Successful Blog

Here is a good place for a call to action.

Net Neutrality 7-27-2006

by

Net Neutrality Links

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

Influencing the political process for advancment of technology

Need an example? Think about IM in the context of what it really is…delivering text messages. How much revenue do you think the Netheads make from IM? Combine AIM, MSN and Yahoo all together. How much revenue do you think the wireless carriers make from text messagin? Who wins the revenue war?

That isn’t the only place the Bellheads win. Look to political process. I’ve often wondered about our own ranks. Jeff Pulver. David Isenberg. Tom Evslin. Several others. Leading voices fighting the battle from without rather than stepping into the political fray of politics to redirect the system from within. If we’re going to win some measure of control away from the Bellheads, there is only one way. The political power base needs to shift. Netheads have to become the influencers of policy, something we are clearly not today.

–ME “Liz” Strauss

Related
NET NEUTRALITY PAGE

Net Neutrality 6-19-2006

by

Net Neutrality Links

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

Can I see or detect if my internet traffic is differentiated?

There is a post at Save The Internet, that alleges Cox Communications of blocking Craigslist for almost three months. The security company Authentium, who handles security for Cox Communications reportedly explained with technical details why users can not reach Craigslist website. It looks like there is problem with the computers that hosts the craigslist website. Here is the reply from rnapier, strongly suggesting that the behaviour is normal and as per the specification. . . .

Net Neutrality by Hugh Hewitt

On yesterday’s program, Larry Kudlow ripped into “net neutrality” as one would expect a vigorous free marketeer like LK to do. “Net neutrality” does indeed mean Congressional intervention into the operation of the internet.

Here’s a roundtable/primer on the subject, courtesy of the Wharton School. (HT: Blinq.)

Take Action on Net Neutrality

I do not begrudge these companies their profits. I do get a bit pissy when Time Warner Cable is reaching into my pocket each month mulitiple times. In other words, I pay them my monthly access fee and then I pay them through Google or Yahoo or CNN for any fees these companies impose on services I currently receive for free. You see these companies have to turn around and give part of my money to Time Warner Cable for their top tier status. Wait! Pissy doesn’t begin to describe how that makes me feel.

Here’s a “what if” for you. A high school teacher gives an assignment that involves researching several specific web sites for data. If the internet service providers have limited access to any of these sites or reserved access to them for only their highest paying customers, what happens when students in a public school try to complete their research? Will only the wealthiest students have access to this information on their home computers. Will other students be forced to find other ways to access this data? Will our high schools be forced to stop encouraging internet research and technical advancement because it is simply out of reach for some students? This is more than likely a big stretch, but it is something to think about.

–ME “Liz” Strauss

Related
NET NEUTRALITY PAGE

Net Neutrality 6-12-2006

by

Net Neutrality Links

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

Why has Web 2.0 Been (Relatively) Quiet on Net Neutrality??

The point is that I searched through Technorati, and could not find the usual Web 2.0 suspects writing, but just pointing people to fun videos that are cutesy; they are not really taking the banner of Net Neutrality.

I have discussed this with a couple of other bloggers – and wonder if Web 2.0 has not rushed to this because they are so caught up with themselves. Do they think that the banners of open source, community Web, and whatever the buzz words du jour are going to save their companies? If you look at the Web 2.0 sites -Facebook, Riya, YouTube, Second Life, Songbird, BitTorrent and others – they are total bandwidth hogs. Look at how much Second Life is growing, to the point that it is holding virtual conferences, virtual concerts. But at least is it suited to find ways around the potential costs of the loss of Net Neutrality, as it already charges for membership.

And, well, since Friday it is even a bigger issue since the House rejected Net Neutrality.

Now, while the big Net companies – MSFT, Google, Yahoo – have been to the hill to fight for Net Neutrality, the other side of the debate has just been as active. But is smarter and better at lobbying. Just imagine if the Web 2.0 companies rallied their users to send a letter or email to their Senators and Congressman. Would not those voices be heard, or am I a little too Mr. Smith Goes To Washington?

Net Neutrality: Who voted for What?

