Should your cell phone company decide who can send you a text message? Should your Internet service provider block your Internet movie because it doesn’t like the file-sharing service you’re using?
What Net Neutrality Means, and Why It’s Necessary
It looks as if we’re about to go another round with yet another idiot taking on net neutrality.
Much of the debate will be triggered by an anti-net neutrality screed by Andy Kessler that’s running as an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal.
This piece highlights the illogicality of the anti-net neutrality folks, with crackpot assertions and general apologies for the state of affairs in the U.S.
Let’s first look at one of the fabulous arguments by Kessler (and I suppose parroted by others on this bandwagon): “With net neutrality, there will be no new competition and no incentives for build-outs. Bandwidth speeds will stagnate, and new services will wither from bandwidth starvation.”
This is funny, since until just a while ago, we had been operating under a de facto net neutrality.
Using Kessler’s logic, we should still be using 300-baud modems since there’s no incentive to do anything different. How does he — or anyone else, for that matter — explain the progress from 300-baud modems to fiber to the home during this period of genuine net neutrality?
It’s only recently that the phone and cable companies have decided to futz with bandwidth, with packet sniffing, bandwidth shaping and ceiling limitations.
It took them this long to figure out how to do this sort of skimping and cheating of the customer. Someone took notice and said there should be a law to “maintain” net neutrality.
• Read here about how Comcast may have ‘seat-filled’ an FCC hearing probing its admitted violations of net neutrality to make sure its critics didn’t get into the room.
Net neutrality is nothing new. It’s the way it has always been.
THE GREEDY TELCOMS READY TO
Seattle Times, May 9, 2008
If you haven't heard, the major telecommunication conglomerates (ATT, Verizon, Bell) and their political
cronies (bribe-takers in Washington) want to control the world wide web and charge a "toll" for websites which
carry rich media, like the video clips you watch on this website. What that means is, we'd have to pay what
they would charge Google to deliver video streaming media. Google is a billion dollar corporation and we
are a pocket change proprietorship. Also, since the FCC will be playing a role in this conglomorate conspiracy
to rule the net, if they, or the telcoms, don't like our content, we're off the web. Oh, maybe not completely
censored per se, but with such limited bandwidth, you could make coffee, shower, shave, drink your coffee
before the home page would be downloaded, if it downloads at all.
By David A. Utter. WebPro News, Fri, 04/18/2008
Freedom Dot Net
If we were to listen to the mainstream media, we should be worried about Anna Nicole Smith’s baby, white women going missing and “Bradjelina.” It seems we should not be concerned about network neutrality; however, net neutrality is actually one of the most important issues of the early 21st century. Net neutrality may not be “newsworthy” but it affects us all.
MORE PROOF GEORGIE'S A POMPOUSS, ARROGANT IDIOT
From Free Press, January 31, 2008
Microsoft Offers $44.6 Billion for Yahoo
Microsoft Corp. has pounced on slumping Internet icon Yahoo Inc. with an unsolicited
takeover offer of $44.6 billion in its boldest bid yet to challenge Google Inc.’s
dominance of the lucrative online search and advertising markets. The Justice Department s
ays it is interested in reviewing antitrust issues associated with it.
The surprise offer of $31 per share, made late Thursday and announced
Friday, seizes on Yahoo’s weakness while Microsoft tries to muscle up in a
high-stakes battle with Google likely to define the technology landscape for years to come.
CENSORSHIP:
Chances are that as you read this article, it is passing over part of AT&T’s network. That matters, because last week AT&T announced that it is seriously considering plans to examine all the traffic it carries for potential violations of U.S. intellectual property laws. The prospect of AT&T, already accused of , now scanning every e-mail and download for outlawed content is way too totalitarian for my tastes. But the bizarre twist is that the proposal is such a bad idea that it would be not just a disservice to the public but probably a disaster for AT&T itself. If I were a shareholder, I’d want to know one thing: Has AT&T, after 122 years in business, simply lost its mind?
