Successful Blog

Here is a good place for a call to action.

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 6-08-2006

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 5-31-2006

by

Net Neutrality Links

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

Price, Competition and Net Neutrality

In the comments to that post, I said I really didn’t have an issue with network services differentiated by ability to pay for bandwidth, as long consumers had access to the same services, at whatever bandwidth. That is, I’m not opposed to tiering quality of service based on price. Tiering access to services based on price is a different issue.

In a new comment, Richard Bennett points out that bandwidth is not the only service differentiator.

That’s correct. I’m stating my desire that — where technically possible — all customers at all price levels have access to the same services.

Visicalc co-founder offers a modest proposal

What stands in the way of all this are the Bells. They insist that the phone lines built under regulated monopoly are “theirs,” that no one else (OK, maybe a cable franchise) should be providing that service, and that they should be allowed to use their monopoly power for their own private enrichment.

Into this argument steps Bob Frankston. The Visicalc co-founder has written a satire, in the tradition of Jonathan Swift’s A Modest Proposal, called Paying by the Stroll.

Sidewalks: Paying by the Stroll

I’ve been immersed in so-called tele-communications issues for a long time but I haven’t posted too much lately because I’m not satisfied with net neutrality and am trying to figure out how to explain that the problem is more fundamental (as in “Telecom Phrase”). How come I have to plead for neutrality when we’re talking about infrastructure that we should own?

One of the classic marketing clichs is that people don’t buy the drill, they buy the hole. A good marketer or, for that matter, politician, knows that people want solutions rather than having to worry about every detail themselves. I must’ve been thinking too much about those who want to do us too much good when I went to sleep last night …

Morning of my First Day in At Your Service Village!

–ME “Liz” Strauss

Related
NET NEUTRALITY PAGE

Net Neutrality 5-20-2006

by

Net Neutrality Links

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

More on Underdogs and Net Neutering

Now it seems that while they didn’t quite get the substantive message, consumeraffairs.com has picked up some of the terminology. In a story posted yesterday, it lauded Rep. James Sensenbrenner for introducing a net regulation bill, saying “when it comes to the issue of net neutrality, Sensenbrenner is on the side of the underdog.�

At the risk of becoming repetitive, the underdog in this particular catfight includes the following companies (along with their rank on the Fortune 500 list):

Microsoft (48)
Intel (49)
Amazon.com (272)
Google (353)
Yahoo (412)
ebay (458)

Net neutrality field in Congress gets crowded

“Legislation that prohibits us from providing network management services for the benefit of consumers is a solution in search of a problem,” said Bill McCloskey, a spokesman for BellSouth, which opposes the bill and other regulatory versions like it.

The new bill, like most of its similar counterparts, does outline carve-outs from the rules for network management activities related to security and other consumer protection services.

Also buried in the proposal is a requirement that providers offer their customers the option of standalone, or “naked” broadband services without an obligation to subscribe to cable television, telephone or Internet phone.

Vested interest? Whatever do you mean?

“It is premature to attempt to enact some sort of network neutrality principles into law now,” says the letter, which was signed by 34 companies and sent to House Majority Leader Dennis Hastert and Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi. “Legislating in the absence of real understanding of the issue risks both solving the wrong problem and hobbling the rapidly developing new technologies and business models of the Internet with rigid, potentially stultifying rules.”

Oh yes, let’s all come to a real understanding of the issues, shall we? I know I for one would love to hear an explanation for what happened to the $200 billion in tax cuts and other incentives the telecoms were given to roll out fiber to the home by 2006 (see “We thought you said spend the $200 billion on ‘dark fiber’ “)?

–ME “Liz” Strauss

Related
NET NEUTRALITY PAGE

Net Neutrality 5-09-2006

by

Net Neutrality Links

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

COPE Telecom Bill Affects Net Neutrality, Local Cable Franchises and Funding for Public Access
[via Cause we all know how well it worked with radio…]

AMY GOODMAN: Is this a reprise of what happened when Michael Powell, the son of Colin Powell, who used to head the F.C.C., tried to push through the media consolidation rules, the changes in them?

ROBERT McCHESNEY: I really think it is, because I think what we’re seeing is this across-the-board outrage at the corruption of the process in which powerful special interests sneak through these privileges that benefit only them. And their public relations, when it’s subject to scrutiny, is laughable. It doesn’t hold up. And that’s why they have do it secretly, because they know if once the public hears about this and they go to the websites like savetheinternet.com, which is the intersect that all this coalition, right and left, has come together, where all of the information is collected. Once people hear about this, they absolutely are outraged, and the big guys can’t win, and that’s their main worry now, because we have to stop these bills this summer. We can’t let this go through and force Congress to go through an election cycle this fall and have to answer for this before the voters of this country and then come back next year.

Information Toll Road

Who is in favor of network neutrality, Microsoft, Yahoo, ACLU, Amazon, Guns Owners of America just to name a few. Who is against it, AT&T, TimeWarner, Comcast, and Verizon.

This is not a blue state or red state issue, nor is it a capitalist vs. Socialist, it is the battle of who controls information. As of right now, the information superhighway is open to anyone who wants to pay a small fee for service or to a company to host a site, if this bill passes congress and the senate, the superhighway will turn into a slow toll road.


John Carroll On Net Neutrality by Broadband Issues

Ladies and Gentlemen, Mr. John Carroll of ZDNet:

The Internet is not threatened by access tiers. In fact, it can be enhanced by making new bandwidth-heavy services more economical and reliable in ways that would be impossible given a naive enforcement of “net neutrality” rules.

I could not have said it better myself. I am terrified of this becoming a large, politically charged issue, in which all rational technical discussion is thrown aside because the Technorati love Google and whatever Google wants, Google gets. I just can’t possibly see how the government can do a better job regulating this problem than the market.

Let’s say, for example, that Comcast decides to degrade all VOIP services except their own. Do you have any idea how loud the outcry would be from their customers? Would they really shoot themselves in the foot like that? Are we all so naive as to think that large businesses truly hate their customers?

–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