Successful Blog

Here is a good place for a call to action.

Net Neutrality 5-17-2006

by

Net Neutrality Links

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

Pro-Internet Democracy Blogs Run Ads for Corporate Takeover of Net: Another Example of Why BuzzFlash Won’t Accept Advertising
[via Truth Dig ]

The ad in question leads to an Orwellian flash that tries to convince the viewers that the government is trying to “interfere” with the Internet and that this will destroy it, which is exactly what the people behind the ads are trying to do. . . . (See http://www.dontregulate.org/)

If you watch the ad, you find it is sponsored by a coalition misleadingly called “Hands Off the Internet”.If you look at the members of “Hands Off the Internet,” they are the very Telecom companies who have given large donations to members of Congress to pass legislation — now having cleared a House Committee — to allow them to squeeze democracy out of the Internet in order to increase their profits. Members of the cynically named “Hands Off the Internet” coalition include AT&T, BellSouth and Cingular, along with some “front” organizations that again employ the Bush tactic of sounding like they are on your side when they are trying to get away with grand larceny (see
http://www.handsoff.org/hoti_docs/aboutus/members.shtml). As many on the Net have noted with contempt, the group is masterminded by former Clinton Press Secretary Mike McCurry.

A BuzzFlash reader pointed out this entire scam to us and how he had tried to get the progressive sites to have the ad removed on their sites, but to no avail.
The ad is part of a package offered by a company known as BlogAds. (See this url if you want to know which liberal blog sites financially benefit from BlogAds: http://www.blogads.com/advertise/liberal_blog_advertising

Proposed Rule Changes Would Tangle the Web

Many people believe the Internet’s decentralized structure guarantees that no company or oligopoly could control it. Internet censorship – whether by corporate or state interests – simply sounds impossible. Yet not only is it theoretically possible, but the history of telecommunications regulation tells us it is probable. By the time the telecoms start changing what you see on your screen, it will be too late to complain.

PDF Panel On Net Neutrality
[via The Original Blog]

Like it or not, the Internet is not a public entity. It is not a company for which others provide service and it is not a public good. It is a nebulous arrangement of interconnections between private networks. If the net neutrality guys would like the government to compensate the private companies that have invested hundreds of billions to make it work, and declare those pipes a public good, that’s fine. The tab will be staggering.

That will do wonders for the deficit and guarantee great service. After all, the government does everything really well, right?

If, instead, you want a competitive environment, then you keep what you have. Existing competition has moved us this far, so why not let it continue? Some suggest the answer is because there are only two competitors – cable and telcos. That ignores the possibility that the DBS guys will ever develop the technology to compete. That ignores the possibility that governments will provide wi-fi as a public good, and it ignores the possibility that Google or someone else will provide wi-max to compete with the cable and telco guys?

It also assumes that two competitors is somehow inadequate for real competition. Honestly, I think a football field would get crowded with four teams.

. . . Cable faces different competition on the programming side. They face competition from satellite and now telcos on video. They face competition for phone service from wireless, VoIP, and the telcos. They face competition for data services from telcos, cities increasingly providing wi-fi, PC by satellite (which admittedly is inferior currently, but that will change shortly), etc.

Competition works. But you have to let it. For Congress to act now, absent an actual threat, would be the height of folly.

–ME “Liz” Strauss

Related
NET NEUTRALITY PAGE

Net Neutrality 5-13-2006

by

Net Neutrality Links

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

Well since Net Neutrality didn’t pass….

On one hand I agree with the philosophy of the free market. I think it is one of the things that makes this country great.

On the other hand nothing gives a free market a black eye like an out of control monopoly.

And that is what we are up against here. It isn’t that one company has a monopoly. It is that there is an effective monopoly at the county and city market levels.

CIO MAGAZINE The Net Neutrality Debate: You Pay, You Play? BY BEN WORTHEN

Last April, Cisco Systems published a white paper explaining how the companies that own the phone lines and cables that connect homes and businesses to the Internet—the proverbial last mile—could use new routing technology to boost revenue. The technology would allow telephone and cable companies to establish priority lanes . . . and then charge the Googles, Yahoos and Amazons of the world for access to these highway toll roads. Cisco’s paper predicted that this new strategy would allow broadband service providers to create new revenue-sharing business models with any company that sells content online.

The plan had only one problem: It was illegal.

The telecommunications laws that have governed the Internet since its inception require network owners to treat all traffic the same. The laws date to the 1930s and were put in place to force telephone companies to prevent a scenario where one company could refuse to carry calls placed by a rival’s customer. The Internet was designed with the same principle in mind. . . . it was the only thing standing between the telecommunications companies and a vast new revenue stream.

