Successful Blog

Net Neutrality 10-05-2006

by

Net Neutrality Links

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

MORE FROM:
Neutrality’ Is New Challenge for Internet Pioneer
an Interview on Net Neutrality with Sir Tim Berners-Lee By JOHN MARKOFF Published: September 27, 2006

[ . . .]
Q. Do you have a view about the behavior of the telephone companies in this debate? Is this simply traditional monopolist behavior, or is it more subtle? Have you talked to them to understand their motivations?

A. I have tried, when I’ve had the opportunity to find out, to understand their motivations, but I can’t speak for them. So all I can do is guess. But my guess is that it’s not that this is a nefarious planned plot to take over the Internet by a bunch of people who hate it. What I imagine is that it is simply the culture of companies, which have been using a particular business model for a very long time. So I think there is a clash of corporate cultures.

Q. What do you make of justifications involving quality of service, which would give certain types of Internet data, like voice and video, right of way over other kinds of data?

A. They say, “It will cost us an awful lot of money for this quality of service, and therefore we will have to disband neutrality.” They’re not actually logical. Some people say perhaps we ought to be able to charge more for this very special high-bandwidth connectivity. Of course that’s fine, charge more. Nobody is suggesting that you shouldn’t be able to charge more for a video-capable Internet connection. That’s no reason not to make it anything but neutral.

–ME “Liz” Strauss

Related
NET NEUTRALITY PAGE

Net Neutrality 10-04-2006

by

Net Neutrality Links

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

Internet Freedom and Innovation at Risk: Why Congress Must Restore Strong Net Neutrality Protection

READ THIS ONE IN ITS ENTIRETY

Net Neutrality rests on three guiding principles:

  • No discrimination against lawful content. Net Neutrality ensures that Internet users have the right to access lawful websites of their choice and to post lawful content, free of discrimination or degradation by network providers. . . . .
  • Equal Internet access at an equal price. Under Net Neutrality, network providers cannot give preferential treatment to their own services at the expense of competing sites consumers want to use. . . . .

    • .

  • Consumers choose network equipment. . . . Net Neutrality prevents network providers from eliminating competing equipment by making it incompatible with their gateway. In the process, it ensures that equipment choice remains in the hands of Internet users, where it rightfully belongs

[ . . .]

In 2005, the Telecoms Captured the FCC and Eliminated Net Neutrality Protection Following the Supreme Court’s Brand X Decision.

[ . . .]

In 2006, big network providers have censored lawful content and blocked their Internet competitors:

  1. Time Warner’s AOL blocked all emails that mentioned www.dearaol.com, an advocacy campaign opposing AOL’s pay-to-send e-mail scheme.
  2. BellSouth blocked its customers’ access to Myspace.com in Tennessee and Florida.
  3. Cingular Wireless, run by AT&T, bars access to PayPal to make a payment on Ebay because it has struck a deal with another online payment service, which pays Cingular for that privileged status.

[ . . .]
The United States Senate is currently considering a bipartisan bill offered by Senators Olympia Snowe and Byron Dorgan, S. 2917, the Internet Freedom Preservation Act [Hyperlink to Snowe-Dorgan bill], that would restore Network Neutrality protections in place before July 2005. The Snowe-Dorgan bill requires that any content, application, or service offered through the Internet be provided on a basis that is “reasonable and non-discriminatory” and equivalent to the access, speed, quality of service, and bandwidth of services offered by network owners. It further prohibits network providers from blocking or degrading lawful Internet content. Finally, it leaves the choice for attaching legal devices to networks squarely in the hands of consumers, and not the Telecoms and cable companies.

A Telecom-sponsored alternative bill offered by Senator Ted Stevens, S. 2686, the Communications, Consumer’s Choice, and Broadband Deployment Act of 2006 [hyperlink to Net Neutrality provision of Stevens bill], permits Net discrimination to continue unabated. The bill provides no protection for Internet users and entrepreneurs. Instead, it merely includes a toothless requirement that the FCC study the Internet market for five years and file annual reports to Congress on the activities of network owners. Telecoms and cable companies are spending tens of millions of dollars in ads and big-dollar contributions pushing the Stevens bill to members of Congress. They view it as a small price to pay for the billions in profits they will reap as gatekeepers for the Internet’s content and users.
[ . . .]

READ THIS ONE IN ITS ENTIRETY

–ME “Liz” Strauss

Related
NET NEUTRALITY PAGE

Net Neutrality 10-02-2006

by

Net Neutrality Links

I’m adding this link to the Net Neutrality Page.
MORE FROM:
Neutrality’ Is New Challenge for Internet Pioneer an Interview on Net Neutrality with Sir Tim Berners-Lee By JOHN MARKOFF Published: September 27, 2006

[ . . .]

Q. You’ve spoken about the concept of a Dark Net, which would balkanize the Internet. Do you have a nightmare scenario?

A. In the long term, I’m optimistic because I think even if the United States ends up faltering in its quest for Net neutrality, I think the rest of the world will be horrified, and there will be very strong pressure from other countries who will become a world separate from the U.S., where the Net is neutral. If things go wrong in the States, then I think the result could be that the United States would then have a less-competitive market where content providers could provide a limited selection of all the same old movies to their customers because they have a captive market.

