Common Cause is a group that strongly desires Network Neutrality. In an article I found, the group stated that Net Neutrality was already being lost to big companies such as Verizon, NARAL, Comcast, and the worst-to-come, AT&T. They also say that while certain politicians are trying to work towards a completely open and free Internet, the subtle transition away from Net Neutrality may, in fact, change their opinion on the topic seeing as it benefits them more than it does the average US citizen. Needless to say, that these politicians will then try less to stop the telephone and cable companies whom provide internet to the people, and could change the outcome of Net Neutrality's legislation for the worse (in terms of the American people). If you wish to aid this powerful group in their strive for a free and open internet, which they hope and need so they can beat the FCC and get Net Neutrality, please visit: http://www.commoncause.org/site/pp.asp?c=dkLNK1MQ1wG&b=1421497
Sunday, December 21, 2008
Thursday, December 18, 2008
Virgin Media is putting Net Neutrality to the test
In the UK, Virgin Media is currently in the process of designing a super-fast broadband service that will allow the delivery of informative Internet to its consumers at an unbelievable rate. This will be done sometime in the late 2009 year and possibly perfected in 2010. This new service is designed to not only deliver fast, but to block torrent sites and other P2P (peer-to-peer) services. Should this service go according to plan, this blogger says, "Will cause the ultimate challenge of how to keep the Internet 'neutral' to be lost...FOREVER! (DUN DUN DUUUUN)" However, there is one small, but at the same time, large aspect that works against Virgin Media's "No-longer Neutral Net" system, and that is the cost of which it will take in order for consumers to use the service. The article reads that it will cost consumers 51 pounds! (about 72 dollars!) per month to use this service, which means that Virgin Media will either have to lower its prices and give a less promising product, or stay as it is and hope and pray that the majority of the world's population becomes exceedingly rich by 2009/2010. Either way, this allows for more debates on whether or not to make the Internet neutral to all or not.
Information found at: http://www.techwatch.co.uk/2008/12/17/net-neutrality-to-be-tested-by-virgin-media/
Information found at: http://www.techwatch.co.uk/2008/12/17/net-neutrality-to-be-tested-by-virgin-media/
Wednesday, December 10, 2008
Summary of the Open Internet Coalition's Letter to Co-Chairs of Obama's Transition Project
This letter was written by the Open Internet Coalition to the Obama-Biden Transition Project in order to express the Coalition's pursuit of keeping the internet fast, open and accessible to all Americans. Highlighted in this blog are the four main points the Coalition touched on in their letter.
1. Appoint a new Chairman and a new Commisioner for the Federal Communications Commission that support strong enforcement and promotion of open Internet principle (Net Neutrality). Obama will be able to reform the FCC to enforce Net Neutrality by means of new plans and laws that will restrict providers from excessive pricing of consumers in order to block some sites and enable others
2. Appoint leaders at the Federal Trade Commission and the department of Justice who understand the importance of promoting an open Internet through vigorous use of pro-competition and consumer protection laws.
3. Require the chief Technology officer and the United States Trade Representative to promote open internet policies at home and abroad.
4. Support legislation in Congress that protects the Open Internet by prohibiting unreasonable discrimination by network operators
Any information regarding the Open Internet Coalition's motives, please write to:
400 N. Capitol Street, NW, Suite 585
Washington, D.C. 20001
Openinternetcoalition.com
1. Appoint a new Chairman and a new Commisioner for the Federal Communications Commission that support strong enforcement and promotion of open Internet principle (Net Neutrality). Obama will be able to reform the FCC to enforce Net Neutrality by means of new plans and laws that will restrict providers from excessive pricing of consumers in order to block some sites and enable others
2. Appoint leaders at the Federal Trade Commission and the department of Justice who understand the importance of promoting an open Internet through vigorous use of pro-competition and consumer protection laws.
3. Require the chief Technology officer and the United States Trade Representative to promote open internet policies at home and abroad.
4. Support legislation in Congress that protects the Open Internet by prohibiting unreasonable discrimination by network operators
Any information regarding the Open Internet Coalition's motives, please write to:
400 N. Capitol Street, NW, Suite 585
Washington, D.C. 20001
Openinternetcoalition.com
Thursday, December 4, 2008
History of Net Neutrality
The term "Net Neutrality" is relatively new, but the idea was developed around the age of the telegram back in 1860, and earlier! Telegrams were developed so that they were routed "equally" without discriminating the information being transfered from point a to point b. This network is called the "end-to-end neutral" network.
