Successful Blog

Net Neutrality 9-28-2006

by

Net Neutrality Links

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

Lies, cable TV, and Patrick Hynes

What’s all this about? Well, if you’ve been reading the business sections of the papers over the past year or so, you’ve probably seen a few articles about this stuff. From what I understand, the debates involve delivery of television signals and other high-bandwidth content (i.e., Internet service) to people’s homes. Cable TV has been the dominant player for the last 20 years, thanks to technological issues and municipal-level monopolies, but ISPs and telephone companies are positioning themselves for an era where the Internet is used to deliver paid television programming.

A related issue is how Internet traffic will be treated in the future. Currently the Internet isn’t owned by anyone, but companies do own parts of it. Any network connection that’s part of the Internet treats all traffic – whether email, Google searches, news, music, or video – equally, or relatively equally. From what Borderline has been able to fathom, some companies which own “backbone” connections (kind of like the superhighways of the Internet) as well as potential distributors of high-bandwidth programming — want to be able to segregate traffic by type and price, so things like blogs or free video posted on local websites would be on the slow road with lots of traffic lights, while paid video channels would be on the faster toll road. “Net Neutrality” refers to the efforts to keep the Internet the way it is now, i.e., all traffic is treated in the same way, rather than paid programming getting higher priority.

–ME “Liz” Strauss

Related
NET NEUTRALITY PAGE

Net Neutrality 9-27-2006

by

Net Neutrality Links

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

Net Neutrality Fight Moves to Pennsylvania Legislature

. . . With the Stevens bill looking like it’s going to die and a possible changeover in Congress, the telecom companies are looking for an alternative legislative vehicle so they don’t have to have strong net neutrality protections tacked onto the telecom reform bill next cycle. And that means going to the states. Rather than passing national franchising, the telecom companies are trying to get a bunch of big states to pass state video franchising bills, and then they won’t have to deal with a Federal bill next cycle and net neutrality can just die without legislative action. One of these states is Pennsylvania, and the bill is called SB 1247.

Now, video franchising isn’t bad in itself, but this bill is horrible. It allows redlining, which means that no one will invest in building out broadband to rural areas. The only people who will get cable and internet service over fiber are in high income suburbs and dense urban areas. And obviously, there is no net neutrality protections.

–ME “Liz” Strauss

Related
NET NEUTRALITY PAGE

Net Neutrality 9-26-2006

by

Net Neutrality Links

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

What Scott Cleland (and Co.) Doesn’t Get About Net Neutrality

[ . . . ]

But we want to make it clear, again, what the network neutrality fight is about. It’s having a U.S. digital media system where all forms of content can conveniently and affordably be created & distributed—to TV’s, PC’s, and mobile devices. Network neutrality is a policy where access to content doesn’t depend on the whims of the owners of your network, operating system, or e-commerce provider. It means maximum freedom in the broadband era, an enhancing of our democracy. That includes the right to receive any kind of content you want—now. In the not too distant future, the ability of programmers and political leaders to effectively communicate ideas will depend on their access to the “triple play” distribution system. The battle for network neutrality is to ensure we have no digital gatekeepers—including AT&T, Comcast, as well as Microsoft, Google, Yahoo!, etc.

Mr. Cleland’s backers wish to control that future—otherwise they would have to content themselves with only the (considerable) revenues from fair-minded distribution. Comcast, AT&T and the others all want to be King of the broadband domain. But in a digital democracy—there shouldn’t be lords of the realm, only citizen/users/creators.

–ME “Liz” Strauss

Related
NET NEUTRALITY PAGE

Net Neutrality 9-25-2006

by

Net Neutrality Links

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

US Telecom Bill Is DOA

Net neutrality kills overdue legislation, as new Internet lobby force rises on Capitol Hill.

The Communications, Consumers’ Choice and Broadband Deployment Act looks to be on the verge of extinction.

[ . . . ]

The bill is the first piece of comprehensive telecommunications legislation in a decade. It covers a wide range of telecommunications and regulatory issues such as video franchising, universal service, and municipal broadband.

Still, passage of the bill hinges on Net neutrality, a concept not well understood in both the general U.S. population and the Senate.

A coalition of organizations and individuals led by MoveOn.org, the Free Press, Consumers Union, Gun Owners of America, Google, and Craig Newmark, founder of Craigslist.org, moved the Net neutrality discussion into the mainstream with a relentless Internet-based lobbying effort.

In both the Senate and House committees, Net neutrality dominated the sometimes disjointed debate. Despite the fact that bills passed in both houses that did not include Net neutrality provisions, the SaveTheInternet.com coalition seems to be on the brink of victory.

–ME “Liz” Strauss

Related
NET NEUTRALITY PAGE

Net Neutrality 9-24-2006

by

Net Neutrality Links

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

Pro-Net Neutrality Nuggets Are Buried in Verizon’s Poll

On behalf of the Net Neutrality community, I’d like to thank Public Opinion Strategies and the Glover Park Group for their recent survey on Net Neutrality. And a fine piece of work it is. On one hand, some of the poll was so over-the-top that it’s easy to discredit. On the other hand, if you look a little deeper, it appears that the Verizon-sponsored work not only bolstered our case, but provided the seeds to start a wider discussion of a new broadband policy for the country.

[ . . .]

There is a common theme through the first three crucial questions.

The first question — “How important is it to you that (Insert State) residents have a choice of service providers when it comes to cable TV – in other words, that there is more than one company to choose from?” In the overall survey of 800 voters, 73 percent said the choice was “very important Separate surveys from 400 voters in Pennsylvania, Ohio and Missouri had similar results.

The second question — “How interested would you be in having more companies to choose from for your cable TV service?” The response was that 50 percent were “very interested” and 26 percent were “somewhat interested.”

For the third question, a multiple choice one, 56 percent of those surveyed said more choices would bring about lower prices, 50 percent said better customer service (not exactly a vote of confidence) and 40 percent, new technologies.

The central theme, and what these questions show clearly, is that consumers want choice. Let’s look at this on two levels. Consumers want choices in Internet applications and services. They don’t want a telephone or cable company deciding for them what Web sites or applications will function better than others. They don’t want a telephone or cable company cutting an exclusive deal . . .

We can look at the choice issue in another way with a word substitution. Imagine if the question read: “How important is it to you that (Insert State) residents have a choice of service providers when it comes to high-speed Internet service – in other words, that there are more than two companies to choose from?” Or what if the second question read: “How interested would you be in having more companies to choose from for your high-speed Internet service?”

[ . . . ]

Once upon a time we had a flourishing, competitive Internet industry, with thousands and thousands of Internet Service Providers. Little by little regulatory decisions . . . whittled the once-flourishing industry down to next to nothing. Most of the country has no choice in broadband. Some places don’t have broadband, and won’t for the foreseeable future.

–ME “Liz” Strauss

Related
NET NEUTRALITY PAGE

Net Neutrality 9-23-2006

by

Net Neutrality Links

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

Congress is clueless about the internet [via The Blog Herald]

So why am I not worried?

Because soon the next generation of elected officials are going to be people my age, people who grew up with the internet, people who instant message their friends. In the next 10, 20, and 30 years the people that are elected to office are going to be people who “get” the internet, people who understand why net neutrality is important.

Laws aren’t irreversible. In 25 years the justices on the supreme court will understand the internet – they can say that laws enacted today are unconstitutional. The people who grew up logging into Facebook and checking email will be more powerful.

The next guy in charge of the RIAA might understand why downloaded music isn’t such a bad thing. . . .

–ME “Liz” Strauss

Related
NET NEUTRALITY PAGE