FCC: OBAMA ADMINISTRATION STANCE CLEAR
ON NET NEUTRALITY

(from August 30, 2009) The new chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, Julius Genachowski, didn't pussyfoot around last week when he was asked to explain the Obama administration's stance on net neutrality.

"One thing I would say so that there is no confusion out there is that this FCC will support net neutrality and will enforce any violation of net neutrality principles," he declared. If you're like Toluca Lake resident David Larson, who describes himself as a frequent Internet user, that sort of talk only leaves you scratching your head.
"I have a vague idea what net neutrality means," he told me, "but I'm not sure."

OK, you've come to the right place. "Net neutrality is what every Internet user takes for granted when they go online," said Ben Scott, policy director for Free Press, a nonprofit advocacy group that focuses on communications issues. "It simply means there are no gatekeepers. Any consumer can access any content without discrimination by the network owner."

What he's referring to is a pay-for-play system that would allow network operators -- phone companies, cable companies -- to decide for themselves which online content gets preferential treatment.
That's not how things are now. But if the telecom heavyweights have their way, it could be.
In effect, the debate over net neutrality -- short for "network neutrality" -- is a debate over whether the companies that own the pipes through which data flow can dictate terms to the websites that originate the data.

Telecom companies contend that they should be able to charge bandwidth-heavy content providers such as a movie-download service.

Cable giants Time Warner Cable Inc. and Comcast Corp. referred questions about their net neutrality stance to the National Cable and Telecommunications Assn., an industry group. The association’s website says government regulators should stand back and allow companies like Time Warner and Comcast to decide what's best for Internet users. "The current marketplace is working well to bring consumers the services and features they want at prices they can afford," it says.
BALONEY!
"Lawmakers should be very reluctant to replace that flexible, market-driven success story with a system of intrusive regulation."
Network operators want to set priorities for users, rather than letting all data flow freely and equally

FROM THEIR PLUSH OFFICES
GREEDY NETWORK TV EXECS SITE "LOSING MONEY"
AS REASON FOR ENDING FREE BROADCAST TV
BALONEY!

Happy New Year 2010, everybody. We got the news. In 2012, the four broadcast mogul fatcats will pull the plug on free over the air TV. Boo hoo. Their advertising, they say, has fallen off. Right. That's why we've been overwhelmed with commercials. Even the cheapie left handed monkey wrench mail order sellers can't find time to hawk their As Seen On TV made in sweat factory wares on network TV because all the spots are filled with lucrative car, superstore, and national brand products ads. So as not to accuse us of not presenting both sides of the story, here is the bleeding heart news report from the New York Times (owned by Rupert Murdoch who owns Fox and Stewie Griffin, from an Associated Press Business News release

(December 29, 2009 APNY)For more than 60 years, TV stations have broadcast news, sports and entertainment for free and made their money by showing commercials. That might not work much longer.

The business model is unraveling at ABC, CBS, NBC and Fox and the local stations that carry the networks' programming. Cable TV and the Web have fractured the audience for free TV and siphoned its ad dollars. The recession has squeezed advertising further, forcing broadcasters to accelerate their push for new revenue to pay for programming. That will play out in living rooms across the country. The changes could mean higher cable or satellite TV bills, as the networks and local stations squeeze more fees from pay-TV providers such as Comcast and DirecTV for the right to show broadcast TV channels in their lineups. The networks might even ditch free broadcast signals in the next few years. Instead, they could operate as cable channels — a move that could spell the end of free TV as Americans have known it since the 1940s.

"Good programing is expensive," Rupert Murdoch, whose News Corp. owns Fox, told a shareholder meeting this fall. "It can no longer be supported solely by advertising revenues." Fox is pursuing its strategy in public, warning that its broadcasts — including college football bowl games — could go dark Friday for subscribers of Time Warner Cable, unless the pay-TV operator gives Fox higher fees. For its part, Time Warner Cable is asking customers whether it should "roll over" or "get tough" in negotiations.

The future of free TV also could be altered as the biggest pay-TV provider, Comcast Corp., prepares to take control of NBC. Comcast has not signaled plans to end NBC's free broadcasts. But Jeff Zucker, who runs NBC and its sister cable channels such as CNBC and Bravo, told investors this month that "the cable model is just superior to the broadcast model."

The traditional broadcast model works like this: CBS, NBC, ABC and Fox distribute shows through a network of local stations. The networks own a few stations in big markets, but most are "affiliates," owned by separate companies. Traditionally the networks paid affiliates to broadcast their shows, though those fees have dwindled to near nothing as local stations have seen their audience shrink. What hasn't changed is where the money mainly comes from: advertising.

Cable channels make most of their money by charging pay-TV providers a monthly fee per subscriber for their programing. On average, the pay-TV providers pay about 26 cents for each channel they carry, according to research firm SNL Kagan. A channel as highly rated as ESPN can get close to $4, while some, such as MTV2, go for just a few pennies. With both advertising and fees, ESPN has seen its revenue grow to $6.3 billion in 2009 from $1.8 billion a decade ago, according to SNL Kagan estimates. It has been able to bid for premium events that networks had traditionally aired, such as football games. Cable channels also have been able to fund high-quality shows, such as AMC's "Mad Men," rather than recycling movies and TV series.

That, plus a growing number of channels, has given cable a bigger share of the ad pie. In 1998, cable channels drew roughly $9.1 billion, or 24 percent of total TV ad spending, according to the Television Bureau of Advertising. By 2008, they were getting $21.6 billion, or 39 percent. Having two revenue streams — advertising and fees from pay-TV providers — has insulated cable channels from the recession. By contrast, over-the-air stations have been forced to cut staff, and at least two broadcast groups sought bankruptcy protection in 2009.

Fox illustrates the trend: Its broadcast operations reported a 54 percent drop in operating income for the quarter that ended in September. Its cable channels, which include Fox News and FX, grew their operating income 41 percent.

Analyst Tom Love of Zenith/Optimedia estimates that ad revenue at the big networks dropped 9 percent in 2009 and will be followed by an 8 percent drop in 2010 and zero growth in 2011. A small chunk of the ad revenue is being recouped online, where the networks sell episodes for a few dollars each or run ads alongside shows on sites such as Hulu. Media economist Jack Myers projects online video advertising will grow into a $2 billion business by 2012, from just $350 million to $400 million in 2009.

But that is not significant enough to make up for the lost ad revenue on the airwaves. Advertisers spent $34 billion on broadcast commercials in 2008, down by $2.4 billion from two years earlier, according to the Television Bureau of Advertising. So rather than wait for the Internet to become a bigger source of income, the networks and local stations are mimicking what cable channels do: They're charging pay-TV companies a monthly fee per subscriber to carry their programming.

Since 1994, the Federal Communications Commission has let networks and their affiliates seek payments for including their programming in the pay-TV lineup. Not everyone demanded payments at first. Instead they relied on the broader audience that cable and satellite gave them to increase what they could charge advertisers.

The big networks also were content to let their broadcast stations essentially be subsidized by higher fees for the cable channels that fell under the same corporate umbrella. A pay-TV company negotiating with the Walt Disney Co., which owns ABC, is likely paying more for the ABC Family channel than it otherwise would, with the extra assumed to help Disney cover its costs for the ABC network broadcasts. But over time — such contracts generally run about three years — more networks began demanding payments for the stations they own. And affiliates already receiving the fees have bargained for more money.

Some talks have been tense. In 2007, Sinclair Broadcast Group, which operates 32 network-affiliated stations around the country, pulled its signals for nearly a month from Mediacom Communications Corp., which provides cable TV to about 1.3 million subscribers, mainly in small cities. Mediacom may again lose signals from Sinclair's affiliates in markets as large as Des Moines and Cedar Rapids, Iowa, after last-ditch negotiations on fees Monday failed to produce a replacement for an agreement expiring Friday. Mediacom spokesman Tom Larsen said Sinclair wants a 50 percent hike in fees, though neither company would provide specific figures. Sinclair's general counsel, Barry Faber, said no new talks have been scheduled.

The American Cable Association says its members — mainly small cable TV providers — have seen their costs for carrying local TV stations more than triple over the past three years. The group's head, Matt Polka, says those fees have gone "straight to consumers' pocketbooks" through higher cable bills. Gannett Co., for instance, which operates 23 stations, has taken in $56 million in fees from pay-TV operators in 2009 after negotiating a new batch of agreements, up from $18 million in 2008. Dave Lougee, president of Gannett's broadcast arm, defends the fees, saying "broadcasters were late to the game in really starting to go after the fair market value of their signals."