Telegrams and phone services are carriers under U.S. laws, which means that they are considered useable to public utililties and overseen by the FCC (Federal Communications Commission) in order to ensure fair access and pricing for use of said devices. Technically, though, the Internet is considered to be under U.S. law as an informational service, not a service of the telecommunications department, thus not subject to the "common carrier" regulations. Because of the Internet's high speed data links, the Internet is not regulated by the common carrier regulations, but because it uses the phone lines, it is qualified and subject to the common carrier regulations.
However, on August 5, 2005, the FCC reclassified DSL services as Informatoinal Services, not Telecommunications Services, thus replacing the well-known common carrier regulations on it. This is wha sparked the initial and lasting debates over whether or not the ISP's should be able to offer different systems for the retrieving of the various Internet services/go against Net Neutrality in order to have the Internet consumer pay to use a service and download and retrieve Internet faster.
Information found at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality_in_the_US
summary by karateman
Telegrams and phone services are carriers under U.S. laws, which means that they are considered useable to public utililties and overseen by the FCC (Federal Communications Commission) in order to ensure fair access and pricing for use of said devices. Technically, though, the Internet is considered to be under U.S. law as an informational service, not a service of the telecommunications department, thus not subject to the "common carrier" regulations. Because of the Internet's high speed data links, the Internet is not regulated by the common carrier regulations, but because it uses the phone lines, it is qualified and subject to the common carrier regulations.
However, on August 5, 2005, the FCC reclassified DSL services as Informatoinal Services, not Telecommunications Services, thus replacing the well-known common carrier regulations on it. This is wha sparked the initial and lasting debates over whether or not the ISP's should be able to offer different systems for the retrieving of the various Internet services/go against Net Neutrality in order to have the Internet consumer pay to use a service and download and retrieve Internet faster.
Information found at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality_in_the_US
summary by karateman
Sunday, November 30, 2008
More on the Net Neutrality Debate as well as information dealing with the bandwidth of video
This story was originally published on July 7, 2008.
The Internet is the greatest technical development of the 20th century, (I think we can all agree witht that) and its open competition model has been the envy of other market sectors. Internet advances are being crushed by monopolistic carriers who are more concerned with censoring content than delivering services to customers. Those desperate statements sum up the positions of the two sides squaring off in an increasingly contentious debate about the Internet's future.
On one side of the debate are Internet service providers (ISPs), which are trying to build viable business models for delivering their services in a rapidly evolving marketplace. On the other side are watchdog groups who feel that the carriers' plans run counter to the Internet's primary mission.
One thing that I've come to realize about these two sides is that a major role in determining the "champion" is how effectively videos will load. This is because video requires loads of bandwidth!!!
Video applications such as online gaming apps take up more bandwidth than simpler applications such as e-mail. In addition, a growing number of carriers are delivering voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) services that require clean connections from their starting points to their end points, thus making the file significantly larger.
Consequently, carriers have been experimenting with Quality of Service (QoS) features, which prioritize different types of traffic. In such cases, priority is given or taken from one application to improve the performance of another. In addition, what carriers charge customers varies with these services. In some cases, ISPs want to charge more for the extra bandwidth needed for video content from sites such as YouTube compared with the textual information from an e-mail service.
Net neutrality advocates view such practices as discriminatory, and want to make them unlawful. They feel that every user should have the ability to use whatever service he or she desires without any additional fees.
Information found at: http://www.ecommercetimes.com/story/The-Still-Simmering-Net-Neutrality-Debate-65270.html
In this article, it tells about how the two sides debating over whether or not Net Neutrality should be allowed or disallowed. It comments on how each one will have its ups and downs with the people of America and told about the "Ultimate Arbiter" as I like to call it. This judgmental factor is the use of video clips (with optional voice input) and the size of which they require to effectively download onto one's computer. Depending on how well these download and how patient/desperate people are to have them will depend on whether or not Net Neutrality will pass and how profitable the Net Neutrality business will actually be.