The largest telephone and cable companies such as AT&T, Verizon, Comcast, and Time Warner want to be able to decide which websites run fast, slow or not at all. They want to be able to charge extra money for fast service and if web sites don’t pay extra then they’ll be doomed to a slow connection.

Net Neutrality wants to ensure that all sites get equal treatment.
The supporters of Net Neutrality include leading high-tech companies such as Amazon.com, Earthlink, EBay, Google, Intel, Microsoft, Skype, Vonage and Yahoo. Prominent national figures such as Internet pioneer Vint Cerf, Stanford law professor Lawrence Lessig and FCC Commissioner Michael Copps have called for stronger Net Neutrality protections.

For More Information check out the Net Neutrality FAQ
Yesterday the House of Representatives voted NO for Net Neutrality. The list below shows the people who voted. I have arranged them by state so you can easily see how your representative voted. If you are FOR Net Neutrality and your representative voted NO then don’t vote for him/her in the next elections.
[THE COMPLETE VOTING LIST FOLLOWS]

The Marching Morons Strike Again [Read more…]

Net Neutrality 6-10-2006

by

Net Neutrality Links

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

Hands off whose Internet?

I find it fascinating that whenever corporations are forced to act in an egalitarian manner they resort to the ‘stifling innovation’ argument. Yet it is patently absurd to assume that governmental enforcement of net neutrality or lack thereof will have any marked effect on this hypothetical ‘next generation’ internet. It will come when it comes, no sooner and no later, and it will be the telecom companies who pay for it or somebody else will swoop in and do it for them. Why? Because there is money to be made and an entire global economy with which to keep pace, that’s why.

Assume if you will that net neutrality fails and the big telecoms are allowed to run amok with their plans to create a tiered internet system. With all that extra money, is it more likely that they will reinvest in the infrastructure and create a better product? Or will they do the same thing they do with their Bush tax cuts and buy an extra Porsche or twelve? Besides, do you really want your next-gen internet molded in the vision of telecom corporations or would you rather have one created democratically, even if it takes a few months (at the most) longer?

To take the other side, if net neutrality passes and the big telecoms are forced to keep the internet traffic moving as it already is – in other words, do nothing different than they have been doing from the beginning – do you really think they won’t lay the infrastructure for next-gen internet? Of course they will! They are just as much in competition with each other for your patronage and when the technology comes of age they will all battle to be the first to offer enhanced service. And if they act like spoiled brats and follow through with their threats then other companies and investors will seize the opportunity and render the existing telecoms obsolete. I mean, how many wagon wheel companies refused to get into the auto trading business. Adios Antiguos!

Defeat for net neutrality backers

US politicians have rejected attempts to enshrine the principle of net neutrality in legislation.
Some fear the decision will mean net providers start deciding on behalf of customers which websites and services they can visit and use.

The vote is a defeat for Google, eBay and Amazon which wanted the net neutrality principle protected by law.

Setback for Internet coalition
House OKs bill to make subscription TV market more competitive

The measure spells out new rules that would create national franchises, allowing telephone companies to get into the cable television business without first having to obtain licenses from municipal authorities, as is currently the case.

In the floor debate Thursday, several Democrats spoke out in favor of the bill’s trade-off — a free hand to telephone companies when it comes to pricing new Internet services in return for their entry into the cable market.

“This bill does a lot and goes a long way to making sure that the cost of cable television will be reduced,” said Rep. Bobby Rush, D-Ill.

Reps. Anna Eshoo of Palo Alto and Zoe Lofgren of San Jose expressed bewilderment that the House would vote, as Lofgren said, to “turn the Internet into the equivalent of cable TV.”

Now the Internet coalition, which includes such Silicon Valley giants as Google, eBay and Yahoo, must focus on the Senate, where it faces an uphill battle. The House added language that acknowledges the importance of network neutrality but stopped short of giving the FCC the regulatory powers that Markey had sought.

The current Senate bill has less language on network neutrality.