GIVE YOUR INPUT & FEEDBACK
IMPORTANT NEWS & INFORMATION TO ALL INTERNET USERS
IF THE BIG TELCOMS, THE FCC & SPECIAL INTEREST LEGISLATORS HAVE THEIR WAY,
AS YOUR FAVORITE WEBSITE MAY SOON DISAPPEAR
OR BE CENSORED FROM THE INTERNET
SOON WILL YOUR FREEDOM OF CHOICE IN ALL MEDIA COMMUNICATION
Several Urgent Reports From Around The Nation
Big Brother Is Blocking
From St. Louis Post-Dispatch, January 23, 2008
We suspect that most consumers would say no. When people sign up for a communications service, Big Brother shouldn’t come with the deal.
Two recent incidents, however, show that some corporations are willing to stick their noses in their customers’ business. The Federal Communications Commission should tell them to butt out. If the FCC won’t, Congress should.
The first involved Verizon. Last September, the phone company blocked a text-message subscription service offered by the pro-abortion-rights group NARAL. The key phrase there is “subscription service.” Phone companies do a service for subscribers by blocking a lot of text-message “spam” unwanted commercial come-ons that drive e-mail users crazy. But the NARAL service wasn’t that. Cell phone users had to sign up to get the messages.
Politicians and interest groups of all stripes are using text messaging to rally their supporters. A study by Princeton University and the University of Michigan found that text-mail reminders raise voter turnout by 4.2 percent among young people.
In rejecting NARAL, Verizon cited its policy against services that “promote an agenda or distribute content that, in its discretion, may be seen as controversial or unsavory to any of our users.” This is the phone company acting as your mother.
NARAL speaks on one of the most divisive issues of our time. Abortion sways elections, and NARAL’s advocacy is the essence of free speech. If phone companies can control such speech, they can shrivel the First Amendment and distort democracy. After The New York Times reported the story, Verizon rescinded its decision on NARAL. But it’s time for the FCC to make it clear that political speech is not to be trifled with.
P2P Censorship by Comcast
The other case is less political but has more potential to disrupt free communications on the Internet. The Associated Press reported in October that Comcast, the giant cable company, secretly was slowing or blocking access to peer-to-peer file-sharing services such as BitTorrent, eDonkey and Gnutella. Such Internet services usually transmit music and videos, although they share other content, too.
Internet service companies consider them bandwidth hogs and suggest that as file-sharers grow in popularity, they’ll slow service for everyone. It’s the same issue that three years ago caused AT&T to float the idea of imposing extra fees on big Internet users, including e.g. Google and Amazon.com.
Much of the Internet actually is private property, as are phone company switches, wires and routers. Right now, all items traveling over the Internet are treated the same and move at the same speed. But AT&T would have created fast and slow lanes, with companies paying extra to move to the fast lane.
The idea was opposed stridently by so-called “net neutrality” advocates. A year ago, as a concession to win FCC approval of its bid to buy BellSouth, AT&T agreed to give up its two-tier proposal for two years. Expect it to pop up again.
The Internet has been a transformative development for information and commerce. It developed that way precisely because it is egalitarian. Anyone with a good idea could put it on the Web and watch it catch fire. Companies such as YouTube and eBay sprang from nothing. That’s less likely to happen if big Internet companies can favor some participants over others, based on the size of their checkbooks or the character of their content.
The FCC soon will consider a complaint against Comcast for blocking access to file-sharing services. The commission should make it clear that the information superhighway is not a tollway.
From PC Magazine PCMag.com, March 4, 2008
By John C. Dvorak, PC Magazine editorial writer
How does codifying it into a law change anything, except to foil the scheming of the phone and cable companies that have — during the era of net neutrality and genuine deregulation — competed very well?
They’ve competed so well, in fact, that they bought up most of the connectivity.
Now they have exactly what they need in order to cheat the customer because, after all, this is what monopolies do. Lock out the competition. That’s the idea. That will make for progress.
Kessler’s crazy logic seems to smash into itself with its loony diatribe. He says that Comcast needs the leeway to jack down the bandwidth to protect its cable-TV business. After all, we can’t have movies delivered off the Net, can we?
But wait, how does that encourage progress? Hey, Andy, how does this attitude foster the “innovation” you’re so concerned about? You can’t have it both ways.
When you boil it all down, net neutrality is kind of wimpy. We should have out-and-out government regulation.
Personally, I’m sick of these deregulation absolutists who throw out specious arguments that do not make any sense. For example, Kessler says, “The Internet will only expand based on competitive principles, not socialist diktat.”