The Internet is the greatest technical development of the 20th century, (I think we can all agree witht that) and its open competition model has been the envy of other market sectors. Internet advances are being crushed by monopolistic carriers who are more concerned with censoring content than delivering services to customers. Those desperate statements sum up the positions of the two sides squaring off in an increasingly contentious debate about the Internet's future.
On one side of the debate are Internet service providers (ISPs), which are trying to build viable business models for delivering their services in a rapidly evolving marketplace. On the other side are watchdog groups who feel that the carriers' plans run counter to the Internet's primary mission.
One thing that I've come to realize about these two sides is that a major role in determining the "champion" is how effectively videos will load. This is because video requires loads of bandwidth!!!
Video applications such as online gaming apps take up more bandwidth than simpler applications such as e-mail. In addition, a growing number of carriers are delivering voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) services that require clean connections from their starting points to their end points, thus making the file significantly larger.
Consequently, carriers have been experimenting with Quality of Service (QoS) features, which prioritize different types of traffic. In such cases, priority is given or taken from one application to improve the performance of another. In addition, what carriers charge customers varies with these services. In some cases, ISPs want to charge more for the extra bandwidth needed for video content from sites such as YouTube compared with the textual information from an e-mail service.
Net neutrality advocates view such practices as discriminatory, and want to make them unlawful. They feel that every user should have the ability to use whatever service he or she desires without any additional fees.
Information found at: http://www.ecommercetimes.com/story/The-Still-Simmering-Net-Neutrality-Debate-65270.html
In this article, it tells about how the two sides debating over whether or not Net Neutrality should be allowed or disallowed. It comments on how each one will have its ups and downs with the people of America and told about the "Ultimate Arbiter" as I like to call it. This judgmental factor is the use of video clips (with optional voice input) and the size of which they require to effectively download onto one's computer. Depending on how well these download and how patient/desperate people are to have them will depend on whether or not Net Neutrality will pass and how profitable the Net Neutrality business will actually be.
Wednesday, November 26, 2008
U.S. Congress recent actions towards Net Neutrality...
The U.S. Congress will push for net neutrality legislation next year, even though the U.S. Federal Communications Commission has acted against broadband providers that it found to block or slow Web content, an adviser to a senior U.S. senator said Thursday.
While the FCC has addressed what it saw as net neutrality violations on a case-by-case basis in recent years, a law passed by Congress would provide customers, investors, Web-based companies and broadband providers with certainty about the rules of the road, said Frannie Wellings, telecom counsel for Senator Byron Dorgan, a North Dakota Democrat and cosponsor of a bill introduced in 2007 that would have created a net neutrality law.
"We definitely think legislation is necessary," said Wellings, speaking at a University of Nebraska College of Law forum on telecom law in Washington, D.C.
AT&T would prefer that the FCC continue to act on a case-by-case basis on net neutrality issues, said James Cicconi, the telecom's senior executive vice president for external and legislative affairs. After a heated debate for a couple of years, there's been a consensus forming around net neutrality, with many broadband providers now acknowledging that customers want an open Internet and many net neutrality advocates acknowledging that network providers need to manage their networks for the good of customers, he said.
Information found at: http://www.networkworld.com/news/2008/111308-congress-to-push-for-net.html
In this article, Congress is pushing to pass the Net Neutrality law for 2009, even though the FCC found that there are already slow connections and those who have violated the current (temporary) Net Neutrality bill currently in place. Thus, the Congress began to work on these violation cases one-by-one to give each case their full attention. They also planned to, by laying down a real, ludgitimate law that will provide everyone who uses the internet what they can and cannot do. It then proceeds to tell about how AT&T wants the FCC to continue with their current case-by-case way of dealing with cases. Also, numerous broadband providers have been debating heavily on whether or not to provide internet customers with a free internet. They have finally started to conceive the fact that customers desire an open and free internet and that most of the advocates say that its high time that the broadband providers start thinking more about the good of the people, instead of their own, profitable good.
While the FCC has addressed what it saw as net neutrality violations on a case-by-case basis in recent years, a law passed by Congress would provide customers, investors, Web-based companies and broadband providers with certainty about the rules of the road, said Frannie Wellings, telecom counsel for Senator Byron Dorgan, a North Dakota Democrat and cosponsor of a bill introduced in 2007 that would have created a net neutrality law.
"We definitely think legislation is necessary," said Wellings, speaking at a University of Nebraska College of Law forum on telecom law in Washington, D.C.
