According to Stephen Colbert:
Filed under: Network Neutrality, News, Policy
January 13, 2007 • 1:58 pm 0
Bill Moyers on Net Neutrality
At this weekend’s National Conference for Media Reform, “Bill Moyers”:1 spoke about Network Neutrality. He paints a clear picture about why we are fighting to ensure that the our country guarantees the internet’s first amendment protection and ensures the “equal access provision of the internet”.
[1]http://www.pbs.org/moyers/moyersonamerica/index.html
Filed under: Network Neutrality, Policy
December 18, 2006 • 8:27 pm 0
Save the Internet.com: "Independence Day"
“SaveTheInternet.com”:1 has posted a great new movie about Network Neutrality:
There’s a lot of information at the “SaveTheInternet.com”:1 site, where you can sign a petition and contact your legislators.
[1]http://www.savetheinternet.com
Filed under: Network Neutrality, Policy
November 9, 2006 • 12:14 am 0
America's Internet Disconnect
Michael J. Copps, a democratic member of the FCC, “just published one of the most fierce wake up calls”:1 for American politicians and the general public about how the USA has completely fallen behind in the broadband race. Especially now that the House and likely the Senate will see a complete change in direction and authority, its possible that some positive action can come of the heretofore impotent FCC and FTC in the matter of broadband competition and availability.
Everyone should read the “entirety of this article”:1:
bq. America’s record in expanding broadband communication is so poor that it should be viewed as an outrage by every consumer and businessperson in the country. Too few of us have broadband connections, and those who do pay too much for service that is too slow. It’s hurting our economy, and things are only going to get worse if we don’t do something about it.
bq. …
bq. How have we fallen so far behind? Through lack of competition. As the Congressional Research Service puts it, U.S. consumers face a “cable and telephone broadband duopoly.” And that’s more like a best-case scenario: Many households are hostage to a single broadband provider, and nearly one-tenth have no broadband provider at all.
bq. …
bq. To begin with, the Federal Communications Commission — of which I am a member — must face up to the problem. Today the agency’s reports seem designed mostly to obscure the fact that we are falling behind the rest of the world. The FCC still defines broadband as 200 kilobits per second, assumes that if one person in a Zip code area has access to broadband then everyone does and fails to gather any data on pricing.
bq. The FCC needs to start working to lower prices and introduce competition. We must start meeting our legislative mandate to get advanced telecommunications out to all Americans at reasonable prices; make new licensed and unlicensed spectrum available; authorize “smart radios” that use spectrum more efficiently; and do a better job of encouraging “third pipe” technologies such as wireless and broadband over power lines. And we should recommend steps to Congress to ensure the FCC’s ability to implement long-term solutions.
[1]http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/07/AR2006110701230.html
Filed under: Network Neutrality, News, Policy
October 18, 2006 • 8:00 am 0
Wednesday, Oct 18 @ 9pm on PBS: Moyers on America "The Net at Risk"
_From NYCwireless board member Joe Plotkin:_
Net Neutrality has been discussed vehemently and extensively on this list, so I urge everyone to watch Bill Moyer’s in-depth examination of this subject. It airs on Channel 13 tomorrow night Wed Oct 18th 9pm. It repeats 1:30am Saturday, October 21st (aka late Fri. night) and 2:00pm Sunday, October 22nd. Set your Tivo’s accordingly.
Additionally, some on this list have challenged the efficacy of the substantial work Bruce Kushnick and TeleTruth have done over the years. Bill Moyer’s team apparently disagrees, as they have made the editorial decision to feature Kushnick’s views and research.
Although I have not yet seen this episode, I believe this show will begin a long overdue, serious journalistic examination of the issues of network access and market power.
*Moyers on America Presents “The Net at Risk”.*
*PBS, (check local listings) Wednesday, October 18, 2006, 9PM, EDT*Teletruth’s Bruce Kushnick and Tom Allibone are featured in “The New Digital Divide” segment.
