107 Comments on friday june 23, 2006 : casual friday
Leave a comment
Recent Comments
Sweater Curse, 39 comments
- Leonardo: - The Lancet and Nature peer-reviewed that poll and found out...
- SlashV: Actually Molly, knitting is an excellent occupation. You should...
- LivingForLOL: I’m never gonna make a sweater!
- retardedmonkeyspoo: It sounds like she says Svatika
Balloon Boy (Know Your Meme), 229 comments
- SchoolhouseTechno: I expected a ‘c wat i did there’ at the...
- bearBdamned: whose the first girl in the line of attention seekerS?
Generative Music, 139 comments
- GERdeathstar: Ellie > Molly
Know Your Meme: Auto-Tune featuring Professor “Weird Al” Yankovic, 2052 comments
- vampireheart1986: I definitely agree. That’s why you don’t...
- MarSilF: NICE!!!
- MarSilF: LOL
uh, yeah. I agree with you, but feel that overly complicated examples about craigslist make for an impossibly weak argument.
I don’t have a Congressperson - I’m not American. Are your vlogs only for American audiences? I feel quilty for looking, now.
I believe the bill was passed about net neutrality not being recognized? I’ve been following this for a while and the idea of blocking some sites just flipped me off.
Sorry for the shady details. Any one with better details?
Wow!!! You guys got it right on this “commercial”. I wish you guys did this well on your other projects.
Great job.
Old people like me can remember when they sold the taxpayer cable TV. They called it “pay TV”, which meant there would be no commercials. We all can see how that story turned out. The same thing is going to happen to the internet and there is nothing we can do about it. What are we going to do, go on strike by not using our computers?
Irony here is that without equal access many of the big for profit sites would never have made it, i.e. google, yahoo, amazon, ebay, etc. An open net makes for a strong climate for both profit and not-for-profit enterprises.
How about some meaningful legislation (and enforcement) to deal with the jerks that are spamming, phishing, and infecting our computers with spyware and viruses? They are a huge threat to our privacy, and cost millions, if not billions of dollars in support costs.
Congress needs to focus on creating a better web climate for all of us rather than placing corporate limits on this great communications revolution.
Nice piece, but the matter was resolved last week in favor of the ISP’s.
Lest you feel bad about not lobbying your congress person, it really doesn’t matter. You have no voice in Washington unless you making large contributions. Whether Republican or Democrat the only access is through $$$$$.
Keep the net free?
My net is free, i’m in the UK. Your laws wont affect me.
Right on that one. I live in Massachusetts. Our Congressman lives and breaths on donations. It seems like that is his job. Getting moola. He is so far down the totem pole that even he knows that he doesn’t matter, so why not take the money and just be another Dem rubber stamp from MA like all the rest from around here. Does he care? Nah, probably doesn’t even know how to use the internet. But he does know how to use those campaign contributions to be wagged like a puppy’s tail. That is too bad. I’ll send him a note but it won’t have any money attached. Probably will throw it in his circular file.
Excellent summation by ‘Manda. And it is always nice to see the uber-vehicle making a cameo.
much better. more like the RB I look forwards to viewing (of course, if Net Neutrality fails, I may be forced to view an RB alternative like ‘RocketPfft’.)
Elegantly done. Bravo!
For all those of you commenting thinking that US law won’t affect you because you’re not American… think again. Sure you’ll still have access to BBC, but will you still be able to watch Rocketboom and other American sites that you enjoy? Possibly not.
Pressure all the American friends you have to take action and sign petitions… that’s the only thing we can do while we watch from the other side of the border.
Amanda,
I’m a “Telco” manager and an avid Rocketboom viewer. I would agree that the internet should be a place of equal opportunity for all. But the resources and investment that the internet service providers need to pay for are not free. The problem is that in order to continue to provide this “Free” universe we have all become accustomed to having, and to continue to provide fast, and faster access as more and more content comes on line, the “Telcos” spend large amounts of money to try to keep pace with the ever-growing traffic. If we did not do so, internet service would slow down drastically for everyone. I think it is essential that we continue to invest in the network infrastructure that make the internet a reality. OK then, so how should this be paid for? We could just ask the government to mandate that those big deep pockets “Telcos” have to pay for it even if the return on the investment is zero. right! I’m sorry, but while I agree with keeping the internet open and equal, I really would like to continue to be able to have a job and pay the bills. My compnay has continued to become more efficient, doing more with less, just like any other firm needs to do. There does appear to be a need to control and manage the growth of the internet, in the same way that laws get made to control traffic on the roads and interstate highway system. But when was the last time you think someting was improved by getting government involved. More bureacracy and regulation has not been an answer as far as I’m concerned. Instead, the free-market response to regulation of the internet would be to require those who consume more to pay more. How about establishing a government- mandated fund which would require everyone to pay in the same amount so that the end result would be that the peiople who use less would still be screwed because their payment would be subsidising the use of others who use lots lots more. That wouldn’t work either. I really believe that letting economics and the free market system decide how to allocate scarce resources is the way to go. I’m sorry that none of us like to pay for something we don’t presently have to pay for. But I don’t think that screwing the “Telco’s” is tha answer either. OK so that’s my two cents. Now having said that, I’d like to commend your taking a stand in support of your interests. I am and will continue to be a regular participant in the Rocketboom phenomenon. Absolutely best wishes to you, Amanda and Co-producers, great job!
