
Here's another rendering of what we'll get if we don't have net neutrality. And here's a writeup. Oh, and here's here's what you will look like.
-jsq
Here's another rendering of what we'll get if we don't have net neutrality. And here's a writeup. Oh, and here's here's what you will look like.
-jsq
Posted at 10:38 AM in Internet freedom, Marketing, Net Neutrality | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Tags: Amazon Channel, Internet freedom, net neutrality, packaging
During the Telus strike in 2005, the corporation blocked access to a website run by striking Telus employees called “Voices for Change” (and at least 766 other websites). Those familiar with network-control issues in Canada also accuse Rogers and Bell of limiting peer-to-peer (P2P) applications, which people use to share audio, video and other digital data with one another. So, here we have ISPs blocking or at least limiting the use of what is likely the most innovative, creative and participatory use of the Internet. In response to customer concerns, Bell recently admitted that they “are now using Internet Traffic Management to restrict accounts that are using a large portion of bandwidth during peak hours. Some of the applications that are included are the following: BitTorrent, Gnutella, LimeWire, Kazaa….”The rest sounds very familiar:— The Fight for the Open Internet, Steve Anderson, Canadian Dimension magazine, January/February 2008 issue
Posted at 06:38 AM in Competition, Consolidation, Corruption, Distributed Participation, Duopoly, Internet freedom, Net Neutrality, Regulation, Society, Stifling, Telephone | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Tags: Bell, BitTorrent, Canada, Canadian Dimension, CRTC, Gnutella, Internet freedom, Kazaa, LimeWire, net neutrality, Rogers, Steve Anderson, Telus
![]() by Diana Walker |
Chances are that as you read this article, it is passing over part of AT&T's network. That matters, because last week AT&T announced that it is seriously considering plans to examine all the traffic it carries for potential violations of U.S. intellectual property laws. The prospect of AT&T, already accused of spying on our telephone calls, now scanning every e-mail and download for outlawed content is way too totalitarian for my tastes. But the bizarre twist is that the proposal is such a bad idea that it would be not just a disservice to the public but probably a disaster for AT&T itself. If I were a shareholder, I'd want to know one thing: Has AT&T, after 122 years in business, simply lost its mind?Come now; what did you think they were up to?No one knows exactly what AT&T is proposing to build. But if the company means what it says, we're looking at the beginnings of a private police state. That may sound like hyperbole, but what else do you call a system designed to monitor millions of people's Internet consumption? That's not just Orwellian; that's Orwell.
— Has AT&T Lost Its Mind?A baffling proposal to filter the Internet. By Tim Wu, Slate, Posted Wednesday, Jan. 16, 2008, at 10:15 AM ET
Continue reading "AT&T Filtering: Has Tim Wu Not Been Paying Attention?" »
Posted at 07:32 AM in Censorship, Competition, Consolidation, Content, Copyright, Corruption, Duopoly, History, Internet Access, Internet freedom, Law, Net Neutrality, Politics | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Tags: AT&T, capitalism, competition, consolidation, corruption, filtering, free press, information access, media consolidation, monopoly, net neutrality, Orwell, RIAA, Tim Wu, Time Warner
The petitions assume that the FCC's policy of network neutrality principles have the legal and binding effect of formal FCC rules or law and that they trump all existing law and rules. This is preposterous.Indeed, it is preposterous to think that the FCC ever meant to enforce its net neutrality "Policy Statement" of August 2005. Even if it did, the very way the four "principles" in that statement are worded, every one in terms of consumers, excludes the very existence of participatory services such as BitTorrent.— The Common Sense Case Why Network Management Trumps Net Neutrality, Scott Cleland, Precursor Blog, 15 Jan 2008
Cleland's blog goes to great lengths to spell out what he considers common sense (which means he knows he doesn't actually have a legal argument). Don't be surprised if his items get parrotted by other anti-Internet-freedom blogs. And don't be surprised if the FCC rules in favor of Comcast, even though any competent network engineer can tell you that there are ways to do network management that don't involve faking reset packets, a technique that would be considered malicious denial of service if it came from any entity other than an ISP, not to mention Comcast's BitTorrent stifling seems closer to the fraudulent promise of unlimited service that got Verizon fined by New York State.
[Clarified:] It's not about network management. It's about a few corporations and their political allies trying to stifle net neutrality and Internet freedom against the best interests of everyone else, including their own customers.
-jsq
Posted at 12:57 PM in Applications, Competition, Content, Corruption, Devices, Distributed Participation, Duopoly, Internet freedom, Net Neutrality, Stifling | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Tags: applications, competition, consumers, content, control, devices, duopoly, FCC, Internet freedom, net neutrality, principles
Raph Koster makes the point that virtual worlds are becoming more and more intertwined with (and perhaps indistinguishable from) the web. Anything with an avatar, a way to have both real-time and not-real-time communication, and some spatial metaphors is both a virtual world and… Facebook.I think this is right, and it's just an extension of how Mosaic, the original web browser came to be: Marc Andreesen decided to mix computer game interfaces with Internet access.So here’s a downloadable manuscript called The Web: Hidden Games. It’s not the deepest piece of writing, but it’s an implementation of the Raph idea. The author cheerfully suggests that Facebook, YouTube, and Digg are addictive because they’re really games. They’ve got set rules, they’re fun, and you can try to beat the other guy.
— Are you winning at Digg? Susan Crawford, Susan Crawford Blog, 10 Jan 2008
I don't think Raph or Susan goes far enough.
Posted at 10:03 AM in Distributed Participation, Games, Internet Access, Internet freedom, Net Neutrality | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Tags: avatar, cyberspace, digg, facebook, Marc Andreesen, Mosaic, Raph Koster, reddit, Susan Crawford, virtual worlds, web, William Gibson, youtube
LAS VEGAS (AP) — The Federal Communications Commission will investigate complaints that Comcast Corp. actively interferes with Internet traffic as its subscribers try to share files online, FCC Chairman Kevin Martin said Tuesday.In other news, Las Vegas Board of Realtors announces investigation of gambling! Sorry; I made that up.A coalition of consumer groups and legal scholars asked the agency in November to stop Comcast from discriminating against certain types of data. Two groups also asked the FCC to fine the nation's No. 2 Internet provider $195,000 for every affected subscriber.
"Sure, we're going to investigate and make sure that no consumer is going to be blocked," Martin told an audience at the International Consumer Electronics Show.
—FCC to Probe Comcast Data Discrimination, By PETER SVENSSON, AP, 8 Jan 2008
Note that Martin is not only chair of the FCC that continues to enable telecom and media consolidation, he also continues to refer to ISP customers and participants as "consumers", as in the old broadcast model where the broadcasters produce and you the customer are expected to consume whatever they give you.
The organization doing the most investigating of stifling, blocking, etc. by Comcast, Cox, et al., has been the Associated Press, which also originated this story. Interestingly, the AP is not owned by any of the usual five companies that own most of the media in the U.S. The AP is a non-profit cooperative owned by its contributing newspapers. So one of the few national news organizations in the U.S. that has not been consolidated is the one that has been investigating stifling by ISPs.
