Successful Blog

Here is a good place for a call to action.

  • Home
  • Community
  • About
  • Author Guidelines
  • Liz’s Book
  • Stay Tuned

Net Neutrality 5-28-2006

May 28, 2006 by Liz

Net Neutrality Links

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

Open Email to Bob Cringley about Google

Hi Bob,

We’ve corresponded in the past about our respective blogs.

Just had a thought that I wanted to share with you: What if the real reason that Google is vying against the ISPs on network neutrality is that it wants to leverage those super-powered hardware boxes it has been dropping into its dark fiber for the past few years as accelerators for paying customers? Similar to what Akamai is already doing…

Preserving Net Neutrality

For people who innovate in the area of technology and those who enjoy those innovations, this free and open access to the internet has been a boon. New applications are being developed every hour and are able to be instantly distributed on the web. These new applications coupled with new content, such as broadband television, have the potential to offer a new array of choices to consumers.

Unfortunately, some telecommunications companies have a different vision for the internet. They have floated the idea of charging websites for access. Those who pay will get faster and more reliable delivery of their content to web surfers. Those who do not will see the delivery of their content degraded.

In the interests of openness, I frankly acknowledge that I am a recent convert to this point of view. A few years ago, I publicly expressed my view that regulation to stop impediments to net neutrality was a solution in search of a problem. At that point, I was aware of no telecommunications company that had expressed a desire to do so. That has clearly changed. — John Conyers

Network Neutrality, Broadband Discrimination

Columbia University law professor Tim Wu coined the term “net neutrality� in a paper he published in the Journal of Telecommunications and High Technology Law. The paper is an interesting read because it’s sharply opposed to the regulations adopted by the House Judiciary Committee this week, so I’d encourage anyone who wants to have a neutral Internet to go read it. Some of Wu’s more interesting observations follow.

–ME “Liz” Strauss

Related
NET NEUTRALITY PAGE

Filed Under: Community, SOB Business, Successful Blog, Trends Tagged With: Akamai, bc, Bob_Cringley, Columbia_University, dark_fiber, Google, House_Judiciary_Committee, John_Conyers, Journal_of_Telecommunications_and_High_Technology_Law, Net_Neutrality, Tim_Wu

Net Neutrality 5-26-2006

May 26, 2006 by Liz

h2> Net Neutrality Links

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

Net Neutrality Scores A Win by Jason Lee Miller

Net Neutrality advocates got something today they haven’t been used to: a victory in Congress. The Internet Freedom and Nondiscrimination Act, sponsored by Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner and Rep. John Conyers, won the majority approval of the House Judiciary Committee, passing by a vote of 20-13.

“Today’s vote would have been unthinkable three weeks ago,” said Josh Silver, executive director of Free Press, the nonpartisan media reform group that coordinates the SavetheInternet.com Coalition.

Neutrality predictions already coming true

One of my many arguments against net neutrality legislation is that it involves the federal government in an issue with which it wasn’t involved previous. We do not currently have neutrality legislation, and the variety and size of the Internet are growing apace. We are doing very well.

I am not against neutrality as an outcome, if that is what the consumer demands. Sounds fine to me, I might even demand it too.

House Judiciary passes Net-neutrality bill

Specifically, the bipartisan bill amends the Clayton Act to require network providers to run on a nondiscriminatory basis, making it a violation for a provider to refuse to interconnect with other broadband providers and block or interfere with another’s services or content, among other things.

–ME “Liz” Strauss

Related
NET NEUTRALITY PAGE

Filed Under: Business Life, Successful Blog, Trends Tagged With: bc, Clayton_Act, Free_Press, Internet_Freedom_and_Nondiscrimination_Act, Jim_Sensenbrenner, John_Conyers, Josh_Silver, Net_Neutrality, SavetheInternet.com

Net Neutrality 5-19-2006

May 19, 2006 by Liz

Net Neutrality Links

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

Sensenbrenner, Conyers Introduce Bipartisan Net Neutrality Legislation

WASHINGTON, May 18 /U.S. Newswire/ — House Judiciary Committee Chairman F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr. (R-Wis.), along with Ranking Member John Conyers, Jr. (D-Mich.) and others, today introduced bipartisan legislation to preserve Internet freedom and competition. . . . Internet access has dramatically enhanced the ability of Americans to access this medium and has been a catalyst for innovation and competition. H.R. 5417, the “Internet Freedom and Nondiscrimination Act of 2006,” would ensure competitive and nondiscriminatory access to the Internet.

