Successful Blog

Net Neutrality 12-01-2006

by

Net Neutrality Links

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

Ofcom report

Ofcom just released a report today about global telecommunications developments. Key findings here.

[ . . . ]

But on a serious note, this:

Next-generation networks (NGNs) will be able to carry the full range of current communications services via data packets, and the nature and timing of NGN deployment will depend partially on the policy decisions regulators make about whether to intervene (and in what manner) in relation to these infrastructure upgrades.

[ . . . ]

What? The internet already can carry any packet. With enough bandwidth installed, any kind of communication can be watched and interacted with enjoyably. So what’s missing that requires an acronym? Why not say we’re deploying bandwidth — why invoke a whole slew of centralized standard-setting exercises?

Much to ponder, at any rate

But on a serious note, this:

Next-generation networks (NGNs) will be able to carry the full range of current communications services via data packets, and the nature and timing of NGN deployment will depend partially on the policy decisions regulators make about whether to intervene (and in what manner) in relation to these infrastructure upgrades.

What? The internet already can carry any packet. With enough bandwidth installed, any kind of communication can be watched and interacted with enjoyably. So what’s missing that requires an acronym? Why not say we’re deploying bandwidth — why invoke a whole slew of centralized standard-setting exercises?

Much to ponder, at any rate

Want to know what you can do?
MA Bell Monopoly Versus the Free Internet — Tell the FCC Net Neutrality Is Not Negotiable

–ME “Liz” Strauss

Related
NET NEUTRALITY PAGE

Net Neutrality 11-30-2006

by

Net Neutrality Links

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

No Slam Dunk for Net Neutrality (with apologies to George Tenet)

What isn’t yet known is who will chair the pivotal Telecommunications and Internet Subcommittee. If it’s Ed Markey (D-Mass.), then you have a strong Bell opponent, strong Net Neutrality proponent and some momentum. But, Markey has a lot of options. He could try for the chairmanship of the full Resources Committee, and he also has seniority on the Homeland Security committee.

Depending on what Markey does, the Telecom Subcommittee could be led by Rep. Rick Boucher (D-Va.). Boucher, like Markey, is a strong Net Neutrality proponent. But unlike Markey and very much like Dingell, Boucher tends to favor the Bell companies on many other issues.

[ . . . ]

With some positive Net Neutrality leadership in place, then the question becomes, what would be in any overall telecom legislation, and there the picture gets lots more murky. Let’s start with video franchising. This is the concept behind the Bells’ push for a bill this year. They want to get into the cable business, providing TV programming over their fast networks, and they don’t want to negotiate with 30,000 local authorities to get permission as the real cable providers had to do. So the Bells pushed the bill that gave them, and cable, a free pass nationally to enter cable business, pushing aside objections from local governments.

[ . . . ]

Remember, the Bells still have a lot of friends and a lot of votes in Congress, whether on Net Neutrality or not. There are many legislators of both parties, on the relevant committees or not, who will vote the Bell line regardless. Net Neutrality isn’t a slam dunk. The key will be how much the Bells will be willing to deal. They didn’t feel the need in the last session of Congress. Now, with the leadership against them, they may have a different calculus, of trying to get the best bill they can.

By now, the Bells have realized how important Net Neutrality is to a great many people and organizations, ranging from large companies like Google and Yahoo, to public interest groups like Public Knowledge (my day-job employer), something they probably didn’t count on this year. If they try in good faith to negotiate a reasonable Net Neutrality provision next year, the Bells could gain some of their goals despite themselves.

Want to know what you can do?
MA Bell Monopoly Versus the Free Internet — Tell the FCC Net Neutrality Is Not Negotiable

–ME “Liz” Strauss

Related
NET NEUTRALITY PAGE

Net Neutrality 11-29-2006

by

Net Neutrality Links

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

There Is A Utopia For Net Neutrality

In this case, we’re talking about a real UTOPIA, the clever acronym for the Utah Telecommunication Open Infrastructure Agency, a group of 14 cities which banded together to build a fiber-to-the-home network that will eventually provide 100 mbps service.

