedex service for the price of a first class stamp, I’d rather not be the one to pay the difference.

EXCLUSIVE: AT&T CEO’s political donations to net neutrality opponents

As AT&T continues its battles with net neutrality proponents on Capitol Hill this week, I thought it would be interesting to see where AT&T CEO Ed Whitacre has been spending his own money this campaign and election cycle.

I went to Opensecrets.org, and checked under “Whitacre.” . . . .

–ME “Liz” Strauss

Related
NET NEUTRALITY PAGE

Net Neutrality 6-24-2006

by

Net Neutrality Links

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

Wresting Control from the US

On other internet-related news, there continues to be rumblings that ICANN, which currently is the US-controlled body that governs the internet, may have to cede some or even all of its power to a UN body. The UN Working Group on Internet Governance has laid out four options for the future governance of the internet:

Option One – create a UN body known as the Global Internet Council that draws its members from governments and “other stakeholders” and takes over the US oversight role of Icann.

Option Two – no changes apart from strengthening Icann’s Governmental Advisory Committee to become a forum for official debate on net issues.

Option Three – relegate Icann to a narrow technical role and set up an International Internet Council that sits outside the UN. US loses oversight of Icann.

Option Four – create three new bodies. One to take over from Icann and look after the net’s addressing system. One to be a debating chamber for governments, businesses and the public; and one to co-ordinate work on “internet-related public policy issues”.

[supernova] Michael Copps

Michael Copps of the FCC has two messages: All is not well in Washington, and we “need to do a lot more about that.”

Access to the Internet could reasonably be considered a civil right, he says. The Net is crucial, yet the US is falling in terms of per capita access to broadband. And the FCC counts 200kb as broadband. And if there’s a single person with broadband in a zip code, the FCC counts the entire zip code as having access to broadband. He says we’re the only industrialized country that has no national strategy for getting the country connected. He suggests that other countries have better competition policies or incentives.

“Let’s get the facts, do the research, do the analysis, consider our options” and implement.

“Decentralized end user control is increasingly at risk.” “The concentrated providers have the ability to build networks with traffic policies that restrict how you and I use the Internet.” Although they say they’re not going to do that, but history shows that concerns with the ability and the incentive frequently give it a try, he says.

Metro-Scale Wi-Fi as Ultimate Backup

If you’re a business owner—home, small, medium, or large—$20 per month as a backup policy against a broadband outage or a line cut that would take down a wired service is a pretty low price to pay just to have it immediately available as needed.

Remember that many of the RFPs issued by municipalities require net neutrality to be enshrined in proposals. Which, in most cases I’ve read, includes an explicit mention that any device may be attached to the network and used for any legal purpose. Thus sharing a single network connection when a business’s wired line goes down is perfectly legitimate.

The municipal architecture for most cities is either switched or mesh throughout, and it’s only dependent on a supply of power—I don’t know city-by-city requirements for backup power on mesh nodes, and I think there’s essentially no requirement for this. In Tempe, I believe six fiber drops serve the MobilePro network, with at least one dedicated to city purposes. Because they’re switched, even multiple fiber cuts wouldn’t damage the network. Likewise, a network like Philadelphia’s, according to EarthLink’s description, will be almost entirely wireless until you hit some fiber points of presence.

–ME “Liz” Strauss

Related
NET NEUTRALITY PAGE

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 6-10-2006

by

Net Neutrality Links

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

Hands off whose Internet?

I find it fascinating that whenever corporations are forced to act in an egalitarian manner they resort to the ‘stifling innovation’ argument. Yet it is patently absurd to assume that governmental enforcement of net neutrality or lack thereof will have any marked effect on this hypothetical ‘next generation’ internet. It will come when it comes, no sooner and no later, and it will be the telecom companies who pay for it or somebody else will swoop in and do it for them. Why? Because there is money to be made and an entire global economy with which to keep pace, that’s why.

Assume if you will that net neutrality fails and the big telecoms are allowed to run amok with their plans to create a tiered internet system. With all that extra money, is it more likely that they will reinvest in the infrastructure and create a better product? Or will they do the same thing they do with their Bush tax cuts and buy an extra Porsche or twelve? Besides, do you really want your next-gen internet molded in the vision of telecom corporations or would you rather have one created democratically, even if it takes a few months (at the most) longer?

