http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/nov/09/murdoch-google
Rupert Murdoch says he will remove stories from Google's search index as a way to encourage people to pay for content online.http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/nov/09/murdoch-google
Rupert Murdoch says he... more
As we've previously discussed, Senator John McCain hates him some "net neutrality." And so, he's introducing the "Internet Freedom Act of 2009," that would give telecoms the "freedom" to turn the "internet" into a confounding and baffling ordeal that would suck, into infinity. Net neutrality, which McCain, inventor of the Blackberry, wants to do away with, would keep internet service providers from favoring some content packets over others. To borrow an example elucidated by Boing Boing's Xeni Jardin, net neutrality is what prevents Time Warner, a provider, from slowing or blocking access to MSNBC in favor of CNN.
What would life be like under the "Internet Freedom Act?" Well, one Reddit user created an image that depicts the "worst case scenario."http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/29/losing-net-neutrality-wha_n_338351.html
As... more
Jon Stewart lampooned politicians who have come out against an open Internet, including Sen. John McCain, who introduced a bill that would derail the FCC’s proposed Net Neutrality rules. McCain also happens to receive more telco cash than any other member of Congress.Jon Stewart lampooned politicians who have come out against an open Internet,... more
This whole issue is driving me insane. I have never seen so much doublespeak in my entire life... and the worst part about it is that most of these politicians have no idea what the hell they are even talking about.
Here is what is boils down to for me: If i am paying for the internet, I want full access to it. I don't want my provider to give packet priority to companies it owns, or that pay it for priority.
Now, based on all the political BS surrounding this issue, I would think that I am in favor of net neutrality. But if you listen to the way it is described by "officials" on the issue, one would think that I would be opposed to it.
This gets especially confusing to the average citizen when you have people like McCain pushing for the "Internet Freedom Act," which actually is in favor of the opposite. The bill is in favor of allowing ISPs to use packet and bandwidth restrictions, giving the ISPs the "freedom" to restrict us. Way to go McCain
So here's to you, American politics, for purposely trying to deceive the public on important issues for over 200 years! CheersThis whole issue is driving me insane. I have never seen so much doublespeak in my... more
An interesting read. Perhaps net neutrality proponents should be careful what they wish for?An interesting read. Perhaps net neutrality proponents should be careful what they... more
Raw Story-Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) introduced a bill in the Senate on Thursday that would effectively allow Internet service providers to slow down or block Internet content or applications of their choosing.
The move came the same day as the federal government decided to move forward on an official Net neutrality policy that would prevent ISPs from making those types of decisions.
The FCC's new rules would prevent ISPs, for example, from blocking or slowing bandwidth-hogging Web traffic such as streaming video or other applications that put a strain on their networks or from charging different rates to users.
McCain's bill, the Internet Freedom Act, would block the Federal Communications Commission from making Net neutrality the law of the land. The rule preventing ISPs from slowing down certain types of content would create "onerous federal regulation," McCain argued in a written statement.
According to a report at NetworkWorld, McCain "called the proposed Net neutrality rules a 'government takeover' of the Internet that will stifle innovation and depress an 'already anemic' job market in the US."
But supporters of Net neutrality argue that the rule is needed to ensure that Internet providers don't censor content, or slow down traffic to Web sites that are in competition with their business allies.
FCC chairman Julius Genachowski argued that "reasonable and enforceable rules of the road" were needed "to preserve a free and open Internet."
"The Internet's openness has allowed entrepreneurs and innovators, small and large, to create countless applications and services without having to seek permission from anyone," he said.
But, the FCC chairman said, there have been "some significant situations where broadband providers have degraded the data streams of popular lawful services and blocked consumer access to lawful applications."
Two Republicans on the FCC also voted on Thursday to go ahead with the rule-making process, which will be open for public comment until January 14, but voiced misgivings about the plan.
NET NEUTRALITY A 'MARXIST PLOT'?
As the NetworkWorld article notes, McCain was on the opposite side of the Net neutrality debate from President Barack Obama during last year's presidential campaign. During his White House campaign, President Barack Obama came out strongly in favor of Net neutrality, which is backed by companies such as Google, Amazon, Yahoo!, eBay and consumer advocacy groups, but opposed by telecommunications, wireless and cable companies.
Republicans appear to be shifting against Net neutrality and aligning themselves with the telecoms and cable companies.