[ . . . ]

From the start, UTOPIA’s developers thought through the public policy issues, particularly the competitive ones. Their answer was not to compete with private-sector companies, but to provide a platform for them.

UTOPIA said in its background materials it solves the competitive issue very simply, “by offering a network that is open to a variety of competitors that vie for customers based on the price, quality, and innovativeness of their services rather than on the basis that the customer has no other choice.”
[Keith Wilson, president of DynamicCity, the network’s operator] said the wholesale model eliminates the Net Neutrality objection right from the start because any service provider can get access to the UTOPIA network. That’s where the “Net Neutrality on steroids” description comes from. The fact that any provider can get on the network “takes the wind out of the sails of the incumbents,” Wilson said.

[ . . . ]

The individual service providers aren’t bound by the Net Neutrality, Wilson said, “The [Net Neutrality] problem exists when the network owner is wielding influence. When the owner is inherently open to all providers, then they [the providers on the network] can shoot themselves in the foot. They have to take the risk with their users who might be offended [by violations of Net Neutrality] and go to someone else.”

There are so far five service providers using the UTOPIA network. Four are local, MStar, Sisna, Veracity and XMission. AT&T is also offering service. MStar is the only one offering data, phone and TV.

How do customers make out with UTOPIA? Here’s a brief comparison. Comcast charges $68 per month for 3 mbps service. Qwest charges $54.99 for 3 mbps or $44.99 for 1.5 mbps.

On the other hand, MStar charges $39.95 for 10 mbps, XMission charges $40 for 15 mbps, and even AT&T can charge $39.95 for 15 mpbs.

–ME “Liz” Strauss

Related
NET NEUTRALITY PAGE

Net Neutrality 11-28-2006

by

Net Neutrality Links

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

Wake up, Neo

Breaking the Matrix is my column in the October issue of Linux Journal. It goes beyond Net Neutrality arguments to explore the possibility of (nay, the need for) a truly open marketplace for connectivity. Some excerpts:

Far more powerful is a belief, held by nearly everybody in the developed world, that the best markets are captive ones. In the Free Software and Open Source movements we call captive markets “walled gardens” or “silos”. But to most producers in the developed world, these are ideal. And to most consumers, they are business as usual.
Even after the Net obsoleted closed on-line systems, Yahoo, AOL and Microsoft continued to silo instant messaging inside their own walled gardens. In 2006, there should be no excuse for this.
Yet there is. We continue to believe, as both producers and consumers, that silos are okay. And worse, that a “free” marketplace is one where you get to choose the best silo.
We see this in the US today with our “choice” of services from phone and cable carriers. We even think the Net itself is a grace of telecom and cablecom carriage. After all, those are the guys we pay to get it. Those are the guys who have gradually increased our connection speeds.

[ . . . ]

These carriers can no more appreciate a truly free market than an agent in The Matrix can imagine a world not run by machines….
You have to be free to see how absurd silos can be. You have to see markets as wide-open spaces opened by ubiquitous relationships, and potential relationships, between digital devices and the human beings who use them. You have to see unrestricted possibilities for the people and organizations putting those devices, their applications and their data to work. Those possibilities lose their limits once you set your mind free of the notion that a free market is just a choice of silos.

–ME “Liz” Strauss

Related
NET NEUTRALITY PAGE

Net Neutrality 11-24-2006

by


Net Neutrality Links

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

Nokia to shut VoIP and file-sharing

. . . It’s not that Nokia has made a U-turn on VoIP. But [its planned bandwidth-shaper] tool would prioritize the traffic of preferred services, giving the control back to partners content providers, says Nokia. File-sharing could be allowed, but for specific contents or at special occasions. With such a development, mobile operators are anticipating some Net Neutrality debate for cellphones.

–ME “Liz” Strauss

Related
NET NEUTRALITY PAGE