To take the other side, if net neutrality passes and the big telecoms are forced to keep the internet traffic moving as it already is – in other words, do nothing different than they have been doing from the beginning – do you really think they won’t lay the infrastructure for next-gen internet? Of course they will! They are just as much in competition with each other for your patronage and when the technology comes of age they will all battle to be the first to offer enhanced service. And if they act like spoiled brats and follow through with their threats then other companies and investors will seize the opportunity and render the existing telecoms obsolete. I mean, how many wagon wheel companies refused to get into the auto trading business. Adios Antiguos!

Defeat for net neutrality backers

US politicians have rejected attempts to enshrine the principle of net neutrality in legislation.
Some fear the decision will mean net providers start deciding on behalf of customers which websites and services they can visit and use.

The vote is a defeat for Google, eBay and Amazon which wanted the net neutrality principle protected by law.

Setback for Internet coalition
House OKs bill to make subscription TV market more competitive

The measure spells out new rules that would create national franchises, allowing telephone companies to get into the cable television business without first having to obtain licenses from municipal authorities, as is currently the case.

In the floor debate Thursday, several Democrats spoke out in favor of the bill’s trade-off — a free hand to telephone companies when it comes to pricing new Internet services in return for their entry into the cable market.

“This bill does a lot and goes a long way to making sure that the cost of cable television will be reduced,” said Rep. Bobby Rush, D-Ill.

Reps. Anna Eshoo of Palo Alto and Zoe Lofgren of San Jose expressed bewilderment that the House would vote, as Lofgren said, to “turn the Internet into the equivalent of cable TV.”

Now the Internet coalition, which includes such Silicon Valley giants as Google, eBay and Yahoo, must focus on the Senate, where it faces an uphill battle. The House added language that acknowledges the importance of network neutrality but stopped short of giving the FCC the regulatory powers that Markey had sought.

The current Senate bill has less language on network neutrality.

–ME “Liz” Strauss

Related
NET NEUTRALITY PAGE

Net Neutrality 6-08-2006

by

Net Neutrality Links

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

The Question of Access

Why is the principle of network neutrality so important? As a hero of mine, Trevor Goodchild, once put it, “It’s not a question of excess, it’s a question of access.” Content, and by extension, what people choose to do with content, is not the just domain for discrimination or constraint.

Tech News :: Google Founder Lobbies For Neutral…

Google co-founder and President Sergey Brin met with U.S. lawmakers Tuesday to press for legislation that would prevent Internet access providers from charging Web sites more for faster content delivery.

“The only way you can have a fast lane that is useful–that people will pay a premium for–is if there are slow lanes,” Brin told reporters after meeting with Republican John McCain, a member of the Senate committee that oversees telecommunications issues.

Google, Microsoft and other major Internet site operators have joined with small Web site owners to oppose broadband providers such as AT&T and Verizon Communications that want to offer faster network performance to companies that pay more. The issue has been dubbed Net neutrality by those who oppose a two-tier system of access and pricing.

John McCain pushes a la carte TV channels bill

“We are pleased to see that this bill pushes forward the concept of themed a la carte family programming,” said RCN Senior Vice President of Strategic and External Affairs Richard Ramlall. “Since August 2004, our company has expressed a willingness to test consumer reaction to themed program tiers on our digital systems. Most recently we met with Federal Communications Chairman Kevin Martin and indicated we would be willing to conduct a trial in Boston.

“We believe that themed a la carte tiers would greatly enhance consumer choice by allowing them to choose from an array of smaller programming tiers, limited to the kind of categories of programming they most want and value. At the same time it would support development of new and diverse programming in those categories,” explained Ramlall.

“However, we’ve been frustrated in our effort to develop such offerings by the impediments imposed by programmers. Many of them are owned or controlled by the largest incumbent cable operators, who require tying arrangements and other contractual restrictions that preclude RCN and other competitive providers from offering consumer-driven programming options.”

–ME “Liz” Strauss

Related
NET NEUTRALITY PAGE