Successful Blog

Net Neutrality 10-10-2006

by

Net Neutrality Links

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

Telco Strategy Shift: To the States

We beat them in Congress, and depending on what happens on November 7th, we may win a full victory next session. The telcos are already changing their strategy to head off a Democratic Congress. This is from Tech Daily:

Lead Verizon Communications lobbyist Tom Tauke announced that the company is likely to halt its efforts in pursuing federal rules on video franchises should pending legislation fail this year. Bloomberg News reports that Tauke said the company instead would shift its focus to obtaining statewide agreements in Massachusetts, New York and Pennsylvania. Although federal language that would help telephone companies like AT&T and Verizon offer video services has broad support, the proposal has stalled because of various objections to the broader bill. “It is unclear whether there will be an opportunity” to pass a bill this year, Tauke said. “I do not expect we will mount an effort for federal legislation in 2007.”

This is essentially a threat to Congress – if you don’t pass something soon (in the lame duck session, for instance), we’re going to bypass you and go directly to the states. This has been coming for some time.

Gives new meaning to the PoliBlog. Doesn’t it? Tom Tauke writes there.

–ME “Liz” Strauss

Related
NET NEUTRALITY PAGE

Net Neutrality 10-08-2006

by

Net Neutrality Links

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

Verizon PoliBlog, Broadband Deployment and Net Neutrality

I live in Pennsylvania, and if the Cable Customer Choice and Competition Act, aka SB 1247 and HB 2880, are passed, what will happen is this–

    Franchise fees, which are right now negotiated on a town by town basis will be flattened to 3%, which is less than most municipalities currently get. That means a local tax hike for most communities.

    There will be no buildout requirements, which currently exist when franchises are negotiated on the municipality level. This means Verizon can “skim the cream” and leave huge areas unserviced — a broadband ghetto. . . .

    Courtesy Community hookups for municipal services will no longer be required. This means that Libraries, Municipal Services, Emergency Serivices, and others will have to purchase their broadband services. This is another cost that will be passed on to the taxpayer.

    Community TV and local access will no longer be a requirement, further distancing content providers from local residents and further marginalizing communities.

    In most cases prices will stay the same or go up.

    There will be very little additional competition.

    FiOS is still Asynchronous, unlike similar Fiber Optic networks in other countries.

    Verizon is notorious for its small print, so if you buy “unlimited access” or “unlimited bandwidth” don’t for a second believe you’ll get it.

So, while I applaud Verizon for opening a dialog, to say I’m unhappy with their scheming and underhanded tactics . . . is a gross understatement. Meanwhile I will be working the phone, letters to the editor, the governor, and everyone else I can get hold of to get Act 183 repealed to once again allow community WIFI in PA

–ME “Liz” Strauss

Related
NET NEUTRALITY PAGE

Net Neutrality 9-21-2006

by

Net Neutrality Links

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

Commerce Poll on Telecom Bill Reeks of Desperation

The Senate Commerce Committee released yesterday, and posted on its web site today, a Verizon-funded push-poll that not surprisingly finds 1. Most Americans want competition in cable and 2. Most Americans are opposed to “onerous” (that’s the word used by the supposedly independent “bi-partisan” write-up of the poll results) net neutrality regulations.

[ . . .].

Check out the poll’s loaded question on net neutrality:

Which of the following two items do you think is the most important to you:

Delivering the benefits of new TV and video choice so consumers will see increased competition and lower prices for cable TV

OR

Enhancing Internet neutrality by barring high speed internet providers from offering specialized services like faster speed and increased security for a fee

Faced with this choice, is it any surprise that 66% of the 800 registered voters surveyed (91% of whom were clueless about net neutrality) opted for the delightful delivery of benefits of new video choices over the insidious barring of cool new services such as faster broadband and better security?

The survey, conducted by not one but two bought-and-paid-for political polling firms, Public Opinion Strategies and The Glover Park Group, is just routine message manipulation by the pollsters . . . But the fact that once again, the United States Senate is disseminating corporate propaganda on one of its most powerful committee’s web sites, funded by stiffs like you and me, should get everybody hopping mad.

. . . The Senate Commerce Committee has given up even a thin veneer of working for the public. It’s working for Verizon now.

–ME “Liz” Strauss

Related
NET NEUTRALITY PAGE

Net Neutrality 7-24-2006

by

Net Neutrality Links

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

Telco Wars and Net Neutrality

Let me start of by saying reading this post by James Enck may cause your heart to skip a few beats if you work at Level3 or are a customer who relies on them, or has built budgets and pro-formas based on how Level3 charges you.

But it goes much deeper and you MUST read through the various links that other bloggers have gathered to get the whole picture. . . .

The line from Gordon Cook sums up a lot:

Net Neutrality is a skillful diversion to draw our attention there while Qwest, ATT, Verizon and BellSouth still the knife in at the court and PUC level and kill off the remaining services they don’t control.

. . .

–ME “Liz” Strauss

Related
NET NEUTRALITY PAGE

Net Neutrality 7-7-2006

by

Net Neutrality Links

I’m adding these links to the Net Neutrality Page.

Sen. George Allen is deceiving constituents on Net Neutrality

Republican Sen. George Allen is deceiving constituents about his recent vote AGAINST Net Neutrality and Internet freedom–and he’s doing it using taxpayer dollars.

Allen has accepted $113,000 in campaign cash from phone and cable companies AT&T, Verizon, Comcast, and Time Warner. Last week, he voted to let them put tollbooths on the Internet and have more control over what you see and do online–a blow to Internet freedom.

Allen is now using his taxpayer-funded website to say he “voted yes” on a bill that “addresses the issue of Net Neutrality.” Indeed, as MyDD’s Matt Stoller also points out, the bill Allen voted for “addresses” Net Neutrality by putting it on the road to elimination. He voted no on preserving Net Neutrality.

–ME “Liz” Strauss

Related
NET NEUTRALITY PAGE

Net Neutrality 7-6-2006

by

Net Neutrality Links

I’m adding these links to the Net Neutrality Page.

Net Neutrality : Lawyers silence is deafening

Looks like the majority of lawyers publishing blogs are taking the easy way out and taking no stand on net neutrality.

It’s an embarrassment to the legal profession which should act as champions of a citizen’s rights. Heck, even if you against net neutrality so that telecoms can create a tier two Internet system, at least come out and say so.

Senate Scorecard: AT&T 1, Google 0

If the telcos don’t soon match cable’s three-product package of phone, Internet, and video service, they risk falling dangerously behind in the race to win customer loyalty over the next decade. “We expect accelerating access line losses (from phone companies) throughout the next three years” as cable companies are able to market their full lineup of products to their customers by 2007, Bernstein’s Jeff Halpern told analysts in a recent conference call.

FAST TRACK TO TV. Another crucial element of telecommunications law centers on the process of applying for licenses to sell TV services in new markets. Currently, phone companies must apply for franchise licenses on a city-by-city basis—a process that could take years and slow the telcos’ TV rollout to a crawl. AT&T and Verizon want legislation that lets them apply for a nationwide license.

The Senate committee, hoping to stimulate competition, is open to putting phone companies’ TV plans on the fast track. Its bill essentially allows for TV franchising to be determined at the national level by setting a time limit of 90 days for local government to grant the franchise. If not acted upon after 90 days, the franchise is deemed approved for 15 years. But again, Stevens needs full Senate approval, and leaving TV licenses in the hands of national regulators looks as though it faces opposition among some in the full Senate.

–ME “Liz” Strauss

Related
NET NEUTRALITY PAGE