Successful Blog

Net Neutrality 8-22-2006

by

Net Neutrality Links

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

The Internet Consumer Bill of Rights

A Bill of Rights follows the U.S. Constitution to protect us from the depredations of a powerful government to which we have ceded authority. The existence of a Bill of Rights assumes that there’s a powerful entity against which we need protection.

In the draft Stevens bill, the Consumer Internet Bill of Rights assumes that the broadband network access providers are powerful — but it’s not clear that the IBR provides much protection.

First, labeling: users are “consumers” (not creators) or “subscribers” (think packaged content), and the IBR doesn’t apply to video services “in which Internet service is not the primary service.” Because the chief goal of this amendment is to put the incumbent telcos in a position to become broadband video service providers, this exception substantially lessens whatever protections the IBR creates.

The preamble re-uses language that leads into Section 230 — a section that shields interactive computer services like Yahoo! and eBay from liability for material created by others — to suggest that network providers should not be subject to regulation. This is the call of the network companies: protect us from regulation, and you’ll be protecting the internet! If there were true competition for broadband access, that call might make sense — as it is, it seems cynical. . . .

–ME “Liz” Strauss

Related
NET NEUTRALITY PAGE

Net Neutrality 8-21-2006

by

Net Neutrality Links

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

Net Neutrality… another oversimplification

Why not let corporations build their second tier with a TIME LIMIT on their right to charge tariffs? Each new line of fiber or clutch of super-servers could initiate a sliding scale, similar to depreciation, after which they become part of an ever-growing commons?

This is the sort of thing that should have been done, 20 years ago, in CABLE so-called deregulation. The so-called “reform” of that time did nothing to foster competition. Rather, it provided each cable company with safe zones of monopoly! Suppose that the bill had included this simple provision, though:

“Starting now, each company is allowed to “invade” its neighbors’ territory (by laying new cable or by sharing existing lines) by half a mile per year. Five years after this bill has been passed, the companies will be REQUIRED to invade each others’ territory by half a mile per year.”

Yes, it would have cost them money. Yes, they would have been forced to cut prices everywhere their territories overlapped. And the problem is….?

Two sentences. Just two.

–ME “Liz” Strauss

Related
NET NEUTRALITY PAGE

Net Neutrality 8-20-2006

by

Net Neutrality Links

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

Net Neutrality Opposed by National Conference of State Legislatures Over My Objections by State Rep Mark Cohen Dem PA

State Rep Mark Cohen Dem PA’s diary :: ::
I was the only legislator present who was familiar enough with net neutrality issues to argue in its favor. In a voice vote, in which each legislator casts an individual vote, it seemed to be a close call as to which side had the majority. When I called for a roll call vote by states, a majority of 33 state delegations voted against network neutrality, while a majority of ten states voted for network neutrality.

As a 3/4 vote is needed for the National Conference of State Legislatures to take a position, a change of the majority in only one state that voted would have defeated the resolution. The vote was the equivalent of the 2000 Presidential election in the electoral college.

The effect of this resolution is that lobbyists for the National Conference of State Legislatures–the mainstream organization representing state legislatures–will be in opposition to network neutrality for the next year, when the resolution expires.

–ME “Liz” Strauss

Related
NET NEUTRALITY PAGE

Net Neutrality 8-19-2006

by

Net Neutrality Links

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

Municipal WiFi is the new hope for Net Neutrality – thinker [via ZERO PAID]

Stanford University law professor Larry Lessig has argued the WiFi clouds popping up across cites from Philadelphia to San Francisco could provide broadband access over the “last mile” between the internet cloud and users’ doorsteps.

Lessig, author and co-leader of the Creative Commons, told LinuxWorld attendees in San Francisco, that unification of the WiFI patchwork would provide an infrastructure that frees the last mile from the “proprietary control” of carriers like AT&T and Verizon. This would restrict carriers’ ability to charge content providers different fees in order to prioritize delivery of their data packets across the internet.

“When one owns the wires as these network operators do, there is a desire to leverage control. To exploit and capture the value up the stack,” Lessig said.

“There’s an explosion in municipal mesh networks… as you see the clouds exploding above the cities and people unify them, the last mile is solved. The last mile is provided free of proprietary control,” Lessig said

–ME “Liz” Strauss

Related
NET NEUTRALITY PAGE

Net Neutrality 8-18-2006

by

Net Neutrality Links

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

Comcast Wants To Be Yahoo

AdAge reports on Comcast’s ambitions to become a Yahoo-type portal. The cable giant is beginning to add more online sales people, hoping to capture a piece of the online advertising pot of gold. It is also opening up its Internet pages to its non-broadband subscribers, which quickly doubles its potential user base. In theory at least! Paid Content has a good wrap up of the story, and some pithy observations.

Now with around 10 million broadband subscribers, it is hard to blame Comcast for having portal ambitions. Just as an aside, isn’t portal a throwback of a vertically integrated Internet 1.0 era? How quaint! How old fashioned! Still, I wonder the wisdom of this move, especially since the company is fighting the triple play battle with politically more savvy phone companies. Shouldn’t that be the focus? I think this is yet another example of “google envy.”

[…]

–ME “Liz” Strauss

Related
NET NEUTRALITY PAGE

Net Neutrality 8-17-2006

by

Net Neutrality Links

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

Google: We Only Want to Be a Catalyst in Wi-Fi

The free Wi-Fi network offered by Google in its hometown of Mountain View has gone live.But don’t look for the search giant to go nation-wide with its broadband wireless agenda. The New York Times’ John Markoff has this piece today noting that Google has said no to jumpstarting wireless competition to incumbent broadband providers beyond its deal with EarthLink to deliver wireless services in San Francisco.

Not that Google wouldn’t like to see a third broadband pipe into homes; it would make net neutrality a moot issue.

“I think there wouldn’t be a Net neutrality debate in this country if we really had a competitive environment for access,” said Chris Sacca, a Google executive who heads special initiatives for the company. “The Internet is not pervasive as it could be, or democratic.”

[. . . ]

–ME “Liz” Strauss

Related
NET NEUTRALITY PAGE