Hi, my name is Marco, I live in Italy, I just wanted to say that the whole issue of internet neutrality is NOT just USA business; what’s happening now in the USA will affect the rest of the world! In Italy we have a sad media situation wich give politics and businessmen too much power (and you understand the consequences). Most of the people don’t realize how bad this is, it’s about freedom. Internet gives hope for better future in USA, Italy and the rest of the world. Information is power, at the moment Internet gives voice to everybody and people are understanding that lot of information that go on tv and newspaper is just bullshit. Lots of people want alternative and more reliable sources and and freedom of choice, internet is the only medium that can offer this. If politics (or anyone else) manage to control the internet, well, that’s too bad for all of us. If they restrict internet access and usage in the USA this model will be imitated in all other countries. The problem is that most of the people don’t see such a threat, and it’s very difficult for the ones who understand to discuss this subject. Am I too pessimistic? I don’t think so, it’s a very important issue which involves lots of consequences.
To Ken Kuziel:
I am mystified by your assertion that internet users get this service for free. I pay $57.90 per month to get this service (including their infrastructure) from Comcast, and every other user, whether cable or DSL, does too. How can you whine about “free” service?
Not being American, I would also like to get more of the international perspective. Pretty please?
Ken, if providers start crippling the internet experience of their paying customers the free market will produce providers that can boldly advertise their service as not being crippled. But how sad is that, advertising something in the line of “join us, our product is not broken”? Pretty sad if you ask me. Now if the companies controlling the true real life infrastructure (which does not have to be identical to the internet provider, at least not where I live. But then I live in a country where mobile carriers would be staked and burned if they told people which phones they can use on their network. The US look pretty backwards at times) starts controlling & crippling whatever is happening on their lines we are moving towards abuse of a monopoly position. And that is a bad, bad word.
Bad Beaver,
It’s not anyones’ intent to intrude into the free exchange of ideas that the internet allows. I’m entirely in favor of free expression, it’s the backbone (no pun intended) of the Constitution of the United States. What is at issue is the same thing that comes into play in any situation where demand begins to outpace supply. Someone needs to invest heavily to maintain and improve. No, we do all pay for internet access. And if the marketplace is the regulatory jurisdiction of choice, then more competition is good, more providers, more investors, and more choices. We need to support an environment which encourages more competition, which means supporting an environment that is not incumbered with governemtal regulatory restrictions.
Great episode, and some very insightful comments as well.
I ignored the discussion far too long myself thinking “feh, that’s just an American thing.” But you are all so right, this will affect the rest of the world too. What I find difficult to swallow is that I will have no say in the outcome. Argggh.
I find it very interesting that Google is arguing for net neutrality, as they are one of the big companies. Good to know.
Great job, Amanda and Drew!
Cheers,
connie
FUCK THE INTERNET.
EVERYBODY UNPLUG!
Tim, Ken’s argument is that telcos need a lot of money in order to keep service up to standard, and even more money in order to expand it (One should think that they should get along with what they make). IIUC he also does not like the idea of governmental regulation in regard to how telcos make said money. While I think that nobody really wants any governmental regulation in regard to content (with few exceptions) or general access, I think there should be regulation regarding the specific crippling of access. It’s the wrong direction.
Amanda is HOT!
More left-wing crap from Amanda delivered from her stick-shift foreign automobile! Why…
Oops. Sorry I was channeling an off-her-meds Shannon for a minute there, living in the delusion that Amanda is the pretty Ann Coulter.
Ugh. That world is a scary place to be. Even for a minute.
Good thing you didn’t show the “Feeling Scared? Buy another gun” bumper sticker on Amanda’s Volvo. (Just kidding, you wacko wing-nuts who hang out here just to complain what a radical Amanda is)
Great job as usual, Amanda.
