Successful Blog

Net Neutrality 5-13-2006

by

Net Neutrality Links

I’ve added these links to the Net Neutrality Page today.

Well since Net Neutrality didn’t pass….

On one hand I agree with the philosophy of the free market. I think it is one of the things that makes this country great.

On the other hand nothing gives a free market a black eye like an out of control monopoly.

And that is what we are up against here. It isn’t that one company has a monopoly. It is that there is an effective monopoly at the county and city market levels.

CIO MAGAZINE The Net Neutrality Debate: You Pay, You Play? BY BEN WORTHEN

Last April, Cisco Systems published a white paper explaining how the companies that own the phone lines and cables that connect homes and businesses to the Internet—the proverbial last mile—could use new routing technology to boost revenue. The technology would allow telephone and cable companies to establish priority lanes . . . and then charge the Googles, Yahoos and Amazons of the world for access to these highway toll roads. Cisco’s paper predicted that this new strategy would allow broadband service providers to create new revenue-sharing business models with any company that sells content online.

The plan had only one problem: It was illegal.

The telecommunications laws that have governed the Internet since its inception require network owners to treat all traffic the same. The laws date to the 1930s and were put in place to force telephone companies to prevent a scenario where one company could refuse to carry calls placed by a rival’s customer. The Internet was designed with the same principle in mind. . . . it was the only thing standing between the telecommunications companies and a vast new revenue stream.

Since then, a Supreme Court ruling and a series of Federal Communications Commission (FCC) decisions have eliminated this barrier, prompting Congress to rewrite the nation’s telecommunications laws. The new bill, which could be finalized as early as the summer, will in all likelihood officially eliminate net neutrality as the legal principle that governs the Internet. “If net neutrality goes away, it will fundamentally change everything about the Internet,” says James Hilton, associate provost for Academic IT Works of the University of Michigan.

The impact of these changes on CIOs and their companies will be profound. The telecommunications and cable companies argue that allowing them to govern their networks as they see fit gives them a financial incentive to innovate at the core of the network, and develop new technologies that could guarantee things that CIOs want, like security and better quality of service. Proponents of net neutrality counter that the principle is the reason that the Internet and the corresponding online ecosystem have developed into the commercial and cultural phenomenon they are today. . . .

The new Internet will certainly make telecommunications decisions more strategic. CIOs will not only need to worry about how much bandwidth to buy, but which lane they want their traffic to travel in. And tiered service is just the beginning. Telecommunications companies will be able to rearchitect their networks however they see fit. Over time, the new architectures and the services that network owners deliver will result in complicated payer/payee relationships between companies and telecommunications companies. And if a telecommunications company decides it wants to introduce a new Internet standard, CIOs may be forced to rearchitect their company’s systems.

. . . For all the talk about equal access and treating all data the same, the net neutrality debate is just window dressing for a less gentlemanly argument over who gets to profit in the online economy. More bluntly, Steve Effros, former president of the Cable Television Association, says, “This is about who pays.”

Big Lie of the Week

Here’s a quick guide to help you cut through the industry spin:

The big telecom companies say: “Is the Internet in Danger? Does the Internet need saving? It keeps getting faster. We keep getting more choices.” . . .

–ME “Liz” Strauss

Related
NET NEUTRALITY PAGE

Net Neutrality 5-10-2006

by

Net Neutrality Links

I’ve added these links to the Net Neutrality Page today.

Smaller cable firms take aim at Net neutrality fans by Anne Broache
[via slashdot Small Cable Groups Seek To Break Net Neutrality via Advice Library]

Rocco Commisso, CEO of New York-based Mediacom Communications, delivered the latest commentary in the ongoing Net neutrality fray at an annual Washington, D.C., summit organized by the American Cable Association, a lobbying group for small and medium-size independent cable companies. Mediacom, which bills itself as the nation’s eighth-largest cable television provider, counts 1.5 million basic-cable subscribers across 23 states, according to its Web site.

