| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"maff" |
| Date: |
20 Feb 2006 05:41:41 PM |
| Object: |
OT: Tollbooths on the Internet Highway |
Tollbooths on the Internet Highway
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/20/opinion/20mon1.html
http://forums.delphiforums.com/atheistrefuge/messages?msg=1786.10211
If the Internet is to remain free, and freely evolving, it is important
that network neutrality legislation be passed.
Why Kaine Is Different
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/19/AR2006021901136.html
http://forums.delphiforums.com/atheistrefuge/messages?msg=1791.7977
By Fred Hiatt
Monday, February 20, 2006; Page A21
RICHMOND -- Tim Kaine, who has been governor of Virginia for 37 days,
is sometimes portrayed, especially outside the state, as junior partner
and loyal successor to Mark Warner, as Warner moves on to the national
stage.
The Road to Riches
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/msg/5ba95f4634dec9cd
and thread
The Road to Riches
http://tinyurl.com/55nzo
A Blueprint for the Future
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/msg/a8545c8e949926bc
.
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Tollbooths on the Internet Highway |
27 Feb 2006 09:53:37 AM |
|
|
On 20 Feb 2006 15:41:41 -0800, "maff" <maff91@yahoo.com> wrote in
alt.atheism
Tollbooths on the Internet Highway
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/20/opinion/20mon1.html
https://freepress.net/news/13968
Tollbooths on the Internet Highway
From New York Times, February 20, 2006
When you use the Internet today, your browser glides from one Web site
to another, accessing all destinations with equal ease. That could
change dramatically, however, if Internet service providers are allowed
to tilt the playing field, giving preference to sites that pay them
extra and penalizing those that don’t.
The Senate held hearings last week on “network neutrality,” the
principle that I.S.P.’s — the businesses like Verizon or Roadrunner that
deliver the Internet to your computer — should not be able to stack the
deck in this way. If the Internet is to remain free, and freely
evolving, it is important that neutrality legislation be passed.
In its current form, Internet service operates in the same
nondiscriminatory way as phone service. When someone calls your home,
the telephone company puts through the call without regard to who is
calling. In the same way, Internet service providers let Web sites
operated by eBay, CNN or any other company send information to you on an
equal footing. But perhaps not for long. It has occurred to the service
providers that the Web sites their users visit could be a rich new
revenue source. Why not charge eBay a fee for using the Internet
connection to conduct its commerce, or ask Google to pay when customers
download a video? A Verizon Communications executive recently sent a
scare through cyberspace when he said at a telecommunications
conference, as The Washington Post reported, that Google “is enjoying a
free lunch” that ought to be going to providers like Verizon.
The solution, as far as the I.S.P.’s are concerned, could be what some
critics are calling “access tiering,” different levels of access for
different sites, based on ability and willingness to pay. Giants like
Walmart.com could get very fast connections, while little-guy sites
might have to settle for the information superhighway equivalent of a
one-lane, pothole-strewn road. Since many companies that own I.S.P.’s,
like Time Warner, are also in the business of selling online content,
they could give themselves an unfair advantage over their competition.
If access tiering takes hold, the Internet providers, rather than
consumers, could become the driving force in how the Internet evolves.
Those corporations’ profit-driven choices, rather than users’ choices,
would determine which sites and methodologies succeed and fail. They
also might be able to stifle promising innovations, like Internet
telephony, that compete with their own business interests.
Most Americans have little or no choice of broadband I.S.P.’s, so they
would have few options if those providers shifted away from neutrality.
Congress should protect access to the Internet in its current form.
Senator Ron Wyden, an Oregon Democrat, says he intends to introduce an
Internet neutrality bill, which would prohibit I.S.P.’s from favoring
content providers that paid them fees, or from giving priority to their
own content.
Some I.S.P.’s are phone and cable companies that make large campaign
contributions, and are used to getting their way in Washington. But
Americans feel strongly about an open and free Internet. Net neutrality
is an issue where the public interest can and should trump the special
interests.
