Successful Blog

Net Neutrality 10-05-2006

by

Net Neutrality Links

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

MORE FROM:
Neutrality’ Is New Challenge for Internet Pioneer
an Interview on Net Neutrality with Sir Tim Berners-Lee By JOHN MARKOFF Published: September 27, 2006

[ . . .]
Q. Do you have a view about the behavior of the telephone companies in this debate? Is this simply traditional monopolist behavior, or is it more subtle? Have you talked to them to understand their motivations?

A. I have tried, when I’ve had the opportunity to find out, to understand their motivations, but I can’t speak for them. So all I can do is guess. But my guess is that it’s not that this is a nefarious planned plot to take over the Internet by a bunch of people who hate it. What I imagine is that it is simply the culture of companies, which have been using a particular business model for a very long time. So I think there is a clash of corporate cultures.

Q. What do you make of justifications involving quality of service, which would give certain types of Internet data, like voice and video, right of way over other kinds of data?

A. They say, “It will cost us an awful lot of money for this quality of service, and therefore we will have to disband neutrality.” They’re not actually logical. Some people say perhaps we ought to be able to charge more for this very special high-bandwidth connectivity. Of course that’s fine, charge more. Nobody is suggesting that you shouldn’t be able to charge more for a video-capable Internet connection. That’s no reason not to make it anything but neutral.

–ME “Liz” Strauss

Related
NET NEUTRALITY PAGE

Net Neutrality 10-01-2006

by

Net Neutrality Links

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

Podcasting and the battle for Net Neutrality

I just read a post over at MacMikeNews.com about Podcasting. . . . it really hit home why the Telecommunications Corps. and the Cable and Media outlets are scrambling to trash Net Neutrality. . . . They’re LOSING THEIR AUDIENCE.

Many people who are downloading podcasts are using it as a replacement for radio, and are starting to use it as a replacement for television. Think about this– podcasts are commercial free, for the most part. Podcasts are downloaded and can be heard or watched at the convenience of the downloader. And since the technology is easily accessible ANYONE can, with just a bit of learning and some inexpensive equipment, create and upload a podcast. . . . I just sampled a few, and though on some the quality was a bit uneven, I’d say that many of the most popular are pretty damn good. Even better, the quality of the CONTENT is much better than the “lowest common denominator” crap that either commercial tv or radio stations think we want to view or listen to.

[ . . . ]

Now, let’s take this a step further– the political scene. If any smaller and less well financed candidate were to be able to take their message directly to the people via podcast . . .

[ . . . ]

One further step– what do artists and musicians need big media companies for if they can take their offerings directly to the people and CUT OUT THE MIDDLEMAN?

[Media and Telecomm Corps] stand to lose billions of dollars if the internet remains free. They will be cut out of the income loop if people don’t need them as a media delivery device.

–ME “Liz” Strauss

Related
NET NEUTRALITY PAGE

Net Neutrality 9-28-2006

by

Net Neutrality Links

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

Lies, cable TV, and Patrick Hynes

What’s all this about? Well, if you’ve been reading the business sections of the papers over the past year or so, you’ve probably seen a few articles about this stuff. From what I understand, the debates involve delivery of television signals and other high-bandwidth content (i.e., Internet service) to people’s homes. Cable TV has been the dominant player for the last 20 years, thanks to technological issues and municipal-level monopolies, but ISPs and telephone companies are positioning themselves for an era where the Internet is used to deliver paid television programming.

A related issue is how Internet traffic will be treated in the future. Currently the Internet isn’t owned by anyone, but companies do own parts of it. Any network connection that’s part of the Internet treats all traffic – whether email, Google searches, news, music, or video – equally, or relatively equally. From what Borderline has been able to fathom, some companies which own “backbone” connections (kind of like the superhighways of the Internet) as well as potential distributors of high-bandwidth programming — want to be able to segregate traffic by type and price, so things like blogs or free video posted on local websites would be on the slow road with lots of traffic lights, while paid video channels would be on the faster toll road. “Net Neutrality” refers to the efforts to keep the Internet the way it is now, i.e., all traffic is treated in the same way, rather than paid programming getting higher priority.