-jsq
PS:
"I'm shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here!"—Captain Renault, Casablanca, 1942
Posted at 11:18 AM in Consolidation, Corruption, Distributed Participation, Internet freedom, Net Neutrality, Regulation, Stifling | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Tags: AP, Associated Press, Captain Renault, Casablanca, Comcast, consumers, Cox, FCC, gambling, Internet freedom, Kevin Martin, Las Vegas, net neutrality, participants, stifling
Net neutrality concerns mount but politicians do not respond.No smokescreen about we can't regulate the net. straightforward as to who is causing the problem: ISPs busily implementing throttling while complacent politicians look the other way.Net neutrality, which has been simmering as an issue in Canada over the past three years, will reach a boiling point this year as leading ISPs implement traffic throttling technologies that undermine the reliability of some Internet applications and experiment with differing treatment for some content and applications. Despite consumer concerns, politicians and regulators will do their best to avoid the issue.
— Tech law issues to watch in 2008, Michael Geist, thestar.com, Jan 07, 2008 04:30 AM
-jsq
Posted at 11:29 AM in Corruption, Government, International acces, Internet freedom, Net Neutrality, Throttling | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Throughout 2005 and 2006, a large underground debate raged regarding the future of the Internet. More recently referred to as “network neutrality,” the issue has become a tug of war with cable companies on the one hand and consumers and Internet service providers on the other. Yet despite important legislative proposals and Supreme Court decisions throughout 2005, the issue was almost completely ignored in the headlines until 2006.1 And, except for occasional coverage on CNBC’s Kudlow & Kramer, mainstream television remains hands-off to this day (June 2006).2This is the first I've heard that "Internet service providers" other than cable companies are on the side of consumers. Doubtless AT&T will be gratified to hear that version. Oh, wait: later the same writeup refers to "cable supporters like the AT&T-sponsored Hands Off the Internet website." Also, what's this about free access?Most coverage of the issue framed it as an argument over regulation—but the term “regulation” in this case is somewhat misleading. Groups advocating for “net neutrality” are not promoting regulation of internet content. What they want is a legal mandate forcing cable companies to allow internet service providers (ISPs) free access to their cable lines (called a “common carriage” agreement). This was the model used for dial-up internet, and it is the way content providers want to keep it. They also want to make sure that cable companies cannot screen or interrupt internet content without a court order.
— #1 Future of Internet Debate Ignored by Media, Top 25 Censored news stories of 2007 Project Censored, The News That Didn't Make The News Sonoma State University, 2007
Posted at 09:19 AM in Censorship, Consolidation, Duopoly, Internet freedom, Net Neutrality, Press, Television | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Tags: AT&T, cable Internet, cable TV, censorship, mainstream TV, net neutrality, Peter Phillips, project censored, Sonoma State University
"See-bare-espace... it is everting."Long version:—Odile Richards, Spook Country by William Gibson, 2007
Top Ten Predictions for 2008He picks up on some of many signs of users' discontent, such as Facebook's Beacon fiasco:1. The Users Revolt. As advertisers focus in on social networking sites, users revolt against this trend, and power shifts in the worlds of Social Networking from owner to user, on issues ranging from Second Life rules and Facebook privacy to Cellphone Billing. Users will gain new leverage.
— My Top Ten Predictions for 2008, Mark Anderson, Strategic News Service Blog, 22 December 2007
Posted at 01:33 PM in Communication, Competition, Content, Distributed Participation, Economics, Innovation, Internet History, Net Neutrality, Opportunity | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Tags: beacon, content, cyberspace, everting, facebook, google, inside out, inverting, Mark Anderson, net neutrality, Odile Richards, offline, online, phone, Spook Country, users revolt, virtual, web, William Gibson
What will really stifle innovation on the Internet is this:
The Federal Communications Commission, at the urging of Chair Kevin Martin, voted 3-2 on Tuesday to relax longstanding rules that block corporations from owning a broadcast TV station and a newspaper in the same city.No, not specifically newspaper and television consolidation. Further consolidation of media and information distribution in the hands of a tiny number of companies. This December the FCC lets newspapers and TV stations consolidate. Last December it let SBC buy Bellsouth. Internet access is already in the hands of a tiny number of companies (typically at most two in any given area) that are increasingly moving to control the information they carry on behalf of a small number of companies including themselves and movie and music content producers.— Uproar Over FCC Vote on Media-Ownership Rules, By Frederick Lane, Top Tech News, December 19, 2007 10:14AM
The exaflood politics isn't really about how much infrastructure the duopoly has to build out. It's about maintaining the duopoly and extending its control of information, to the duopoly's short-term profit and the long-term detriment of of us all, including the duopoly.
-jsq
Posted at 07:23 AM in Communication, Competition, Consolidation, Duopoly, Innovation, Internet Access, Internet freedom, Net Neutrality, Press, Regulation | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Tags: Bellsouth, consolidation, exaflood, FCC, innovation, Kevin Martin, newspaper, SBC, TV
"What we have to do is make certain the net does not go the way of broadcast television and commercial radio where only a few corporate voices are heard."Among other candidates, Barack Obama already answered the question. Hm, looks like Huckabee has, too; more on that in another post.John Edwards: Net Neutrality, answering www.10questions.com, YouTube, Dec 2007
-jsq
Posted at 11:39 AM in Communication, Consolidation, Distributed Participation, Internet freedom, Net Neutrality, Politics | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Tags: 10questions.com, corporate voices, Internet freedom, John Edwards, net neutrality, radio, television
Within and subject to the constraints of the law and our Terms of Service, we guarantee:That third point is a bit difficult to implement, given that Copowi provides its DSL as a reseller for AT&T, Quest, and Verizon, but at least their heart's in the right place: they're for equal access, innovation, participation, and lower cost.
- We will not block, degrade or modify data users send or receive over the Internet.
- We will not discriminate between network traffic on the basis of who it came from or where it is going to for some commercial advantage.
- Where possible we will only deal with wholesale service providers who support keeping the Internet open and fair, in the same way.
—www.copowi.com, accessed 11 Dec 2007
Now if they can also deliver reliable and inexpensive service with good marketing....
-jsq
Posted at 10:05 AM in Competition, Internet Access, Internet freedom, Net Neutrality | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Tags: community powered Internet, copowi, net neutrality
Earlier this month, Comcast — the nation’s largest cable broadband company — was caught doing what any good Internet Service Provider (ISP) should do, i.e., manage its network to ensure that the online activities of the few don’t interfere with the online activities of the many,The problem with Comcast stifling BitTorrent by faking reset packets from a participant is not that Comcast is trying to manage its network: it's that Comcast used a technique that if it came from anyone other than an ISP would be considered malicious denial of service, that Comcast still hasn't admitted doing it, and that Comcast bypassed numerous other methods of legitimate network management, such as those used by PlusNet. Comcast could even use the Australian model and sell access plans that state usage limits and throttle or charge or both for usage above those limits. What Comcast is doing it seems to me is much closer to the false advertising of unlimited access that got Verizon slapped down for wrongful account termination.Fair vs. Foul in Net Neutrality Debate, By Pete Abel, The Moderate Voice, 24 November 2007
The biggest problem with what Comcast (and Cox, and AT&T, and Verizon) are doing is that their typical customer has at most one or two choices, which in practice means that if your local cable company and your local telephone company choose to stifle, throttle, block, or terminate, you have no recourse, because there's nowhere to go. Competition would fix that.