This article is from New York Times. If you found it informative and
valuable, we strongly encourage you to visit their website and register
an account to view all their articles on the web. Support quality
journalism.
**
http://www.publicknowledge.org/
Public Knowledge is a Washington DC based advocacy group working to
defend your rights in the emerging digital culture.
Good Fences Make Bad Broadband
Preserving an Open Internet through Net Neutrality
2006/02/06
* email this page
* print this page
A Public Knowledge White Paper
by John Windhausen, Jr.
Executive Summary available as PDF.
Full Paper available as PDF (without attachments).
Full Paper available as Word DOC (without attachments)
Attachments available as PDF.
Executive Summary
The genius of the Internet is its promise of unlimited accessibility.
With very limited exceptions, any consumer with an Internet connection
and a computer can visit any web site, attach any device, post any
content, and provide any service.
While the openness of the Internet is universally praised, it is no
longer guaranteed, at least for broadband services. Recent Supreme Court
and FCC rulings define broadband networks as unregulated “information
services,” which means that the operators of broadband networks are no
longer under any legal obligation to keep their networks open to all
Internet content, services and equipment.
Broadband providers now have the same authority as cable providers to
act as gatekeepers: the network owner can choose which services and
equipment consumers may use. Network operators can adopt conflicting and
proprietary standards for the attachment of consumer equipment, can
steer consumers to certain web sites over others, can block whatever
Internet services or applications they like, and make their preferred
applications perform better than others.
This concern is not just theoretical - broadband network providers are
taking advantage of their unregulated status. Cable operators have
barred consumers from using their cable modems for virtual private
networks and home networking and blocked streaming video applications.
Telephone and wireless companies have blocked Internet telephone (VoIP -
Voice over the Internet Protocol) traffic outright in order to protect
their own telephone service revenues. Equipment manufacturers are
marketing equipment specifically designed to “filter” out (i.e. block)
VoIP traffic. Wireless companies often write limitations into consumers’
service agreements that have nothing to do with excessive bandwidth
consumption.
The problem is likely to become worse in the near future. One telephone
company executive threatened to put a stop to on-line providers that use
the telephone network “for free” (even though on-line providers pay to
connect to the network). Another telephone company executive openly
announced that his company intends to establish a higher-priced “tier”
of service reserved exclusively for content providers chosen by the
network operator. This raises the concern that consumers and start-up
application providers will be relegated to the “slow lane” on the
information superhighway.
These examples of discrimination, which this paper shows are greater in
number than the network operators like to acknowledge, are on the
increase because network operators have economic incentives to
discriminate. Network owners today are more than just passive providers
of transmission capacity (the “conduit”); they also own and provide
services, applications and equipment (the “content”). By giving their
own (or their affiliated) applications and content preferential access
to the network, they can extract greater profits than if they operate
the network on a non-discriminatory basis.
As a result, several groups have called upon Congress to enact, or the
FCC to adopt, an enforceable “Net Neutrality” rule to ensure the
Internet remains open and accessible to all. Not surprisingly, the
network owners object, arguing that such a policy is unnecessary and
will delay their deployment of broadband technologies.
This paper analyzes the Net Neutrality debate in more detail. The paper
is divided into four parts:
Part I is a reference guide on the Net Neutrality issue. It reviews the
rights at stake, describes the terms used in the debate, provides a
brief legal history of broadband network regulation, summarizes the
positions of the parties, describes documented examples of
discrimination or blocking, and includes matrices that compare the
differences among parties and proposals for action.
Part II makes the case in favor of a Network Neutrality rule. It
describes the enormous societal and economic benefits of keeping the
broadband Internet network open to all users. Broadband networks are
fast becoming the essential lifeline of our economy and society,
carrying on-line commercial transactions, current events, local and
national advertising, telemedicine and distance learning, music and
entertainment, interactive games, and videoconferencing. Allowing the
increasingly concentrated cable and telephone industries to have
unchecked control over our access to these sources of information,
entertainment and commerce is cause for great concern.
