The new bill calls on the FCC to convene at least eight “broadband summits” to collect public input on a variety of policies “that will promote openness, competition, innovation, and affordable, ubiquitous broadband service for all individuals in the United States.”Here's hoping it amounts to something.
Taking the issue outside the Beltway — and beyond the corrosive influence of telecom lobbyists — is an encouraging sign for communities across the country that stand to benefit from the enormous economic and social benefits of an open Internet.
Big phone and cable companies like AT&T, Verizon, Comcast and Time Warner have padded the pockets of Washington lawyers, lobbyists and shills to kill Net Neutrality and pave the way for “network management” practices that allow blocking of certain content in favor of Web sites and services the companies prefer.
Should Internet Service Providers continue to drive the same “neutral” course, giving all search requests and other uses of the Net equal treatment? Absent legislation, will these ISP’s create Internet “toll roads,” giving preference to certain types of information? It is these types of questions that are at the heart of the debate on Net Neutrality.
The University of San Francisco Intellectual Property Law Bulletin is proud to present The Toll Roads? The Legal and Political Debate Over Net Neutrality to held January 26, 2008, at the Fromm Institute on the University of San Francisco main campus. The Symposium will be a gathering where the legal community will join together with political scientists, economists, communications experts and students to engage in a day of presentation and discussion of the issues surrounding Network Neutrality.
He's not in the stove!In other news, the raiding agents were overheard discussing the illustrious Senator's choice of countertops. "I don't think the engineered stone plays well with the tones in the wood. not at all!"
Oh-ho! So he's in the stove, eh, rabbit?
Would I do this [lights a match and throws it into the stove, causing an explosion] if my pal Rocky were in there?
You might, rabbit, you might!
Stevens is facing scrutiny from federal investigators for a home remodeling project, an investigation that dovetailed with a corruption investigation into state officials.Home remodeling project? Wonder how hard it was to find those old mail tubes....
Meanwhile, his son Ben, a former Alaska Senate president, was one of six state lawmakers who had their offices raided by the FBI last year. He has not been charged and has denied any wrongdoing.
10:56: OMG, Stevens is back and better than ever!so...
10:57: Stevens: "Let me be just the Devil's Advocate here. Could I just decide I want to keep my wireline and I want to add wireless to it? Can I have two providers on the same number?"
Awkward pause: "Um, I don't think that technology exists right now."
Stevens: "If I had an IP phone, by definition, I'd have to leave the wire... wireline phone to use it?"
Answer: "I think that is the case with the technology today."
Stevens: "Is it coming? Why shouldn't I be able to say, just by a little switch on my phone at home that's wired, I'm going off on the wireless now, I want to use this as I ride my motorcycle."
Stevens: "I'm bad. Pardon me."
Friday marks the final day for citizens, corporations, and paid spinmeisters alike to file comments with government regulators on Net Neutrality, a principle that ISPs should treat internet traffic equally. As ISPs like Comcast and AT&T increasingly offer and bundle internet video and voice services, internet activists want rules to prevent the carriers from making their services run faster on their own network than external companies.Remember this ain't so much about the ISP's controlling what packets go across their internets networks, its about others paying them for priority access to those tubes pipes. Packets to the highest bidders. Say No.
ISPs counter that packets are doing just fine, rules will prevent them from building really fast networks and the market will sort it all out. It's not the simplest battle, since one may be in favor of having all packets (or all kinds of similar packets like video, email, and IM) treated in the same manner, without believing that Congress should be writing rules. The market might be good enough, or maybe strong principles from government regulators who are willing to make examples of scoflaws is enough. Or maybe even ISPs should be filtering the internet on behalf of copyright holders.
Another AppleTV plugin has made its way out of the AwkwardTV crew, but this time, it's another one of them important ones (at least to me). "xdog" has written a plugin for the AppleTV called "A Series of Tubes" that allows you to watch YouTube videos through the Apple TV.Sounds like a good idea. Now I just need to get my MythTV box to do the same thing!
Net neutrality is both necessary and workable for what I call Jeffersonet, which comprises the âclassicalâ, bandwidth-light parts of the Internet.I'd say you're right about one thing, the comparison to the "new" internet to Edison. If history also has anything to say about Edison, it was that he was a litigious bastard, who tried to sue and bring down any "competitors" that he could. Go ahead and look up the battle between himself and Nikola Tesla. Among others.
...
Network neutrality opponents, however, point to evolving and future
technologies, technically more demanding than what the current Internet
can well support. Their uses are centered on what I call Edisonet
â communication-rich applications such as entertainment, gaming,
telephony, telemedicine, teleteaching, or telemeetings of all kinds.
Over the past dozen years, the lure of regulating the Internet has provenLink: The Best and Worst Internet Laws > Best Internet Laws
irresistible to legislators. For example, in the 109th Congress, almost 1,100
introduced bills referenced the word "Internet." Although this
legislative activity doesnât always come to fruition, hundreds of Internet
laws have been passed by Congress and the states. This body of work is now large
enough that we can identify some winners and losers. So in the spirit of good
fun, I offer an opinionated list of my personal votes for the best and worst
Internet statutes in the United States.
Rep. Edward Markey, who chairs the House Subcommittee on
Telecommunications and the Internet, said if Internet providers are
allowed to start charging fees for preferential treatment then it will
stifle innovation across many industries, not just music.
"This is nothing more than a new bottleneck fee, a corporate broadband
tax that will discriminate against less powerful voices and those
unable or unwilling to pay such discriminatory fees," he said during
the teleconference.
On January 9th, Republican Senator Olympia Snowe and Democrat Byron Dorgan reintroduced the Internet Freedom Preservation act to the Senate. Better known as the Net Neutrality Act, the bill was killed by the Senate last year in a vote split down party lines (Democrats yea, Republicans nay), with the exception of Senator Snowe. With the Democrats having a slight majority in the Senate, the bill certainly has a better chance this time around, but it still needs 60 votes to prevent a Republican filibuster.Hopefully saner minds will prevail and we can put this puppy to sleep once and for all.