Abel tries to back up his peculiar interpretation of network management with revisionist history:
Posted at 12:25 PM in Communication, Competition, Consolidation, Distributed Participation, Internet freedom, Internet History, Management, Net Neutrality, Packet Shaping, Public Policy, Regulation, Stifling, Throttling | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Tags: AT&T, blocking, Comcast, Cox, Ed Whitacre, FCC, free association, free speech, free trade, Internet freedom, media consolidation, net neutrality, network management, Randall Stephenson, self-government, stifling, termination, throttling, Verizon
The same person to bust Comcast's blocking of BitTorrent traffic was called upon to test Cox's system, and sure enough, he concluded with "conclusive proof" that eDonkey was getting the same treatment.First Comcast, Now Cox Busted 'Managing' Traffic by Jason Lee Miller, Webpronews.com, Mon, 11/19/2007 - 10:51.
We asked regular user Robb Topolski, who was the first to discover Comcast's traffic shaping practices, to take a look at Cox connectivity a little more closely.The main difference between Comcast and Cox is that Cox says it's doing it, for the good of the user, of course. Still, which users exactly asked for their ISP to fake TCP packets? And how long before Cox trips up some business users, Like Comcast stifling Lotus Notes?According to Topolski, Cox is in fact using traffic shaping to degrade p2p traffic. In analyzing a user log, he has concluded that Cox is using traffic shaping hardware to send forged TCP/IP packets with the RST (reset) flag set -- with the goal of disrupting eDonkey traffic. He's been unable to tell precisely what hardware Cox is using, but he notes that the technique being used is very similar to Comcast's treatment of BitTorrent.
— Cox Also Disrupting P2P Traffic, Using the same forged packet method as Comcast, by Karl, BroadbandReports.com, 03:35PM Thursday Nov 15 2007
-jsq
Posted at 08:33 AM in Cable, Censorship, Internet freedom, Net Neutrality, Packet Shaping, Stifling | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Tags: censorship, Comcast, Cox, eDonkey, RST, stifling
If I pay to connect to the Net with a certain quality of service, and you pay to connect with that or greater quality of service, then we can communicate at that level.Implementing it is difficult, whether technically (stifling, throttling, blocking, proxying, etc.), legally (spam, phishing, other abuse, fraud, theft, etc.). And politically perhaps even harder. Witness the network neutrality legislation proposed by Senators Dorgan and Snowe:— When I invented the Web, I didn't have to ask anyone's permission. Tim Berners-Lee
`SEC. 12. INTERNET NEUTRALITY .OK, that's basically TBL's definition. But what about devices (think Carterfone)?`(a) Duty of Broadband Service Providers- With respect to any broadband service offered to the public, each broadband service provider shall--
`(1) not block, interfere with, discriminate against, impair, or degrade the ability of any person to use a broadband service to access, use, send, post, receive, or offer any lawful content, application, or service made available via the Internet;'
— Internet Freedom Preservation Act (Introduced in Senate), S 215 IS, 110th CONGRESS, 1st Session, S. 215, To amend the Communications Act of 1934 to ensure net neutrality . Mr. DORGAN (for himself, Ms. SNOWE, Mr. KERRY, Mrs. BOXER, Mr. HARKIN, Mr. LEAHY, Mrs. CLINTON, Mr. OBAMA, and Mr. WYDEN) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, January 9, 2007
Continue reading "Legislation Proposed for Net Neutrality" »
Posted at 06:51 AM in Government, Internet freedom, Law, Net Neutrality, Politics | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0)
Tags: Carterfone, Clinton, Dorgan, Internet freedom, legislation, net neutrality, Obama, regulation, Snowe, Tim Berners-Lee
... as a normative guide to policy, network neutrality transcends domestic politics. The network neutrality debate addresses the right of Internet users to access content, services and applications on the Internet without interference from network operators or overbearing governments. It also encompasses the right of network operators to be reasonably free of liability for transmitting content and applications deemed illegal or undesirable by third parties. Those aspects of net neutrality are relevant in a growing number of countries and situations, as both public and private actors attempt to subject the Internet to more control. Because Internet connectivity does not conform to national borders, net neutrality is really a globally applicable principle that can guide Internet governance.Basically, instead of getting mired in discussions of bandwidth or technical methods of stifling, throttling, or censorship, let's get back to deriving net neutrality from general political and economic principles, which turns out to make net neutrality a convenient lens by which to view those principles and to apply them to the Internet.— Net Neutrality as Global Principle for Internet Governance, Milton Mueller, Internet Governance Forum, 5 November, 2007
Continue reading "Normative net neutrality: Milton Mueller on free association and free trade" »
Posted at 08:20 AM in Distributed Participation, Economics, Government, Innovation, International acces, Internet freedom, Net Neutrality, Public Policy | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Tags: economic innovation, free speech, free trade, freedom of expression, Internet Governance Forum, Milton Mueller, net neutrality, public policy, resource sharing, universal access
Mark Klein going to Washington to blow the whistle some more on AT&T on giving NSA unfettered access to AT&T's network:
"If they've done something massively illegal and unconstitutional -- well, they should suffer the consequences," Klein said. "It's not my place to feel bad for them. They made their bed, they have to lie in it. The ones who did [anything wrong], you can be sure, are high up in the company. Not the average Joes, who I enjoyed working with."While the Washington Post, for example, does get at one main point:— A Story of Surveillance, Former Technician 'Turning In' AT&T Over NSA Program, By Ellen Nakashima, Washington Post Staff Writer, Wednesday, November 7, 2007; Page D01
Contrary to the government's depiction of its surveillance program as aimed at overseas terrorists, Klein said, much of the data sent through AT&T to the NSA was purely domestic. Klein said he believes that the NSA was analyzing the records for usage patterns as well as for content.It neglects to mention an even bigger point:
Continue reading "Wiretapping before 9/11: AT&T, NSA, Verizon, Level 3" »
Posted at 09:33 AM in Competition, Corruption, Espionage, Government, Internet freedom, Law, National Security, Net Neutrality, Telephone, Wiretapping | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)
Joining PFIR Co-Founders Peter G. Neumann and I in this announcement are Keith Dawson (Slashdot.org), David J. Farber (Carnegie Mellon University), Bob Frankston, Phil Karn (Qualcomm), David P. Reed, Paul Saffo, and Bruce Schneier (BT Counterpane).It's got open membership, a mailing list, and discussion forums. What it doesn't have is links to and interaction with other groups already working in this area, such as SavetheInternet.com. There are no posts in any of the NNSquad forums yet, although it's only been a day since he announced, so perhaps that's not fair. However, there has been some discussion in Dave Farber's Interesting People list, which is where I saw it.Recent events such as Comcast's lack of candor regarding their secretive disruption of BitTorrent protocols, and Verizon's altering of domain name lookup results to favor their own advertising pages, are but tip-of-the-iceberg examples of how easily Internet operations can be altered in ways that may not be immediately obvious, but that still can have dramatic, distorting, and in some cases far-reaching negative consequences for the Internet's users.