Analysts estimate CBS managed to get as much as 50 cents per subscriber in its most recent talks with pay-TV providers that carry CBS-owned stations. CBS Corp. chief Leslie Moonves said such fees should add "hundreds of millions of dollars to revenues annually." That could be just the beginning. CBS and Fox are also asking for a portion of the fees that their affiliates get, arguing that the networks' shows are what give local stations the leverage to ask for fees.

Over time, the networks might be able to get even more money by abandoning the affiliate structure and undoing a key element of free TV. Here's why: Pay-TV providers are paying the networks only for the stations the networks own. That amounts to a little less than a third of the TV audience, which means local affiliates recoup two-thirds of the fees. If a network operated purely as a cable channel and cut the affiliates out, the network could get the fees for the entire pay-TV audience.

If forced to go independent, affiliates would have to air their own programming, including local news and syndicated shows. Fitch Ratings analyst Jamie Rizzo predicts that at least one of the four broadcast networks "could explore" becoming a cable channel as early as 2011

Then, of course, we have the battle of Greedy Networks vs. Greedy Cable & Dish Providers, with Murdoch's Foxfight with cable companies leading the way. Fox sez go Fios..One could say "go roof antenna," but, wait a minute, the networks want to end sending signals over the air. Greed and consumers are caught in a costly Catch-22, unless we go back to radio listening. Ah, but one should hear the greedy radio chains (CBS, Clear Channel, Radio One, Greater Media etc.) whine, although for every six songs we get seven minutes of ads screaming that we should go see "Bye, Bye Birdie," (the most annoying commercial on the face of the earth) buy a Toyota, redceorate at Home Depot, and slosh down a La Te' at Dunkin Donuts with Hazlenut Coffee at Mc Donalds (all also annoying pitches). Wait...didn't we just see all that on "House?"

GREEDY vs. GREEDIER
(March 6, 2010) As this is written, in New York. cable provider Comcast is threatening to pull the plug on ABC Network flagship station serving just before the Oscars air. So what else is new? Time Warner did the same with Fox channel 5 in New York before the Superbowl. Let's play the who's greedier game. The cable comps say the broadcasters want megamillions per year to carry the channels on their system and aren't they getting paid by advertisers? Comcast says, in Anti-WABC-TV ads, "just because ad revenue is down and top execs are overpaid, don't take it out on our subscribers." Channel 7's anti-Comcast ads shouts back, "you're raking in big bucks from subscribers through our programs." What ever happened to free broadcast TV? Tell you what, guys. How about helping charities...with money, not time on the evening news.

GIVE YOUR INPUT & FEEDBACK




GREEDY TRIOS:
COMCAST, NBC, UNIVERSAL = MOGUL HULLABALOO
NBC, FOX, DISNEY = MOGUL HULU

(Washington Post, November 17, 2009) Comcast could be the owner of one of the biggest content companies around. It is reportedly getting closer to a deal to buy NBC Universal, which owns broadcast programming, stations and a movie business.

These are the data points that are quickly creating a clearer sketch of Comcast's plans to grow beyond their cable pipe roots into an entertainment giant that would have stronger control over a large portion of all online content (some analysts say 20 percent) and how consumers access it. It would bring more advertising revenue to Comcast's bottom line and could allow for things like same day releases of Universal movies to Comcast cable subscribers.

Public interest groups have raised concerns that such a concentration of media by the largest cable service provider in the nation could be a bad deal for consumers. They may decide on pricing models consumers won't like and could edge out smaller competitors from content by NBC Universal who would want to offer videos for free or less than Comcast, according to groups like Free Press. There would certainly be regulatory hurdles, as written in a previous post.

Comcast is not alone in its online video strategy. Time Warner and other cable and satellite companies all have their own TV Everywhere plans that are expected to come out soon.

And what could keep these companies up at night? Online video distributor Boxee said during the NewTeeVee conference that if videos are included in the iTunes store, Apple will have more subscribers than Comcast in five years. Banse downplayed such a scenario, saying if anything customers will have more choice, be it from Netflix, Boxee or Comcast for where they get their content. "It will be a schmorgesborg," she said.

GIVE YOUR INPUT & FEEDBACK

YOUR NAME:
YOUR COMMENT OR QUESTIONS:
YOUR e-MAIL ADDRESS (for our reply only-no ads):
WOULD YOU LIKE YOUR COMMENT POSTED ANONYMOUSLY? yes/no):

THE INTERNET SERVICE PROVIDERS
ARE CHISELING ON YOUR BANDWIDTH SPEED

3 negs, they promised you?
you are lucky if you get 1meg even on off-peak time

(Internet Newsline November 5, 2009) I wondered what was up when my broadband port input measured
less than half of what Verizon advertised and promised in my contract.
Here is what the Washington Post reported about a p.o.'d FCC

Consumers are paying for broadband Internet service that lags advertised speeds by as much as 50 percent.

That stat was revealed by the Federal Communications Commission last month during a report on its plan to connect the entire nation to high-speed Internet. The news sent Twitterverse aflutter with outrage. Post Tech got tons of feedback on an entry about it. Consumer advocates said the revelation could open the door to class-action lawsuits against carriers for deceptive advertising. And now those groups are offering one solution to help users from getting bamboozled. The groups, along with the New America Foundation, have proposed a Nutrition Fact box for broadband. Instead of calories, carbs and fiber, the broadband box would break down data on guaranteed delivered speeds, price, and length of contract. Such details are often blurred and buried in the fine print of multiple-page service agreements

GIVE YOUR INPUT & FEEDBACK

YOUR NAME:
YOUR COMMENT OR QUESTIONS:
YOUR e-MAIL ADDRESS (for our reply only-no ads):
WOULD YOU LIKE YOUR COMMENT POSTED ANONYMOUSLY? yes/no):

PRESIDENT OBAMA, FCC FAVOR NET NEUTRALITY

(September 24, 2009 Los Angeles Times) New FCC rules due out today are designed to prevent Internet providers from blocking or slowing high-bandwidth traffic that taxes their networks -- something that Obama said would unleash the "full power of the Internet" and allow innovation to flourish.

FCC Chair Julius Genachowski made an announcement: that the agency will expand their rules to protect a free and open Internet. This is an important step forward in keeping the Internet free from corporate control.

ATT, COMCAST, VERIZON & OTHER TELCOM CONGLOMORATES
SEEK TO CONTROL, PRICE GOUGE
THE INTERNET LOCK, STOCK & BARREL

(July 8, 2009 World Web News) The FCC�s national broadband plan will make or break the Internet That�s why Free Press supporters have just submitted more than 17,000 comments urging the agency to ensure an open, affordable and fast Internet for everyone. (Ask the telcom corporate controllers what they did with the 95 million Congress allocated them in the mid fifties to wire all America, rural as well as suburban and urban, with broadband internet).

The greedy telcoms are trying to build an alternate reality, telling the FCC to draft a plan that gives them total and complete control of the Internet.

If the FCC listens to their lies, companies like Comcast, Verizon and AT&T will be allowed to overcharge customers for Internet use, block new applications and snuff out broadband competition. While President Barack Obama supports net neutrality, that does not automatically make it so. Telcoms have senators in their pockets.

America currently ranks 22nd in broadband penetration (behind Japan, South Korea and Iceland) and 14th in speed;
More than 40 percent of us don't have a high-speed Internet connection -- a fact that has real social and economic consequences;
Comcast has been caught red-handed violating Net Neutrality by blocking and censoring legal content.
Giant phone and cable companies have deep pockets and armies of lobbyists to spread their misinformation campaign. here�s what we can do between now and July 8, when the FCC comment docket closes:
Expose the corporate-funded special interest groups that have posted FCC comments to undermine support for Net Neutrality, broadband competition and the innovation we need to fulfill the Internet�s vast potential;
Mobilize the public to respond to those misleading comments, and let the FCC know we expect a plan that serves the people, not greedy corporations;
Debunk the telco lies and ensure that the final FCC plan (due in February 2010) meets the needs of all Americans, not just the phone and cable giants. The Internet freedoms the major telecom and cable companies want to hijack from you include over-charging or censorship. Let the FCC and your elected officials know this goes against the very constitution of America.

Read the collection of new stories which follow as proving the point.

