Successful Blog

Net Neutrality 12-12-2006

by

Net Neutrality Links

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

Why Jennifer Granholm Really Is Helping Destroy the Internet

InterrupT has an interesting post at Michigan Liberal where he argues that a franchising bill that looks like it’s about to pass, HB 6456, isn’t really related to net neutrality. Sadly, he couldn’t be more wrong, and it’s the type of wrongness that is going to lose us our free and open internet. Here’s an email from a knowledgable friend of mine on how these guys work and why it’s not as simple as thinking that we can just put through net neutrality protections.

Net neutrality politics have gotten a shade complex. Here’s a stab at sorting out why it’s important to pass net neutrality in a state, why it must be done in the same package as “franchise reform,” and why it’s critical even though it would only apply to Internet connections in that state.

Let’s start with power. Ultimately, all politics is a competition for the power to change things. Net neutrality pits the power of the cable and phone companies against…well…pretty much everybody else. They are more organized, well-financed and professional in the game of politics than “everybody else”, which explains why they are so successful.

[ . . . ]

What does telco power do when it fails to win in Washington? It goes to the states. They believe they can get the same thing at the state level. They can convince state legislators that build-out and universal competitive cable TV services aren’t important. And they can pretend net neutrality doesn’t matter. If they win in enough states, then they will have effectively outflanked Washington. That’s their strategy. They’ll have what they want, and we’ll have nothing. Worse, when they don’t need things from politicians, there is nothing to extract from them in a compromise. So, they’ll focus all their time on killing good things we’ll try to get politicians to do.

So what do we have to do? We have to go to whatever states they go to. And we have to put net neutrality and build-out requirements into their “franchise reform”. If we don’t, they’ll win. Simple as that.

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 11-21-2006

by

Net Neutrality Links

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

On Net Neutrality: Congress Wakes Up to a Watchful Public

On the issue of Net Neutrality, companies like AT&T, Verizon, BellSouth and Comcast outspent public interest advocates on a scale of 500 to 1 – pushing Congress to remove the longstanding nondiscrimination rules that enabled the Internet to become the greatest vehicle for free speech and economic innovation.

[ . . .]

As much as anything, the election sent a message to Congress to stop currying favor with moneyed interests and return to governing in the public interest.

Near the top of this new agenda will be restoring Net Neutrality. Many in Congress came to this realization after receiving more than a million letters from concerned citizens urging them to maintain a free and open Internet.

Whereas before, the phone companies had been confident that Congress would simply sign-off on industry-written legislation. Now — as the 109th Congress comes to a close — no member can vote with the telecom cartel without feeling the full heat of public scrutiny.

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 11-08-2006

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 10-12-2006

by

Net Neutrality Links

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

Cable Ties Itself Up in Net Neutrality Knots [via freepress]

The five companies, Advance, Charter, Cablevision, Cox and Insight, told the [Federal Trade] Commission in a Sept. 27 filing their Voice over IP services are at risk because of what the telephone companies might do to thwart competition. The filing noted: “In the head-to-head competition with cable, the ILECs (incumbent local exchange carriers, aka telephone companies), have a powerful weapon – their ability to discriminate against cable’s voice service by imposing unreasonable, costly interconnection requirements. This is clearly the case with AT&T.”

This merger, the cable companies said, “will increase AT&T’s incentives and ability to wield its market power over interconnection against its cable competitions. AT&T has the incentive and ability to discriminate against cable’s voice service to retain its own customers.” The companies want the Commission to impose detailed conditions on the merger which govern interconnection, traffic flow and the like.

[ . . . ]

The sympathy meter drops a few more notches when the cable industry further declines to realize that the “incentive and ability to discriminate” principle they oppose on the part of the telephone companies is the same principle at the heart of Net Neutrality.

–ME “Liz” Strauss

Related
NET NEUTRALITY PAGE

Net Neutrality 10-09-2006

by

Net Neutrality Links

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

Here’s the FCC’s Playbook for Burying Net Neutrality By Art Brodsky [via freepress]

It’s not. Beneath the surface, the reality is that FCC Chairman Kevin Martin’s planned Notice of Inquiry on Net Neutrality is an audacious triple play with the goals of greasing the largest telecom merger in history, relieving pressure on a key piece of legislation, and burying the Net Neutrality concept for good.

[. . .]

So here’s the setup. The FCC is currently considering AT&T’s $67 billion purchase of BellSouth, the largest merger in history. In similar past mergers, such as SBC’s purchase of AT&T, or Verizon’s purchase of MCI, the Commission has imposed some relatively neutered Net Neutrality conditions for a limited period of time.

[. . .]

Martin’s gambit to make the merger as painless as possible for the companies is to try to take the Net Neutrality issue off the table. The way he will try to do that is with a Notice of Inquiry.

In the arcane world of FCC process, there are basically three levels of action the Commission can take. Most of the time, the Commission employs only two out of three. First, there is a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM). The construct of the NPRM is that the Commission has found a problem that needs a Commission ruling and proposes some solutions. After a public comment proceeding, the Commission then issues the rule. The construct the rule is that the Commission has picked a course of action to follow. Most of the time the Commission adopts its proposed rule, rather than something others might suggest, but you have to go through the drill anyway.

A preliminary step to the NPRM is called the Notice of Inquiry. The construct here is that the Commission is asking whether there is a problem that needs FCC attention. Notices of Inquiry rarely go any farther in the process. They are a device for burying a problem. But this one is tricky, for the political and analytical hazards it poses for Net Neutrality advocates, including FCC Commissioners Michael Copps and Jonathan Adelstein.

When the FCC votes on an action, Commissioners can vote for it, vote against it, or concur in part or dissent in part. Because the window dressing on a Notice of Inquiry is that it’s simply asking a question, it’s hard for a Commissioner to vote against issuing one without appearing unreasonable.In this case, it would be hard for Copps or Adelstein to vote against issuing the Inquiry . . . critics will say, the Commission is only “asking questions” and no one can object to that . . .

. . . The telephone companies and cable companies will tell the FCC there’s no problem with Net Neutrality. Those of us who favor reinstating the non-discrimination law will argue that there might not be a current problem because discrimination was until recently illegal, because the telephone and cable companies are on their best behavior while trying to obtain easier entry to the cable business from Congress and because the FCC’s current non-enforceable Net Neutrality principles don’t protect consumers from the telephone and cable companies giving priority to the services in which they have a financial interest . . .

None of our arguments will matter. The FCC, if it says anything, will say there’s no need for a proposed rulemaking because no one has shown a problem exists.

–ME “Liz” Strauss

Related
NET NEUTRALITY PAGE