Wireless Community

Icon

May 2, 2006 • 8:22 am 0

MoveOn: Send this letter to your friends

_Take this letter, and send it to your friends:_

Hi,

Do you buy books online, use Google, or download to an iPod? Everything we do online will be hurt if Congress passes a radical law next week that gives giant corporations more control over what we do and see on the Internet.

Internet providers like AT&T are lobbying Congress hard to gut Network Neutrality — the Internet’s First Amendment and the key to Internet freedom. Net Neutrality prevents AT&T from choosing which websites open most easily for you based on which site pays AT&T more. BarnesandNoble.com doesn’t have to outbid Amazon for the right to work properly on your computer.

If Net Neutrality is gutted, almost every popular site — from Google to eBay to iTunes — must either pay protection money to Internet companies like AT&T or risk having their websites process slowly. That why these high-tech pioneers and others are opposing Congress’ effort to gut Internet freedom.

*You can do your part today — can you sign this petition telling your member of Congress to preserve Internet freedom?* Click here:

“http://www.civic.moveon.org/save_the_internet/?id=7449-3566631-Qq5fg3Z0FjMtRKN_pep8aA&t=4″:1

I signed this petition, along with 250,000 others so far. This petition will be delivered to Congress before the House of Representatives votes next week. When you sign, you’ll be kept informed of the next steps we can take to keep the heat on Congress.

Snopes.com, which monitors various causes that circulate on the Internet, explained:

bq. Simply put, network neutrality means that no web site’s traffic has precedence over any other’s…Whether a user searches for recipes using Google, reads an article on snopes.com, or looks at a friend’s MySpace profile, all of that data is treated equally and delivered from the originating web site to the user’s web browser with the same priority. In recent months, however, some of the telephone and cable companies that control the telecommunications networks over which Internet data flows have floated the idea of creating the electronic equivalent of a paid carpool lane.

If companies like AT&T have their way, Web sites ranging from Google to eBay to iTunes either pay protection money to get into the “fast lane” or risk opening slowly on your computer. We can’t let the Internet — this incredible medium which has been such a revolutionary force for democratic participation, economic innovation, and free speech — become captive to large corporations.

Politicians don’t think we are paying attention to this issue. Together, we do care about preserving the free and open Internet.

*Please sign this petition letting your member of Congress know you support preserving Internet freedom.* Click here:

“http://www.civic.moveon.org/save_the_internet/?id=7449-3566631-Qq5fg3Z0FjMtRKN_pep8aA&t=5″:2

Thanks.

[1]http://www.civic.moveon.org/save_the_internet/?id=7449-3566631-Qq5fg3Z0FjMtRKN_pep8aA&t=4
[2]http://www.civic.moveon.org/save_the_internet/?id=7449-3566631-Qq5fg3Z0FjMtRKN_pep8aA&t=5

Filed under: Network Neutrality, Policy

April 26, 2006 • 1:05 pm 0

What is Net Neutrality Video

Public Knowledge has posted a great “Schoolhouse Rocks” style video explaining Net Neutrality.

p=.

Filed under: Network Neutrality, News, Policy

April 21, 2006 • 12:51 pm 0

Broad Coalition Fights for Net Freedom

“FreePress”:2 just launched the “Save the Internet”:3 campaign and website, where you can find out more about the battle that is being fought to keep our internet freedoms (free as in unfettered access, not free as in no cost). I’d recommend that everyone read and contact their Senators and Representatives in order to make sure that telcos and cablecos don’t restrict our access to information.

bq. The “SavetheInternet.com Coalition”:4 launches April 24 to urge Congress to take immediate steps to save the First Amendment of the Internet — a principle called “network neutrality” that ensures that the Web remains open to innovation and progress.

bq. Congress is about to vote on a bill that would ruin network neutrality by letting big phone and cable companies set up toll booths along the information superhighway. Companies like AT&T, Verizon and Comcast are spending tens of millions in Washington to kill any protection of the free and open Internet.

bq. This bill would let these network giants become Internet gatekeepers, deciding which Web sites go fast or slow — and which won’t load at all.

bq. Only giant corporations will be able to afford to pay their toll for speedy delivery. The rest of us will be detoured to the “slow lane” — clicking furiously and waiting for our favorite sites to download. Coalition members are reaching out to millions of constituents in a broad campaign to tell Congress to save net neutrality now:

bq. “http://action.freepress.net/campaign/savethenet”:1

bq. Our elected representatives are trading favors for campaign donations from phone and cable companies. They’re being wooed by people like AT&T’s CEO, who says “the Internet can’t be free” and wants his company to decide what you do, where you go and what you watch online.