AT&T would prefer that the FCC continue to act on a case-by-case basis on net neutrality issues, said James Cicconi, the telecom's senior executive vice president for external and legislative affairs. After a heated debate for a couple of years, there's been a consensus forming around net neutrality, with many broadband providers now acknowledging that customers want an open Internet and many net neutrality advocates acknowledging that network providers need to manage their networks for the good of customers, he said.
Information found at: http://www.networkworld.com/news/2008/111308-congress-to-push-for-net.html
In this article, Congress is pushing to pass the Net Neutrality law for 2009, even though the FCC found that there are already slow connections and those who have violated the current (temporary) Net Neutrality bill currently in place. Thus, the Congress began to work on these violation cases one-by-one to give each case their full attention. They also planned to, by laying down a real, ludgitimate law that will provide everyone who uses the internet what they can and cannot do. It then proceeds to tell about how AT&T wants the FCC to continue with their current case-by-case way of dealing with cases. Also, numerous broadband providers have been debating heavily on whether or not to provide internet customers with a free internet. They have finally started to conceive the fact that customers desire an open and free internet and that most of the advocates say that its high time that the broadband providers start thinking more about the good of the people, instead of their own, profitable good.
Japan sets up panel to study Net Neutrality
TOKYO - The Japanese government on Wednesday set up a panel to discuss Internet network neutrality -- a concept that has stirred heated debate in the United States -- and study how the surging popularity of free file-sharing services such as YouTube.com is impacting the infrastructure.
In the U.S., Internet companies like Google Inc. want lawmakers to bar providers like Verizon Communications and AT&T Inc. from charging Web users to guarantee quality and offer services that have faster download speeds for uses such as movies.
The providers have also criticised Web firms as "free riders" of their heavily-invested networks, while they say they have no intention of blocking consumers' access to public Internet sites.
Japanese network providers also face pressure to increase investments as Web traffic soared in the past year with more people getting music and video clips from other Internet users' computers, rather than watching them via online streaming.
The Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications said it will call for inputs from companies such as Google, Yahoo Japan Corp. and Apple Computer Inc., as well as phone operators and television networks, and aim to compile a final report on the subject by July 2007.
Earlier this year, Japan's ministry put together a report on future competition policy in the industry, in which it made some recommendations on the Internet neutrality issue.
The report gave suggestions such as charging extra fees to heavy Internet users to lighten the cost burden on network providers, while making sure that end-users and content providers would be able to access the network freely.
Information found at: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15727226/
So, in this article, it tells about how Tokyo, Japan has set up, obviously, a panel to look into and study Net Neutrality in the United States because the Japanese are rapidly downloading music and videos from the internet and "off the beaten path" web sites instead of using the main Japanese online streaming. The Japanese government sees that Net Neutrality could harm the industry of its countries infrastructure and in an attempt to prevent it, may look into Net Neutrality.
In the U.S., Internet companies like Google Inc. want lawmakers to bar providers like Verizon Communications and AT&T Inc. from charging Web users to guarantee quality and offer services that have faster download speeds for uses such as movies.
The providers have also criticised Web firms as "free riders" of their heavily-invested networks, while they say they have no intention of blocking consumers' access to public Internet sites.
Japanese network providers also face pressure to increase investments as Web traffic soared in the past year with more people getting music and video clips from other Internet users' computers, rather than watching them via online streaming.
The Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications said it will call for inputs from companies such as Google, Yahoo Japan Corp. and Apple Computer Inc., as well as phone operators and television networks, and aim to compile a final report on the subject by July 2007.
Earlier this year, Japan's ministry put together a report on future competition policy in the industry, in which it made some recommendations on the Internet neutrality issue.
The report gave suggestions such as charging extra fees to heavy Internet users to lighten the cost burden on network providers, while making sure that end-users and content providers would be able to access the network freely.
Information found at: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15727226/
So, in this article, it tells about how Tokyo, Japan has set up, obviously, a panel to look into and study Net Neutrality in the United States because the Japanese are rapidly downloading music and videos from the internet and "off the beaten path" web sites instead of using the main Japanese online streaming. The Japanese government sees that Net Neutrality could harm the industry of its countries infrastructure and in an attempt to prevent it, may look into Net Neutrality.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)