The Network Neutrality Squad ("NNSquad") is an open-membership, open-source effort, enlisting the Internet's users to help keep the Internet's operations fair and unhindered from unreasonable restrictions.
The project's focus includes detection, analysis, and incident reporting of any anticompetitive, discriminatory, or other restrictive actions on the part of Internet service Providers (ISPs) or affiliated entities, such as the blocking or disruptive manipulation of applications, protocols, transmissions, or bandwidth; or other similar behaviors not specifically requested by their customers.
— "Network Neutrality Squad": Users Protecting an Open and Fair, Lauren Weinstein, Interesting People List, November 5, 2007 7:49:09 PM EST
I've signed up for the NNSquad mailing list. Let's see what happens.
Back in 2004, Lauren organized a conference to prevent imminent Internet collapse. I guess it succeeded, since the Internet is still here.
One thing NNSquad needs, however, that every other open source project has: a catchy logo. Leave something like that to the users, and you'll get something like the graphic on this post.
-jsq
Posted at 09:19 AM in Distributed Participation, Net Neutrality | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Tags: Bob Frankston, Bruce Schneier, BT Counterpane, Carnegie Mellon University, David J. Farber, David P. Reed, Keith Dawson, Lauren Weinstein, net neutrality, Network Neutrality Squad, NNSquad, Paul Saffo, Peter G. Neumann, Phil Karn, Qualcomm, Slashdot.org
Now Barack Obama answers a question from a former AT&T engineer, Joe Niederberger, that made it to the top of a video contest:
Would you make it a priority in your first year of office to re-instate Net Neutrality as the law of the land? And would you pledge to only appoint FCC commissioners that support open Internet principles like Net Neutrality?"Part of Obama's answer:— Net Neutrality becomes issue in presidential race, Extra Technology News, 29 October 2007
Facebook, MySpace and Google might not have been started if you did not have a level playing field for whoever has the best idea. And I want to maintain that basic principle in how the Internet functions. As president I’m going to make sure that [net neutrality] is the principle that my FCC commissioners are applying as we move forward.Here's the question and answer on video.
-jsq
Posted at 09:09 AM in Competition, Distributed Participation, Internet freedom, Net Neutrality, Politics, Regulation, Video | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Tags: Barack Obama, Facebook, FCC, Google, Joe Niederberger, John Edwards, MoveOn.org, MTV, Myspace, net neutrality
The United States is starting to look like a slowpoke on the Internet. Examples abound of countries that have faster and cheaper broadband connections, and more of their population connected to them.On the one hand, this sounds like a popular approach to global warming by its deniers: now let's ask some scientists to study it. After all, the Okefenokee and surrounds burned more acres than in living memory, western wildfires have increased fourfold since 1970, 30 million people in half a dozen southwest states may run out of water in the next decade or so, and 12 million people in the Atlanta metro area are less than 3 months from having no water. And hundreds of climate scientists have already turned in their verdict. But, hey, now let's ask some scientists to study it.What's less clear is how badly the country that gave birth to the Internet is doing, and whether the government needs to step in and do something about it. The Bush administration has tried to foster broadband adoption with a hands-off approach. If that's seen as a failure by the next administration, the policy may change.
In a move to get a clearer picture of where the U.S. stands, the House Energy and Commerce Committee on Tuesday approved legislation that would develop an annual inventory of existing broadband services -- including the types, advertised speeds and actual number of subscribers -- available to households and businesses across the nation.
— U.S. sees some countries overtake it in broadband speeds, but is there a problem? Associated Press, 30 Oct 2007
On the other hand, this is Ed Markey's committee, and he has seemed serious about doing something, so maybe he's just cojmpiling a case. Sure, he's probably reacting to people like this who are taking the same tack as outlined above:
Continue reading "U.S. Broadband Competitiveness: Let's Study It To Death" »
Posted at 09:01 AM in Broadband, Competition, Government, International acces, Internet Access, Internet freedom, Internet History, Internet Speed, National Security, Net Neutrality, Public Policy, Regulation | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Tags: broadband, competition, Ed Markey, global warming deniers, Internet speed, Japan, Okefenokee, U.S., wildfire
14.013 million | aDSL |
8.803 million | FTTH |
3.609 million | Cable |
11 thousand | Wireless |
As of March 2007, merely 95% of all Japanese households had broadband, and 84% had ultra-highspeed broadband. Japanese government goals for 2010 are 100% and 90%, respectively. Ultra-highspeed seems to be defined as both up and down over 30Mbps.
Until now, FTTH has been the mainstream in terms of ultra-highspeed broadband, with upload and download speeds of over 30Mbps, but other wired and wireless technologies are aiming for technologies that will match if not overtake FTTH, and there will be a need for ongoing developments in broadband technology in terms of higher speed and larger volume to meet user needs.Higher speed services in testing now include speeds faster than 1 Gbps, which would be around 300 times faster than what passes for broadband in the U.S.— Study Group Report: Moving towards Establishing a Usage Environment for Next-Generation Broadband Technology, Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications (MIC), MIC Communications News, Vol. 18, No.13, 12 October 2007
Continue reading "Japanese Broadband Growth: FTTH Pulls Up" »
Posted at 11:35 AM in Broadband, Competition, Government, Internet Access, Internet freedom, Internet Speed, Municipal Access, Net Neutrality, Opportunity, Public Policy, Rural Access | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)
Tags: broadband, cable, competition, DSL, FTTH, Internet freedom, Internet speed, Japan, MIC, municipal access, net neutrality, rural access
The Lindon-based SCO Group Inc. says it is planning to lay off 16 of its 123 employees and has asked a federal bankruptcy court to keep their identities secret because it fears they could be harassed.Unix was actually invented by a couple of researchers at AT&T Bell Labs, in an attic, in their spare time. AT&T never knew what to do with Unix, and eventually shuffled it off to Western Electric, whence it finally percolated over to SCO (I've probably omitted a few owners in between).SCO also is facing an effort to push ahead with a trial in federal court in Utah that could determine that SCO owes Novell as much as $35 million in licensing fees because of a ruling in a dispute over ownership of the Unix software program.
SCO filed for bankruptcy on Sept. 14, the result of a long court battle with Novell and IBM over ownership and use of the Unix computer operating system program. SCO claimed it, and not Novell, owned the copyright to Unix and that IBM had used parts of that code in developing the Linux operating system, whose code is open to the public and can be used or altered by individuals or companies for their own uses.
— Stricken SCO to lay off 16 workers, Lindon-based firm asks court to keep ex-employees ID secret, By Tom Harvey, The Salt Lake Tribune Article Last Updated: 10/15/2007 11:45:43 PM MDT
Meanwhile, Microsoft made billions out of an operating system (and clever legal ploys such as boot loader contracts). And Unix and its offshoots such as Linux underly everything from Apple's OS-X to mobile phones to Google.
This seems to me the archetypical example of why we shouldn't expect telephone companies to innovate, no matter how much of a monopoly they have. If we want innovation, we want net neutrality and competition.