bq. The best ideas rarely come from those with the deepest pockets. If the phone and cable companies get their way, the open and free Internet could soon be fenced in by large corporations. If Congress turns the Internet over to AT&T, everyone will suffer.

bq. The “SavetheInternet.com Coalition”:4 was formed to prevent Internet gatekeepers from blocking or discriminating against new economic, political and social ideas. We are mobilizing millions of Americans to urge Congress to preserve the free and open Internet.

bq. We must act now or lose the Internet as we know it.

[1]http://action.freepress.net/campaign/savethenet
[2]http://www.freepress.net
[3]http://www.savetheinternet.com
[4]http://www.savetheinternet.com/=coalition

Filed under: Network Neutrality, News, Policy

April 20, 2006 • 4:29 pm 0

MoveOn Campaign to save the Internet

MoveOn has just launched a campaign to save the Internet. Read on:

*Google, Amazon, MoveOn. All these entities are fighting back as Congress tries to pass a law giving a few corporations the power to end the free and open Internet as we know it.*

Do you buy books online, use Google, or download to an Ipod? These activities, plus MoveOn’s online organizing ability, will be hurt if Congress passes a radical law that gives giant corporations more control over the Internet.

Internet providers like AT&T and Verizon are lobbying Congress hard to gut Network Neutrality, the Internet’s First Amendment. Net Neutrality prevents AT&T from choosing which websites open most easily for you based on which site pays AT&T more. Amazon.com doesn’t have to outbid Barnes & Noble for the right to work more properly on your computer.

If Net Neutrality is gutted, MoveOn either pays protection money to dominant Internet providers or risks that online activism tools don’t work for members. Amazon and Google either pay protection money or risk that their websites process slowly on your computer. That why these high-tech pioneers are joining the fight to protect Network Neutrality1 — and you can do your part today.

*The free and open Internet is under seige — can you sign this petition letting your member of Congress know you support preserving Network Neutrality?*

*”Tell Congress to preserve the free and open Internet today.”:1*

P.S. *If Congress abandons Network Neutrality, who will be affected?*
* *Advocacy groups like MoveOn — Political organizing could be slowed by a handful of dominant Internet providers who ask advocacy groups to pay “protection money” for their websites and online features to work correctly.
* *Nonprofits* — A charity’s website could open at snail-speed, and online contributions could grind to a halt, if nonprofits can’t pay dominant Internet providers for access to “the fast lane” of Internet service.
* *Google users* — Another search engine could pay dominant Internet providers like AT&T to guarantee the competing search engine opens faster than Google on your computer.
* *Innovators with the “next big idea”* — Startups and entrepreneurs will be muscled out of the marketplace by big corporations that pay Internet providers for dominant placing on the Web. The little guy will be left in the “slow lane” with inferior Internet service, unable to compete.
* *Ipod listeners* — A company like Comcast could slow access to iTunes, steering you to a higher-priced music service that it owned.
* *Online purchasers* — Companies could pay Internet providers to guarantee their online sales process faster than competitors with lower prices — distorting your choice as a consumer.
* *Small businesses and tele-commuters* — When Internet companies like AT&T favor their own services, you won’t be able to choose more affordable providers for online video, teleconferencing, Internet phone calls, and software that connects your home computer to your office.
* *Parents and retirees* — Your choices as a consumer could be controlled by your Internet provider, steering you to their preferred services for online banking, health care information, sending photos, planning vacations, etc.
* *Bloggers* — Costs will skyrocket to post and share video and audio clips — silencing citizen journalists and putting more power in the hands of a few corporate-owned media outlets.

[1]http://www.civic.moveon.org/save_the_internet/?id=7355-3566631-h60jchVLX1e9.A7zdEdFew&t=4

Filed under: Network Neutrality, Policy

March 26, 2006 • 11:35 pm 0

What does FCC chair Kevin Martin mean when he says he supports "tiering"?

Mediageek has a “great post”:1 questioning FCC Chair Kevin Martin’s support for “tiering”:

bq. Martin also expressed support for “tiering” broadband packages, allowing providers to charge more for richer content. Yet it doesn’t seem clear to me whether Martin is just supporting the idea that a consumer would pay more to get a 10 megabit connection than for a 2 megabit connection, or if he actually supports the ability of AT&T to charge content providers in order to reach households via their internet connections. He might even support the ability for an ISP to charge consumers a higher price to receive internet content from providers that haven’t struck a deal with that ISP. It’s simply not clear.

bq. There’s a crucial difference between these interpretations of “tiering” and because this word is being thrown around so much it’s often difficult to know who’s supporting what.