Moyers on America presents a new, serious investigative analysis of the future of broadband, the Net and media–from municipalities trying to Wi-Fi or rewire their cities, to the large phone companies who claim that they ‘own the net’ or large media concerns who have the power to take control of the information and stories you see and hear.
The program has been divided into four segments.
h3. THE NET AT RISK
“http://www.pbs.org/moyers/moyersonamerica/net/neutrality.html”:1
The debate is hot, the language heady, the metaphors many. Op-ed pages alternately bemoan “The End of the Internet” or curse “Net Neutrality Nonsense.”
h3. THE NEW DIGITAL DIVIDE
“http://www.pbs.org/moyers/moyersonamerica/net/usworld.html”:2
Teletruth is featured. Check out the video–”In Korea and Japan customers are getting 100 Mbps services in both directions for about $40 bucks” – (That’s 100 times faster than America’s DSL services.)
“America’s screwed,” says Bruce Kushnick, a telecom analyst. “I mean, we basically are becoming technologically deficient. We’re close to the dinosaurs compared to what these other countries are going to be developing in the next couple years.”
Other sections include:
h3. COMMUNITY CONNECTIONS
“http://www.pbs.org/moyers/moyersonamerica/net/community.html”:3
“The Net @ Risk” takes viewers to Lafayette, Louisiana, where residents and officials took on their phone company, BellSouth, and their cable company, Cox Communications, and built their own high-speed fiber network after the firms refused to bring true broadband connections to their community.”
h3. BIG AND BIGGER MEDIA
“http://www.pbs.org/moyers/moyersonamerica/net/bigger.html”:4
“In 1984 the number of companies owning a controlling interest in America’s media was 50 – today that number is six. Critics of media consolidation say it has led to fewer and fewer perspectives being presented–and a marked decrease in local news coverage.”
Teletruth believes America’s digital future is at stake, not to mention the future of the U.S. economy. We are pleased to be part of this important investigative report.
More: Read “Teletruth’s series for Harvard’s Nieman Watchdog project”:5 on telecommunications, the Internet, wireless and broadband.
For more about Teletruth, read “http://www.teletruth.org”:6
[1]http://www.pbs.org/moyers/moyersonamerica/net/neutrality.html
[2]http://www.pbs.org/moyers/moyersonamerica/net/usworld.html
[3]http://www.pbs.org/moyers/moyersonamerica/net/community.html
[4]http://www.pbs.org/moyers/moyersonamerica/net/bigger.html
[5]http://www.niemanwatchdog.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=about.viewContributor&bioid=130
[6]http://www.teletruth.org
Filed under: Event, Network Neutrality, News, Policy
June 23, 2006 • 7:57 am 0
Net Neutrality Senate Scorecard
George Brzozowski sent me this great link that shows how each senator has “aligned their voting”:1 on the issue of Network Neutrality. If you are interested in how well your elected representative is representing you, “be sure to look them up”:1.
If you don’t like how they are voting, go to “Save the Internet”:2 and find out about how to contact your Senator and let them know how you feel. If you do like how they are voting, let your Senator know that too!
[1]http://talkingpointsmemo.com/net-neutrality.php
[2]http://www.savetheinternet.com
Filed under: Network Neutrality, Policy
June 11, 2006 • 12:08 am 0
"Fighting Fire with Fire"
“Stefano Boscutti”:1, a reader of this blog, sent me this great video about network neutrality:
bq. Time to fight fire with fire. Time to neutralize the misleading campaign from companies fighting net neutrality by turning it on itself. Thought it best to start with their television ad.
bq. Feel free to pass it on.
p=. http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docId=-7050009655852167999
[1]http://www.boscutti.com/
Filed under: Network Neutrality
June 5, 2006 • 1:31 am 0
The Two Sides of the Network Neutrality Argument
“Dana Blankenhorn argues on his blog”:1 that when it comes to news reporting, just because there are two sides to every story doesn’t mean they are equally correct or honest. I tend to agree.