Update July 22, 2009 Public Knowledge today released a landmark analysis showing that filtering of Internet content as advocated by big media companies will not work and will be harmful to the Internet. The full paper is here.

Gigi B. Sohn, president and co-founder of Public Knowledge, said: “Our study, ‘Forcing the Net Through a Sieve: Why Copyright Filtering is Not a Viable Solution for U.S. ISPs,’ examines for the first time the complex topic of content filtering from the technical, economic and legal perspectives. Content filtering fails in all of these tests. Filtering will not be the ‘magic bullet’ that the media moguls want, but it could degrade and alter the Internet for everyone while invading the privacy of every Internet user. There is no reason that any Internet Service Provider or media company should even think about engaging in such activity.�

The report was submitted with Public Knowledge’s reply comments to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in the proceeding asking for information on how to structure a national broadband plan. Several content-related parties suggested content filtering should be part of such a plan. PK’s reply comments, other than the report, are here.

According to the PK report: “The content industry would like to convince policymakers and the general public that copyright filtering is the most effective means by which to combat online copyright infringement and protect America’s creative economy. This could not be further from the truth. In practice, copyright filtering is likely to harm innovators, end users, online service providers and Internet service providers alike. What’s more, it will compromise the privacy of all American Internet users for the perceived benefit of one industry. As such, copyright filtering will discourage investment in the Internet economy—our most promising engine for economic growth—and will harm American competitiveness in the global market.� The study is divided into four sections. “Technological Analysis, the anatomy of a copyright filter,� shows how filters work and how complicated such a filter would have to be given the complexity of U.S. copyright law and the amount of Internet traffic involved. According to the technological analysis, “depending on the technology used to identify copyrighted works, copyright filters will be underinclusive, overinclusive or both. The filter will fail to identify all copyrighted works that pass through it, will filter out legal, legitimate content or, as is the case with most filtering technologies currently on the market, the filter will fail on both counts.�

The second section, “Limitations and Consequences of Copyright Filtering,� discusses how the protocol used to transmit traffic and the type of media is poor indicators for determining which traffic should be filtered. In addition, the section shows how filtering will slow Internet traffic, cause security risks, and result in a “technological arms race� as users would try to evade filters, as happened in Iran and in France. The losers in that arms race would be everyone using the Internet.

The third section, “Economic Analysis,� asks who would pay for the filtering and examines the lack of economic incentives ISPs have for installing them, and the harm to the Internet economy that would result as a consequence of deploying network-level filters.

The final section, “Legal Analysis,� argues that copyright filters would be an “unconstitutional burden on free expression,� would undermine the “safe harbor� provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act which protect ISPs and online service providers from liability under copyright law and may violate the Electronic Communications Privacy Act.

GIVE YOUR INPUT & FEEDBACK

YOUR NAME:
YOUR COMMENT OR QUESTIONS:
YOUR e-MAIL ADDRESS (for our reply only-no ads):
WOULD YOU LIKE YOUR COMMENT POSTED ANONYMOUSLY? yes/no):

YOUR NAME:
YOUR COMMENT OR QUESTIONS:
YOUR e-MAIL ADDRESS (for our reply only-no ads):
WOULD YOU LIKE YOUR COMMENT POSTED ANONYMOUSLY? yes/no):

COMCAST & TIME WARNER
SCRAMBLE TO CONTROL INTERNET TV

(June 24, 2009, Wired) Sometime tomorrow, Comcast and Time Warner will announce a partnership to promote the concept of TV Everywhere. Jeff Bewkes, chairman and CEO of Time Warner, and Brian Roberts, chairman and CEO of Comcast, will have a joint media conference tomorrow in New York. The deal makes it painfully obvious that everything cable companies do � including introducing the draconian metered broadband policies � is done to save their video franchises. With the pervasiveness of broadband and easy availability of tools that allow web video to leap onto your television, cable companies see that their video distribution pipes are becoming less relevant. So they want to control how you watch premium content online and want to impose fees via an authentication system. Time Warner and Bewkes have been championing this concept � essentially an authentication system that requires viewers to have cable, telco or satellite subscriptions in order to watch certain premium content online or on other platforms. Bewkes recently said he wanted to launch the system during the second half of 2009. (NewTeeVee has just published a great FAQ on TV Everywhere.) Time Warner spun out its cable business as a separate company. Time Warner owns premium services such as HBO.

This coming together of large media companies and cable companies over Internet video should put the anti-trust officers in Washington on red alert. They should be paying attention to not only these moves, but also the metered broadband efforts of cable companies. The cable industry and its large media partners form a cozy cabal, though on paper they dislike each other.

Cable operators need media companies� channels to overcharge the working stiffs like you and me. Media companies need the cable operators to share subscription revenues to pay for their highly inefficient and archaic businesses.

�The majority of profits for the big entertainment companies is from cable programming,� Stephen Burke, president of Comcast, tells The New York Times. �That stream is so important to every entertainment company that everybody is looking at that and saying, if we are not careful we could start to harm that model.� Here is the irony: If Comcast thinks it is keeping the status-quo go, Time Warner�s Bewkes thinks he is inventing the future. �We�re talking about taking the TV industry to a new era,� he tells the Times. When I read that, I LOL-ed. That is rich coming from a guy who runs a company that has proven to be the Internet equivalent of the village idiot. Anyway, here are some minor details about this system that is going to be TV�s future.

The first test of the new system, which will authenticate cable subscribers online and make available programs on the Web for no additional charge, will be announced Wednesday, between Comcast and Time Warner. The trial will involve about 5,000 Comcast subscribers, and television shows from the Time Warner networks TNT and TBS. Comcast and syndicators such as Viacom have been championing their own authentication systems. There is a massive battle brewing where content owners and cable operators will soon find themselves on opposing sides. Cable companies (and large media companies) are unwilling to come to terms with the fact that their brands don�t matter as much in this age of content atomization. Time Warner expects to announce similar trials with other distributors.

THE MERGER FROM HELL:
COMCAST & NBC

(Internet Newsline 12.04.09) NBC has new worries a lot more formidable than Jay Leno bombing in prime time. Comcast may appear by some as a knight in shining armor to save the once mahestic RCA incepted network (when RCA electronics were made by design in the United States, not cookie cutter with other brans in China and India). Comcast is more like Darth Vader. Like fiber rival Verizon, Comcast seeks control of telephone, internet and now television broadcast communications by corporate deception and trickery, much more ominous than promising internet connections of 5 MBPS and delivering less than a quarter that.

It's all about money, big money. Greed. Comcast knows as much about news and entertainment programming as their line technicians (believe me, I used to work with their local origination program directors). Anyone who has ever placed a service call to Comcast wonders if their top executives are as arrogant as their phone reps. Worse. These same bloodthirsty moguls apparently will soon control a television network. NBC may begin to look like it's on-the-air-to-run-paid-infomercials subsidiary ION-TV, which satisfies FCC regulations with a few hours of repeats each day surrounded by the fire hazard Nu Wave Oven, leg burning No No depillatory, dinky Swivel Sweeper and Kevin Trudeau like Dr. Feelgood caravan pharmacals. You may beg to have "The Beverly Hillbillies" back, or Leno if he gets axed, which seems likely.

The general public forgets who the airwaves belong to, which is fine for Paramount, Comcast, Disney, Warner (or,CBS, NBC, ABC, CW) and Fox. What the general public also doesn't know is that their airwaves are not controlled by them or the week-knee FCC commissioners. Reality TV may soon become the reality nightmare. You have been warned. (by John Summer, INL)

GIVE YOUR INPUT & FEEDBACK

YOUR NAME:
YOUR COMMENT OR QUESTIONS:
YOUR e-MAIL ADDRESS (for our reply only-no ads):
WOULD YOU LIKE YOUR COMMENT POSTED ANONYMOUSLY? yes/no):

SONY PREXY CALLS THE INTERNET
CONSUMER USAGE 'NO GOOD'

(June .02.09 World Web News) At a press conference seminar and in a concomitant press release, Michael Lynton, CEO of Sony Pictures Corporation. launched an attack on the Web, stating he sees "nothing good having come from the Internet. Period." Typical. But, Michael Lynton is just the latest in a line of old media bosses who see the open Internet as a threat — something they need to control in order to keep prices high, access limited and users like us in check.br> Those of us who rely upon the Internet every day now have a chance to tell Michael otherwise: Make Sure Lynton and His Cronies Don't Stifle the Internet

At this very minute, the Federal Communications Commission is crafting America's first national broadband plan. Whether the plan will give more control over our Internet to the likes of Sony Pictures, Verizon, Comcast, AT&T, Time Warner Cable and depends on what we do right now. These companies' well-heeled lobbyists are flooding the FCC's public docket with comments in support of policies that let them tilt the Web’s level playing field to favor the Web sites of corporate partners; deploy content-sniffing devices that would randomly open and sift through our private Web communications; impose usage penalties on people who use the Web for more than simple e-mail and Web surfing; block innovative Web services that compete against their phone, cable and entertainment products; and disconnect users for any reason or without justification, behind closed doors because they are too internet communications savvy.