I, for one, would like Martin to be crystal clear on this subject, since his interpretation of “tiering” is critical to the Net Neutrality debate.

[1]http://www.mediageek.net/?p=1370

Filed under: Network Neutrality, Policy

March 16, 2006 • 1:06 am 3

Internet Freeloaders – Should Google have to pay for the bandwidth it consumes?

“Adam L. Penenberg”:1, an assistant professor at New York University and assistant director of the business and economic reporting program in the school’s department of journalism, “writes a great piece for Slate”:2 that if Telcos honestly can’t sustain their networks, then they should just start charging people based on usage:

bq. If the telcos and cable companies get their way, we’ll have a Balkanized Web. Content providers who can afford to pay for premium service will market superior products to consumers with fast connections. Everyone else will make do with second-class companies at second-class speeds.

bq. The business model that this most resembles is cable television. There’s one key difference, though. In the cable world, the service providers pay channels for the rights to broadcast their shows. In the system that telco-cable is proposing for the Internet, the content providers—who provide the services that make customers clamor for broadband in the first place—would have to pay for the privilege of being included.

bq. Not all content providers are taking this lying down. Business 2.0′s Om Malik reports that Google has been buying up miles of “dark” fiber — unused fiber-optic cable — at severely depressed prices. Malik believes that Google plans to “blanket major cities with Wi-Fi,” including San Francisco, Washington, D.C., and New York. Given Google’s ethos, its Wi-Fi would probably be free, with revenue derived from targeted advertising. Obviously, the telcos and cable companies would have trouble competing with that. Even if telco-cable is successful in implementing a two-tiered Internet plan, another workaround could be municipal wireless networks, like those being built in Philadelphia. (No wonder Verizon has been fighting them tooth and nail.)

bq. There’s a far better solution than Verizon charging Google to use its bandwidth or Google becoming a service provider itself. What about having subscribers pay for the bandwidth they consume? Just like you buy variable rate cell-phone plans and pay for electricity based on how much you use, your broadband bills should be calculated the same way. That way, heavy Net users could subsidize the Internet for those who don’t use it as often, and access would be available for anybody who wants it. Then content would remain free, and everyone would benefit.

[1]http://www.penenberg.com/
[2]http://www.slate.com/id/2134397/

Filed under: Network Neutrality, News

March 15, 2006 • 10:04 am 0

Great quote by Wendy Seltzer

USA Today “has a great quote”:1 by Wendy Seltzer, formerly a staff attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation and now a Brooklyn Law School professor of internet law:

bq. Without forcing some commitment to net neutrality from Internet providers, small start-ups may never get a chance to see where their ideas could lead, advocates say. The very vitality of the Internet will be threatened.

bq. “That’s certainly something that the net neutrality forces will be trying to argue,” says Ms. Seltzer. “Network neutrality might be a little bit of regulation, but it’s regulation that’s good for [promoting] a lot more free market.”

[1]http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2006-03-14-tiered-web_x.htm

Filed under: Network Neutrality, News, Policy

March 15, 2006 • 1:02 am 0

Stop using Broadband

No, I don’t mean that you should cancel your high-speed internet connection. What I mean is: Stop using the term “broadband”.

I think that we need to change how we argue our points against the teleco and cable monopolies. You see, “Broadband” isn’t the internet. Its just a way to get access to the internet. Most other countries understand this, but in the USA, we’re so blinded by the marketing and PR of our Telco and Cable companies, that instead of pushing for high-speed access to the internet, something that should be available to everyone (you should especially know this if you read this blog!), we’re talking about “Universal Broadband”.

“Universal Broadband” has a great ring to it. But its wrong. Broadband is a marketing term that has been co-opted by Telco and Cable companies to mean whatever “high-speed” network *they* provide. And this is where things get confused. We’re starting to see legislation that promotes “Universal Broadband”, which is good in theory. But when we phrase it like that, we’re implicitly promoting certain *ways* to get high-speed internet access. In effect, we’re using legislation and our own PR efforts to market for the type of crappy, slow, restricted internet access that our Telco and Cable companies offer.