bq. *In seeking to identify two sides, it’s easy to let lies slide by from the weaker side.*
bq. Readers don’t learn the right lesson from this. They’re taught two sides, in fact, exist, when one side is being propped-up in a vain attempt to appear “fair.” Thus, when someone else comes along who just lies, based on an agenda, the readers (who follow the agenda) will consider this later source “fair and balanced.” And if this later source then says the Sun revolves around the Earth, or the Bible is science, they’ll buy it.
bq. But remember where it starts, an obsession with balance, even when the facts don’t justify it. This is the crime that lets the others live, the bad habit which needs to be stopped.
bq. And so we come to network neutrality. Dave Farber’s Interesting People list has been getting an earful on this issue lately, with nearly everyone stating that *freedom of speech, freely heard* is a core Internet value the Bells and cable operators should not be permitted to violate in the name of profit.
bq. Some, of course, disagree. But their arguments are willfully dishonest.
Dana points out that in the network neutrality discussion, the side of the Bells and some others is merely being accepted as “the other side” of the argument, without a deep analysis of the veracity of its claims, or even a cursory review of whether it makes sense and is within context. As someone who has spent an awful lot of time trying to figure out _why_ network neutrality is important (I have an implicit feeling it is, based on my education, experience, and common sense, but I need to be able to clearly articulate and support this viewpoint), I have spent an awful lot of time tracing out all of the logic behind the arguments.
In the end, arguing about whether government regulation is right or wrong in this case comes down to a couple of simple facts:
# The Telco’s and Cableco’s own wires into our homes, and increasingly own wires between large networks.
# There are vanishingly few other ways to get “internet” access, and since Telco’s and Cableco’s are regional, they each own the entirety of their type of wiring (there is only at most 1 Telco and 1 Cableco that services each home, and many times, there’s only one of the two).
# The Telco’s and Cableco’s are publicly traded private companies, and therefore are primarily interested in making money and returning shareholder value. They have a long history of this, and that’s how its supposed to be.
But as a result of these two facts, Telco’s and Cableco’s have been given the opportunity to exert market dominating power over what goes over their cables, even though you and I and lots of service and content companies are paying for unfettered access, and even though this certainly adversely impacts the economic viability of the internet.
Given they are profit maximizing companies, they *will* take any and all advantage of their marketplace, within the limits of the law. A tiered internet brings nothing to us as consumers, and puts burdens on *all* internet content and service companies. And as far as anyone can tell, the only real benefit is to increase the Telco’s and Cableco’s bottom lines. The only things that keep a private company in check are competition (which is by definition non-existant in the cable-into-your-house internet business) and some form of legal restriction.
Keep this in mind when a Telco or Cableco exec says: “we would never do THAT”. Because marketplace pressures ensure they *will* do that, as long as it helps their bottom lines. Unless we do something to prevent them from profiteering at ours and our economy’s expense.
[1]http://www.danablankenhorn.com/2006/06/where_fair_and_.html
Filed under: Network Neutrality, Policy
May 25, 2006 • 11:47 am 0
Big "SaveTheInternet" Vote Today: Call Congress Right Now
The House Judiciary Committee is beginning to “mark up” a good Net Neutrality bill at around 11am (EST) this morning. Then they’re going to vote on whether to bring it to the full floor. Many in the Committee are being pressured by AT&T, Verizon and other major telcos to vote down the net neutrality provisions in this bipartisan bill.
Below are the members who need to hear from you to support this important bill. *Urge them to support the Sensenbrenner-Conyers “Internet Freedom and Nondiscrimination Act of 2006″ (HR 5417) in the Judiciary Committee — and to support it without amendment.* (Saying “without amendment” is key as the telcos want to re-write it in a way that guts Internet freedom).