I love the way these guys throw in the ugly term “socialist” when they want to trigger a 1950’s-style knee-jerk reaction from the American public. And in case you didn’t notice, he also throws in a Communist term “diktat” so you dummies will be totally repulsed and imagine Stalin lurking.
Look at the Logic
Screw that cheap and tawdry writing trick. Let’s look at the logic:
We have no socialist diktat going on, and we are falling behind other countries like crazy in broadband speeds and connectivity. Countries that mandated universal high-speed connectivity (aka socialist diktat) have all zoomed ahead of us.
We are in 16th or 17th place and falling fast. This tells me that we are doing something wrong. We’re kowtowing to the wishes of the big telcos — mega corporations that have no real interest in progress, just profits.
I can hear folks saying, “Let’s do what they say; they know what’s best for us.”
These are the bean counters who have done a cost analysis on “slamming” — changing a customer’s long-distance telephone service without his consent — to determine whether the fines for this illegal practice are greater than the profits.
They’re not interested in the customer and have to be watched like a hawk. Or hasn’t anyone noticed?
General telco policies and roughshod practices alone make me question these people’s take on net neutrality. Without knowing anything about them, I have to assume that what they want is always going to be bad for the customer and bad for the nation.
There is no evidence to the contrary. If there is, show me.
Thus, I’m suspicious of op-eds talking up the horrors of net neutrality, especially when the facts are never made clear. Instead, we have an out-and-out attempt to befuddle the public and confuse the reader.
Kessler tells us in one paragraph that we have “an overabundance of bandwidth pulsing throughout the U.S.” Two paragraphs later he tells us how Comcast has to do its trickery to preserve its “precious bandwidth.”
Well, which is it — overabundance or shortage? What? Cripes.
Net neutrality does not keep the ISPs from selling me a 10-megabit-per-second connection at a higher price than a 1-Mbps connection. It does not kill competition.
What it does is allow me to get what I want at the speed that I paid for rather than have some socialists née corporate apparatchiks (I can pull the socialist stunt, too) back at the Kremlin/HQ deciding that I will get a Google feed at half the speed of a Microsoft Live feed when I do a search.
In fact, maybe they’ll cut the Google feed altogether. They can do the same to Ford Motor Co. or anyone on the Net.
That’s where this is headed. Exactly how this sort of screw job fosters innovation and competition is certainly not explained by Kessler or others of his ilk.
We’re looking for a law saying they cannot pull this stunt. How is this a bad thing?
Kessler and the other naysayers cloaked in the grim black robes of free-market absolutism should all be ashamed of themselves for these bogus presentations.
PINCH YOUR INTERNET BANDWIDTH
Hypocrites at Comcast censor edit Pearl Jam concert cablecast
By Ryan Blethen
The system has its limitations, though. An unencumbered market falters when applied to some ideals and theories, such as democracy. The Internet, which has become the major conduit for modern communications, will not be a free market of ideas if dominated by a few companies that have proven time and again that profits and control trump any notion of stewardship.
Many House Republicans either do not understand this, do not care, or are doing the bidding of the telecommunications and cable industries. This was evident Tuesday during an Energy and Commerce subcommittee hearing.
The hearing centered on a bill introduced by the telecommunications and the Internet subcommittee's chairman, Rep. Edward Markey, D-Mass., and co-sponsored by Rep. Charles Pickering, R-Miss. The Internet Preservation Act of 2008 is a common-sense piece of legislation that should not give lawmakers regulatory heartburn.
The bill would insert nondiscrimination language regarding access to broadband into the Communications Act of 1934. The nondiscrimination clause is not a hammer for the Federal Communications Commission to go after network providers. It is really baseline language clarifying that the Internet is vital infrastructure that must remain open to legal content.
>br>
The new provision might not be the vise the FCC needs, but having a form of network neutrality codified in the Communications Act gives the commission enforcement authority.
The Republicans on the subcommittee seemed to have a problem with any Internet enforcement outside of patrolling for illegal content. Their opening remarks at the hearing read as if written by the same person. More than one Republican compared regulating the Internet to the government's regulation of waterways and railways. Nearly all of the Republicans also argued that the free market will weed out bad actors.
Not great arguments. The cast of network providers is a worrisome few and needs nurturing, not thinning.
