Successful Blog

Net Neutrality 9-03-2006

by

Net Neutrality Links

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

Outpouring of Support for Net Neutrality Sweeps the Country

From Buffalo to Fayetteville, Orlando to Seattle, the outpouring of public support for Net Neutrality comes as the Senate’s August recess ends, and members return to Washington to consider a major overhaul of the nation’s telecommunications laws. In response to the events, four senators — Mark Dayton (D-Minn.), Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), James Jeffords (I-Vt.) and Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) — issued strong statements in support of Net Neutrality. Sen. Daniel Akaka (D-Hawaii) pledged his support for Net Neutrality in August, after being questioned by a constituent at a public event.

In each location, local citizens urged their senators to place the needs of the public ahead of the interests of phone and cable lobbyists — and to oppose any legislation that lacks enforceable Net Neutrality protections.

[ . . . ]

More than 750 diverse groups have come together as the SavetheInternet.com Coalition — including Free Press, MoveOn, the Christian Coalition, Gun Owners of America, U.S. PIRG, the American Civil Liberties Union, the American Library Association, Consumers Union, Common Cause, Craig Newmark from Craigslist, musicians REM and Moby and others. The SavetheInternet.com coalition collected over 1 million petition signatures online in support of Net Neutrality.

The House has already passed a bill without Net Neutrality. A bill introduced by Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) — HR 5252, which could reach the Senate floor in September — fails to provide meaningful or enforceable Net Neutrality protections.

–ME “Liz” Strauss

Related
NET NEUTRALITY PAGE

Net Neutrality 9-02-2006

by

Net Neutrality Links

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

Comcast Provides Preview of Net Non-Neutrality

. . . I have to wonder if a recent gripe from a Comcast cable modem customer, plus a story I read in this morning’s newspaper about Comcast blacklisting The Well, might be providing a sneak preview of what one of the biggest players has in store for us all.

A reader who is a Comcast broadband customer had a disturbing experience recently. “I’m at a total loss about how to handle this situation,” the reader wrote. “An e-mail to me from a friend got bounced apparently by Comcast. He resent it to my G-Mail account so I could see it. It said that his message was “Blocked for abuse. Please send blacklist removal requests to blacklist_comcastnet@cable.comcast.com’ among other stuff. So apparently there exists a Comcast blacklist that I cannot control that stops e-mails and that requires my correspondents to ask to be permitted to send me messages.”

[ . . . ]

Yes, there’s no question that all of this is far more easily explained by the remarkable incompetence Comcast has long displayed (see Comcast Seems Clueless About Blacklists) in the e-mail arena than some malevolent plot. This is a company that has never been able to properly support its own broadband customers, much less innocent third parties impacted by its random actions. But that’s just the point. Is there any reason to believe that non net-neutrality would make Comcast any better at handling such issues? . . .

–ME “Liz” Strauss

Related
NET NEUTRALITY PAGE

Net Neutrality 9-01-2006

by

Net Neutrality Links

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

Note To Telcos: Please Get Better Shills

. . . Now, we have Sonia Arrison, who works for a think tank that is funded by telcos. Last month she was claiming that if net neutrality legislation came to be it would be the end of the internet, while then trotting out a freebie about how muni-WiFi would also destroy the internet (ignoring, of course, that almost every muni-WiFi effort nowadays is structured in an almost identical manner to the deals her telco funders got for copper and fiber rights of way — and, in fact, that telcos have now started bidding on muni-WiFi contracts themselves). This time, however, she’s flipped the argument we’ve made here around, saying that dishonesty from the likes of Google proves that net neutrality legislation isn’t needed. There’s just one problem: it’s her side which seems to be acting much more dishonest. She calls it a “scare tactic” by Google to suggest that there would be a two-tiered internet where people might not be able to get to Google. She might want to go talk with the heads of the telcos that fund her think tank, because they’ve all made it clear that they would love to force Google to pay extra to reach their subscribers. . . .

–ME “Liz” Strauss

Related
NET NEUTRALITY PAGE

Net Neutrality 8-31-2006

by

Net Neutrality Links

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

Net Neutrality Heads Toward Showdown In Senate; May Get Sidelined

. . . Is Internet neutrality a solution without a problem? The hardware companies think so. They haven’t invoked the hoopla around the Y2K debacle, but that’s about the position that they’re taking. “We won’t direct traffic away from the content/service providers”

On the other hand, Internet neutrality groups cite as a battle cry the words spoken last November by AT&T Chairman Edward Whitacre Jr., who said content providers were “nuts” if they thought they could use “my pipes” without paying extra, referring to AT&T’s broadband and telephone DSL services.

The United States Supreme Court opened the battlefield for Congress to step in last year in its Brand X decision, which affirmed the FCC’s decision classifying cable broadband Internet access an information service and not telephone service. The consequence of the decision was not lost on Congress: According to the Supreme Court, cable is not a common-carrier and therefore does not require equal access to its “pipes.”

So, Congress has stepped in with the Communications, Consumer’s Choice, and Broadband Deployment Act of 2006 to solve what some Senators see as the problem. The act seeks to allow phone companies to negotiate national cable franchise agreements instead of the way cable companies must do now: negotiating city-by-city franchise rights. . . . Wags predict it the bill may get sidelined until next year

–ME “Liz” Strauss

Related
NET NEUTRALITY PAGE

Net Neutrality 8-30-2006

by

Net Neutrality Links

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

Schumer On Net Neutrality

. . . I’m no fan of Chuck Schumer’s political decision-making, as many of you know. As a legislator, though, he can be great sometimes. . . . he’s out on net neutrality.

“. . . As the Internet continues to grow and evolve, we must make sure that average consumers can still use the web to learn, shop, and communicate. The Internet has the power to enhance one of the most fundamental values of our democracy: freedom of speech. . . . I will oppose the flawed and limiting provisions in Senator Stevens’ bill, S. 2686, which would allow Internet providers to discriminate against the websites of their competitors . . . If the Stevens bill is not changed to protect network neutrality, I will oppose it. Network neutrality has allowed the Internet to be an engine of economic innovation, democratic participation, and free speech. Eliminating it would be a serious mistake.”

This is a very very good thing. A thank you call to his Washington office at 202-224-6542 would help Schumer understand that net neutrality is something voters care about.

–ME “Liz” Strauss

Related
NET NEUTRALITY PAGE

Net Neutrality 8-29-2006

by

Net Neutrality Links

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

The Future Network Will not be Neutral.

Let me start off with some facts:
British Telecom makes sure that no other VoIP service can work on their network by blocking commonly used ports. Sify India, blocks all RTP packets to make sure that no other VoIP service is used on their network

The US charges developing countries per bandwidth, which is a major deterrent for growing economies to adopt faster connectivity. There are a lot of ISPs in the US, who make sure that Vonage doesnt work on their network.

Etisalat blocks off most sites, and no voice related service, including MSN, Yahoo, or Skype could work on their network

This is today. And this is not a Net Neutral reality. What makes you think that the future is going to be any different?

–ME “Liz” Strauss

Related
NET NEUTRALITY PAGE