Chairman Sensenbrenner remarked, “This legislation is a necessary step to protect consumers and other Internet users from possible anti-competitive and discriminatory conduct by broadband providers. The FCC recently reported that 98 percent of American consumers get their high speed broadband from either a cable company or a DSL provider. This virtual duopoly creates an environment that is ripe for anti-competitive abuses, and for which a clear antitrust remedy is urgently needed.”

“This legislation will provide an insurance policy for Internet users against being harmed by broadband network operators abusing their market power to discriminate against content and service providers. While I am not opposed to providers responsibly managing their networks and providing increased bandwidth to those consumers who wish to pay for it, I am opposed to providers giving faster, more efficient access to certain service providers at the expense of others. This legislation will ensure that this type of discriminatory behavior will not take place, and will help to continue the tradition of innovation and competition that has defined the Internet,” continued Chairman Sensenbrenner.

The Wall Street Journal Blows it Big Time
[Wall Street Journal Article Follows]

The change the providers want to make is hard to describe because the double charging concept is so foreign to us. Basically it’s without precedent. But I’m going to try.

It would be like setting up a toll interstate highway system. As it stands now, everyone getting on that highway system would have to pay a toll to each state where you get on the highway. How much you currently pay determines whether you can get into the fast lane, or if you have to stay in the slow lane.

Now imagine a different, additional, toll structure. Say a truck was going from Florida to Wisconsin. Under the new system (what the internet providers want to do), the truck would pay his toll to Florida like he always did and get into which ever lane he paid for. But now he would also have to pay an additional toll to Wisconsin the moment he got on the highway or he wouldn’t be allowed to get off the highway there.

It might almost sound reasonable except where the analogy falls apart when you translate it to the internet. Be cause with the internet, you put your data on in one place, but it doesn’t get off in one place, but many. And under the new system you would have to pay an additional toll everyplace you wanted your data to be able to get off the highway.

The Web’s Worst New Idea

Under a law like this–variations are floating around both houses of Congress–the country could look forward to years of litigation about the extent and nature of the rules. When the dust settled we’d have a new set of regulations that could span the range of possible activities on the Net. What’s more, the rules aren’t likely to stop with the phone and cable companies that have Mr. Markey and his friends at Moveon.org so exercised.

Non-discrimination cases could well be brought against Net neutrality backers like Google–say, for placing a competitor too low in their search results. Google’s recent complaint that Microsoft’s new operating system was anti-competitive is a foretaste of what the battles over a “neutral” Net would look like. Yet Google and other Web site operators have jumped on the Net neutrality bandwagon lest they have to pay a fee to get a guaranteed level of service from a Verizon or other Internet service provider. They don’t seem to comprehend the legal and political danger they’ll face once they open the neutrality floodgates. We’d have thought Microsoft of all companies would have learned this lesson from its antitrust travails, but it too has now hired lawyers to join the Net neutrality lobby.

–ME “Liz” Strauss

Related
NET NEUTRALITY PAGE

Filed Under: Business Life, Community, Successful Blog, Trends Tagged With: bc, F._James_Sensenbrenner, FCC._Chris_Cree, Google, House_Judiciary_Committee, Internet_Freedom_and_Nondiscrimination_Act, John_Conyers, Moveon.org, Net_Neutrality, Verizon, Wall_Street_Journal

Recently Updated Posts

How to Become a Better Storyteller

SEO and Content Marketing

How to Use Both Content Marketing and SEO to Amplify Your Blog

9 Practical Work-at-Home Ideas For Moms

How to Monetize Your Hobby

How To Get Paid For Sharing Your Travel Stories

7 reasons why visitors leave websites for ever



From Liz Strauss & GeniusShared Press

  • What IS an SOB?!
  • SOB A-Z Directory
  • Letting Liz Be

© 2025 ME Strauss & GeniusShared