Successful Blog

Here is a good place for a call to action.

Net Neutrality 8-10-2006

by

Net Neutrality Links

I’m adding this link to the Net Neutrality Page.

Could Lamont’s victory spell doom for Net Neutrality?

. . . The danger – as I see it – will be if the narrative that [Ned] Lamont’s victory occurred largely as a result of Internet activism becomes the conventional wisdom. If this misleading meme is allowed to take root and propagate, it could be used to conjure up the specter of the Net as an uncontrollable, anarchic force undermining the health of our body politic. Obviously, such a story-line could go a long way toward swaying some of the fence-sitters in Congress toward an anti-Net Neutrality position. It’s hardly inconceivable that they could soon develop a fear that with an unregulated Internet, [Joe] Lieberman’s fate may someday be their own. Worse yet, should the “angry blogger” narrative become entrenched in the public consciousness, these feckless “public servants” would be armed with the talking points needed to sell their anti-Net Neutrality stance to their constiuents.

–ME “Liz” Strauss

Related
NET NEUTRALITY PAGE

Net Neutrality 8-9-2006

by

Net Neutrality Links

I’m adding this link to the Net Neutrality Page.

Reader Comment on Net Neutrality (and My Rebuttal)

Reader Richard Bennett, whose own blog often articulates the telco point of view on Internet Neutrality more coherently than most telcos, posted a challenging comment to my post announcing that I’m speaking at the Berkman Center tomorrow. . . .

“* Do you believe that all applications have the same requirements from the network?”

. . . The reason we need an Internet which is network agnostic is because only an application-unaware network allows the kind of incredible innovation which has occurred on the Internet. David Isenberg (who Richard [Bennett] mislabels on his blog as a marketing person – David’s background is Bell Labs) explains why this is so brilliantly in The Rise of The Stupid Network).

My simplistic explanation is that a network which is built to be aware of specific applications may work well for those applications that the network designers had in mind but will inhibit if not absolutely prevent applications the network designers didn’t think of as well as the evolution of existing applications. The traditional phone network is a great example of that. Handsets on that network don’t even have the capability of cell phones because the network is optimized for voice and voice alone. I posted more on this here. . . .

–ME “Liz” Strauss

Related
NET NEUTRALITY PAGE

Net Neutrality 8-8-2006

by

Net Neutrality Links

I’m adding this link to the Net Neutrality Page.

Even Giants Like Siemens Worry

Why would Siemens worry about net neutrality’s effects on smaller companies? Its customers aren’t necessarily big. “We sell to small and medium companies that are built on a low-cost structure and are net-dependent,” said [Ralph] Riley {Siemens senior executive] in Ann Arbor, Mich.

While the debate over net neutrality continues, users remain the forgotten stakeholders. Click here to read more.

He already sees potential for danger for his company’s markets and customers. “This would probably restrict much of the drive toward mobility that’s growing in American business,” Riley said. He said that with greater regulation, it could become impossible for users to roam freely from one carrier to another as they do now.

“What it would do is suppress much of the opportunity businesses have in expanding mobility,” he said. “How would you go anywhere without being charged too much or not getting access?”

But Riley said he also worries that too much regulation would be just as bad. . . .

–ME “Liz” Strauss

Related
NET NEUTRALITY PAGE

Net Neutrality 8-7-2006

by

Net Neutrality Links

I’m adding this link to the Net Neutrality Page.

Online Advocacy: Same As It Ever Was?

The net neutrality fight has many parallels to anti-Communications Decency Act battle that raged beginning in 1995. Online activists were emboldened by free-speech issues and teamed with established companies to fight the legislation. The activists lost the fight in Congress and with President Clinton who signed the bill, but generated enough momentum and support that they rallied considerable resources to their side to win in the Supreme Court, which struck down the law.

The activists…

  • Got sites like Yahoo! to go black for a day (Black Thursday)
  • Organized online petitions that got more than 100,000 signatures
  • Drove direct constituent communications to members of Congress

    • If we can learn from recent history, the CDA battle taught us that the Web can quickly bring people together to marshal forces for a common cause, but that if the driving issue goes away, so do many of the participants. You need a pressing, immediate battle to really rally the troops. . . .

    –ME “Liz” Strauss

    Related
    NET NEUTRALITY PAGE

    Net Neutrality 8-6-2006

    by

    Net Neutrality Links

    I’m adding this link to the Net Neutrality Page.

    Net Neutrality Tool Misses the Point

    . . . However, what some are missing is critical to this whole net neutrality debate. It’s not that we won’t know or be able to detect if we’re experiencing packet discrimination. Heck, we already know broadband providers are going to discriminate because they’ve told us they will—AT&T’s Whitacre even said it recently again, in case there was any question.

    No the issue is this: we’ll know the discrimination is happening, but the internet surfing public and web-based businesses will be unable to do anything about it. Why? Because last year the FCC gave up that discrimination complaint-process role and in Congress’ telecom bills (House and proposed Senate), even if the FCC changed its mind and wanted to do something, its hands will be tied. . . .

    –ME “Liz” Strauss

    Related
    NET NEUTRALITY PAGE

    Net Neutrality 8-5-2006

    by

    Net Neutrality Links

    I’m adding these links to the Net Neutrality Page.

    It’s Saturday. Check out this music video . . . it’s cool.

    We Are the Web

    Internet Video

    Mind If I Mislead You?

    Even though Mike McCurry is AT&T’s mouthpiece, not Verizon or Vonage’s, does it make a real difference? His credibility (mind if I mislead you?) has been challenged by Michael Masnick from Techdirt. Why? Because “he asserts that Google’s access to bandwidth doesn’t cost the company a dime.”

    Guess what? No matter which side of the Net Neutrality issue you may be on – you just had smoke blown up your arse! How’s it feel?

    –ME “Liz” Strauss

    Related
    NET NEUTRALITY PAGE