Since then, a Supreme Court ruling and a series of Federal Communications Commission (FCC) decisions have eliminated this barrier, prompting Congress to rewrite the nation’s telecommunications laws. The new bill, which could be finalized as early as the summer, will in all likelihood officially eliminate net neutrality as the legal principle that governs the Internet. “If net neutrality goes away, it will fundamentally change everything about the Internet,” says James Hilton, associate provost for Academic IT Works of the University of Michigan.

The impact of these changes on CIOs and their companies will be profound. The telecommunications and cable companies argue that allowing them to govern their networks as they see fit gives them a financial incentive to innovate at the core of the network, and develop new technologies that could guarantee things that CIOs want, like security and better quality of service. Proponents of net neutrality counter that the principle is the reason that the Internet and the corresponding online ecosystem have developed into the commercial and cultural phenomenon they are today. . . .

The new Internet will certainly make telecommunications decisions more strategic. CIOs will not only need to worry about how much bandwidth to buy, but which lane they want their traffic to travel in. And tiered service is just the beginning. Telecommunications companies will be able to rearchitect their networks however they see fit. Over time, the new architectures and the services that network owners deliver will result in complicated payer/payee relationships between companies and telecommunications companies. And if a telecommunications company decides it wants to introduce a new Internet standard, CIOs may be forced to rearchitect their company’s systems.

. . . For all the talk about equal access and treating all data the same, the net neutrality debate is just window dressing for a less gentlemanly argument over who gets to profit in the online economy. More bluntly, Steve Effros, former president of the Cable Television Association, says, “This is about who pays.”

Big Lie of the Week

Here’s a quick guide to help you cut through the industry spin:

The big telecom companies say: “Is the Internet in Danger? Does the Internet need saving? It keeps getting faster. We keep getting more choices.” . . .

–ME “Liz” Strauss

Related
NET NEUTRALITY PAGE

Blogspot Blogs — If You Can’t See Yours

by

With a Little Help from Our Friends

Thanks to Joe at Working at Home on the Internet, here’s what to do

If your page cannot be accessed by readers, you must go into Blogger and publish a post. Then republish your whole blog for it to take.

I know, because I just went through it with my Blogs on Blogger.

Thought you might like to know.

Joe

Thanks Joe!

–ME “Liz” Strauss

Related articles:
Blogspot Status Link
Google Blogger–403 Forbidden–How Could You Let that Happen!
Google–Do You Have Something to Tell Me?

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 4-29-2006

by

Net Neutrality Links

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

Sneaking In The Back Door

Well, surprise, surprise! Two of the leaders of the fight to have Markey’s amendment voted down certainly appear to be in the back pocket of a couple of telecommunications giants who have a direct interest in seeing the amendment defeated! How about that?

December 15, 2005 At Stake: The Net as We Know It

. . . network operators figure they can charge at the source of the traffic — and they’re turning to technology for help. Sandvine and other companies, including Cisco Systems (CSCO ), are making tools that can identify whether users are sending video, e-mail, or phone calls. This gear could give network operators the ability to speed up or slow down certain uses.

That capability could be used to help Internet surfers. BellSouth, for one, wants to guarantee that an Internet-TV viewer doesn’t experience annoying millisecond delays during the Super Bowl because his teenage daughter is downloading music . . .

. . . But express lanes for certain bits could give network providers a chance to shunt other services into the slow lane, unless they pay up. . . .

That could result in an Internet of haves, who can afford to pay the network operators more to ensure smooth service, and have-nots. Trouble is, those have-nots may include the Next Big Thing . . . The fewer innovative services on the Net, the less reason Web users have to want broadband. Both the network operators and the Internet could lose out in the end.

Tech Giants’ Internet Battles

Pushing such regulation through will be difficult for the Internet companies, says Blair Levin, analyst with Stifel Nicolaus. Consider Supreme Court rulings like the National Cable & Telecommunications Assoc. vs. Brand X in June, 2005, which gave cable operators autonomy in sales of broadband services, and similar allowances by the FCC last summer for telecom operators. . . .

Plus, the Internet companies — whose lobbying efforts have been close to nonexistent up until a few years ago — are going up against some of the most well-funded and experienced lobbyists in the business, making for a fairly lopsided battle. “Right now, I would never invest in a business model that depended on protection from Net neutrality,” says Levin.

–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