Successful Blog

Net Neutrality 9-22-2006

by

Net Neutrality Links

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

Net Neutrality: Letter to Lorelle

. . . if everything and all the content that was being accessed, was in the same network, nobody really cares. . . . The person who laid that infrastructure is also the one reaping the revenue out of it.

We are talking about a world, that in another few years is going to look very very complicated and simple at the sametime. I could switch between my television and “mobile communication device” in ease. I can flip my video conferencing session from my mobile phone, to the big screen television to get a better view and perspective if I wanted to… all this means, I’ll have to hop between networks, and the amount of effort, energy and money that needs to go into making sure that interoperability is achieved, is enormous – not to mention the billions of dollars that are invested towards that infrastructure.

Simply put, nobody is going to make that investment, unless operators can be sure that out of all these services, they can get some money. . . . Since all the devices will be on IP . . . there cant be a way to differentiate what these services are. That’s basically the reason why these “walled gardens” are being raised – just to make sure that there is some basis for charging your usage, in a fair manner.

. . .

–ME “Liz” Strauss

Related
NET NEUTRALITY PAGE

Net Neutrality 9-21-2006

by

Net Neutrality Links

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

Commerce Poll on Telecom Bill Reeks of Desperation

The Senate Commerce Committee released yesterday, and posted on its web site today, a Verizon-funded push-poll that not surprisingly finds 1. Most Americans want competition in cable and 2. Most Americans are opposed to “onerous” (that’s the word used by the supposedly independent “bi-partisan” write-up of the poll results) net neutrality regulations.

[ . . .].

Check out the poll’s loaded question on net neutrality:

Which of the following two items do you think is the most important to you:

Delivering the benefits of new TV and video choice so consumers will see increased competition and lower prices for cable TV

OR

Enhancing Internet neutrality by barring high speed internet providers from offering specialized services like faster speed and increased security for a fee

Faced with this choice, is it any surprise that 66% of the 800 registered voters surveyed (91% of whom were clueless about net neutrality) opted for the delightful delivery of benefits of new video choices over the insidious barring of cool new services such as faster broadband and better security?

The survey, conducted by not one but two bought-and-paid-for political polling firms, Public Opinion Strategies and The Glover Park Group, is just routine message manipulation by the pollsters . . . But the fact that once again, the United States Senate is disseminating corporate propaganda on one of its most powerful committee’s web sites, funded by stiffs like you and me, should get everybody hopping mad.

. . . The Senate Commerce Committee has given up even a thin veneer of working for the public. It’s working for Verizon now.

–ME “Liz” Strauss

Related
NET NEUTRALITY PAGE

Net Neutrality 9-20-2006

by

Net Neutrality Links

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

Politicians battle over network neutrality

Ben Scott, policy director of the media-oriented lobbying and outreach organization Free Press, said . . .

“Imagine what it looks like when you create a multitiered Internet – you create a fast quality of service for people who pay a lot of money,” he said. “Essentially you’re creating Internet that’s best for those who can pay the most.”

In a system without expanded infrastructure, Scott said, that would mean those who cannot pay the most would have a degraded quality of service.

It’s important to distinguish between consumer tiers and those that would be on the Internet itself, Scott said.

“We’re each buying different amounts of bandwidth, but once we pay our fee and get online, it’s the same quality of access,” he said. “No one decides which Web site goes fast, which goes slow.”

[ . . .]

Alok Gupta, department chairman and Carlson School of Management professor of Information and Decision Sciences, said services that are not free now can be provided for free should companies be able to charge for services that require a higher level of access.

“You can not only have more incentives for investment, but you can actually increase social welfare by providing multiple levels of access,” he said.

The real danger in this area is if media companies merge with infrastructure companies, he said.

Implementation of a multitiered system requires some thoughtfulness, Gupta said, as legislators cannot let companies do whatever they want.

“If the network slows down because of high level of activity, that is natural; but purposeful degradation of services should not be allowed,” he said. “That’s the real legislative issue. That’s something we need laws about which we don’t have right now – not that it should be illegal to provide differential services.”

–ME “Liz” Strauss

Related
NET NEUTRALITY PAGE

Net Neutrality 9-19-2006

by

Net Neutrality Links

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

Google will flex political muscles
PAC to raise money for causes, candidates; lobbyists on board

Google filed paperwork Thursday to register its political action committee, Google NetPAC, with the Federal Election Commission. The company intends to use the committee “to support candidates who promote an open and free Internet for our users,” according to Alan Davidson, Google’s Washington policy counsel.

In addition, Google bolstered its clout by hiring former Republican Sens. Dan Coats of Indiana and Connie Mack of Florida as outside lobbyists. The political veterans may go a long way in building Google’s ties with Republicans, a group widely considered to be the opposition based on the overwhelming preference by Google employees to make campaign contributions to Democrats.

[ . . .]

Google’s push in Washington also involves co-sponsoring its first political fundraiser. On Wednesday, the company, along with eBay Inc. and TechNet, a technology industry group, will hold an event for embattled Rep. Heather Wilson, R-N.M., at the Capitol Hill Club, a swanky Republican redoubt in Washington.

[ . . .]

Google’s move is somewhat uncharacteristic given its independent streak, down to its corporate motto, “Don’t be evil.” But as the company has grown into a major presence in U.S. business it has been thrust into political debates on which ride tens of millions of dollars in revenue.

“This is very, very symptomatic of the way high tech has evolved in California,” said Larry Gerston, political science professor at San Jose State University and an expert on Silicon Valley politics. “These companies started out with an entrepreneurial spirit and a feeling that what was important was the product and the people, so they didn’t have to care about politics. But as they become more sophisticated, they realized that politics could either protect them or hurt them.”

–ME “Liz” Strauss

Related
NET NEUTRALITY PAGE

Net Neutrality 9-18-2006

by

Net Neutrality Links

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

Why Distrust Bell Promises on Net Neutrality

The dirty secret of modern telecomm is that all the money is in wireless. Verizon Wireless is the largest wireless provider. Verizon advertising claims only “the network” can guarantee good wireless service. (That is a lie.) Verizon claims it offers Internet service off its phones.

Does it? Not on your tintype.

Even The Wall Street Journal’s Walt Mossberg refers to the Verizon and Cingular networks as “Soviet Ministries.” They decide what online services users will be able to access, and at what price. They also take money from both sides of every information transaction.

When challenged about this, they lie. That’s right, they lie. They claim that if someone was unhappy with a third party they would complain to Verizon. As though people complain to their ISPs about every bad site visit they have. As though the mobile companies were paragons of customer service. They are not.

–ME “Liz” Strauss

Related
NET NEUTRALITY PAGE

Net Neutrality 9-16-2006

by

Net Neutrality Links

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

Guess the State and Win a Subsidy: Senate Plays Geography Games in Telecom Bill

Are you good at geography? If so, you may enjoy the small geography quiz buried deep inside of the telecommunications bill now pending in the U.S. Senate. Hidden on page 121 is a paragraph directing the FCC to expand universal service payments to “insular areas, including any insular area that is a State comprised entirely of islands…”

[. . . ]

As it turns out, the list of states covered by this provision is quite short:

1.Hawaii.

And, by total coincidence, a senator from that state — Daniel Inouye — is the co-chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee — which wrote the bill.

[. . . ]

The provision illustrates how far the bill has strayed from a hoped-for focus on eliminating unneeded regulation. At its core, there still is substantial positive reform: streamlining of the video franchising process. But that important change is surrounded by a luau of special interest provisions. . . .

–ME “Liz” Strauss

Related
NET NEUTRALITY PAGE