Successful Blog

Here is a good place for a call to action.

Net Neutrality 9-28-2006

by

Net Neutrality Links

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

Lies, cable TV, and Patrick Hynes

What’s all this about? Well, if you’ve been reading the business sections of the papers over the past year or so, you’ve probably seen a few articles about this stuff. From what I understand, the debates involve delivery of television signals and other high-bandwidth content (i.e., Internet service) to people’s homes. Cable TV has been the dominant player for the last 20 years, thanks to technological issues and municipal-level monopolies, but ISPs and telephone companies are positioning themselves for an era where the Internet is used to deliver paid television programming.

A related issue is how Internet traffic will be treated in the future. Currently the Internet isn’t owned by anyone, but companies do own parts of it. Any network connection that’s part of the Internet treats all traffic – whether email, Google searches, news, music, or video – equally, or relatively equally. From what Borderline has been able to fathom, some companies which own “backbone” connections (kind of like the superhighways of the Internet) as well as potential distributors of high-bandwidth programming — want to be able to segregate traffic by type and price, so things like blogs or free video posted on local websites would be on the slow road with lots of traffic lights, while paid video channels would be on the faster toll road. “Net Neutrality” refers to the efforts to keep the Internet the way it is now, i.e., all traffic is treated in the same way, rather than paid programming getting higher priority.

–ME “Liz” Strauss

Related
NET NEUTRALITY PAGE

Net Neutrality 9-26-2006

by

Net Neutrality Links

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

What Scott Cleland (and Co.) Doesn’t Get About Net Neutrality

[ . . . ]

But we want to make it clear, again, what the network neutrality fight is about. It’s having a U.S. digital media system where all forms of content can conveniently and affordably be created & distributed—to TV’s, PC’s, and mobile devices. Network neutrality is a policy where access to content doesn’t depend on the whims of the owners of your network, operating system, or e-commerce provider. It means maximum freedom in the broadband era, an enhancing of our democracy. That includes the right to receive any kind of content you want—now. In the not too distant future, the ability of programmers and political leaders to effectively communicate ideas will depend on their access to the “triple play” distribution system. The battle for network neutrality is to ensure we have no digital gatekeepers—including AT&T, Comcast, as well as Microsoft, Google, Yahoo!, etc.

Mr. Cleland’s backers wish to control that future—otherwise they would have to content themselves with only the (considerable) revenues from fair-minded distribution. Comcast, AT&T and the others all want to be King of the broadband domain. But in a digital democracy—there shouldn’t be lords of the realm, only citizen/users/creators.

–ME “Liz” Strauss

Related
NET NEUTRALITY PAGE

Net Neutrality 9-19-2006

by

Net Neutrality Links

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

Google will flex political muscles
PAC to raise money for causes, candidates; lobbyists on board

Google filed paperwork Thursday to register its political action committee, Google NetPAC, with the Federal Election Commission. The company intends to use the committee “to support candidates who promote an open and free Internet for our users,” according to Alan Davidson, Google’s Washington policy counsel.

In addition, Google bolstered its clout by hiring former Republican Sens. Dan Coats of Indiana and Connie Mack of Florida as outside lobbyists. The political veterans may go a long way in building Google’s ties with Republicans, a group widely considered to be the opposition based on the overwhelming preference by Google employees to make campaign contributions to Democrats.

[ . . .]

Google’s push in Washington also involves co-sponsoring its first political fundraiser. On Wednesday, the company, along with eBay Inc. and TechNet, a technology industry group, will hold an event for embattled Rep. Heather Wilson, R-N.M., at the Capitol Hill Club, a swanky Republican redoubt in Washington.

[ . . .]

Google’s move is somewhat uncharacteristic given its independent streak, down to its corporate motto, “Don’t be evil.” But as the company has grown into a major presence in U.S. business it has been thrust into political debates on which ride tens of millions of dollars in revenue.

