Successful Blog

Net Neutrality 7-17-2006

by

Net Neutrality Links

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

Net Neutrality and the Flat Tax for Google [via Net Neutrality]

Why is an issue so simple on the surface turning into such a partisan one?

Well, here is the answer. It’s about money not censorship. And its about money that powers activism more than lobbying money. The telecom’s lobbying is one that, like most industries, traditionally plays both sides. The new online media, exemplified by Google, does not.

In truth, there are anti-trust and other legal remedies for anti-competitive discrimination that the market won’t sort out. If censorship was the issue, that could likely generate full bi-partisan support. That is not what is at stake however. What is at stake is that the content and web services business are making a killing in earnings by relying on cheap, available bandwidth that is the same cost to them as it is to your and me. Actually, this isn’t really accurate – it is a lot cheaper for them in bulk than it is for our DSL/Cable access. This doesn’t make the providers very happy. They want those really rich (i.e. Google, Yahoo, etc.) to compensate them proportionate to their total “assets” – in terms of users and usage. Basically, Telecom wants the right to progressively “tax” services like Google. After all, Google can always buy their own pipes and equipment if they don’t want to pay. According to many reports, they already are.

Now this is the irony, these same leftists (by their donations and statements) that would likely crow on and on about “the rich paying their fair share” are lining up to have the Congress forbid Telecom for using anything but a “flat tax” on their services. There are no “income brackets” allowed on the Internet according to Google and John Kerry.

–ME “Liz” Strauss

Related
NET NEUTRALITY PAGE

Net Neutrality 7-16-2006

by

Net Neutrality Links

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

Does Patented Chaincast VMR Technology Stomp on Internet Property Rights?

US Patent #6249810 was issued to Chaincast Networks, Inc. for what is called Virtual Multicast Routing or (VMR) Technology. This technology flies in the face of centuries of established property rights and it probably does so because of the newness of the internet and the lack of understanding of how property rights apply to internet bandwidth.

Chaincast technology is used in the distribution of streaming media and is currently most prevalent in the streaming of broadcast radio audio programming on the internet. Some very large radio networks use this technology to “lower their cost of content delivery”. VMR technology is embedded within the unsuspecting users computer when the user is requested to download the VMR hosting service’s “patented media player”.

Once the radio station’s desiring online listener has checked the software provider’s “User License Agreement” checkbox, the media player begins to deliver the audio content. This is not where the story ends. The Chaincast technology takes over and as the name suggests, the radio broadcast is forwarded, using the listener’s bandwidth, to many more online listeners of the radio station. . . .

–ME “Liz” Strauss

Related
NET NEUTRALITY PAGE

Net Neutrality 7-14-2006

by

Net Neutrality Links

I’m adding these links to the Net Neutrality Page.

Broadband competition? Not so much

In the first part of this year, the US average for cable modem service was US$39.45 a month, while DSL was slightly less expensive at US$35.38. . . .

The report does note that these are standalone prices, and allows that there might be more competition between the two technologies if bundling deals are taken into account. Both the cable industry and the telcos are offering substantial discounts to customers who sign up for multiple services from the same company, and both have the ultimate goal of providing Internet, telephony, and video services.

. . . It’s because consumers don’t have many options that some form of Net Neutrality provisions are necessary, according to the group’s Art Brodsky. “Federal Communications Commission (FCC) statistics showing that just about everyone who has broadband gets it from either the telephone company or the cable company,” he writes. “The FCC has affirmatively pursued the policy of creating this situation, and it’s one of the main reasons we need a Net Neutrality policy. There is no real choice.”

–ME “Liz” Strauss

Related
NET NEUTRALITY PAGE

Net Neutrality 7-13-2006

by

Net Neutrality Links

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

Jon Stewart Lampoons Sen. Stevens’ Net Nonsense

Jon Stewart teed off on Senate Commerce Committee Chairman Ted Stevens’ instantly infamous speech about Net Neutrality, in which the 85-year-old in charge of regulating Internet commerce betrayed a stunning ignorance of Net fundamentals.

–ME “Liz” Strauss

Related
NET NEUTRALITY PAGE

Net Neutrality 7-11-2006

by

Net Neutrality Links

I’m adding these links to the Net Neutrality Page.

Good News – Maybe

We interrupt this series on Telecommunication Pricing to bring you an important message. According to a story in Saturday’s NY Times, Federal District Court Judge Emmet G. Sullivan is considering major modifications to the already accomplished SBC/AT&T and Verizon/MCI mergers. We’re going to mash that up with a quote from Vint Cerf who is now at Google.

“Through the eyes of a layperson, the mergers, in and of themselves, appear to be against public interest given the apparent loss in competition,” the Times reports Judge Sullivan wrote. “In layperson’s terms, why isn’t that the case?”

. . . follow the link to read the mash up.

A net neutrality movie: It Happened to Jane (1959)

Unlike the movie, we don’t have a Doris Day to charm “the meanest man in the world.” So it comes down to congress and the FCC in the United States, and similar government organs in your country. Grassroots activism seems the only course since it’s nigh on impossible to out-lobby phone and cable companies.

So:

What will you do for the Internet this week?

How will you defend your right to call unimpeded? And in private?

Who will you call?

–ME “Liz” Strauss

Related
NET NEUTRALITY PAGE

Net Neutrality 7-10-2006

by

Net Neutrality Links

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

The Origins of the Net Neutrality Debate

For all the fuss, however, net neutrality was a non-issue one year ago. In the July 7 issue of the National Journal, senior writer Drew Clark asks how the prospect of tiered Internet access suddenly became a focus of public and Congressional debate. He traces the origins of the debate to a few revealing remarks by Ed Whitacre, the CEO of the company then known as SBC (and soon to become AT&T), suggesting that the company was eager to start charging big customers more for access to the company’s Internet backbone connections.

It’s true that Whitacre’s statement raised the alarm among heavy Internet users — but Whitacre was hardly the first to think of turning the Internet into a toll road. . . .

–ME “Liz” Strauss

Related
NET NEUTRALITY PAGE