Successful Blog

Net Neutrality 11-08-2006

by

Net Neutrality Links

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

Can Citizen Journalism Save the Internet? Does it Need to?

It’s pretty clear that we DON’T have a problem with content-based Internet blocking in the US today. That doesn’t mean that we won’t tomorrow. “The price of liberty is eternal vigilance.” But that’s not what this post about.

We MAY have a problem with commercially-motivated blocking. At&t CEO Ed Whitacre has been clear that he considers parts of the Internet “my pipes” and that he believes at&t has a commercial right to charge information providers differentially for use of the pipes that we and the information providers believe are already paying for once.

Other telco execs have echoed this view.

Legislation requiring net neutrality has been proposed but may not be a good idea. It is very difficult to define the concept and enforcement itself might be a dangerous government intrusion.

But how do we avoid the need for neutrality legislation? How do we know if legislation has become the lesser of two evils? That’s where citizen journalism comes in.

Tom Evslin offers a process in which citizen journalists invesitgate and report — in real time and large numbers — instances of packet discrimination on the Internet.

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 11-07-2006

by

Net Neutrality Links

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

No Room for Neutrality on Net Neutrality

Myth: Net Neutrality would, for the first time, regulate the Internet.
FACT: Massive innovation on the Internet since its creation occurred under pre-2005 Net Neutrality protection. . . .

MYTH: Net Neutrality is a solution in search of a problem.
FACT: There are numerous examples of network providers engaging in content or user discrimination that will only grow without Net Neutrality. . . .
[ . . . ]
MYTH: Network operators are protecting consumers.
FACT: Like any monopoly or oligopoly, network operators want to maximize their profits and minimize competition at the consumer’s expense. . . .

MYTH: Net Neutrality will cause broadband networks to be abandoned.
FACT: Net Neutrality promotes broadband development by increasing Internet services and applications that generate new consumer demand. . . .

MYTH: Net Neutrality will cause broadband networks to be abandoned.
FACT: Net Neutrality promotes broadband development by increasing Internet services and applications that generate new consumer demand. . . .
[ . . . ]
MYTH: The Stevens Bill already ensures Net Neutrality.
FACT: The Net Neutrality provision included in S. 2686 merely requires the FCC to conduct an annual study about how information is flowing over the Internet, but provides no teeth to protect the free-flow of information. . . .

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 11-06-2006

by

Net Neutrality Links

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

Battle over ‘net neutrality’ arrives in Canada

. . . “Right now, the internet is almost a perfect, universal democracy,” says Pippa Lawson, the executive director of the Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Law Clinic.

“The smallest bloggers can be accessed as easily and as quickly as the websites of major corporations.”

There’s clear incentive there for those who have the economic interests to discriminate. That’s why it’s necessary to ensure that there’s a level playing field and you have to do that legislatively.”

Lawson said Canadian companies want exactly what American companies want — to control the web and make a lot of money doing so.

“There’s a big push in Canada right now to allow those sorts of discriminatory practices,” Lawson said.

“The companies that own the pipes of the internet — the telecom companies — haven’t liked sitting back and watching big content providers like Google and Yahoo make billions of dollars. They want a piece of the pie, and they want to be able to favour their own content or the content of the corporations that would pay them big money.”

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

When Did AT&T Become Not For Profit? Was I Absent that Day?

by

Net Neutrality Links

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

Tom Evslin at Fractals of Change has been following Mr. Whitacre of AT&T more closely than I have. Tom’s detailed account of the merger with BellSouth is quite clearly focused. I’ve only pulled highlights. Read his analysis at at&t Blames Commercial Entities for FCC Delay.

Mr. Evslin’s report begins with the fact that the FCC has again delayed voting on AT&T’s merger/acquisition with/of BellSouth. He includes these lines from the NY Times in which AT&T is quoted as saying:

“While we regret that the merger has been delayed by the self-interest of commercial entities and their litany of unreasonable demands, we look forward to the F.C.C.’s approval so that we can get about the business of providing the overwhelming benefits the merger represents to consumers, to the economy and to the public interest.”

. . . we regret self-interest of commercial entities?

Excuse me? Are you implying you’re not part of that group? When did AT&T become not for profit? Was I absent that day? If you’re going to imply something untrue to me, please have the decency to be convincing.

Dear Mr. Whitacre, CEO of AT&T, first you said you will charge me and my destination to use “your pipes.” Now your company says that commercial entities are in the way of your “overwhelming benefits to the public interest.”

Tom Evslin says,

It’s the hypocrisy that’s annoying. Much more important is that this acquisition is significantly anti-competitive and is NOT in the public interest, far from it.

I have to agree with him.

Refusing emergency wireless voicemail access is only one in the list of things NOT “in the public interest” AT&T and BellSouth have done to date. MA Bell is back. Do read on. I missed most of this until Tom Evslin put it in one place.
[Read more…]

Net Neutrality 11-03-2006

by

Net Neutrality Links

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

The Banned Site tool turns up something interesting

Over on Threadwatch they were discussing the newest MSN seach parameter, which allows the parameter LinkFromDomain. Russ Virante, one of the commenters, posted his newest tool based on that parameter, which will show you which of your outbound links that are banned from Google, pretty useful if you want to weed them out, though it only shows the first hundred, and this site has more outbounds than that. Be that as it may, it was useful in weeding out one from my webgeek directory.

also ran it on the Bitchslappin Political Blog to see what turned up over there. . . . But the other surprise was the Verizon PoliBlog, which I won’t link to, but you can find here:

http://poliblog.verizon.com/PoliBlog/blogs/poliblog/default.aspx

Hmm, one has to wonder why that is? Is it something in the algorithm? Did they do something shady? Have they been spammy? Or could it have something to do with Verizon’s stance on Net Neutrality?

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 11-02–2006

by

Net Neutrality Links

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

Net Neutrality: Doc Searls : Saying What and How

I’ll cop to giving more weight to the future than to the present (because I prefer growth and dynamism over stasis). And to having a personal agenda: wanting the Net to be more than gravy on telephony or cable TV from the local duopoly. In both cases I want the marketplace to be free and open and not your-choice-of-silo.

How do we get that? I think we need something other than a choice between carrier regulation and carrier protectionism, which is how the two sides seem to line up right now.

As for evidence of harm, I’d cite the carrier’s asymmetrical bandwidth provisioning (not to mention port blockages) and tendentious arguments — “It’s what the market wants” — when the market has no other choice. The Net needs to enable and support production as well as consumption. It needs to support and not just prevent (or make difficult) new business in small and home offices. To name just two pro-market moves.

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