*Instead, we should be pushing for and talking about “High-speed Internet”, high-speed connections to that cloud of services and content that we’re all providing for each other, in whatever form makes sense to you, the end user.* In many cases, it will be broadband dsl and broadband cablemodem service. But it might also me your local municipal or private Wi-Fi network, or satellite-based service. Or something we haven’t thought of yet.

Filed under: Community Wireless, Network Neutrality, Policy

March 14, 2006 • 11:41 pm 0

The New Yorker: NET LOSSES

The “New Yorker has a great commentary”:1 on exactly why we are fighting for network neutrality.

bq. The logic of the tiered-access approach is simple: broadband companies do the work of providing Internet access, so they should be able to charge what they can for it. Telecom executives say that the revenue from tiered access would let them invest more in adding bandwidth and improving download speeds, and argue that Web sites are parasites taking, as A.T. & T.’s chairman, Edward E. Whitacre, Jr., put it, a “free ride” on the pipes the broadband companies own. But these companies have pipes into people’s homes in the first place only because of a long history of government regulation, and people want to use those pipes only because of all the value the so-called parasites have created. And it’s that value which tiered access—even if it does improve the Internet’s infrastructure—will put in harm’s way. The Internet has become a remarkable fount of economic and social innovation largely because it’s been an archetypal level playing field, on which even sites with little or no money behind them—blogs, say, or Wikipedia—can become influential. If the Internet turns into a zone of tiered access, it will be harder for noncommercial sites or startup companies to compete with bigger firms.

bq. Broadband providers insist that they have no plans to block access or degrade service to those who don’t pay a premium rate. But if some companies are getting better service, then all the others are getting worse service. Besides, there have already been examples of active discrimination. Last year, a rural telecom company in North Carolina blocked its users’ access to the Internet-based phone service Vonage, and in Canada the telecom company Telus blocked access to a Web site supporting the telecommunications workers’ union. Market forces will offer some check to this kind of interference—if a particular provider goes too far, customers will take their business elsewhere—but, in the world of broadband, market forces are weak, because most cities have only two major providers. More than ninety per cent of Americans get Internet service from either their local phone company or their local cable company, and A.T. & T.’s newly announced acquisition of BellSouth means that there will soon be only three major phone companies in the entire U.S.

bq. …

bq. Decisions that once were made collectively by hundreds of millions of Internet users would now be shaped in large part by a handful of telecom executives. It used to be said that the Internet was all about “disintermediation.” With the end of network neutrality, the middlemen are striking back.

[1]http://www.newyorker.com/talk/content/articles/060320ta_talk_surowiecki

Filed under: Network Neutrality, News, Policy

March 13, 2006 • 1:16 am 1

Vonage Requests CRTC Investigation Into Shaw VoIP Charges

“Michael Geist reports”:1 on a complaint that Vonage Canada has filed against Shaw for Shaw’s “quality of service enhancement”, which appears to be the first major discriminatory move against Vonage by a telco or cableco. The issues involved in this case are far-reaching, and particularly pertinent to the “Network Neutrality”:2 issue. If Shaw is providing a proper high-speed internet service, then Vonage users should generally be provided good quality phone service via their high-speed internet connection. But issues with VoIP service might be nothing more than anti-competitive tactics by the incumbent telco or cableco, and the end user would be none the wiser.

bq. Vonage Canada has filed a complaint with the CRTC against Shaw over Shaw’s VoIP premium surcharge. The cable company charges a $10 “quality of service enhancement” fee for VoIP users, which Vonage is characterizing as a VoIP tax. Vonage argues that because it “competes directly with the telephone services of the network operators that also provide the high-speed Internet access, the incentives to discriminate against us are clear. This will result in less innovation, less choice and higher prices for Canadian consumers in the long run.”

bq. This could become a hugely important case since much of the two-tier Internet is based on similar enhancement fees for either customers or web services. The CRTC mistakenly declined to address the net neutrality last year in its VoIP decision, despite considerable evidence that this was an emerging issue that could have debilitating effect on the Internet. In the months since that decision, both the telcos and cable cos have openly discussed their plans for a two-tier Internet. While it appears that Vonage has focused primarily on the need for greater transparency with the Shaw fee, this has opened the door to the CRTC becoming more engaged on network neutrality.

[1]http://michaelgeist.ca/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1147&Itemid=85
[2]http://www.wirelesscommunity.info/network-neutrality

Filed under: Network Neutrality, News, Policy

Twitter

Blog Stats

  • 710 hits
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.