“I think what the phone industry’s saying and what we’re saying is we’ve made an investment, and I don’t think the government should be coming and telling us how we can work that infrastructure, simple as that,” [Rocco] Commisso said during a panel discussion about issues faced by companies like his, adding, “Why don’t they go and tell the oil companies what they should charge for their damn gas?”

Why Even Bells Need Net Neutrality by Daniel Berninger

Another interpretation to the plain language requiring a public purpose for right-of-way concessions does not exist. Does anyone believe government should grant public assets to private entities for private purposes? The loss of net neutrality changes the terms under which the Bells enjoy access to right-of-way. The non-neutral private network deployments associated with the Bell company broadband offers look like the non-common carrier networks of the cable companies.

Democratic senator wants Net neutrality regulations by Anne Broache

As many as 600,000 letters from constituents related to the Net neutrality issue have streamed into the offices of congressional members since the House Energy and Commerce Committee’s recent approval of its own telecommunications bill, said Johanna Shelton, the committee’s Democratic counsel.

Rep. John Dingell, the committee’s senior Democrat, is still evaluating the best legislative approach but is “deeply concerned” about the potential for extra fees being imposed on Internet content and application providers and the subsequent effect on consumers, Shelton said.

“It would be unthinkable for the government to insert fees into the way the Internet is now, but yet there are a number of people who would be fine with private entities doing so and being able to selectively pick and choose and treat others differently for any reason they see fit,” she said.

Howard Waltzman, the committee’s chief counsel, viewed the House’s approach in a different light. He said the committee struck an appropriate balance with its bill by including language prohibiting the FCC from making new rules on Net neutrality but granting it the power to vet complaints of discrimination and impose penalties.

–ME “Liz” Strauss

Related
NET NEUTRALITY PAGE

Net Neutrality 5-07-2006

by

Net Neutrality Links

I’ve added these links to the Net Neutrality Page today.

A rant on Net neutrality

The key phrase is “a government-managed regulatory habitat”.

Maybe what is needed is more legislation, not less. And not controls over what the Telcos and cable companies do with net neutrality but controls to force them to open up their monopoly to competing 3rd parties. eg

– Force them to sell wholesale bandwidth to 3rd party ISPs – Force them to sell space in their switching centres to 3rd party ISPs to unbundle the local loop.

When direct competitors are selling net neutral broadband, how will the Telcos be able to offer hobbled broadband?

The problem here is a common one to all utilities that have a monopoly hold over a single connection on the last mile.

Dogs, Cats, And Net Neutrality by Jason Lee Miller

Net Neutrality was interesting enough because of the opposing punditries that kissed and made up (for this battle anyway), but the Parents Television Council (PTC) soldiering alongside Democrats? Verizon sponsoring sessions at the Small Business Summit?

Maybe Bill Murray in Ghostbusters was right. The end of the world will have “dogs and cats living together! Mass hysteria!”

Net Neutrality: Urban Legend # 5

One of the most useful websites I know of is snopes.com, which provides information and analysis of e-mails circulating on the Internet, from the “Bill Gates is Giving Away Money� hoax to the famous 602B e-mail tax bill. Among other things, Snopes ranks the e-mails based on circulation and other factors. Currently, the number five hottest email — beating out warnings about ether-laced perfume and the dangers of rat urine on soda cans — is a missive in support of net neutrality regulation circulated by Move.on org.

–ME “Liz” Strauss

Related
NET NEUTRALITY PAGE

Net Neutrality 5-05-2006

by

Net Neutrality Links

I’ve added these links to the Net Neutrality Page today.

What’s Really at Stake with Net Neutrality by Josh Silver [via caelidh ]

Broadband will soon deliver nearly all television, radio, phone service – and of course the Web – to most Americans. This transition is our big chance to do an end run around 24-7 lapdog journalism, low-brow entertainment, celebrity gossip, and rampant commercialism that has left the public in a fog of Brangelina, windbag pundits, sound bytes and little knowledge about what’s happening in the world and what our elected officials actually think or stand for.