Acting FCC chairman Michael Copps has called the creation of the broadband plan "the most formative — indeed, transformative — proceeding ever in the Commission’s history." He added: "The Commission must act to ensure that the genius of the open Internet is not lost." Don't let those cute telcom ads fool you. The aformentioned communication conglomorates are vicious, greedy and care nothing about "the little people."

The archaic and copper technology based FCC needs to be wised up that a more open open and accessible Internet is a good thing that will revitalize our economy, engage millions more people in our democracy and give new meaning to freedom of speech. Regulating the bandwidth of the internet will do absolutely nothing to thwart hackers, phishers and malware propagators.

It’s time for the FCC to get behind a people-powered vision of 21st-century media media that’s participatory, open and democratic -- and not to hand the keys to the Internet to the old guard. Tell the FCC: The Internet Is Good for Democracy. Period.

GIVE YOUR INPUT & FEEDBACK

YOUR NAME:
YOUR COMMENT OR QUESTIONS:
YOUR e-MAIL ADDRESS (for our reply only-no ads):
WOULD YOU LIKE YOUR COMMENT POSTED ANONYMOUSLY? yes/no):

BIG BROTHER IS BLOCKING YOU

(July 7, 2009 Free Press) 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?

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.

GIVE YOUR INPUT & FEEDBACK

YOUR NAME:
YOUR COMMENT OR QUESTIONS:
YOUR e-MAIL ADDRESS (for our reply only-no ads):
WOULD YOU LIKE YOUR COMMENT POSTED ANONYMOUSLY? yes/no):

YAHOO IS WATCHING YOU

(July 7, 2009 by John Summer, Internet Newsline) Boo. Yahoo has joined Google in recording your every search move. Considering what some, without thinking, put in search engine boxes, asking for trouble is putting it mildly.

Search Robots ("Crawlers") also swoop the "groups," the multiple addressed e-mails, the pix and video posts. Google, Yahoo and others assert this to protect minors from predators, deter web bullying, spam, hate messages and copyright infringements; those are good reasons for the botsnoops.

Sometimes, however, text or imaging, intended as jokes are taken for real and, remember, your computer's IP number and paths are also recorded. The bot knows where you are. Those who search for websites with illegal content will almost assuredly get a knock at the door. Also, if you include a racial slur in your search or post, a human pair of eyes will check for contextual use. Remember, when you post a blog, it becomes public along with any picture you post almost anywhere. You may see yourself on an image search page...however you are in the image.

Is this protection also a violation of freedom of speech? Is it "big brother?" Ask twenty people and you will get twenty different answers and opinions. The final frontier is watch what you are doing on the internet. If you have a website, blog or social page post, pix or vids, and someone is believes it's offensive, predatory, or otherwise illicit, (or they are just nosey) there are free internet bot services that will find you for the user. So...Boo! And remember, the big two search engines are watching. The third, Microsoft, will certainly follow. Let's say hello to them, now. "Hello."

GIVE YOUR INPUT & FEEDBACK

YOUR NAME:
YOUR COMMENT OR QUESTIONS:
YOUR e-MAIL ADDRESS (for our reply only-no ads):
WOULD YOU LIKE YOUR COMMENT POSTED ANONYMOUSLY? yes/no):

OBAMA: YES TO NET NEUTRALITY

(June 29, 2009. John Eggerton, Multichannel News) President Obama said Friday that the government was going to start treating the nation's digital infrastructure, broadband networks and computers as strategic national assets that should be "open and free."

His remarks came in announcing the release of a report on the state of the nation's cyber security, which he indicated needed to be beefed up in numerous ways (he admitted that his own campaign Web efforts had been hacked). The president pledged to protect privacy and economic security, and even gave a shout-out to network neutrality, saying, "Indeed, I remain firmly committed to net neutrality so we can keep the Internet as it should be--open and free." The new priority on cybersecurity will include creating an office in the White House led by a cybersecurity coordinator who will also be a member of the national security staff and work closely with new Chief Technology Officer Aneesh Chopra.

The president said the administration will also work closely with local government and the private sector to respond to cybersecurity "incidents." He also emphasized that the administration will not "dictate" security policy to the private sector: "On the contrary; we will collaborate with industry to find technology solutions that ensure our security and promote prosperity." Moreover, Obama said the administration had no intention of monitoring private Internet traffic: "Let me also be clear about what we will not do. Our pursuit of cybersecurity will not --I repeat, will not-- include monitoring private sector networks or Internet traffic. We will preserve and protect the personal privacy and civil liberties that we cherish as Americans."

The president said the country will continue to invest in infrastructure, "laying broadband lines to every corner of America." The president's economic stimulus package includes over $7 billion in broadband rollout grants and loans.

Verizon senior vice president of government relations Peter Davidson said the company was willing to work with the president on beefing up cybersecurity, pointing out that it helped the administration with the top-to-bottom review that resulted in Friday's announcement. "We are pleased that cybersecurity is a priority for the Obama Administration, and we are committed to working with the president on this important issue," he said in a statement. "Working together in a collaborative fashion, government and industry can better ensure that America's information and communications infrastructure is trusted, resilient, and secure." "We certainly agree that effective solutions will require constructive public-private engagement and look forward to working with whoever is appointed," said Walter McCormick, Jr., president of US Telecom, the association representing telco broadband providers and manufacturers.

Senate Commerce Committee chairman Jay Rockefeller (D.-W.Va.) and ranking member Olympic Snowe (R-Maine), applauded the announcement, and advised the president to put no layers of bureaucracy between is cybersecurity czar and the Oval Office. "We strongly urge the president to follow through on his groundbreaking leadership on this issue by giving this 'cyber czar' the heft and authority the position requires," they said in a statement Friday. "[T]his advisor should report directly to the president on all cyber matters. There is no room for error, and no room for burea

GIVE YOUR INPUT & FEEDBACK

YOUR NAME:
YOUR COMMENT OR QUESTIONS:
YOUR e-MAIL ADDRESS (for our reply only-no ads):
WOULD YOU LIKE YOUR COMMENT POSTED ANONYMOUSLY? yes/no):

MUSICIANS DEMAND:
GIVE US OUR AIRWAVES BACK

(July 18. 2009, Music Weekly) The musicians of America are packing their gear and heading to Austin, Texas, this weekend for the annual South by Southwest (or SXSW) music festival. With more than 1,900 acts expected to descend on the city (and those are just the ones we know about), SXSW presents precisely the sort of explosive and diverse soundscape we could expect to start hearing on the airwaves again if Congress takes action this year. The Local Community Radio Act (HR 1147 / S 592) is the perfect antidote to the drudgery on the radio dial since 1996, when massive radio consolidation resulted in stations constantly spinning the same songs across the country. For musicians, Local Community Radio Act will be invaluable. It’s become nearly impossible for local bands to get their songs played in their hometowns as playlists have become automated and computers have replaced the local deejay with her ear to the ground. Gone are the days when artists could bring their music down to the local radio station for a chance to be “discovered� as the next big thing. As far as commercial radio goes, you’re lucky if anyone’s at the station at all. Making music, reaching people This reporter has a special place in my heart for this bill, both as a musician and as a former community radio station volunteer. For the past ten years, I have been making noise beside my friends and working alongside them to set up shows, promote albums, and sell t-shirts in bars, basements, attics and anywhere else people are eager to come see live music. We do it because we love it – because we don’t know how not to – and none of us are really expecting to strike it rich. We simply want to make music, and we want that music to reach as many people as possible. Luckily, we have a community radio station that plays our music, and the music of other artists living in the Pioneer Valley. But what about those places where only commercial radio exists? Might as well be static. Corporate media would like us to believe they’re only feeding us the content we’re clamoring for, but don’t be fooled. We hear the same songs over and over again because it’s cheap and easy to produce and because payola – a rigged (and illegal) pay-to-play game where record execs bestow prizes and gifts on DJs – has come to dominate the commercial radio market. Because of this crooked system, to actually get radio play is not a reflection of talent or merit or even taste. Instead, it’s all about money, and usually the only way a band can get on the radio is to follow the beaten path of seeking record deals and distribution through the major labels, who judge bands not on their sound, but on dollar signs. No substitute for radio