–ME “Liz” Strauss

Related
NET NEUTRALITY PAGE

Net Neutrality 9-26-2006

by

Net Neutrality Links

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

What Scott Cleland (and Co.) Doesn’t Get About Net Neutrality

[ . . . ]

But we want to make it clear, again, what the network neutrality fight is about. It’s having a U.S. digital media system where all forms of content can conveniently and affordably be created & distributed—to TV’s, PC’s, and mobile devices. Network neutrality is a policy where access to content doesn’t depend on the whims of the owners of your network, operating system, or e-commerce provider. It means maximum freedom in the broadband era, an enhancing of our democracy. That includes the right to receive any kind of content you want—now. In the not too distant future, the ability of programmers and political leaders to effectively communicate ideas will depend on their access to the “triple play” distribution system. The battle for network neutrality is to ensure we have no digital gatekeepers—including AT&T, Comcast, as well as Microsoft, Google, Yahoo!, etc.

Mr. Cleland’s backers wish to control that future—otherwise they would have to content themselves with only the (considerable) revenues from fair-minded distribution. Comcast, AT&T and the others all want to be King of the broadband domain. But in a digital democracy—there shouldn’t be lords of the realm, only citizen/users/creators.

–ME “Liz” Strauss

Related
NET NEUTRALITY PAGE

Net Neutrality 9-17-2006

by

Net Neutrality Links

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

Major U.S. Trade Group Makes Case for Neutrality

The American Electronics Association (AeA) released a report yesterday strongly supporting Net Neutrality and urging Congress: “Don’t stifle competition and innovation by allowing network operators to change and distort what is currently a highly competitive system.”

“The principles of Net Neutrality have created the Internet as we know it — the most dynamic network for communication and commerce in human history,” states The Case for Preserving Net Neutrality, a report by AeA, which represents 2,500 companies from every corner of the high-tech industry.

[ . . . ]

According to the report, the only way to [“safeguard the competitive nature of the Internet] is for Congress to prevent companies like AT&T, Verizon and Comcast from abusing their market power by imposing discriminatory new surcharges that favor the content from companies and Web sites that pay them the most.

Allowing the nation’s largest phone and cable companies to tilt the market in favor of larger and better funded content providers would “undermine the fundamental principles of open and free exchange of information across the network,” according to the AeA report.

–ME “Liz” Strauss

Related
NET NEUTRALITY PAGE

Net Neutrality 9-14-2006

by

Net Neutrality Links

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

New Report Skewers Telco Spin on Competition

Why has the United States fallen behind the rest of the world in accessible and affordable broadband service?

The answer, according to a report [PDF] released by Free Press, the Consumer Federation of America and Consumers Union, is marketplace failures wrought by phone and cable companies’ near monopoly control of last-mile broadband markets.

The 44-page report, Broadband Reality Check II, exposes the truth behind America’s digital decline: A marketplace controlled by the likes of AT&T, Verizon and Comcast has left Americans with higher prices, slower speeds and no meaningful competition for high-speed Internet service.

It exposes the lie behind phone companies’ repeated claims that the U.S. has a diverse marketplace, with myriad broadband choices for the consumer.

It decisively skewers the notion — put forth by telco executives and their high-paid shills — that “fierce competition” precludes Net Neutrality protections.

[ . . . ]

Broadband Reality Check II also finds:

The 14 other OECD [Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development] nations saw higher overall net growth in broadband adoption than the United States from 2001 to 2005.

Consumers in other countries enjoy broadband connections that are far faster and cheaper than what is available here. U.S. consumers pay nearly twice as much as the Japanese for connections that are 20 times as slow.

U.S. broadband prices aren’t dropping: Cable modem prices are holding constant or rising, and DSL customers on average are getting less bandwidth per dollar than just a year ago.

The market share of “third platform” alternatives like satellite, wireless and broadband over powerline technologies has actually decreased over the past five years.

The report contradicts the rosy picture painted by the Federal Communications Commission, by exposing the agency’s failure to rein in broadband monopolies . . .

–ME “Liz” Strauss

Related
NET NEUTRALITY PAGE