If we lose this net neutrality battle, we lose the greatest opportunity of our lifetimes to get critical journalism and diverse media into living rooms across the nation, as the largest cable and phone companies turn the Internet into modern cable TV: they control what you see and how much it costs.

Neutrality of the Net

This is an international issue. In some countries it is addressed better than others. (In France, for example, I understand that the layers are separated, and my colleague in Paris attributes getting 24Mb/s net, a phone with free international dialing and digital TV for 30euros/month to the resulting competition.) In the US, there have been threats to the concept, and a wide discussion about what to do. That is why, though I have written and spoken on this many times, I blog about it now.
[Note: This is the blog of Tim Berners-Lee, who created the World Wide Web]

–ME “Liz” Strauss

Related
NET NEUTRALITY PAGE

Internet Investing

by

All of Your Eggs in the Internet Lobby?

“Right now, I would never invest in a business model that depended on protection from Net neutrality”

— Blair Levin analyst with Stifel Nicolaus.

This quote is from the April 27, BusinessWeek online story by Burt Helm, Tech Giants’ Internet Battles. The story discusses how a “host” of tech companies, including Google, Yahoo, and Intel going up against the telcos, AT&T and the cable companies to prevent them from offering favored service to providers of their choosing.

It’s a little scary.

–ME “Liz” Strauss

Related
NET NEUTRALITY PAGE

Net Neutrality 4-30-2006

by

Net Neutrality Links

I’ve added these links to the Net Neutrality Page today.

NEW YORKER, TALK OF THE TOWN
THE FINANCIAL PAGE
NET LOSSES by James Surowiecki
Issue of 2006-03-20
Posted 2006-03-13
[via the left coaster]

The Internet has become a remarkable fount of economic and social innovation largely because it’s been an archetypal level playing field, on which even sites with little or no money behind them—blogs, say, or Wikipedia—can become influential. If the Internet turns into a zone of tiered access, it will be harder for noncommercial sites or startup companies to compete with bigger firms.

Broadband providers insist that they have no plans to block access or degrade service to those who don’t pay a premium rate. But if some companies are getting better service, then all the others are getting worse service. Besides, there have already been examples of active discrimination. Last year, a rural telecom company in North Carolina blocked its users’ access to the Internet-based phone service Vonage, and in Canada the telecom company Telus blocked access to a Web site supporting the telecommunications workers’ union. Market forces will offer some check to this kind of interference—if a particular provider goes too far, customers will take their business elsewhere—but, in the world of broadband, market forces are weak, because most cities have only two major providers.

Internet Freedom Opponents Propose Regulation of Search Engines?

This is amazing. Charlie Gonzales proposed and 10 other Congressmen voted for an amendment to investigate search engines.

Mike McCurry’s Reiterates His Lies

The coalition is moving forward, collecting more blogs and more friends on this cause. By contrast, the telcos have been quite taken aback by how much popular outrage there is at their land grab. Over 1500 blogs have rallied to the cause of internet freedom. They are losing, and they know it. I’ve had several disgusted insiders contact me about the low morale and dismay the lobbyists are feeling. They really don’t know what to do, so they are going to the bag grab of tried and true dinosaur tactics.

Onward by Susan Crawford

The amendment requires broadband providers “not to block, interfere with, discriminate against, impair, or degrade the ability of any person to use a broadband connection to access, use, send, post, receive, or offer any lawful content, application, or service made available via the Internet.”

That’s good, yes. But the bill goes on. It provides that network providers:

(1) are allowed to offer “to users a broadband video service or other service that requires prioritization of content, applications or services,” (as long as those video services don’t amount to bocking or interfering),

(2) are allowed to prioritize in a most favored nation sense (nonaffiliates get the same quality of service as affiliates),

(3) are allowed to discriminate based on “type of application,” and

(4) aren’t required to provide symmetric transport up and down. . . .

–ME “Liz” Strauss

Related
NET NEUTRALITY PAGE