The closed game of commercial radio is totally out of sync with the dramatic changes that have taken place on the production side of music. Over the past decade, technology has made it increasingly easy to record an album. The Internet has connected us to more affordable options for packaging and distribution. Social networks like MySpace have led to success stories, with unknown artists reaching a massive audience overnight. And online radio stations and podcasts have allowed new and underground content to reach even more ears. But while the Web is great, it’s no substitute for broadcast media. With 40 percent of America still not connected to high-speed Internet (the kind of speed required to stream audio files), we can’t look to the Web as the definitive solution. Radios are a one-time cost (there is no monthly subscription fee) and you are connected for life. The airwaves, which belong to the public in the first place, should be returned to communities. With the Local Community Radio Act, thousands of new noncommercial stations can be licensed across the country, giving musicians and fans an opportunity to hear an astonishing array of music, from local talent to a tune from across the ocean. And if you don’t agree with the deejay, you can get your own show and share your love for reggae, metal, freak folk, electronica or whatever else you fancy. Passing this bill will be like opening your windows on that first day of spring after a really long winter. We’ve been breathing the same stale, recycled air since the mid-90s. Let’s turn up the volume already and make this happen.

Internet Newsline Editor Note Yes, we've had enough syndicated FM cookie cutter repetitive playlist rotation meshed with automated announcers and fueled by none other than "Madison Avenue" conglomorates whose demographics dictate the radio networks and syndicators.

GIVE YOUR INPUT & FEEDBACK

YOUR NAME:
YOUR COMMENT OR QUESTIONS:
YOUR e-MAIL ADDRESS (for our reply only-no ads):
WOULD YOU LIKE YOUR COMMENT POSTED ANONYMOUSLY? yes/no):

POP PEDOPHILIA:
THE MEDIA & INTERNET'S BRAZEN HYPOCRISY

(July 8, 2009, commentary, John Summer, Internet Newsline) Want to be a pedophile and glorified pop icon at the same time? Cut a few hit records like Chuck Berry (convicted of transporting minors, served minimal sentence), Jerry Lee Lewis (married his cousin aged 13), R. Kelly (charged with urinating on a 14 year old girl and child porn, then worked out a no incarceration plea deal), or Michael Jackson (admitted having boys in his bed, but 'no sexual activity' happened at the Neverland Ranch in his back yard, aquitted criminally and settled out of court with victim's father for reportedly #2 mil)).

Typically, anyone who exploits a child, by rape, molestation, physical abuse or distribution of child pornography, is required, in most U.S. locales, to register as a sex offender under Megan's Law, so since the mid 90's. But not the rap singers caught with child porn or Jackson. Typically, one even accused of child molestation or porn is scorned by the public, most of whom would lynch the alleged offender if allowed. But not pop singers so accused. Also movie producers so immune from scorn: remember Roman Polanski?

Let's not entirely blame the masses for this scathing hypocrisy. When Michael Jackson was investigated for inappropriate behavior with preteen boys, the television and print media made him out to be more depraved than Jeffrey Dahmer. The tabloids dubbed him "Jacko." At his death, the very same media exponents referred to Jackson as "The Greatest Entertainer Who Ever Lived" and revived daddy Joe Jackson's catchphrase, "The King Of Pop." And "Greatest Hits" stations have the audacity not only to play Jackson's charted records almost hourly, but album cuts that :"would have been hits -if he didn't get caught being a pedophile and was given pardon to leave the country and bother kids in foreign lands Come on. These "stars" are no different than what Chris Hanson dragged in on Dateline: To Catch A Predator-

Now, in the new year, we add Roman Polanski's sentence revoked bleeding heart decision. A great film director may he be, but he also drugged a then 13 year old girl's champagne with valium raped, molested and sodomized her. Because of whatever errors we supposedly done by the prosecution prior to Swiss authorities re-arrest, he goes free once again and no sex offender registration proffered. Meanwhile, there are people serving ten to fifteen year prison sentences because something was in their computer harddrive, or a magazine or videocassette was found in their domicile.

i No wonder today's youth is confused.

Add to the mix former kiddie show star Pee Wee Herman ("Pee Wee's Playhouse"). Aside from the fact he was caught masturbating in a porn theater,Herman was later, in 1996, convicted of possession and distribution of child pornography. Usually prosecuted by federal authorities, the statute calls for a prison sentence of 5-10 years, first offense. Whatever deal was made with whoever authorities, Herman served no prison time, received no probation, nor required to register as a sex offender in his domicile as all found with child porn usually are.

What if any lesser made a music video grabbing our crotch and that which is in it?

The web fared no better. Jackson impersonators on YouTube were embraced, a New York congressman who asked why "a pedophile, pervert and child molestor" was being glorified was condemned for the video comments. YouTube slammed down music video posters whose video files were deemed a copyright violation, all except, since last week, Michael Jackson videos. Hello? These were never copyright registered by the music conglomorates?

Bottom line: inappropriate actions towards children is repugnant no matter if done by a subway hobo or Michael Jackson. It's a crime no matter if the transgression is enacted by a simpleton or a rap singer currently on top of the music charts. Once the media indicates otherwise, it is a media serving it's own financial interest.

Media exploitation (sensationalism and hypocrisy leaned to public attraction) is all about money. The bigger the TV audience (i.e. the silliness of "Entertainment Tonight" "Hollywood Insider" or network news), the bigger the newspaper readership (be it the moronic "National Enquirer" or once respected "New York Times), the more "hits" the Yahoo news and other social sites get, the bigger the $$$$ revenue from advertisers and advertising agencies who love this nonsense. It's all about money. And it is not so much the "stars," the "celebs" who are being exploited, it is the public.

The internet, television and print media should be a free exchange of views and opinions, yes. But not to this extent of ludicrous, double standard hypocrisy.

Now, these same media giants are invading the net. Unlikely partners NBC, Fox and ABC's daddy, Disney are partners in Hulu, a huge internetwork media archive. CBS and their papa, Paramount have an archive of their own. That's great. We do miss Perry Mason, "Book'em Dano" and "I'm a doctor not a (fill in the Trek noun)." But when the internet media is controlled by big media, the telcoms and cable companies who "lie like hell" in the past, when do we know when someone is telling us the truth when even the most prominent icons aren't telling us the truth with slick P.R.

GIVE YOUR INPUT & FEEDBACK

YOUR NAME:
YOUR COMMENT OR QUESTIONS:
YOUR e-MAIL ADDRESS (for our reply only-no ads):
WOULD YOU LIKE YOUR COMMENT POSTED ANONYMOUSLY? yes/no):

PHARMACEUTICAL CORPORATIONS TO FDA:
OUTLAW NATURAL VITAMINS & FOOD SUPPLEMENTS

(February 17, 2010 INL commentary) We know Omega-3 supplements are heart healthy. Many people have felt more energetic and alert with Ginseng and Gingko Biloba. GI specialists advocate the digestive benefits of probiotics such as L'Acidophilus. And who needs chemical vitamins when natural vitamins are available. Well, if the major pharmaceutical companies have their way, these and all other beneficial natural vitamins, food supplements and herbal remedies would be banned from being sold anywhere. God forbid, someone should feel arthritis arelief from Glucosamine Chondroiton (a natural botanical compound) and not use Celebrex.

The pharmaceutical (prescription drug) conglomorates are one of the biggest contributors to politicians and also seduce doctors with cruises and all expense paid vacations to a resort hosting their seminars. They are a powerful political lobby and pay out so to get pretty much whatever they want (until they come out with killer Rx such as "Vioxx"). Because millions of people use natural supplements, the greedy pharmacy corporations want it stopped. The makers of Aleve are suffering themselves; sales are off, thus the recent TV commercial blitz.