-jsq
Posted at 09:44 AM in Competition, Copyright, Innovation, Internet freedom, Net Neutrality | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Tags: AT&T, Bell Labs, innovation, Internet freedom, Linux, Microsoft, net neutrality, Novell, SCO, Unix
Several years ago I wrote a column describing a system I had thought up for sharing Internet hotspots that I called WhyFi. Among the readers of that column were some entrepreneurs in Spain who went on to start the hotspot sharing service called FON, which now has more than 190,000 participating hotspots. Those Spaniards have been quite generous in attributing some of their inspiration to my column. And now this week FON signed a deal with British Telecom that promises to bring tens of thousands more FON hotspots to the UK and beyond. This isn't FON's first deal with a big broadband ISP -- they already have contracts with Speakeasy and Time Warner Cable in the U.S. among others -- but it is one of the biggest and points to an important transformation taking place in the way people communicate.Much like really fast broadband in Japan, FON is an American idea that people in another country adopted and ran with.— You Can't Get There From Here: The myth of bandwidth scarcity and can Team Cringely really make it to the Moon? By Robert X. Cringely, Pulpit, PBS, October 5, 2007
Continue reading "FON: Cringely to Spain to Britain to U.S.?" »
Posted at 07:13 AM in Broadband, Competition, Distributed Participation, International acces, Internet Access, Internet freedom, Net Neutrality, Rural Access, Travel, Wireless Internet | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Tags: backhaul, broadband, Cringely, FON, hotspots, Japan, rural access, Spain, Time Warner, U.K., U.S., WhyFi, wireless Internet
I infer from this that the economists and politicians and telco and cableco executives who say that we shouldn't regulate because we don't know what will happen and anti-trust will catch problems if they occur are not taking into account that anti-trust doesn't automatically apply to or address problems in the new legal regime into which broadband has been thrust.
In other words, people see things in the context of what they know, and economists don't usually know about legal evolution.
Telco and cableco executives, on the other hand, may well have business
and political reasons for claiming there's no need for regulation,
whether or not they know that existing anti-trust law is inadequate. doesn't apply.
You can't have markets without some form of property rights of contract law. There is also basic legal infrastructure you need for communication infrastructure.
I see little or no understanding of these points in FCC, FTC, or Congress.
Prof. Cherry's whole paper is well worth reading: Consumer Sovereignty: Redrawing the Boundaries Between Industry-Specific and General Business Legal Regimes for Telecommunications and Broadband Access Services, by Barbara A. Cherry, TPRC, 30 Sep 2007
-jsq
PS: Markup for increased accuracy kindly supplied by Prof. Cherry.
Posted at 02:22 PM in Broadband, Communication, Competition, Duopoly, Government, History, Internet freedom, Internet History, Law, Net Neutrality, Regulation, Research | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Tags: administrative law, anti-trust, Barbara Cherry, broadband, common law, communication infrastructure, Congress, consumer sovereignty, duopoly, FCC, FTC, Internet freedom, legal evolution, liability, net neutrality, statutory law, tariffs, title I industry-specific legal regime, title II general business legal regime
Saying it had the right to block “controversial or unsavory” text messages, Verizon Wireless last week rejected a request from Naral Pro-Choice America, the abortion rights group, to make Verizon’s mobile network available for a text-message program.Is the Internet a public network, or isn't it? If it is, I don't see why any ISP should be blocking messages based on content. (Spam is a different matter: spam is unsolicited.) There are various opinions as to what laws, if any, cover text messages. But the main point isn't even legal. If the telco-provided network isn't a public network, it's not the Internet.But the company reversed course this morning, saying it had made a mistake.
“The decision to not allow text messaging on an important, though sensitive, public policy issue was incorrect, and we have fixed the process that led to this isolated incident,” Jeffrey Nelson, a company spokesman, said in a statement.
“It was an incorrect interpretation of a dusty internal policy,” Mr. Nelson said. “That policy, developed before text messaging protections such as spam filters adequately protected customers from unwanted messages, was designed to ward against communications such as anonymous hate messaging and adult materials sent to children.”
Mr. Nelson noted that text messaging is “harnessed by organizations and individuals communicating their diverse opinions about issues and topics” and said Verizon has “great respect for this free flow of ideas.”
— Verizon Reverses Itself on Abortion Rights Messages, By Adam Liptak, New York Times, September 27, 2007
-jsq
Posted at 11:55 AM in Censorship, Content, Distributed Participation, Net Neutrality, Telephone | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Tags: SMS, spam, text messages, Verizon
Remember:
AT&T Inc. has joined Hollywood studios and recording companies in trying to keep pirated films, music and other content off its network — the first major carrier of Internet traffic to do so.Get ready for the Amazon Channel or settle for Internet Base Service.
Posted at 11:38 AM in Content, Copyright, Distributed Participation, Duopoly, Film, Government, Internet freedom, Music, Net Neutrality, Piracy, Radio, Regulation, Video | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Tags: Amazon, AT&T, content protection, Digital Rights Management, DRM, Godot, Hollywood, Internet freedom, market failure, MPAA, net neutrality, SavetheInternet.com
Hey, this version doesn't include Amazon or Craig's List. So sorry; guess they didn't pay for access.
-jsq
PS: Seen on BoingBoing.
Posted at 05:53 AM in Content, Internet freedom, Net Neutrality | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (1)
Tags: cable TV, Internet freedom, Internet packages, net neutrality
When I invented the Web, I didn't have to ask anyone's permission.That's Internet freedom. That's why we need net neutrality.&mdash: Net Neutrality: This is serious by timbl (Tim Berners-Lee), DiG, Wed, 2006-06-21 16:35
What is net neutrality?
If I pay to connect to the Net with a certain quality of service, and you pay to connect with that or greater quality of service, then we can communicate at that level.Where you and I are any pair of participants on the Internet.
Continue reading "When I invented the Web, I didn't have to ask anyone's permission." »
Posted at 10:14 AM in Distributed Participation, Government, Internet Access, Internet freedom, Internet History, Net Neutrality, Opportunity, Public Policy, Regulation, Weblogs | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Tags: distributed participation, Internet freedom, net neutrality, opportunity, Tim Berners-Lee
A free-for-all web (after normal monthly broadband charges have been paid) is one of the wonders of the world and a binding force for all communities....
The Federal Communications Commission has just been advised by the US department of justice, under heavy lobbying from the operators who stand to gain from higher data charges, that a neutral net might "prevent, rather than promote" investment and innovation. This is twaddle. An open-access net has produced one of the greatest surges of innovation ever recorded and has given an opportunity for people all over the world to communicate with each other and share knowledge on equal terms. Long may it continue to be so.
— In praise of... a freely available internet, Leader, The Guardian, Tuesday September 11, 2007
The Guardian brings up a related point:
It has only become an issue because the US Congress is scrutinising the question of "net neutrality", though why the US authorities - rather than an international body - should deem themselves to have jurisdiction over the internet is not clear.The usual answer to that is that a properly constituted international body would do even worse. Although nowadays, it seems the otherwise unlateralist U.S. government is toeing the (pseudo-)capitalist international party line.