Net Neutrality is also important for our high-tech manufacturing
industry. Billions of dollars are invested every year at the “edge” of
the network by the high-tech computing industry, the on-line commerce
industry, the gaming industry, the news and information industry, and
the research community. A statutory Net Neutrality rule will give
investors the confidence to support new, innovative applications. On the
other hand, giving network operators the potential to block competing
applications from getting on the network may be enough to frighten
investors away from otherwise worthy new Internet applications.
In short, open broadband networks are vitally important to our society,
our future economic growth, our high-tech manufacturing sector, and our
First Amendment rights to information free of censorship or control.
Even if an openness policy imposes some slight burden on network
operators, these microeconomic concerns pale in comparison to the
macroeconomic benefits to the society and economy at large of
maintaining an open Internet.
Part III responds to four arguments against Net Neutrality raised by the
network operators:
1.
Network operators allege that Net Neutrality is a “solution in
search of a problem” because there is only one documented case of
blocking. In fact, network operators have already engaged in at least 8
known cases of blocking in the U.S. and are likely to block or interfere
with more traffic in the future. Network operators have incentives to
leverage their control over the network to reap additional profits in
upstream markets.
2.
Network operators allege that Net Neutrality will interfere with
their ability to manage their networks, for instance, to prevent spam,
viruses and congestion. In fact, there is no reason to believe that a
simple non-discrimination policy should interfere with the operators’
network management responsibilities. Telephone companies have always
managed their networks to protect against unlawful use even under a much
more onerous common carriage regime.
3.
Network operators allege that Net Neutrality will interfere with
their ability to earn a return on their broadband investment and that it
will stifle their deployment of broadband networks. In fact, Net
Neutrality promotes broadband deployment because it increases the value
of services and applications over the Internet, which increases consumer
demand for broadband networks. The greater the demand, the more network
operators will invest in broadband to meet it. Furthermore, there remain
many opportunities for network operators to profit from their broadband
investment that do not involve blocking or discrimination. For instance,
network operators can continue to develop their own content and/or enter
joint marketing arrangements or other promotional arrangements with
other content providers.
4.
Network operators maintain that Net Neutrality will prevent them
from creating “tiers” of service, or a “private Internet.” In fact, Net
Neutrality does not necessarily prevent network operators from offering
levels of access, at higher rates, as long as the tier is offered on a
nondiscriminatory basis to every provider and as long as all broadband
customers are offered a minimum level of broadband service. A Net
Neutrality principle does, however, prohibit the creation of a “private
Internet” that grants exclusive access to the higher bandwidth levels to
certain providers selected by the network operator.
Part IV provides an outline of a possible Net Neutrality rule or
statute. Net Neutrality does not require detailed rules that require
network operators to obtain government pre-approval to manage their
networks. Network Neutrality can be enforced through a simple complaint
process, as long as the network operator bears the burden of
demonstrating that any interference with traffic is necessary.
Additional resources on Broadband
Public Knowledge Endorses Bills to Promote New Wireless Broadband
S.2327: Wireless Innovation Act of 2006
To require the FCC to issue a final order regarding white spaces.
S.2332: American Broadband for Communities Act
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
View all resources on Broadband
Additional resources on Net Neutrality
The Digital Age Communications Act: Towards a New Market-Oriented
Communications Policy in 2006
Public Knowledge President Gigi Sohn will be participating in the
Progress and Freedom Foundation's full-day conference concerning the
proposals put forth by PFF's Digital Age Communications Act (DACA)
Project.
Toward a New Communication Policy Paradigm
The James H. and Mary B. Quello Center for Telecommunication
Management & Law presents the 2006 Communication Law and Policy
Symposium: Toward a New Communication Policy Paradigm.
PK's testimony on "Video Franchising"
February 15, 2006: Public Knowledge President Gigi B. Sohn testified
before the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science & Transportation
hearing on the subject of "Video Franchising"
View all resources on Net Neutrality
/end
--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a cornucopia of splinters.
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