This is not to say someone should do something about the phony claims of TV infomercials and miracle cure bogus mail order sellers like NJ based Dr. Leonards. But the majority of natural vitamin and probiotic manufacturers such as Natrol, Nature Made and Vitamin Power, who make no false claims and maintain strict quality control, should not be outlawed at the envious whim of the drug companies. The mere fact major health chains like Walgreens, CVS and Rite-Aid prominently carry natural food and herbal supplements indicates a vast majority of people want and use, not misuse them. Therefore, the drug companies should not pine over losing a widget share of the health product market. They still rake in their millions in yearly profit, the CEOs still travel private planes and limos ~ and the politicians still get their payoffs.

GIVE YOUR INPUT & FEEDBACK

YOUR NAME:
YOUR COMMENT OR QUESTIONS:
YOUR e-MAIL ADDRESS (for our reply only-no ads):
WOULD YOU LIKE YOUR COMMENT POSTED ANONYMOUSLY? yes/no):

BATTLE OF THE GREEDY MEDIA MOGULS:
PROGRAM PROVIDERS & BROADCAST NETWORKS
vs.
CABLE & TELCO COMPANIES

(January 9, 2010) The new decade got off to a real bang when the Super Bowl was almost blacked out on Comcast and Time Warner because greedy Murdoch's honchos at the Fox networks wanted, according to the cable companies, an greedy amount of moola for the destitute TV string band to carry their programming. Imagine going through life without the Glee girls jumping up and down in short skirts or Homer Simpson oafing "Doh!" Just before the first kickoff and guy farts on the sofa from too many Cheeze Doodles, Fox and the telcos made nice and arranged some sort of a deal. My my. Will the drama ever end?

Uh, oh, no. Now the Food Network's jumping up and down, same scenario. The CW Network, or at least it's PIX outlet in New York (WPIX channel 11) came to the rescue by running Food Network's Chef Ramsey ripoffs.

Here's what AP had to say about this brouha:

Many questions remain for cable TV viewers nationwide even after Fox and Time Warner Cable settled their noisy spat with a New Year's Day agreement. The deal was good news for more than 6 million Time Warner customers in the short term: College bowl and National Football League games, "American Idol" and a host of other popular Fox programs in New York, Los Angeles, Dallas, Orlando, Fla., and other markets are appearing on their screens as usual.

Sharri Genens of Redondo Beach, Calif., was among the Time Warner customers who were relieved. She said she was extremely upset when she heard she might lose Fox. "I would have dropped cable entirely if they'd done that," said Genens, 39. "I would have just gone to somebody else to pay more, done whatever I needed to do to get my shows" — including football.

Fox had threatened to force Time Warner Cable and Bright House to drop its signal from 14 of its TV stations and a half-dozen of its cable channels if Time Warner didn't increase payments to Fox in a contract that took effect Friday. The deal affects close to half its customers. Time Warner is the nation's second-largest cable provider after Comcast Corp. But the companies are not talking about how the agreement will affect customers' bills. And the mood among cable providers, broadcasters and other content producers has not improved.

A less amicable ending in a separate programming dispute showed the downside of playing hardball. Cablevision Systems Corp. customers in New York, New Jersey and Connecticut reacted angrily in more than 100 posts Friday and Saturday on the media and entertainment news site Deadline.com after about 3.1 million subscribers lost access Friday to HGTV and Food Network Friday. Comments accused Cablevision and Scripps Networks Interactive Inc. — but mostly Cablevision — of greed and arrogance when they failed to reach agreement over a fee increase Scripps demanded.

Many of those who posted said they were switching to competitors or satellite or going online. Some were particularly upset at the prospect of missing a two-hour Iron Chef episode set for 8 p.m. EST Sunday that features Michelle Obama and the White House chef. Neither Cablevision nor Scripps responded immediately Saturday to questions about the status of talks. And representatives of Time Warner and Fox remained mum about the terms of their new deal, declining requests to comment. Fox had demanded to $1 per cable subscriber per month for programming it used to gave away, saying it no longer can afford to offer programming free when cable channels earn subscriber fees.

Until the 1990s, advertising and fees from local affiliates supported all four of the nation's main broadcast networks — ABC, NBC, CBS and Fox. But advertising income has plunged, and by 2008 cable-only producers took in almost 39 percent of TV ad revenue, which broadcasters used to have to themselves. So the networks are increasingly dependent on the license fees they began charging cable providers in 1994.

Fox didn't get all it wanted, but Chase Carey, chief operating officer at News Corp., said Friday the agreement "recognizes the value of our programming." Time Warner continued to carry Food Network and Great American Country as its talks with Scripps went on. And cable company Mediacom Communications Corp. will keep carrying Fox and CBS signals from Sinclair Broadcasting Group Inc. stations in markets such as Des Moines and Cedar Rapids, Iowa, in a temporary deal that extends to next Friday. )End of AP report)

Ultimately, it will not be the greedy media companies, telcos, cable companies or satellite providers who will pay the cost of media greed. It will be you.

GIVE YOUR INPUT & FEEDBACK

YOUR NAME:
YOUR COMMENT OR QUESTIONS:
YOUR e-MAIL ADDRESS (for our reply only-no ads):
WOULD YOU LIKE YOUR COMMENT POSTED ANONYMOUSLY? yes/no):

NEW ONLINE PRIVACY FORUM:
YEAH, BUT WHO IS REALLY RUNING IT?

(November 23, 2008 Metro News Service

Ot is suppose to be a forum on privacy rights, many are skeptical. The (initial) Q&A session, however, quickly turned from the private to the pecuniary, with some pointed questions about the organization's funding. The Forum's initial money has come primarily from AT&T, with which Wolf's firm has longstanding ties. Several online commentators, such as Jeff Chester of the Center for Digital Democracy, have worried that the Forum will act as a handmaiden of business, helping it preempt or dilute privacy legislation. Wolf, after all, was formerly chair of the Hands Off the Internet Coalition, a self-described consumer advocacy group that has often been characterized as an astroturf organization�an industry front dedicated to opposing net neutrality legislation. Polonetsky sought to confront those suspicions head on, denying that the group was an attempt to forestall legislation through promotion of self-regulation.

Another�and, it should be noted, inconsistent�theory advanced by Saul Hansell of The New York Times holds that this is part of an ongoing feud between AT&T and Google that has its roots in the net neutrality debate. In this account, the Forum's rationale is to level the playing field, ensuring that companies like Google don't enjoy a competitive advantage in their ability to target advertising to consumers by using their personal data at the application level, something that ISPs are prevented from exploiting directly.

One of Google's privacy attorneys has been invited to sit on the Forum's advisory board, which may cast doubt on this suggestion. That invitee, however, hasn't yet accepted or rejected the offer, which may signal that the search giant has suspicions of its own on this front.

The best reason to give the group the benefit of the doubt may be its advisory board. The roster boasts a number of well-regarded advocates and academic privacy experts. In addition to CDT's Schwartz, there's MIT's Dan Weitzner, Berkeley's Chris Hoofnagle, Peter Swire of the Center for American Progress, Privacy International's Simon Davies, and "Understanding Privacy" author Daniel Solove.

None of these people are shills, nor are they likely to countenance the use of their names or reputations to give an imprimatur to legislative proposals that would harm privacy interests. By taking them on, the Forum secures a fragile aura of respectability: it's simultaneously empowered and constrained by their presence, because it would be enormously embarassing if a few of them abruptly resigned. Since the group's organizers know this, accepting that set of advisors signals a commitment to act with sufficient intellectual integrity to keep them aboard.

The Forum's premise, at any rate, seems basically sound: most users aren't concerned enough to prevent use of their personal data entirely, but may want to understand and control that use. That means addressing privacy concerns is at least as much a design problem as it is a matter of crafting the right policies or regulations. That means the designers and developers of the sites that use personal data need to be part of the process of determining the rules. The tightrope the Forum will have to walk now is stretched between the poles of influence and independence. Its backers will demand�and to some extent deserve�the former. Its credibility will depend on its ability to demonstrate the latter.


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.

GIVE YOUR INPUT & FEEDBACK

YOUR NAME:
YOUR COMMENT OR QUESTIONS:
YOUR e-MAIL ADDRESS (for our reply only-no ads):
WOULD YOU LIKE YOUR COMMENT POSTED ANONYMOUSLY? yes/no):

WHY NET NEUTRALITY IS URGENT

(March 4, 2008, PC World Magazine) 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. at pcworld.com 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 am 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

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 is 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 are 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 am 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?