Please pick up the phone and make a brief phone call. You can say:
bq. I’m an Internet user, and I’m concerned about the threats to the internet that are being pushed by telco’s. I believe in network neutrality for me, for my friends, and for my company, and think that you should vote for the “Internet Freedom and Nondiscrimination Act of 2006″ (HR 5417) *without amendment*. This bill is essential to ensure that I can continue to freely use the Internet both personally as a consumer, and for my business as well.
Here are the members who need to hear from you right now:
Marty Meehan (D-Mass. 5th)
Phone: (202) 225-3411
Fax: (202) 226-0771
http://www.house.gov/writerep
martin.meehan@mail.house.gov
Howard Berman (D-Calif. 28th)
Phone: 202-225-4695
Fax: 202-225-3196
http://www.house.gov/writerep/
William Delahunt (D-Mass. 10th)
Phone: (202) 225-3111
Fax: (202) 225-5658
William.Delahunt@mail.house.gov
Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-Texas 18th)
Phone: (202) 225-3816
Fax: (202) 225-3317
http://www.jacksonlee.house.gov/feedback.cfm?campaign=jacksonlee&type=Let%27s%20Talk
Bobby Scott (D-Va. 3rd)
Phone: (202) 225-8351
Fax: (202) 225-8354
http://www.house.gov/writerep/
Chris Van Hollen (D-Md. 8th)
Phone: (202) 225-5341
Fax: (202) 225-0375
http://www.house.gov/writerep/
Maxine Waters (D-Calif. 35th)
Phone: (202) 225-2201
Fax: (202) 225-7854
http://www.house.gov/waters/IMA/issue.htm
Mel Watt (D-N.C. 12th)
Tel. (202) 225-1510
Fax (202) 225-1512
http://www.house.gov/writerep/
Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y. 9th)
Phone: (202) 225-6616
Fax: (202) 226-7253
weiner@mail.house.gov
Robert Wexler (D-Fla. 19th)
phone: (202) 225-3001
fax: (202) 225-5974
http://www.house.gov/writerep/
Howard Coble (R-NC 6th)
phone: (202) 225-3065
fax: (202) 225-8611
howard.coble@mail.house.gov
Elton Gallegly (R-CA 24th)
phone: (202) 225-5811
fax: (202) 225-1100
http://www.house.gov/writerep/
Bob Goodlatte (R-VA 6th)
phone: (202) 225-5431
fax: (202) 225-9681
http://www.house.gov/goodlatte/emailbob.htm
Steve Chabot (R-OH 5th)
phone: (202) 225-2216
fax: (202) 225-3012 (fax)
http://www.house.gov/chabot/email.html
Dan Lungren (R-CA 3rd)
phone: (202) 225-5716
fax: (202) 226-1298
http://www.house.gov/lungren/feedback.shtml
William Jenkins (R-TN 1st)
phone: (202) 225-6356
fax: (202) 225-5714
http://www.house.gov/writerep/
John Hostettler (R-IN 8th)
phone: (202) 225-4636
fax: (202) 225-3284
john.hostettler@mail.house.gov
Mark Green (R-WI 8th)
phone: (202) 225-5665
fax: (202) 225-5729
mark.green@mail.house.gov
Ric Keller (R-FL 8th)
phone: (202) 225-2176
fax: (202) 225-0999
http://www.house.gov/writerep/
Your help on this is critical. Please call now.
Filed under: Network Neutrality, Policy
May 14, 2006 • 1:06 pm 0
This Spartan Life: Net Neutrality video
The folks at *”This Spartan Life”:2*, a machinima vlog, have produced a “video supporting net neutrality”:1.
p=. !http://wirelesscommunity.files.wordpress.com/2006/05/this-spartan-life-net-neutr1.jpg!:1
The video is quite funny (as are all of the *This Spartan Life* shows), and casts the net neutrality debate into understandable and clever terms. Highly recommended.
[1]http://www.thisspartanlife.com/blog05.html
[2]http://www.thisspartanlife.com
Filed under: Network Neutrality, Policy
