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 11-09-2006

by

Net Neutrality Links

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

On Network Convergence ( Susan Crawford )

It would be a great day for me, if I as a subscriber, had the power to download the movies I like, edit these movies for my home viewing ( for example when my kids are up, edit out violent and sex scenes and when they are asleep, edit back these scenes) and generally have the power to select what comes into my tv.

Today, broadcasters decide what comes into my home and typically say, if you don’t like it…change the channel.

NO, I DON’T WANT TO CHANGE THE CHANNEL. ITS MY HOME, I LIKE TV AND I SHOULD HAVE A SAY ON TO HOW THE CONTENT IS PRESENTED IN MY HOUSE.

Afterall, we all agree that most of the evolution is happening at the edge of the network which is directly interfacing with me and my family.

So there are various arguments to what convergence means, there are economic implications that trigger off political, corporate and technological events, but please don’t loose focus that all this is done to serve me, since I and another 4B people are paying for these past present and future services and of course salaries.

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 8-27-2006

by

Net Neutrality Links

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

Not so long ago

AT&T used their monopoly over local service (the telephony last mile) to make it impossible for competition to emerge in long distance or the manufacture of equipment.

It was all so complicated that the FCC was completely overpowered — at the antitrust trial before Judge Greene, DOJ called a bunch of former FCC-ers to testify that they couldn’t supervise the Bell System. This wasn’t market failure, this was regulatory failure. Complete inability to cope.

So Judge Greene drove them through discovery and trial with a firm hand, and after 11 months DOJ and AT&T came up with a consent decree. It separated the local telephone part from everything else (putting local service into the hands of seven operating companies made up of 22 former operating companies). It specifically said that those operating companies couldn’t get into offering content, or manufacturing equipment, or operating long distance service — because they couldn’t be trusted not to discriminate in favor of their own stuff. After the decree and the complicated process of splitting up the company, long distance prices plummeted, a vibrant market for equipment emerged, and the internet arrived.

[. . . ]

So where are we now? The seven operating companies crept back into long distance service, got rid of the consent decree (and Judge Greene’s firm hand) in the 1996 Act, manipulated/litigated their way out of allowing competitive local service to emerge, and now …. they’re mostly reconsolidated. We really have two phone companies in the US: Verizon and AT&T.

And they don’t really have competitors for broadband access — just gentle telco/cableco giants. Maybe colluding gentle giants — the gentlest of all.

[. . . ]

–ME “Liz” Strauss

Related
NET NEUTRALITY PAGE

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