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 n�e 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 will cut the Google feed altogether. They can do the same to Ford Motor Co. or anyone on the Net. That is 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.

' GIVE YOUR INPUT & FEEDBACK

YOUR NAME:
YOUR COMMENT OR QUESTIONS:
YOUR e-MAIL ADDRESS (for our reply only-no ads):
WOULD YOU LIKE YOUR COMMENT POSTED ANONYMOUSLY? yes/no):

COMCAST, VERIZON & ATT
WANTS TO DETERMINE WHAT YOU CAN VIEW
ON THE INTERNET

(Russ Caditz-Peck, Free Press, July 17, 2009) “Internet Generation,� it’s time to save our namesake! Prepare to update your Facebook status, Tweet away and text your bff! President Obama has called for the first-ever national broadband plan to bring the Internet to everyone, and our public comments are due at the Federal Communications Commission here by Tuesday, July 21.

Why must each of us absolutely take 60 seconds to comment? Because the national broadband plan is our big chance to save – and spread – the Internet. The Web is the economic, democratic and cultural core of our generation. As young people, we stand to gain or lose the most in this fight.

So why now? This summer we’ll have an opportunity to stand up for Net Neutrality – the guiding principle of the Internet. Net Neutrality protects our ability to use the Web as we do now – visiting any site, using any app and creating any content we can dream up, from YouTube videos to personal blogs. But the nation’s largest telecoms – AT&T, Verizon and Comcast – want to become the Internet’s gatekeepers. Without Net Neutrality, online content can be sped up, slowed down or made unloadable, depending on which companies or sites can pay to play – and not on which we like the best. We’ll wind up with e-toll roads; a Web where companies like Google can afford the fast lane, but people like you and me, and the less loaded sites we care about, will be stuck in the slow lane.

Sound like the paranoid ramblings of your crazy uncle last Thanksgiving? It’s not. CEOs from these very companies have openly stated their intentions and tested them out. They’ve been trying to undermine Net Neutrality for years, and have only increased their efforts as activists and a handful of lawmakers have pushed to make Net Neutrality an enforceable law, rather than just a guiding principle.

Now that the telecoms sense that our momentum is building, they are spending millions of dollars on lobbyists and lawyers to destroy Net Neutrality. And you can bet they are flooding the FCC with comments about why a “closed� Internet, in which they have the power to discriminate against content for massive profits, is just fine for our country. We have the most at risk in this fight. Without Net Neutrality, it is unimaginable that entrepreneurs such as Google, eBay, YouTube etc. would ever have emerged. And where do we fit in? Maybe you have the next great idea for the Web. Nothing should stop you from contributing to our economy, democracy and culture, especially not the greed of a few telecom companies. Second, now is the time to ensure affordable, high-speed Internet access for all Americans. Despite being the birthplace of the Internet, the United States has fallen to 14th place in Internet speed, 15th place in penetration and 22nd place in price worldwide. Approximately 40 percent of all U.S. homes do not have access to Internet, or are on low-speed “dial-up.�

The “digital divide� between those with high-speed Internet and the tools to use it and those without disproportionately affects racial minorities, the working class and the geographically isolated. The Internet should help us overcome, not exacerbate, existing inequalities. No home, business or civic institution should be left out. All Americans, not just the wealthy and well-situated, should have access to broadband. Improving our nation’s high-speed Internet – or broadband – should be a central aspect of our economic recovery. In the past, public investment in electricity, water access, railroads, highways etc., was necessary to get the job done. If we want to ensure that all Americans are connected to the Internet, our government must step in now. As young people, we have witnessed the Internet emerge as the heart of our economy, democracy and culture. The Web offers new and vast opportunities for entrepreneurship, free speech, democratic participation and artistic expression. From the grassroots e-support for Barack Obama, to the vibrant politics and art of the blogosphere, to the smaller victories of the “Lolcats� and the “Star Wars kid,� the Internet has added tremendous value to our society.

President Obama is on the right path. He’s set aside $7.2 billion in the economic stimulus package to connect unserved and underserved areas to broadband, and has voiced his support for Net Neutrality. However, he faces incredible pressure from powerful telecom lobbies to protect their fat profits.

A diverse coalition has emerged in support of Net Neutrality and the transformative power of the Internet – including the Christian Coalition, National Rifle Association, ACLU and MoveOn.org. But this isn’t just a movement of organizations; it requires our individual voices. As young people, we cannot afford to sit back and trust others to fight for us. Now is the time to tell President Obama and his FCC that our future requires the protection of and investment in an open, affordable Internet.

Watch out for the cyber bullying bills (HR1966 and HR6123). The make it a felony to hurt someone's feelings on the internet even if it wasn't intentional. It doesn't matter if it's a religious comment or an insult if you hurt someones feelings your a felon in the eyes of this bill. It basically kills free speech.

There are also the Cyber security bills (S773 and S778) and if you actually read them they have nothing to do with virus protection. However they do give the president or a new internet secretary (cyber czar) the dictatorial power to shut down the internet anytime they want.

' GIVE YOUR INPUT & FEEDBACK

YOUR NAME:
YOUR COMMENT OR QUESTIONS:
YOUR e-MAIL ADDRESS (for our reply only-no ads):
WOULD YOU LIKE YOUR COMMENT POSTED ANONYMOUSLY? yes/no):

WEB HOSTING COMPANIES ARE SO CUTE

(March 18, 2009, Web World) No, some web hosting companies haven't raised thei rates, just making website operators sign longer term contracts to get the rate that was paid last year. Hey, isn't that a Verizon trick?

Funny how the web hosting providers who give the least bang for the buck (bandwidth( are the ones who are pulling the prank. Okay, times are tough. For everybody/ And webmasters using the lower end services are usually independent, proprietors, or individuals. Web hosting companies are corporations, be it Yahoo, UOL, Lycos, even Google is getting into the act. The chintziness is making the venerable GoDaddy look good, if even only for his buxomy GoDaddy Girls and Car Racers.

What all this has to do with free speech and communication is this: a small website operator cannot get her or his message out spending more money for less (bandwidth) share of the hosting server. An outfit called 1&1 calls small webbies to it's fold with twice the bandwidth at half the cost than the competition. Problem is, who wants to change Domain Servers and start all over again.

Ah, 1980. The Commodore 64, Apple 2e, Qlink, Compuserve. Call it BBS, but they were websites that were included in the price of ISP. Yes, it was dial-up, using floppy drives, but there were gif graphics, animations and the message. Free communication is what the internet was suppose to be about, before conglomorates entered the picture.

GIVE YOUR INPUT & FEEDBACK

YOUR NAME:
YOUR COMMENT OR QUESTIONS:
YOUR e-MAIL ADDRESS (for our reply only-no ads):
WOULD YOU LIKE YOUR COMMENT POSTED ANONYMOUSLY? yes/no):

GOOGLE: WE'RE ON IT!

(January 28, 2009, Reuters) - Google Inc (GOOG.O) on Wednesday unveiled a plan aimed at eventually letting computer users determine whether providers like Comcast Corp (CMCSA.O) are inappropriately blocking or slowing their work online. The scheme is the latest bid in the debate over network neutrality, which pits content companies like Google against some Internet service providers. The ISPs say they need to take reasonable steps to manage ever-growing traffic on their networks for the good of all users. Content and applications companies fear the providers have the power to discriminate, favoring some traffic over others.

Google will provide academic researchers with 36 servers in 12 locations in the United States and Europe to analyze data, said its chief Internet guru, Vint Cerf, known as the "father of the Internet." "When an Internet application doesn't work as expected or your connection seems flaky, how can you tell whether there is a problem caused by your broadband ISP (Internet service provider), the application, your PC (personal computer), or something else?" Cerf wrote in a blog post. The effort aims to uncover the problem for users, Cerf said. Cerf is widely known for his work for the U.S. government in designing the Internet protocol in the 1970s and 1980s. In a precedent-setting decision last year, the five-member Federal Communications Commission voted to uphold a complaint accusing Comcast of violating the FCC's open-Internet principles by blocking file-sharing services, such as those that distribute video and television shows. The case became a flash point in the Net neutrality debate. Comcast is fighting the decision in the courts.

In a move likely to fuel further debate, another large cable company, Cox Communications [COXC.UL], said on Wednesday it would begin testing a plan to give priority to time-sensitive traffic like Web page views and streaming videos. Less time-sensitive traffic, such as file uploads and peer-to-peer file sharing, could be delayed under the plan. Cox said it will not discriminate based on owner or source of traffic. Still, Net neutrality advocates are wary of such policies.