This week, media watchdog Media Matters criticized conservative news host Glenn Beck for what it said was Beck's allegation that Net neutrality is a "Marxist plot," and that the point of Net neutrality is to "control content," a perspective that prompted MediaMatters and other observers to question whether Beck understands the principle of Net neutrality.
In his announcement today, McCain appeared to agree with the notion that Net neutrality represents regulation and control, rather than a lack thereof.
His bill "will keep the Internet free from government control and regulation," McCain said, as quoted by Phil Goldstein at Fierce Wireless. "It will allow for continued innovation that will in turn create more high-paying jobs for the millions of Americans who are out of work or seeking new employment. Keeping businesses free from oppressive regulations is the best stimulus for the current economy."Raw Story-Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) introduced a bill in the Senate on Thursday that... more
The federal government this week is stepping squarely into a high-stakes technology battle with this seemingly straightforward question at its core: Should Internet providers such as Comcast and AT&T be allowed to control what you do online once you buy access to their networks?
If the answer seems obvious -- of course they shouldn't -- the debate hardly ends there. What if your activity online hogs so much bandwidth, like watching TV or downloading movies, that it slows your neighbor's Internet speed to a crawl?
Or what if the application you're using undercuts the Internet provider's business model? One example: Should AT&T be allowed to stop you from making free calls over the iPhone data network, bypassing the company's lucrative cell phone network?
Those are the kinds of vexing issues at play as the Federal Communications Commission assumes an enhanced role as Internet traffic cop. The goal, according to the commission's new chairman, Democrat Julius Genachowski, is to keep the Internet as open and accessible as possible for consumers and innovators.
"It's about fair rules of the road for companies that control access to the Internet," Genachowski said in a recent speech. "This is about preserving and maintaining something profoundly successful and ensuring that it's not distorted or undermined."
But in pursuing that aim, the FCC is thrusting itself into a real-world business clash between some of the nation's fastest-evolving industries, raising questions about the appropriate level of government regulation.
On Thursday, the five-member commission is expected to vote to take an initial step toward adopting so-called "net neutrality" rules, siding with top Silicon Valley content providers such as Google and Yahoo (which benefit from open, unnegotiated access to the Internet to promote their services) over telecommunications giants including AT&T and Verizon (which argue that they should maintain control over their networks after investing billions of dollars in them). In a significant shift, the rules would extend beyond wired broadband networks to the realm of wireless networks.
(more after the jump)The federal government this week is stepping squarely into a high-stakes technology... more
Federal regulators took an important step Thursday toward prohibiting broadband providers from favoring or discriminating against certain kinds of Internet traffic.
Despite the concerns of telecommunications companies and the agency's two Republicans, the Federal Communications Commission voted to begin writing so-called "network neutrality" regulations. Proponents say the rules would prevent phone and cable companies from abusing their control over the market for broadband access.
FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski said regulations are needed to ensure that broadband subscribers can access all legal Web sites and services, including Internet calling applications and video sites that compete with the broadband companies' core businesses.
"Internet users should always have the final say about their online service, whether it's the software, applications or services they choose, or the networks and hardware they use to the connect to the Internet," Genachowski said.
The FCC's two other Democrats voted to support his plan. The agency's two Republican commissioners voted merely to start the formal rule-making process, but said they are opposed to the substance of Genachowski's proposal.
Republican Commissioner Robert McDowell said he remains unconvinced that broadband providers are engaging in widespread anticompetitive behavior that requires government intervention.
"I do not share the majority's view that the Internet is showing breaks and cracks, nor do I believe that the government is the best tool to fix it," he said.
In addition, Senator John McCain (R-Ariz.) introduced legislation --The Internet Freedom Act of 2009--that would block the FCC from enacting net neutrality rules.
Story continues below
"This government takeover of the Internet will stifle innovation, in turn slowing our economic turnaround and further depressing an already anemic job market. Outside of health care, the technology industry is the nation's fastest growing job market," a press release from McCain's office said, according to The Hill (http://thehill.com/hillicon-valley/605-technology/64325-mccain-seeks-to-block-fcc-rules).
Next up for the FCC is to actually craft the rules, with a vote on whether to adopt them expected to come by next summer.
That would culminate a five-year debate in Washington that has pitted Internet companies such as Google Inc. against some of the biggest phone and cable companies - including AT&T Inc., Verizon Communications Inc. and Comcast Corp.