The nation's transportation byways are vital infrastructure that should be regulated to ensure access. The Internet is no different, and has quickly become a vital part of the nation's infrastructure. There is barely anything the Internet does not touch. From commerce to communication, we are dependent on the World Wide Web.
The Internet is too important for the few companies providing the service to interfere with content. Unfortunately, those companies have demonstrated their unwillingness to be hands-off hosts.
AT&T censored politically charged talk during a Pearl Jam concert broadcast on the Internet. Verizon refused NARAL Pro-Choice America's request to send out a blanket text message to supporters. The case currently generating the most scrutiny is Comcast's blocking of file sharing, or peer-to-peer applications.
Comcast's actions were so egregious they spurred the FCC into action. The commission has held two hearings on the matter. The case is significant, not just because the FCC lumbered into action, but because Comcast has said the FCC does not have the authority to intervene.
FCC Chairman Kevin Martin disagrees. He might have a case but the commission is vulnerable without something like the Internet Freedom Act.
Ben Scott, policy director for Free Press — a nonprofit that works on issues of media consolidation and net neutrality — told the subcommittee there are two visions for the Internet: one being an open model, the other a network-provider-controlled system.
"A duopoly market of phone and cable companies will not discipline itself. This is a clear moment for the Congress to act and pass the Internet Freedom and Preservation Act. The future of the Internet for everyone depends on it," Scott said.
Channels of ideas are too important to leave in the hands of a duopoly hiding behind a free-market argument.
Republicans need not fear this bill but should worry about what happens if nothing is done now. The mild provisions of the Internet Preservation Act could head off more abuses by network providers.
>br>
The FCC and Congress will undoubtedly implement much harsher net-neutrality laws if network providers keep chipping away at an open Internet.
similar repoer
Thd Greed Of The Major Telcoms & Politicos
Thousands of independently owned and operated websites, video blogs and small news exchanges may likely disappear
if "they" have their way. The telcom's excuse? Building the fiber optic networks to replace copper wires costs
millions of dollars to construct nationally. The fly in that ointment is the fact Congress "awarded" them
95 million dollars ten years ago to build the fire optic telecommunications delivery. They didn't. So,
where did that money go? BTW: Verizon donated 7 million to Bush's original presidency campaign and again in
his re-election campaign.The telcoms also transport big shot politicos in their private planes and helicopters.
This "net neutrality" issue has been in the newspapers. Bill Moyer's Journal covered the topic with a
90 minute feature on PBS October 18th. Go to pbs.org and click on Bill Moyer's link, read the transcript from the
show and the postings. Visit also freepress.net and
be a part of the million voice strong fight against "telemogul bullying," If you want the internet to continue
to be a free medium of equal access, as it is now. you MUST e-mail or snail-mail your
congressman and say NO to ending net neutrality and web control by the telcoms conglomerates.
Otherwise, it could well be goodbye to your favorite independent websites and hello to media monopoly control,
which has already taken over television, cable, radio and music.
More about erosion of free speech below< Censorship...more...
Broadband Carriers Blow Off Net Neutrality Meeting
.
FCC's second hearing one-sided without them
Unlike a previous open FCC hearing where Comcast helped fill seats in the audience, neither they nor anyone else from the big broadband carriers showed up for the second hearing.
Though the carriers avoided the immediate bad PR that attending the California meeting probably held for them, Comcast and its ilk, like Time Warner and AT&T, now get to see the fallout from declining to attend a net neutrality meeting at Stanford.
Comcast in particular received criticism, thanks to its practice of hindering peer to peer traffic. Their practice of constantly forcing packets to reset, cited as network management by Comcast, brought about a new debate on net neutrality.
Its advocates were up to the challenge. Stanford law professor Lawrence Lessig, a staunch advocate of net neutrality, wondered why the FCC still hadn't received a clear explanation of the traffic shaping practices by Comcast, as IP Democracy noted:
Lessig got a round of applause for likewise criticizing Comcast's honesty. "The most outrageous thing about this story is that you can't get the facts straight," he said. "If you're going to get this problem solved, the least you can do is get the story straight...It’s really an indictment on the trust for this particular company."