-jsq
Posted at 09:34 AM in Current Affairs, Distributed Participation, Government, History, Innovation, Internet Access, Internet freedom, Net Neutrality, Opportunity, Public Policy, Regulation | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)
Tags: Department of Justice, Federal Communication Commission, Google, Gun Owners of America, Microsoft, Tim Berners-Lee, wonder of the world
Ed Shakin, a lawyer for Verizon, said network-sharing requirements are no longer needed in certain cities now that cable companies and other competitors have rolled out Internet and phone service. "What competitors want are artificially low prices," he said. "It comes down to a fight about price, not availability."So Verizon is reducing the number of competitors, but as long as there is at least one, that's enough, they say. Apparently Verizon thinks its competition is the Highlander: There Can Be Only One.— Telecom Changes Put Competition on the Line, By Kim Hart, Washington Post Staff Writer, Thursday, September 6, 2007; Page D01
-jsq
Posted at 09:36 AM in Broadband, Cable, Competition, DSL, Duopoly, Internet Access, Internet freedom, Net Neutrality, Telephone | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)
Tags: competition, copper, Covad, FCC, Highlander, telephone, There Can Be Only One, Verizon, XO
Suppose the telcos and cablecos get everything they want.
To buy a BBQ grill on eBay, you'll have to pay for the eBay channel. This is above whatever you pay the seller for the grill or eBay for your membership. You'll have to pay your local Internet access company just to let you get to eBay to participate in the auction. Oh, maybe you'll be able to get there anyway, but your access may be so slow that you'll pay for the eBay channel out of frustration.
If you want to buy a book from Amazon, you'll have to pay for the Amazon channel. For search you'll need the Yahoo channel or the ask.com channel or the google channel. Assuming your favorite search engine is even offered as a channel. Many smaller services probably won't be.
Maybe it won't be quite this bad.
Posted at 09:25 AM in Censorship, Communication, Competition, Content, Distributed Participation, Duopoly, Government, Internet Access, Internet freedom, Internet Speed, IPTV, Law, Net Neutrality, Public Policy, Regulation, Throttling | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Tags: ask.com, AT&T, cable TV, Craigslist, eBay, Facebook, Google, Internet access, Internet freedom, Internet radio, Internet speed, MySpace, net neutrality, participation, politics, postal rates, SavetheInternet.com, Time Warner, toll road, Verizon, Yahoo!, YouTube
There seem to be two tiers. Japan and Korea are the top tier. Then Finland, Sweden, and France. Then a third tier starting with the Netherlands. The U.S. is either in that third tier or in a fourth tier, depending on how you look at it.
The source report, Assessing Broadband in America: OECD and ITIF Broadband Rankings, By Daniel K. Correa, Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, April 2007, also examines broadband uptake, in which the U.S. is also fifteenth in these OECD rankings.
Maybe it's time for a change. A change in public policy and the addition of competition.
-jsq
Posted at 10:35 AM in Broadband, Innovation, Internet Speed, Net Neutrality, Opportunity, Public Policy, Regulation | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)
Tags: broadband, France, Internet speed, ITIF, Japan, Korea, OECD, Poland, Portugal, public policy, United States
Broadband service here is eight to 30 times as fast as in the United States -- and considerably cheaper. Japan has the world's fastest Internet connections, delivering more data at a lower cost than anywhere else, recent studies show.So is it just for video? If so, maybe we'd better let the telcos have their way.Accelerating broadband speed in this country -- as well as in South Korea and much of Europe -- is pushing open doors to Internet innovation that are likely to remain closed for years to come in much of the United States.
The speed advantage allows the Japanese to watch broadcast-quality, full-screen television over the Internet, an experience that mocks the grainy, wallet-size images Americans endure.
— Japan's Warp-Speed Ride to Internet Future, By Blaine Harden, Washington Post Foreign Service, Wednesday, August 29, 2007; Page A01
Posted at 08:10 AM in Broadband, Competition, Distributed Participation, DSL, FTTH, Government, Innovation, Internet Access, Net Neutrality, Opportunity, Politics, Public Policy, Regulation, Video | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Tags: DSL, FTTH, innovation, Internet access, Internet freedom, Japan, opportunity, regulation, Softbank
Comcast has warned broadband Internet customers across the country to curb their downloading or wind up on the curb.And you have to wonder how long that AUP said that while Comcast was advertising "unlimited".The company has a bandwidth limitation that, if broken, can result in a 12-month suspension of service. The problem, according to customer complaints, is that the telecom giant refuses to reveal how much downloading is too much.
The company, which a few years ago advertised the service as “unlimited” has an “acceptable use policy” which enforces the invisible download limit.
The 23-part policy, states that it is a breach of contract to generate “levels of traffic sufficient to impede others' ability to send or retrieve information.” But nowhere does it detail what levels of traffic will impede others.
—Comcast Cuts Off Heavy Internet Users, Customers complain bandwidth limits are secret, By Joseph S. Enoch ConsumerAffairs.Com, August 24, 2007
This part is especially enlightening:
Douglas said the company shuts off people's Internet if it affects the performance of their neighbors because often many people will share a connection on one data pipe.So instead of fixing their bad topology, they penalize customers for using it.
Well, it's a free market, right? Comcast users who don't like it can switch to, er, if they're lucky and have any choice at all, probably to whichever of Verizon or AT&T happens to be in their area. There couldn't be any problems with those providers, could there?
Meanwhile, if you want to follow this Comcast controversy, here's the Comcast Broadband dispute blog that one of the cast-offs started, presumably using his new DSL connection.It's kind of like salmon organizing against a dam upstream.
-jsq
Posted at 10:08 AM in Cable, Capacity, Competition, Distributed Participation, Duopoly, Internet Access, Net Neutrality, Throttling | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Tags: AUP, cable, Comcast, competition, curb, DSL, duopoly, Internet access, Internet freedom, net neutrality, salmon
My, freedom is so degrading.
- demand side — freedom to degrade others
- ...
- supply side — freedom to degrade competitors
— re-ECN architectural intent by Bob Briscoe, UCL, BT, 68th IETF, Unofficial Birds of a Feather (non-BoF), Prague, 21 Mar 2007
Posted at 07:07 AM in Competition, Distributed Participation, Net Neutrality, Packet Shaping, Telephone, Throttling | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Tags: BT, circuit switching, ECN, freedom, Internet Protocol
![]() And now you do what they told ya, now you're under control |
FCC Commissioner Michael Copps, fire-breathing advocate of network neutrality regulation and opponent of media consolidation, has taken a stand on AT&T's now infamous censorship of Pearl Jam front man Eddie Vedder's anti-Bush remarks at Lollapalooza. In an interview with OpenLeft.com's Matt Stoller, Copps supported the idea that there's a link between AT&T's deletion of Vedder's political comments from a webcast of the concert and the network neutrality fight that's brewing in the halls of Congress.And it's good that Copps sees the connection between this episode and media consolidation. Copps talks a good talk, but will he do more than "grudgingly accept" this sort of thing, like he did the bogus 700Mhz auction rules? Will he vote against, and will he persuade other commissioners to do the same? And can someone persuade Congress to change the FCC's tune? It's all very well to rage against the machine, but who's going to change it?"Events like this are connected to the larger issue of network neutrality, so it is very very important," Copps said in response to a question about whether or not AT&T's censorship of Vedder has any implications for network neutrality. He went on to say, "So when something like the episode occurs with Pearl Jam that you're referencing that ought to concern all of us... because if you can do it for one group, you can do it to any group and say 'Well, it's not intentional,' and things like that. But nobody should have that power to do that and then be able to exercise distributive control over the distribution and control over the content too.