–ME “Liz” Strauss

Related
NET NEUTRALITY PAGE

Net Neutrality 5-30-2006

by

Net Neutrality Links

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

Two sides of net neutrality … Sir Tim vs Bram Cohen

What is more troubling are things like this BBC interview with Bram Cohen—

Bram Cohen, the ‘ubergeek’ who gave us BitTorrent, is right up there in the pantheon of Internet gods. But unlike such luminaries as Shawn Fanning and Tim Berners Lee, Bram still hopes to make money from the fruits of his intellect. To which end he’s done a deal with Warner Brothers to help them to distribute their movies on BitTorrent. . . .

Bram, for all his kudos for creating BitTorrent, has more of an interest in earning money than keeping the Internet open and free. With his deal with Warner Brothers he now has a real incentive to have a multi-tiered Internet. A multi-tier Internet would allow Warner Brothers content to flow faster while the rest of us wait for our e-mail to arrive.

I think that there is a significant opportunity for an enterprising country to set up an free-Internet zone where displaced American businesses could thrive. A place where the world’s Internet traffic could be routed to. Maybe place like Canada. What do you think Mr Harper? Game for Canada to take the lead on the Internet and kick start a whole Canadian tech sector?

The Democratic Web Has Always Been An Illusion

The problem with the democratic web ideal is that no one really owns their own press — not me, not the rest of the blogosphere, not Yahoo, not Google.

Why? Because none of us owns our own internet access. . . .

Whatever democracy there is on the web exists because the ISPs allow it. Now that the ISPs want to take it away, everyone cries out in horror, running to congress to legislate our right to a democratic web.

Let me be clear — I’m a proponent of net neutrality, from the perspective of the public good — but even if the Web is a public good that should provide unfettered access, that doesn’t resolve the issue of who should pay for bandwidth, which is not an unlimited resource.

I pay for electricity, so I should be able to use as much as I want for whatever I want, right? But there’s a reason why I can’t plug a large industrial machine into my wall socket — the infrastructure can’t handle it.

So much for voltage neutrality.

The Web — Not Democratic but open

In any case, I would disagree with Scott’s premise: it’s not so much about democracy as it is about open access — and the telecoms are quite used to dealing with such things, since the telephone network was effectively treated as a public good through “common carrier” legislation. All the net neutrality folks are talking about is doing the same thing for the Internet. If that requires treating the Internet like a utility, then so be it.

–ME “Liz” Strauss

Related
NET NEUTRALITY PAGE

Net Neutrality 5-20-2006

by

Net Neutrality Links

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

More on Underdogs and Net Neutering

Now it seems that while they didn’t quite get the substantive message, consumeraffairs.com has picked up some of the terminology. In a story posted yesterday, it lauded Rep. James Sensenbrenner for introducing a net regulation bill, saying “when it comes to the issue of net neutrality, Sensenbrenner is on the side of the underdog.�

At the risk of becoming repetitive, the underdog in this particular catfight includes the following companies (along with their rank on the Fortune 500 list):

Microsoft (48)
Intel (49)
Amazon.com (272)
Google (353)
Yahoo (412)
ebay (458)

Net neutrality field in Congress gets crowded

“Legislation that prohibits us from providing network management services for the benefit of consumers is a solution in search of a problem,” said Bill McCloskey, a spokesman for BellSouth, which opposes the bill and other regulatory versions like it.

The new bill, like most of its similar counterparts, does outline carve-outs from the rules for network management activities related to security and other consumer protection services.

Also buried in the proposal is a requirement that providers offer their customers the option of standalone, or “naked” broadband services without an obligation to subscribe to cable television, telephone or Internet phone.

Vested interest? Whatever do you mean?

“It is premature to attempt to enact some sort of network neutrality principles into law now,” says the letter, which was signed by 34 companies and sent to House Majority Leader Dennis Hastert and Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi. “Legislating in the absence of real understanding of the issue risks both solving the wrong problem and hobbling the rapidly developing new technologies and business models of the Internet with rigid, potentially stultifying rules.”

Oh yes, let’s all come to a real understanding of the issues, shall we? I know I for one would love to hear an explanation for what happened to the $200 billion in tax cuts and other incentives the telecoms were given to roll out fiber to the home by 2006 (see “We thought you said spend the $200 billion on ‘dark fiber’ “)?

–ME “Liz” Strauss

Related
NET NEUTRALITY PAGE