"The lesson we learned from the Comcast case is that we must be skeptical of any practice that comes between users and the Internet," said Ben Scott, policy director of Free Press, an advocacy group. Researchers are already using tools to test connection speed and determine if an ISP is blocking or throttling particular applications. Google's effort will allow an expansion of that effort. "The goal is to let consumers see what's under the hood of their Internet connection," said Sascha Meinrath, a wireless expert at the New America Foundation, a think tank in which Google CEO Eric Schmidt is board chairman. "Right now it's very difficult now to make an informed consumer choice." Google has a business interest in keeping users' experiences fast and efficient, said Google policy analyst Derek Slater, who reserved further judgment until he could learn more about the new Cox policy. "Our ability to innovate still depends on end users being able to use their broadband connections to access Google. To the extent that consumers are having problems doing that, that can directly hurt Google." (Reporting by Kim Dixon; editing by Richard Chang) (kim.dixon@thomsonreuters.com; +1 202 354-5864) WASHINGTON, Jan 28 (Reuters) - Google Inc (GOOG.O) on Wednesday unveiled a plan aimed at eventually letting computer users determine whether providers like Comcast Corp (CMCSA.O) are inappropriately blocking or slowing their work online. The scheme is the latest bid in the debate over network neutrality, which pits content companies like Google against some Internet service providers. The ISPs say they need to take reasonable steps to manage ever-growing traffic on their networks for the good of all users. Content and applications companies fear the providers have the power to discriminate, favoring some traffic over others. Google will provide academic researchers with 36 servers in 12 locations in the United States and Europe to analyze data, said its chief Internet guru, Vint Cerf, known as the "father of the Internet."

"When an Internet application doesn't work as expected or your connection seems flaky, how can you tell whether there is a problem caused by your broadband ISP (Internet service provider), the application, your PC (personal computer), or something else?" Cerf wrote in a blog post. The effort aims to uncover the problem for users, Cerf said. Cerf is widely known for his work for the U.S. government in designing the Internet protocol in the 1970s and 1980s. In a precedent-setting decision last year, the five-member Federal Communications Commission voted to uphold a complaint accusing Comcast of violating the FCC's open-Internet principles by blocking file-sharing services, such as those that distribute video and television shows. The case became a flash point in the Net neutrality debate. Comcast is fighting the decision in the courts.

Cox's congestion management plan, posted on its Web site this week, will initially be tested in Kansas and Arkansas starting in February. The policy states that when network traffic gets too high, "less time-sensitive Internet traffic" will be "delayed momentarily." So what, you might wonder, constitutes "less time-sensitive Internet traffic"? Cox says the following activities fall within the low-priority category:
� File Access (Bulk transfers of data such as FTP)
� Network Storage (Bulk transfers of data for storage)
� P2P (Peer to peer protocols)
� Software Updates (Managed updates such as operating system updates)
That means if you're engaged in any of those seemingly second-class activities and the network gets bogged down, you'll suddenly see your connection slow -- even though you're paying the same price as everyone else for access. The low-priority list may also change or expand in the future, Cox's announcement notes.

The Comcast Connection: It was just last summer that the FCC ruled Comcast's system of slowing peer-to-peer traffic on its network was "invasive" and out of line. In the ruling, FCC Chairman Kevin Martin stated the following:
"Would you be okay with the post office opening your mail, deciding they didn't want to bother delivering it, and hiding that fact by sending it back to you stamped, 'address unknown -- return to sender?' Or, if they opened letters mailed to you, decided that because the mail truck is full sometimes, letters to you could wait, and then hid both that they read your letters and delayed them? Unfortunately, that is exactly what Comcast was doing with their subscribers' Internet traffic."

The key issue was that Comcast's system was "discriminatory" in determining which traffic it slowed. Cox, incidentally, was found to be engaging in a similar throttling practice around the same time. Is the company's new proposal truly any different?

Advocates called to action here. I'm not the only one feeling a little wary about the return of the self-appointed download deity. Media reform group Free Press, which helped head up the initial efforts against Comcast's system, has expressed "concern" over Cox's new techniques. "The lesson we learned from the Comcast case is that we must be skeptical of any practice that comes between users and the Internet," says Ben Scott, policy director of Free Press. "As a general rule, we're concerned about any cable or phone company picking winners and losers online. These kinds of practices cut against the fundamental neutrality of the open Internet," he says. It's really quite simple: In a time when information is everything, it's not an Internet provider's place to determine what content is worthy of bandwidth and what content isn't. Ranking activities and adjusting their speed is no different. Ultimately, that's called playing God -- and sorry to tell ya, Cox, but your power shouldn't be supreme.
>
.

GIVE YOUR INPUT & FEEDBACK

YOUR NAME:
YOUR COMMENT OR QUESTIONS:
YOUR e-MAIL ADDRESS (for our reply only-no ads):
WOULD YOU LIKE YOUR COMMENT POSTED ANONYMOUSLY? yes/no):

THE GREEDY TELCOMS READY TO
PINCH YOUR INTERNET BANDWIDTH

Hypocrites at Comcast censor-edit Pearl Jam concert cablecast

(May 9, 2008, Seattle Times) Free markets are fantastic systems for growing an economically healthy society. A free market creates a competitive atmosphere that benefits consumers and provides a forum for the best and brightest entrepreneur to shine. The free market is great for commodities.

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.

GIVE YOUR INPUT & FEEDBACK

YOUR NAME:
YOUR COMMENT OR QUESTIONS:
YOUR e-MAIL ADDRESS (for our reply only-no ads):
WOULD YOU LIKE YOUR COMMENT POSTED ANONYMOUSLY? yes/no):

IS BARACK OBAMA ON THE SIDE OF
NET NEUTRALITY FAIRNESS?

(January 26. 2009 Free Press, editorial) While President Barack Obama has not, to the date of this posting, made a definitive comment on keeping the internet on a level playing field, it would seem he is in favor of keeping telecom conglomorates from greedy maneuvers. Bush, who, despite causing a world economic crisis with his multi trillion dollar war and schmoozing and partnering with big corporations, especially his Haliburton, says he has "no regrets except for gray hairs" Bush wouldn't, because smirking greed and arrogance go hand in hand with a self serving, Napoleonic ego. If he were not so zealous about raising havoc in Iraq and alienating the world, the telcoms would have swaemed Bush's political cronies with their big buck payoffs. Then, for example, privately owned, independent small business websites would load slowly on FIOS as if the user had dial-up connection, while vice versa for Macy's.

Barack Obama has three things George W. Bush never had: True compassion, character and personality. Obama is a man who articulates for all people. He has voiced an opinion against lobbying ( which amounts to paying off politicians so they do the benefactor's bidding). Obama's opposition to lobbying is a big blow to the major telecoms.

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.

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...

GIVE YOUR INPUT & FEEDBACK

YOUR NAME:
YOUR COMMENT OR QUESTIONS:
YOUR e-MAIL ADDRESS (for our reply only-no ads):
WOULD YOU LIKE YOUR COMMENT POSTED ANONYMOUSLY? yes/no):

TELCOMS: PSHAW, NET NEUTRALITY

(March 12, 2008, Webpro) 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>

GIVE YOUR INPUT & FEEDBACK

YOUR NAME:
YOUR COMMENT OR QUESTIONS:
YOUR e-MAIL ADDRESS (for our reply only-no ads):
WOULD YOU LIKE YOUR COMMENT POSTED ANONYMOUSLY? yes/no):

COMCAST BRIBES FOR SAYING NO TO NET NEUTRALITY

(February 28. 2008, The Internet Register) 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.� Karr later recorded an interview with one of the yellow-tag-wearing automatons, and the automation said he was �just getting paid to hold someone�s seat.�

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.

GIVE YOUR INPUT & FEEDBACK

YOUR NAME:
YOUR COMMENT OR QUESTIONS:
YOUR e-MAIL ADDRESS (for our reply only-no ads):
WOULD YOU LIKE YOUR COMMENT POSTED ANONYMOUSLY? yes/no):

The Carlson International Web Group Cares






TO RETURN TO XOTERIA-TV CHANNEL DIRECTORY, CLICK HERE


Internet Newsline is a presentation of

Opinions expressed here are those of the authors.
Website Copyright 2002-2010 Carlson International ECG USA