— FCC Commissioner: Pearl Jam censorship linked to net neutrality fight, By Jon Stokes, ars technica, Published: August 17, 2007 - 01:56PM
Or can we get some Internet access competition? Then we could have Internet freedom.
-jsq
Posted at 08:46 AM in Censorship, Competition, Content, Distributed Participation, Duopoly, Internet Access, Music, Net Neutrality, Regulation | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Tags: AT&T, censorship, content, Copps, distribution, Eddie Vedder, FCC, Flaming Lips, Internet access, Internet freedom, John Butler Trio, net neutrality, Pearl Jam, Rage Against the Machine
AT&T's “content monitor” hit the mute button during part of Pearl Jam’s “Blue Room” Live Lollapalooza Webcast sponsored by the telecom, depriving viewers of some anti-George Bush lyrics—and handing live ammunition to “net neutrality” proponents in the form of an almost perfect example of what they predict will happen if a few companies are allowed to control the broadband pipeline.Their followup gets even better:— AT&T Silences Pearl Jam; Gives 'Net Neutrality' Proponents Ammunition, Staci D. Kramer, PaidContent.org, 08.09.07, 7:45 PM ET
AT&T spokesman Michael Coe said that the silencing was a mistake and that the company was working with the vendor that produces the webcasts to avoid future misunderstandings. He said AT&T was working to secure the rights to post the entire song - part of a sing-along with the audience - on the Blue Room site.While the lumbering dinosaur was working on that, Pearl Jam already had the uncensored version on their site.— AT&T Errs in Edit of Anti-Bush Lyrics, By MICHELLE ROBERTS, Forbes, 08.10.07, 10:59 AM ET
And it just keeps getting better.
Posted at 08:53 AM in Censorship, Communication, Competition, Internet Access, Net Neutrality, Regulation, Telephone | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Tags: Animal Farm, AT&T, Bonnaroo, BP Amoco, censorship, Eddie Vedder, FCC, First Amendment, Flaming Lips, free speech, George Bush, George Orwell, Internet freedom, Iraq, John Butler Trio, liberty, Lollapalooza, Mike McCready, net neutrality, Pearl Jam, profanity, Rage Against the Machine, regulation, Tom Morello
1. Those Carterfone protections don't mean too much. The no-locking, no-blocking requirements are hedged in by substantial limitations: the winning licensee will be able to lock and block devices and applications as long as they can show that their actions are related to "reasonable network management and protection," or "compliance with applicable regulatory requirements." In other words, as long as the discrimination can be shown to be connected (however indirectly) to some vision of "network management," it will be permitted. (Discrimination "solely" for discrimination's sake is prohibited, but that's not too difficult to avoid.)So it's ILECs vs. CLECs, round two. Guess who'll win?— Many, many devils in the details: 700 MHz rules, by Susan, from Susan Crawford blog, 13 Aug 2007
And even supposedly Cmr. Copps "grudgingly accepted" these rules. Seems to me we need a whole new FCC, so we can get some real rules of the road.
And what we really need is some real competition.
-jsq
Posted at 09:39 AM in Communication, Competition, Duopoly, Net Neutrality, Public Policy, Regulation, Telephone, Television, Wireless Internet | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Tags: 700Mhz, Carterfone, CLEC, competition, Copps, duopoly, FCC, ILEC, Internet freedom, Martin, net neutrality
playing Russian roulette with broadband and Internet and more traditional mediaAnd the Russians are winning.— FCC Commissioner: US playing "Russian roulette with broadband and Internet" By Nate Anderson, ars technica, August 03, 2007 - 09:20AM CT
Posted at 10:38 AM in Broadband, Competition, Distributed Participation, Duopoly, Film, Government, History, Internet Access, Internet Speed, Law, Net Neutrality, Opportunity, Press, Public Policy, Regulation, Telephone, Television | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Tags: broadband, democratic genius, FCC, Internet, Internet freedom, massive corporations, Michael Copps, net neutrality, press consolidation, YearlyKos
A federal judge has thrown up a roadblock in front of AT&T as it attempts to roll out its new U-Verse IPTV service in the state of Connecticut. In an opinion issued yesterday, Judge Janet Bond Arterton ruled that AT&T's U-Verse IPTV service is a cable television service like any other and is therefore subject to local franchising agreements.But isn't it different from cable if it's carried over IP?— Federal judge: AT&T U-Verse == cable TV, By Eric Bangeman, ars technica, Published: July 27, 2007 - 10:44AM CT
Posted at 06:54 AM in Competition, Duopoly, Government, Internet Access, IPTV, Net Neutrality, Regulation, Telephone, Television | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Tags: AT&T, Connecticut, duopoly, franchise reform, Internet, Judge Janet Bond Arterton, market reform, monopoly, telephone, television, U-Verse
Look who Google is up against -- all the largest Internet service providers in the U.S. Google will not win this even if they win the auction, because the telcos and cable companies are far more skilled and cunning when it comes to lobbying and controlling politicians than Google can ever hope to be. The telcos have spent more than a century at this game and Google hasn't even been in it for a decade. And Google's pockets are no deeper than those of the other potential bidders.Cringely is missing the point about who Google is up against. These outfits have not been the largest ISPs for more than a century. They've been telephone companies for more than a century. And being around for a long time isn't necessarily a sure win. Look at the Vatican; it's been around for two thousand years, and it's managed to lose most of its traditional heartland of Europe. Sure, Google is fragile, in some senses even more fragile than Microsoft, as Cringely points out. But even Microsoft is losing market share from IE to an open source browser, Firefox. Google, as a proponent of open source that actually understands it, has a fair chance here. The incumbent duopoly telcos aren't really in the Internet business; Google is.— Is Google on Crack?: Eric Schmidt bets the ranch on wireless spectrum, Robert X. Cringely, Pulpit, 27 July 2007
Maybe Cringely's right that Google alone couldn't win the auction. But Google and Sprint possibly could. Sure, Sprint is a phone company, too. But that doesn't mean it's going to side with the rest if it scents profit. Maybe with a little help from Apple.
Let's hope that's what Google is really up to, rather than expecting to get Martin to change the rules and then wait for AT&T to deliver another striped bass.
I also don't think Cringely is taking into account the stakes here.
Posted at 09:35 AM in Communication, Competition, Content, Copyright, Duopoly, Government, History, Internet Access, Net Neutrality, Politics, Postal Service, Press, Public Policy, Radio, Regulation, Telephone, Television, VoIP, Wireless Internet | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Tags: AT&T, China, content, copyright, duopoly, FCC, France, Google, India, Kevin Martin, Minitel, Russia, Sprint, Verizon
But he does not stop there. He worries about America's money-saturated politics. He lambasts television for infantilising the electorate.That last would appear to be the sort of trivialized, perhaps even infantilized, reaction Gore is lamenting. The big advantage of the Internet is you get not just a few zealots at extreme ends of an arbitrary spectrum: you get all the shadings and colors and depth you can absorb. And you can weave your own strands in this home-made tapestry....
