Successful Blog

Net Neutrality 12-21-2006

by

Net Neutrality Links

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

Open Letter on AT&T Merger to FCC Chairman Kevin Martin

To: FCC Chairman Kevin Martin
CC: WSJ Editorial Page
Date: 12/20/06
Re: AT&T Merger with Bell South, Net Neutrality or Why There Is Still No Phone Competition in Long Valley, NJ

Mr Martin,

I know it must be tough for you these days as the last check into this bad for consumer deal between the new, new, we swear we won’t do no evil AT&T and Bell South. Especially now that Robert McDowell decided to abstain from voting on the merger which results in a 2-2 tie between Republicans and Democrats at the FCC. Wow to think how billions hang in the balance between 4 people. That’s quite a challenge, so let me, as a 10 year veteran of the old and better AT&T give you some advice. Sure this is free, but if you study the downfall of AT&T you will realize that the current uncompetitive environment is much of a result of bad management by C. (how) Michael (bought Excite@Home and TCI high and sold them very low) Armstrong and lies and underdeliveries by the Baby Bells of the promised made in the Telecommunications Act of 1996.

I submit to you my recent experience with home service in beautiful Long Valley, NJ which is a mere 30 minutes via a country road to the old AT&T HQ and now the current Verizon HQ in Basking Ridge NJ.
[ . . . ]

Yes, I do believe in our economy, free markets, and that if all things being equal, competition will give consumers more choices and better prices. However, it doesn’t work when you allow each Baby Bell to have a virtual monopoly in their territory, resulting in no alternatives for consumers. Use your own experience and see if you can switch services. Competition doesn’t exist and this merger shouldn’t be allowed to go through without significant concessions.

PardonMyFrench,

Eric

MA Bell Monopoly Versus the Free Internet — Tell the FCC Net Neutrality Is Not Negotiable

–ME “Liz” Strauss

Related
NET NEUTRALITY PAGE

Net Neutrality 12-20-2006

by

Net Neutrality Links

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

Statemate Keeps At&T-BellSouth Merger Off of FCC’s Agenda (Washington Post)

Federal Communications Commission Chairman Kevin J. Martin said yesterday he did not know how soon it would consider AT&T’s proposed $86 billion acquisition of BellSouth . . .
[ . . . ]
One of the main obstacles is disagreement over whether to require a “net neutrality” condition that would bar AT&T from asking different Internet services to pay different prices for using its lines.

The entire story is available at WashingtonPost.com.

–ME “Liz” Strauss

Related
NET NEUTRALITY PAGE

Net Neutrality 12-08-2006

by

Net Neutrality Links

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

Net Neutrality Alert : FCC Chair Tries To Ram Thru ATT Merger

Imagine : a 5 minute wait for a Daily Kos page.

Imagine : that political blogs – perhaps the major channel now for political dissent in the United States – suddenly became hard, very slow, to access while corporate websites popped up in your browser quick as a corporate CEO robbing a pension fund.

Well, execs from the ATT and BellSouth Corporations that are seeking approval for a merger from the FCC have said they’d love to make that happen.

ACTION ITEM : Send Letter to your Congressperson or Senator protesting Kevin Martin’s attempts to violate FCC ethical guidelines and ram through an AAT/BellSouth merger that would threaten the Net Neutrality.

Media on this :

John Nichols in The Nation : http://www.freepress.net/19566

Josh Silver on the Huff Post : http://www.huffingtonpost.com/josh-silver/latest-washington-ethics-_b_35706.html

Want to know what you can do?
MA Bell Monopoly Versus the Free Internet — Tell the FCC Net Neutrality Is Not Negotiable

–ME “Liz” Strauss

Related
When Did AT&T Become Not For Profit? Was I Absent that Day?
MA Bell Monopoly Versus the Free Internet — Tell the FCC Net Neutrality Is Not Negotiable
NET NEUTRALITY PAGE

Net Neutrality 10-09-2006

by

Net Neutrality Links

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

Here’s the FCC’s Playbook for Burying Net Neutrality By Art Brodsky [via freepress]

It’s not. Beneath the surface, the reality is that FCC Chairman Kevin Martin’s planned Notice of Inquiry on Net Neutrality is an audacious triple play with the goals of greasing the largest telecom merger in history, relieving pressure on a key piece of legislation, and burying the Net Neutrality concept for good.

[. . .]

So here’s the setup. The FCC is currently considering AT&T’s $67 billion purchase of BellSouth, the largest merger in history. In similar past mergers, such as SBC’s purchase of AT&T, or Verizon’s purchase of MCI, the Commission has imposed some relatively neutered Net Neutrality conditions for a limited period of time.

[. . .]

Martin’s gambit to make the merger as painless as possible for the companies is to try to take the Net Neutrality issue off the table. The way he will try to do that is with a Notice of Inquiry.