The broadband providers insist they need flexibility, free from government intervention, to keep their networks running smoothly. They want to ensure that high-bandwidth applications such as YouTube videos don't hog too much capacity and impede other traffic, like e-mail and online searches. They also say that net neutrality regulations would discourage them from expanding and upgrading their networks.
"We continue to hope that any rules adopted by the commission will not harm the investment and innovation that has made the Internet what it is today and that will make it even greater tomorrow," Comcast Executive Vice President David L. Cohen said in a statement.
But companies such as Google, Amazon.com Inc., eBay Inc.'s Skype and Facebook Inc. argue that without such rules, the broadband companies will become online gatekeepers that can prioritize their own online services or those of their business partners - and potentially put others at a disadvantage.
Markham Erickson, executive director of the Open Internet Coalition, called Thursday's vote "the first step toward ... creating a framework that promotes innovation and consumer choice on the Internet."
The Open Internet Coalition represents public interest groups and big Internet companies, including Google, Amazon and eBay (http://www.openinternetcoalition.com/).Federal regulators took an important step Thursday toward prohibiting broadband... more
The Federal Communications Commission recently led discussions on proposed Net Neutrality Rules including, broadband speeds to be adopted for those companies using federal dollars to upgrade their networks. This comes at the same time the FCC is proposing to provide the underpinnings of a governmental mandate to; serve the underserved.......read more......http://www.thecablepipeline.com/2009/10/05/private-investment-fcc-should-tread-carefully-on-broadband-rules/The Federal Communications Commission recently led discussions on proposed Net... more
I taped Sen Franken at the recent Fututre of Music Conference in Washington DC which I was covering for filmmakermagazine.com. He is introduced by Mike Mills from REM. His speech is about Net Neutrality which is the effort to keep the Web open to all with equal access. This effort is in response to attempts by ISP's to sell higher quality broadcast access to big companies while relegating small broadcasters such as citizen journalists to low speed/quality access...I taped Sen Franken at the recent Fututre of Music Conference in Washington DC which I... more
According to a post on the AT&T News Room site, "The FCC is conducting inquiries into the wireless industry regarding competition and innovation. Additionally, the FCC has announced an upcoming rule making on net neutrality that would apply to wired and wireless networks." said Ralph De la Vega during an address at CTIA’s semi-annual convention. If not the FCC than who? AT&T should be left to their own devices?
Getting calls on your mobile is one thing, but when you start allowing TelCo's to sanction access to internet based content, we are treading into the global, public pools of information. It comes down to cost, only those who can afford top-level services will have access to what should be publicly accessible information if AT&T et al have their way.
AT&T CEO, Richard Del La Vega is quoted as saying “The facts are clear: the U.S. wireless industry’s virtuous cycle of innovation and investment is working to deliver real value to American consumers,” said de la Vega. “We want that to continue.”
The post goes on to site the top ten reasons AT&T should be allowed to do whatever they want... (*ahem*) I mean, what de la vega says: “As part of our dialog with the FCC, we hope to present some important facts to show how — and why — less regulation is the best path to the future for America’s wireless industry,” or, "Why AT&T should be allowed to be the entity making those regulatory decisions because they know best! And to prove they know best, AT&T "created a site dedicated to the first completed decade of AT&T innovation in the 21st century. Supporting Mr. de la Vega’s remarks at CTIA, the new site reflects on AT&T’s effort to set a leader’s pace in bringing more innovation and customer choice to areas such as devices, networks and application development."
Ah, Mr. de la Vega started his career in 1974 with BellSouth (then Southern Bell) as a management assistant. He _would_ know how innovative AT&T is after all this time. See, they made a chart and everything! http://www.att.com/gen/press-room?pid=2949
What do you think?According to a post on the AT&T News Room site, "The FCC is conducting inquiries into... more
Nico McLane (User of much Bandwidth and Streaming Media All-Star) muses along side A.M. Arno (abuser of much bandwidth and marketing professional) on the question of... "How should Net Neutrality affect the mobile Internet?"
It really is quite simple: the same way NetNeutrality effects the real internet. Why should there be a difference between the "mobile" internet and the "real" internet? There is only one internet, and it should not matter how you access content on it of whether it's via a smartphone, netbook, or your tv's set-top box. These are all IP-based communications over the same internet we all know and love today.