Small wonder that Comcast and others declined to send well-paid public relations pros to the meeting. As GigaOm observed about Lessig's comments, the FCC members probably squirmed in their seats:
The FCC, Lessig said, should pass rules that make it more profitable for service providers to behave than to misbehave. "You have to make it so playing the games is not a good business model for them," Lessig said. "If we really didn’t have a reason to worry that they were playing games [with network management], then what they did inside their networks would be of less concern."
Net neutrality made the Internet a place where lots of game-changing businesses and services could launch and operate. Lessig and other net neutrality advocates fear future innovation would be stifled by the tolls broadband carriers may want to collect for tiered levels of Internet connectivity, above and beyond what they do today.
No one is suggesting a free ride for anyone who wants Internet access. The FCC needs to set the rules, sooner preferably than later, to ensure the next Amazon or Google thrives.
>nr>
From Planet Blacksburg, March 31, 2007
By David Morin
At its core, net neutrality is the belief that the Internet should be a free device to transfer information. According to www.savetheinternet.com, net neutrality “ensures that all users can access the content or run the applications and devices of their choice. With Net neutrality, the network’s only job is to move data — not choose which data to privilege with higher quality service.” Those who advocate net neutrality (individuals, non-governmental organizations and some corporations) believe the Internet should essentially be a free superhighway where anyone, regardless of who they are and what they believe, can contribute their voice to the public sphere.
There are people and corporations who want to alter the current structure of the Internet. Cable and telephone companies like Comcast, Verizon, and Time Warner hope to create a two-tier Internet where websites (including their own) that can afford to pay high fees will be given the necessary data transfer connection to load content, information and applications at an extremely high speed. Individuals and companies that can’t pay the steep fees to the telephone and cable corporations will be relegated to having their websites and applications delivered at a slower rate.
If conglomerates get their way, the egalitarian-inspired Internet will become nothing more than a corporate-dominated space. Although the media may not cover net neutrality, politicians have recently become aware of the significance of the issue. Several U.S. senators and congressmen have introduced bills that would ensure the neutrality of the Internet. Sponsored by both Democratic and Republican Congressmen, The Internet Freedom and Nondiscrimination Act of 2006 was proposed last summer to “promote competition, facilitate trade, and to ensure competitive and non-discriminatory access to the Internet.” On the Senate side, Sens. Byron Dorgan (D-North Dakota) and Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) sponsored the Internet Freedom and Preservation Act of 2006 to “amend the Communications Act of 1934 to ensure net neutrality.”
The House bill was never brought to the floor and the Senate bill is currently stuck in committee, but politicians (mostly Democrats) have recognized the salience of net neutrality and are trying to do something. Several Republicans have opposed enacting legislation to keep the Internet free and fair. Late last year, Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) introduced a bill that would have allowed caple companies to start the process of creating a for-profit Internet framework. The bill was defeated in December, but it shows there are still politicians willing to capitulate to corporate interest groups in order to chisel away the democratic tenet of free speech and expression.
The notion of net neutrality is not only a corporate and governmental problem, but it should be a concern to every individual as well. The Internet is a virtual marketplace of ideas where billions of people can log on and contribute. The Internet encourages dialogue and fosters a sense of equality for almost all Americans. Unlike television, radio and print, the Internet does not have a gatekeeper to control what is disseminated to the viewer, listener and reader.
The World Wide Web does allow for a host of wack-jobs to espouse hate speech and misinformation, but that is a small price to pay to access innovative websites producing fresh content. If Verizon and Co. had their way several years ago, sites such as Ebay, Youtube, Myspace, Amazon.com and Goggle might never have come to exist. If net neutrality does not become enshrined in law, it will only be a matter of time before we lose our freedom of choice.
Millions of people, hundreds of corporations, and dozens of non-governmental organizations are
currently amassing resources to fight over one of the most important policy issues of this century. The mainstream media may not think net neutrality is worthy of news coverage, but people should be more aware what is at stake as we strive to solidify freedom for the Internet.
Comcast Pays Americans to Oppose Net Neutrality
From The Register, February 28, 2008
By Cade Metz
Comcast is now paying Americans to believe in deceptive ISPs. (internet service providers)
On Monday, when the US Federal Communication Commission hosted a public hearing that examined Comcast’s penchant for throttling BitTorrent traffic, the big-name internet service provider paid “dozens of people” to attend the meeting on its behalf.
