Successful Blog

Net Neutrality 10-11-2006

by

Net Neutrality Links

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

Preserve the Internet Standards for Network Neutrality | Two Types of Neutrality

So far, much of the argument over “net neutrality” has been over whether service providers should be allowed to favor one application, destination or Internet service over another. This is Net neutrality at the application layer. But the real issue is the neutrality of the IP layer where routers treat alike bits from every type of application. This neutrality is what makes the Internet flexible — while it also assures uniform treatment of information flow. If this neutrality is not maintained, the Internet will be changed fundamentally. It will no longer be the flexible, open platform that allows anyone with a good idea to compete on a level ground.

IP-layer neutrality is not a property of the Internet. It is the Internet. The Internet is a set of agreements (protocols) that enable networks to work together. The heart of the Internet protocol is the agreement that all data packets will be passed through without regard to which application created them or what’s inside of them. This reliable, uniform treatment of packets is precisely what has made the Internet a marketplace of innovation so critical to our economy.

[ . . . ]

We call on Congress to end the confusion and protect not only the Internet but the tens of millions of American citizens who need to know that when they buy Internet access, they’re getting access to the real Internet. Network providers who offer services that depend on violating IP-layer neutrality should be prohibited from labeling those services as “Internet,” as their doing so will only undermine the weight of consensus authority presently accorded to the existing standards. The term “Internet” represents specific standards that provide IP-layer neutral connectivity that supports the openness of access and innovation that have been the defining characteristics of the Internet since its origins.

To that end, we present the attached draft legislative language and call for concerned citizens and members of Congress to offer their support for passing it into law.

Contact:
[info given at the blog]

–ME “Liz” Strauss

Related
NET NEUTRALITY PAGE

Net Neutrality 10-10-2006

by

Net Neutrality Links

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

Telco Strategy Shift: To the States

We beat them in Congress, and depending on what happens on November 7th, we may win a full victory next session. The telcos are already changing their strategy to head off a Democratic Congress. This is from Tech Daily:

Lead Verizon Communications lobbyist Tom Tauke announced that the company is likely to halt its efforts in pursuing federal rules on video franchises should pending legislation fail this year. Bloomberg News reports that Tauke said the company instead would shift its focus to obtaining statewide agreements in Massachusetts, New York and Pennsylvania. Although federal language that would help telephone companies like AT&T and Verizon offer video services has broad support, the proposal has stalled because of various objections to the broader bill. “It is unclear whether there will be an opportunity” to pass a bill this year, Tauke said. “I do not expect we will mount an effort for federal legislation in 2007.”

This is essentially a threat to Congress – if you don’t pass something soon (in the lame duck session, for instance), we’re going to bypass you and go directly to the states. This has been coming for some time.

Gives new meaning to the PoliBlog. Doesn’t it? Tom Tauke writes there.

–ME “Liz” Strauss

Related
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 10-08-2006

by

Net Neutrality Links

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

Verizon PoliBlog, Broadband Deployment and Net Neutrality

I live in Pennsylvania, and if the Cable Customer Choice and Competition Act, aka SB 1247 and HB 2880, are passed, what will happen is this–

    Franchise fees, which are right now negotiated on a town by town basis will be flattened to 3%, which is less than most municipalities currently get. That means a local tax hike for most communities.

    There will be no buildout requirements, which currently exist when franchises are negotiated on the municipality level. This means Verizon can “skim the cream” and leave huge areas unserviced — a broadband ghetto. . . .

    Courtesy Community hookups for municipal services will no longer be required. This means that Libraries, Municipal Services, Emergency Serivices, and others will have to purchase their broadband services. This is another cost that will be passed on to the taxpayer.

    Community TV and local access will no longer be a requirement, further distancing content providers from local residents and further marginalizing communities.

    In most cases prices will stay the same or go up.

    There will be very little additional competition.

    FiOS is still Asynchronous, unlike similar Fiber Optic networks in other countries.

    Verizon is notorious for its small print, so if you buy “unlimited access” or “unlimited bandwidth” don’t for a second believe you’ll get it.

So, while I applaud Verizon for opening a dialog, to say I’m unhappy with their scheming and underhanded tactics . . . is a gross understatement. Meanwhile I will be working the phone, letters to the editor, the governor, and everyone else I can get hold of to get Act 183 repealed to once again allow community WIFI in PA

–ME “Liz” Strauss

Related
NET NEUTRALITY PAGE

Net Neutrality 10-07-2006

by

Net Neutrality Links

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

Verizon’s Got a Policy Blog Called PoliBlog

. . . It’s called PoliBlog and in the first posting, Verizon honcho and former Congressman from Iowa Tom Tauke explains why Verizon has taken to blogging.

. . . While this may seem a bit counterintuitive, PoliBlog is not intended as a “corporate” blog. Instead, it is our effort to find a place in the universal town square. We are players in the communications and broadband worlds. What we do or don’t do has real impact. So we think we should offer our perspectives and positions on issues and subject them to scrutiny, comment, and debate. It’s good for us. And it’s healthy for the policymaking process.

Now, it’s entirely possible that Verizon is being slicker-than-slick by . . . not barging out the door and banging all of us on the head with a bunch of one-way arguments on, say, net neutrality . . . only to mess with our heads or spew forth lobbying or PR materials later.

If Verizon doesn’t . . . however, kudos to the telco for at least trying to join the conversation

About page of the Poliblog by Verizon

About poliblog

Verizon, through its blog, seeks to encourage intelligent discussion of public policy issues affecting the telecommunications industry and Verizon in particular. We will do this by posting our own points of view regularly, engaging in conversation with other posters who offer fact-based comments and reacting to the relevant ongoing blogosphere conversation. While no telecommunications subject is considered off-limits, we will focus on policy issues that have implications for the greatest number of companies and consumers.

On this date the post described in the article above and all posts on the Poliblog could not be accessed. This message came up instead: Error loading posts. Please try again.

UPDATE: THE POSTS ARE BACK. You can find them at Poliblog

–ME “Liz” Strauss

Related
NET NEUTRALITY PAGE

Net Neutrality 10-06-2006

by

Net Neutrality Links

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

Educause: Telecommunications> Net Neutrality Complete Resource Including talking points, links to legislations, and several papers.

What you can do:

EDUCAUSE has prepared a set of “Talking Points” to help encourage members to bring this important issue to the attention of their campus legislative representative, particularly those whose campus lies within the district of the key Congressional members (Senate; House) that will be voting on this issue in the near future.

[ . . .]

Most Popular Library Content (2)
Lessons for the Future Internet: Learning from the Past (2006) by Michael M. Roberts, EDUCAUSE
The Case for Preserving Network Neutrality (2006) by Matthew Kazmierczak and Josh James, American Electronics Association

–ME “Liz” Strauss

Related
NET NEUTRALITY PAGE