Watching live shows in real time requires real streaming over the real internet, mobile or otherwise. Cable companies have made some provisions toward handing over access to subscribers, and more options are available as to how subscribers are able to watch what they watch, but the industries are taking baby steps. Nico loves her new Palm Pre on Sprint Nextel; the live streaming experience may not be 100% at all times, but the seeds have been sown, and because we have access to the network and the devices are not locked down, we as an industry can work together to make the experience better.
Nico notes: "After spending a lot of time thinking about how I want to experience mobile to set top box to notebook programming, I think that Sprint, with their live Sprint TV already off the ground should partner with TiVo to develop the ultimate semantic, take-me -with-you programming experience—they share a similar corporate culture and the more I think about it, the more I realize what a wonderful partnership that would be!"
Verizon's FiOS TV offers limited access to a some user-generated web sites, and Comcast and Time Warner Cable are rolling out services that let subscribers stream cable channels to their PCs, but we are still in the proverbial "lab" of life trying to figure this all out! What do you think?
Time Warner Cable asked the FCC to lay off the Net Neutrality conversation, stating "Now is not the time to engage in a debate about the need for net neutrality obligations." But if we don't start out with equal and open access, how would we go backwards?Nico McLane (User of much Bandwidth and Streaming Media All-Star) muses along side... more
HR 3458 is Markey's 3rd attempt to pass Net Neutrality regulations that will give the FCC broad authority to dictate how ISP's manage their networks. Please spread the word!
Read the bill here: http://bytestyle.tv/node/163HR 3458 is Markey's 3rd attempt to pass Net Neutrality regulations that will give the... more
Chicago Tribune rock critic Greg Kot reports from the Future of Music Coalition Conference.
WASHINGTON, D.C. – Can the notion of a free Internet co-exist with the rights of music copyright holders, whose intellectual property is being shared – often without consent – by a wired generation of music fans?Chicago Tribune rock critic Greg Kot reports from the Future of Music Coalition... more
The anti-Net Neutrality brigade is at it again. Some may have seen the recent opinion piece at NPR.com by Scott Cleland, which offers a litany of reasons why net neutrality — which makes the internet go vroom! — should be done away with to fill the coffers of a few powerful Internet Service Providers (ISPs). We’ve heard Cleland’s views on the issue many times, but we couldn’t disagree more with his position.
In the article, Cleland claims that net neutrality principles are damaging to free speech and business. Actually, it’s kind of the opposite.
Net neutrality is the principle that protects the open internet. The web was built on open structures that gives everyone equal footing on the most important communications platform since the printing press. Net neutrality ensures that you can use the lawful applications and devices of your choice, and also means that ISPs can’t discriminate whether or not your information is delivered based on how deep your pockets are.
Here’s an analogy. Your favorite pizza place is a local joint called Joe’s Pizza. It’s Friday night and your band just finished rehearsal. Nothing would go better with that six pack than a fresh pie from Joe’s. You call up the pizza parlor, order memorized, only to be interrupted by an operator who says, “please hold while we prioritize calls to Domino’s.”
The rest of the story: http://bit.ly/ZOMdDThe anti-Net Neutrality brigade is at it again. Some may have seen the recent opinion... more
A few days ago I was ruminating on the recent on-the-spot conversion of the US FCC's Chairman to network neutrality. I pointed out there was a new site devoted to preserving the same in Europe, called EU Open Internet, which has now clocked up a respectable 2,700 signatures.A few days ago I was ruminating on the recent on-the-spot conversion of the US FCC's... more
AT&T on Friday accused Google of violating the US Federal Communications Commission's net neutrality rules by blocking Google Voice calls to some rural areas.AT&T on Friday accused Google of violating the US Federal Communications Commission's... more
AT&T is accusing Google of being a hypocrite when it comes to Net neutrality because it blocks certain phone calls on its Google Voice service.AT&T is accusing Google of being a hypocrite when it comes to Net neutrality because... more
As first reported in the Washington Post this afternoon, and as has been independently verified by two other Washington news sources, Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R - Texas) has agreed to withdraw her amendment to an Interior Dept. spending bill that would have cut off funding to any Federal Communications Commission effort to regulate "net neutrality." This as aides to FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski, as reported by Congressional Quarterly, approached Sen. Hutchison seeking her withdrawal, at least until the Chairman can put forth a complete proposal.As first reported in the Washington Post this afternoon, and as has been independently... more