According to Timothy Karr, a campaign director for the net watchdog Free Press, more than 50 people wearing some sort of yellow tag walked into the meeting hall more than 90 minutes before the hearing was scheduled to begin.
“There was a large group of people that came in — in a very concerted fashion — and occupied a large portion of the seats,” Karr told The Reg. “And when I say large group, I mean several dozen. The room seats 200 to 250 people, and an hour and half before the meeting, it was three quarters full.”
When we spoke to Comcast spokesman Charlie Douglas, he told us that the company had indeed paid some random people prior to the hearing. But like the interviewed automation, he claimed this was all about “saving spots” for Comcast employees.
“As is common practice in Washington, we did pay a few people to stand in line [outside the meeting hall] and then hold seats for some of our Comcast executives and other Comcast employees who were attending,” Douglas said. “We were just trying to make sure the hearing was well-attended on our side.”
There’s no doubt that Comcast was just trying to make sure the hearing was well-attended on its side. But Karr has photographs showing that the yellow-tag wearers did not relinquish their seats to Comcast employees.
When we told Charlie Douglas about the photographs, he said “I don’t have anything to say about that. I’m told we did not pay people to attend.”
Timothy Karr also disagrees with Douglas when it comes to common Washington practices. “It’s common practice in Washington for corporations and corporate lobbyists to pay people to attend public hearings to make sure they control the agenda — dictating when people applaud and so on,” Karr explained.
It should be said, however, that some yellow taggers weren’t up to pushing Comcast’s agenda throughout the seven-hour hearing. As Karr’s photographs show, some of them fell asleep on the job.
...as if any more proof is needed
Ignoring Reality, Bush Declares Broadband Mission Accomplished
The Bush administration released a report claiming that high-speed Internet access is now available to virtually every American. According to the Associated Press, the report credits the administration for fostering “an environment in which broadband innovation and competition can flourish.” Since 2001, the United States has fallen from fourth to 15th in the world in broadband penetration.
S. Derek Turner, research director of Free Press and author several reports criticizing failed U.S. broadband policies, made the following statement:, “Declaring mission accomplished won’t reverse America’s rapid disappearance from the ranks of world broadband leaders. Just ask the tens of millions of Americans still stranded on the wrong side of the digital divide.
“Americans pay far more for much slower Internet connections when they can get service at all ?” than the rest of the world. Too many people still live in areas that cable and telecom companies refuse to serve, and many more can only purchase slow and expensive connections that can’t in all seriousness be called broadband."
“Yet while the Bush Administration stands by and cheers over Internet connections barely faster than dial-up, countries like England and South Korea are bringing affordable and fast broadband to their citizens. Americans will be left on the sidelines as these countries reap the huge economic and social benefits of innovative technologies.
“What do these countries have that we don’t? A national broadband policy that goes beyond empty platitudes.”
Read the Bush broadband report:
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/reports/2008/NetworkedNationBroadbandinAmerica2007.pdf
Read the Associated Press article:
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jo43lEEXDyzFvSVqZupi7Gzx8YsAD8UGGCDO0
Gadzooks!
From Associated Press, February 1, 2008
By Michael Liedtke
In a statement Friday, Yahoo said it will “carefully and promptly” study
Microsoft’s bid. (Egads!)
Has AT&T Lost Its Mind?
From Slate Magazine, January 16, 2008
By Tim Wu
The puzzle is how AT&T thinks that its proposal is anything other than corporate seppuku. First, should these proposals be adopted, my heart goes out to AT&T’s customer relations staff. Exactly what counts as copyright infringement can be a tough question for a Supreme Court justice, let alone whatever program AT&T writes to detect copyright infringement. Inevitably, AT&T will block legitimate materials (say, home videos it mistakes for Hollywood) and let some piracy through. Its filters will also inescapably degrade network performance.
FEEDBACK COMMENTARY
Michael from Ohio Did we ever have true freedom? Perhaps, controlled freedom.
Tina From New York State This country was founded by Puritans who had no
tolerance for beliefs other than theirs. Soon the witch hunt started, now on the web.
The Carlson International Web Group Cares
TO RETURN TO XOTERIA-TV CHANNEL DIRECTORY, CLICK HERE
Copyright 2002-2008