In the arcane world of FCC process, there are basically three levels of action the Commission can take. Most of the time, the Commission employs only two out of three. First, there is a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM). The construct of the NPRM is that the Commission has found a problem that needs a Commission ruling and proposes some solutions. After a public comment proceeding, the Commission then issues the rule. The construct the rule is that the Commission has picked a course of action to follow. Most of the time the Commission adopts its proposed rule, rather than something others might suggest, but you have to go through the drill anyway.

A preliminary step to the NPRM is called the Notice of Inquiry. The construct here is that the Commission is asking whether there is a problem that needs FCC attention. Notices of Inquiry rarely go any farther in the process. They are a device for burying a problem. But this one is tricky, for the political and analytical hazards it poses for Net Neutrality advocates, including FCC Commissioners Michael Copps and Jonathan Adelstein.

When the FCC votes on an action, Commissioners can vote for it, vote against it, or concur in part or dissent in part. Because the window dressing on a Notice of Inquiry is that it’s simply asking a question, it’s hard for a Commissioner to vote against issuing one without appearing unreasonable.In this case, it would be hard for Copps or Adelstein to vote against issuing the Inquiry . . . critics will say, the Commission is only “asking questions” and no one can object to that . . .

. . . The telephone companies and cable companies will tell the FCC there’s no problem with Net Neutrality. Those of us who favor reinstating the non-discrimination law will argue that there might not be a current problem because discrimination was until recently illegal, because the telephone and cable companies are on their best behavior while trying to obtain easier entry to the cable business from Congress and because the FCC’s current non-enforceable Net Neutrality principles don’t protect consumers from the telephone and cable companies giving priority to the services in which they have a financial interest . . .

None of our arguments will matter. The FCC, if it says anything, will say there’s no need for a proposed rulemaking because no one has shown a problem exists.

–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

Net Neutrality 6-07-2006

by

Net Neutrality Links

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

FCC Chairman: Too soon for net neutrality rules

CHICAGO (MarketWatch) — Federal Communications Commission Chairman Kevin Martin said Monday that it would be premature for the agency to issue rules on the doctrine of Net neutrality, which would prevent discrimination in the delivery of services over the Web. . . .

Martin added that the commission has demonstrated its willingness to step in and take action if it sees, for example, a large cable or phone company discriminating against certain content providers. However, he said: “We’re not seeing widespread examples of abuses in the marketplace that would justify us trying to adopt rules at this time.”

The FCC chair said the commission’s main objectives under his watch are to make sure broadband deployment continues; that the regulatory environment “rewards” investors in new technologies; that there be sufficient competition to ensure “more innovation” and benefits for consumers; and that there be an “even playing field” that “treats like services alike.”

Specifically, he referred to digital subscriber line-based broadband technology and the cable modem, which enable users to obtain fast Internet connections.

Net Neutrality: Who’s David? Who’s Goliath?

I guess since they really only care about one side of the value chain of the Internet – the side that touches the users – they are viewed as representing the “little guy,” the end-user, the consumer. In reality, they are using their market power and big business lobbying oomph (that is a technical term) to shape the debate so that they can benefit from the network but don’t have to invest in it.

The “other” side of the debate, mainly the service providers, are trying not to get their hands tied in developing next generation networks with speeds and feeds that will be able to support all the high-bandwidth consumer and business applications that are coming down the pike. They actually care deeply about consumers as well, which is why they are seeking help from their large users (see pro-net-neutrality advocates above) to pay for differentiated services and quality of service which will help offset the huge cost of their infrastructure investment.

Craigslist is being blocked by Cox Interactive – is this a net neutrality issue? By Tom Foremski for Silicon Valley Watcher

An SVW reader left this tip:

I use Cox cable internet, Cox’s media empire printed classifieds is one of their big revenue drivers. Guess what? If you try to access Craigslist over Cox Cable internet… its nearly impossible! It appears that they throttle access to craigslist – as a matter of fact there have been a zillion complaints but hey, who can blame Cox? They’re trying to stop the opening cap in their money dam! Maybe you should investigate this tip further. Cheers.

I did investigate further, I walked out of my apartment and across Alamo Square and popped in on Jim Buckmaster, the CEO of Craigslist. Jim was just getting back from work and I spoke with Susan Best, publicist for Craigslist. Susan said they have known about the problem with Cox.

Jim soon arrived and said the problem of access had been going on since late February. It had something to do with the security software that Cox isusing from a company called Authentium.

Cox has been collaborating with Authentium since April 2005 to develop the security software suite.

Back on February 23rd Authentium acknowledged that their software is blocking Craigslist but it still hasn’t fixed the problem, more than three months later. That’s a heck of long time to delete some text from their blacklist. . . .

–ME “Liz” Strauss

Related
NET NEUTRALITY PAGE