He sometimes comes across as eccentric—as when he lambasts television for killing public discourse, then celebrates the internet as its potential saviour. A few minutes online, reading the zealots on either the right or the left, should have been enough to explode that illusion.
— Gore in the balance, From The Economist print edition, May 31st 2007
Continue reading "The Internet As a Market: Al Gore and Reasoned Discourse" »
Posted at 09:55 AM in Books, Communication, Competition, Content, Distributed Participation, Duopoly, Government, Internet Access, IPTV, Law, Net Neutrality, Politics, Regulation, Television, Video | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Tags: Al Gore, Assault on Reason, discourse, Economist, Internet, law, market, Mexico, reason, Republic, television
Posted at 08:05 AM in Government, Internet Access, Net Neutrality, Regulation, Search, Wireless Internet | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Tags: 700Mhz, Eric Schmidt, FCC, Google, Kevin Martin
Under the new proposal, to be implemented by remand to the CRJs, SoundExchange has offered to cap the $500 per channel minimum fee at $50,000 per year for webcasters who agree to provide more detailed reporting of the music that they play and work to stop users from engaging in "streamripping" turning Internet radio performances into a digital music library.Alan Wexelblat explains that part about "streamripping":— SoundExchange Confirms Minimum Fee Offer: Reminds Commercial Webcasters of Obligations to Pay New Royalty Rates, Press Release, SoundExchange, 13 July 2007
So it's that simple. Become our agents in preventing people from recording Web radio streams or face the financial axe.— When is a Reprieve Not a Reprieve, by Alan Wexelblat , Copyfight, July 19, 2007
Posted at 09:59 AM in Competition, Content, Distributed Participation, Duopoly, Innovation, Internet Access, Internet Speed, Net Neutrality, Radio, Regulation | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Tags: competition, content providers, DiMA, duopoly, Internet radio, Markey, net neutrality, SoundExchange
The merger commitment specifies that the plan had to be offered. That means to me that it has to be put forth as an option!!! (If there's a fifty pound striped bass somewhere out there in the ocean, that's not an offer of fish!)This is the same $10/month service USA Today announced AT&T was developing back in January. Maybe they'll just keep "developing" it until the 48 month time limit expires, or make it available to a few people and claim they've honored their commitment.This is what SBC used to do: claim availability if one person per ZIP code could get a service, and the FCC let them get away with that.So I don't think AT&T is honoring its $10/month commitment.
— Is AT&T Honoring its Merger Commitments? David Isenberg, isen.blog, Friday, July 06, 2007
Isenberg asks:
Do you think the FCC will investigate?
Posted at 08:34 AM in DSL, Internet Access, IPTV, Net Neutrality, Politics, Public Policy, Regulation, Telephone | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Tags: $10/month, AT&T, competition, DSL, FCC, IPTV, net neutrality, striped bass
In other words, there is no reason to rush to impose burdensome Net Neutrality regulations in the broadband market. If there is one thing that we have learned from 70+ years of communications regulation, it is that regulation has significant costs and unintended consequences. The FTC clearly recognizes that government should react to actual problems, not hypothetical ones.It's funny how the Internet grew up with net neutrality, but now it's "burdensome." Maybe innovation and competition are burdensome to incumbents.
-jsq
Posted at 07:19 AM in Competition, Innovation, Net Neutrality, Regulation | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Tags: blog, cisco, competition, FTC, innovation, policy
The order requires federal officials to show that private companies, people or institutions failed to address a problem before agencies can write regulations to tackle it. It also gives political appointees greater authority over how the regulations are written.How does this work?— House Balks at Bush Order for New Powers, By Jim Abrams, The Associated Press Tuesday, July 3, 2007; 8:16 PM
Posted at 07:04 AM in Competition, Duopoly, Government, Monopoly, Net Neutrality, Public Policy, Regulation | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Tags: duopoly, FTC, market failure, monopoly, net neutrality, political commissars, Soviet Union
Federal reform and additional state-specific reforms have focused on reforming "video franchising" laws to reduce barriers to entry and investment by new service providers. We commend such policies as likely to contribute to investment and competition in broadband services.Here's what some affected parties think about that:— The Effects of Broadband Deployment on Output and Employment: A Cross-sectional Analysis of U.S. Data, By Robert Crandall, William Lehr and Robert Litan, Brookings Institution, 2007
Two years ago we profiled the rural Massachusetts towns of Shutesbury and Leverett, who have long been trying to get broadband from anyone -- but aren't deemed profitable to serve by Comcast or Verizon. While towns as close as 300 feet get service, these two towns are still waiting, though some have concocted home brew solutions. Locals tell us they were insulted when approached by Verizon to support "franchise reform," which all but seals their fate by eliminating build out requirements.It seems "franchise reform" may be one of those newspeak phrases like "tax relief" which is used to persuade those who will suffer to support something that will benefit those who propose it.—Broadband Black Holes: FiOS? We've never been able to get DSL, by Karl, BroadbandReports.com, 10:42AM Thursday Jul 05 2007
It's enough to make you nostalgic for FDR and the REA.
-jsq
Posted at 11:16 AM in Broadband, Distributed Participation, Municipal Access, Net Neutrality, Public Policy, Television | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Tags: broadband, franchise reform, Internet access, net neutrality, tax relief, television, Verizon, video franchise
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
More specifically, for every one percentage point increase in broadband penetration in a state, employment is projected to increase by 0.2 to 0.3 percent per year.Of course, this is like saying every state in medieval Germany that had a printing press produced employment in the printing industry. There are economic and social effects far beyond mere employment. What should be done?— The Effects of Broadband Deployment on Output and Employment: A Cross-sectional Analysis of U.S. Data, By Robert Crandall, William Lehr and Robert Litan, Brookings Institution, 2007
The paper has a few recommendations:
The surest route to lower prices is provided by increasing competition in the delivery of broadband services.
Posted at 10:54 AM in Broadband, Communication, Competition, Content, Distributed Participation, Duopoly, Government, Innovation, Internet Access, Internet Speed, Net Neutrality, Opportunity, Public Policy, Regulation, Television | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Tags: broadband, Brookings Institution, employment, Internet speed, jobs, net neutrality, opportunity, P2P, YouTube
Pomp and Parade, with Shews, Games, Sports, Guns, Bells, Bonfire and Illuminationsas John Adams recommended in 1776.
The Declaration laid out a "a long train of abuses and usurpations" and referred to "certain unalienable Rights", which the former colonials went on to spell out in a written Constitution (the oldest in the world today) to which they added a Bill of Rights. Is their work done?
Posted at 10:42 AM in Distributed Participation, Duopoly, Government, Net Neutrality, Opportunity, Politics, Regulation | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Tags: accountability, Bill of Rights, Declaration of Independence, Gordon Brown, net neutrality, responsibilities, rights
Om Malik: Broadbandits: Inside the $750 Billion Telecom Heist
Yochai Benkler: The Wealth of Networks: How Social Production Transforms Markets and Freedom
John S. Quarterman: Risk Management Solutions for Sarbanes-Oxley Section 404 IT Compliance
Chris Willman: Rednecks and Bluenecks: The Politics of Country Music