“This is very, very symptomatic of the way high tech has evolved in California,” said Larry Gerston, political science professor at San Jose State University and an expert on Silicon Valley politics. “These companies started out with an entrepreneurial spirit and a feeling that what was important was the product and the people, so they didn’t have to care about politics. But as they become more sophisticated, they realized that politics could either protect them or hurt them.”

–ME “Liz” Strauss

Related
NET NEUTRALITY PAGE

Net Neutrality 9-15-2006

by

Net Neutrality Links

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

Google End Runs AT&T, Verizon and the other Telecomms

Google is leasing a huge chunk of space, almost two full floors, at 111 Eighth Avenue in the Chelsea District of Manhattan in the landmark former Port Authority Headquarters. . . . But it isn’t the building that’s the key to understanding this move. According to the breaking story in the Village Voice,

The old Port Authority headquarters sits atop one of the main fiber optic arteries in New York City—the Hudson Street–Ninth Avenue “fiber highway.” The venerable behemoth is already one of the country’s most important “carrier hotels”—loosely speaking, the physical connection points of the world’s telecommunications networks and the World Wide Web. As a result, Google will “have access to as much bandwidth as possible and as much variety of bandwidth as possible,” says Dana Spiegel, a technology consultant and executive director of NYC Wireless.

The tenant list of this building reads like a Who’s Who in High Tech, with many of the top internet and Telecomm players in residence . . . There’s a “meet me” room known as NYC Connect . . . a carrier neutral facility . . . This will allow Google to bypass the Telecomms and go directly to Tier 2 service providers. The meet me facilities “are built to N+1 redundancy.

There is much speculation about why Google is doing this, but what it really comes down to is that Google is now master of its own fiber optic destiny and can’t be held hostage by Ed Whitacre or any other Telecomm. And if you add up the ongoing purchases of dark fiber all over the map, it spells out a future where the Telecomms will never be able to hold Google hostage to additional fees or slow down delivery of Google Video or VOIP.

–ME “Liz” Strauss

Related
NET NEUTRALITY PAGE

Net Neutrality 9-01-2006

by

Net Neutrality Links

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

Note To Telcos: Please Get Better Shills

. . . Now, we have Sonia Arrison, who works for a think tank that is funded by telcos. Last month she was claiming that if net neutrality legislation came to be it would be the end of the internet, while then trotting out a freebie about how muni-WiFi would also destroy the internet (ignoring, of course, that almost every muni-WiFi effort nowadays is structured in an almost identical manner to the deals her telco funders got for copper and fiber rights of way — and, in fact, that telcos have now started bidding on muni-WiFi contracts themselves). This time, however, she’s flipped the argument we’ve made here around, saying that dishonesty from the likes of Google proves that net neutrality legislation isn’t needed. There’s just one problem: it’s her side which seems to be acting much more dishonest. She calls it a “scare tactic” by Google to suggest that there would be a two-tiered internet where people might not be able to get to Google. She might want to go talk with the heads of the telcos that fund her think tank, because they’ve all made it clear that they would love to force Google to pay extra to reach their subscribers. . . .

–ME “Liz” Strauss

Related
NET NEUTRALITY PAGE

Net Neutrality 8-18-2006

by

Net Neutrality Links

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

Comcast Wants To Be Yahoo

AdAge reports on Comcast’s ambitions to become a Yahoo-type portal. The cable giant is beginning to add more online sales people, hoping to capture a piece of the online advertising pot of gold. It is also opening up its Internet pages to its non-broadband subscribers, which quickly doubles its potential user base. In theory at least! Paid Content has a good wrap up of the story, and some pithy observations.

Now with around 10 million broadband subscribers, it is hard to blame Comcast for having portal ambitions. Just as an aside, isn’t portal a throwback of a vertically integrated Internet 1.0 era? How quaint! How old fashioned! Still, I wonder the wisdom of this move, especially since the company is fighting the triple play battle with politically more savvy phone companies. Shouldn’t that be the focus? I think this is yet another example of “google envy.”

[…]

–ME “Liz” Strauss

Related
NET NEUTRALITY PAGE