Meanwhile, in other countries, you’d get a much more dynamic and much more competitive market for television over the Internet. So that you’d end up finding that the U.S. would then fall behind and become less competitive until they saw what was going on and fixed it. I just hope we don’t have to go through a dark period, a little dark ages while people experiment with dropping Net neutrality and then, perhaps, put it back.

–ME “Liz” Strauss

Related
NET NEUTRALITY PAGE

Net Neutrality 10-01-2006

by

Net Neutrality Links

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

Podcasting and the battle for Net Neutrality

I just read a post over at MacMikeNews.com about Podcasting. . . . it really hit home why the Telecommunications Corps. and the Cable and Media outlets are scrambling to trash Net Neutrality. . . . They’re LOSING THEIR AUDIENCE.

Many people who are downloading podcasts are using it as a replacement for radio, and are starting to use it as a replacement for television. Think about this– podcasts are commercial free, for the most part. Podcasts are downloaded and can be heard or watched at the convenience of the downloader. And since the technology is easily accessible ANYONE can, with just a bit of learning and some inexpensive equipment, create and upload a podcast. . . . I just sampled a few, and though on some the quality was a bit uneven, I’d say that many of the most popular are pretty damn good. Even better, the quality of the CONTENT is much better than the “lowest common denominator” crap that either commercial tv or radio stations think we want to view or listen to.

[ . . . ]

Now, let’s take this a step further– the political scene. If any smaller and less well financed candidate were to be able to take their message directly to the people via podcast . . .

[ . . . ]

One further step– what do artists and musicians need big media companies for if they can take their offerings directly to the people and CUT OUT THE MIDDLEMAN?

[Media and Telecomm Corps] stand to lose billions of dollars if the internet remains free. They will be cut out of the income loop if people don’t need them as a media delivery device.

–ME “Liz” Strauss

Related
NET NEUTRALITY PAGE

Net Neutrality 9-30-2006

by

Net Neutrality Links

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

MORE FROM:
‘Neutrality’ Is New Challenge for Internet Pioneer an Interview on Net Neutrality with Sir Tim Berners-Lee By JOHN MARKOFF Published: September 27, 2006

Q. So there are political consequences [to losing a neutral net]. Are there are also economic consequences? If so, what are they?

A. I think the people who talk about dismantling — threatening — Net neutrality don’t appreciate how important it has been for us to have an independent market for productivity and for applications on the Internet.

Now, if we compare what you can get into your home with earliest modems, it’s maybe 1,000 times as fast. So that market has been very competitive, very successful.

And I think we wouldn’t have seen this explosion in the exciting, tremendous diversity of the kind of things you see on the Web now. So in the future, obviously, we expect to see many more things. We expect to see, very importantly, television streaming over the Internet, which is going to make a very exciting market in television content and maybe entertainment, maybe educational ideas.

The people deploying these things rely on the fact that the Internet is sitting there waiting to carry whatever they can dream up.

MORE TOMMOROW

–ME “Liz” Strauss

Related
NET NEUTRALITY PAGE

Net Neutrality 9-29-2006

by

Net Neutrality Links

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

‘Neutrality’ Is New Challenge for Internet Pioneer andnterview By JOHN MARKOFF
Published: September 27, 2006

SIR TIM BERNERS-LEE was a software programmer working at the CERN physics research laboratory in Switzerland in the 1980’s when he proposed the idea of a project based on hypertext — linking documents with software pointers.

The World Wide Web went online in 1991 and rapidly grew beyond the physics community. In 1994, Sir Tim founded the World Wide Web Consortium at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology to promote open standards on the Internet. Earlier this year, he began speaking out in favor of “Net neutrality.” The term describes one side in the debate in the United States over whether Internet service providers should be able to control the order in which they route packets of data — or even be able to reject those packets — or whether they should be required to be neutral on the matter. For example, in some cases I.S.P.’s have restricted the routing of services provided by competitors like Internet phone calls.

He answered questions earlier this month by telephone from Cambridge, Mass.

Q. Do you think you would be able to invent the Web today, given the barriers that are emerging?

A. You have to imagine the Net without the Web. I think I would be able to invent it today, but if we lose Net neutrality, then imagine a world in which it’s much more difficult to invent the Web.

Q. Is your view that the anti-Net neutrality infrastructure actually threatens political democracy? Does it go beyond just the technical structure of the Internet?

A. Net neutrality is one of those principles, social principles, certainly now much more than a technical principle, which is very fundamental. When you break it, then it really depends how far you let things go. But certainly I think that the neutrality of the Net is a medium essential for democracy, yes — if there is democracy and the way people inform themselves is to go onto the Web.

MORE TOMORROW . . .

–ME “Liz” Strauss

Related
NET NEUTRALITY PAGE