Hey Ken (Mr Telco)
Telcos are currently making plenty of money from consumers and content providers who pay for internet acess. Telcos have already proven they can and do make extrodinarily large investment in the internet infrastructure with under the current pay structure. Content providers and us “the consumers” already pay for internet access. The difference is that now telecos want to charge content providers for access to consumers.
Hey Politicians,
Maybe you’ll wake up when the telcos limit access to your campaign website, because they don’t agree with your politics.
Great presentation. However, I think this is a more serious issue than something that’s broadcast on “Casual Friday.”
There’s this really great site I know thats already barely hanging in there by a thread. This would crush them! Don’t squash the lil guy! Man, the rich just keep gettin richer and the rest of us are just screwed.
Excellent, Amanda and Drew.
The inaccuracies within this self-serving propaganda piece are outrageous.
Thank you for addressing this topic. You go rocketfolk!
Great commentary on an improtant issue. I don’t know if everyone realizes the implications> As a rural ISP I can tell you that this issue will become huge as the telco cable wars continue. Thanks from the “little guy”. Keep it up!
I just want to say Amanda, you totally gave me goosebumps at the end of todays episode. I think a lot of people would not know anything is happening at all until they could no longer access the sites they want and it would be too late.
Keep up the good work!
-SK
Well done!
sgl
Am I the only one who found the t-shirt choice to be a little ironic?
Thanks for shaking it up and telling the story in a more detailed way.. however I didnt quite understand what craigslist has to do with tsunamis?
A main outcome of pay-for-access will be fragmentation. As in, when TV in the UK moved into Sky etc, the standard of content on terrestial TV dropped dramatically, as they didnt have the money to pay for higher profile content. The outcome of this was that the market for certain programmes shrank to near zero. Conversely, stars and sportsmen, for example, were no longer household names, as they were no longer seen on terrestial TV, only on the pay-per-view satellite channels (which could pay them much higher fees), but which still have lower take up than was ever anticipated.
The current situation on UK TV for music is a prime example - there isnt any real coverage of music at all on terrestial TV, and this is reflected in national low sales and shrinking markets.
The effect on the internet will be the same. Fragmentation, by cost, or other means, is always bad news for the market, as awareness of ’stuf’ is paramount to market forces. Market forces can’t exist if most people don’t know about the product.
What happens in the USA will effect the entire world-wide internet. The USA ‘owns’ the internet. Without their infrastructure, it would cease to exist, certainly in it’s present form.
We all pay for access, but at present don’t pay for content or functions. With the spouted idea of pay-email, another tier is raising its head.
A two tier internet will probably be inevitable. After all, we already have that, as most people in most countries only have dial up access and bad computers.
And what about Rocketboom paying large amounts of $$$ for their sparkly new servers? They pay for us to view their content.
We need a better model to ensure that all can view anything, but money can be charged, in a meaningful and fair way. What about personal/commercial licences for access?
Hi, cool show as always.
Needed cheering up as Togo couldn’t come up with the goods vs les Bleues…
I’m with “S” as I’m the the UK too.
Also totally agree with Deano and the BMan.
Have a great weekend.
And, for what it’s worth I think you guys were robbed vs Italy this week. 2 red cards? V. bad decision. At least you played with more spirit than Beckham et al.
Yours irrelevantly (as always)
Niko
Hmmmm … interesting digression from the norm. A serious political stand … delivered with vigor and conviction.
Has Amanda morphed into the Edward G. Murrow of the Web?
When that intelligence and passion blaze from that beautiful face … wow.
More importantly … Net Neutrality must never be compromised. The history of mankind is the weaker and smaller being quashed by the power elite. The Net changed all of that. That’s why a cute , bright gal from from the grass roots could become a media personality and cover what she wants to cover.
The Net is THE force for change in the world today … no one can get away with too much for too long … as long as people can talk, freely. Across borders.
I hope and pray the Net stays out of the kind of control Amanda described.
And on behalf of Amanda, may I say …
Good night. And good luck.
Bill the PR guy
Um, that’s Edward R. Murrow.
Loved the segment. Although, I don’t believe strict net neutrality regulations will pass through Congress. The recent amendment (in some form) containing the so-called “Internet Bill of Rights” submitted by Sen. Ted Stevens is probably about as stringent as it will get.
gee,
what is happening there in the US?
You raised my curiosity. I will start some reading.
Thanks,
Gunther (Germany)
Social Isolation Growing in U.S., Study Says
The Number of People Who Say They Have No One to Confide In Has Risen
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/22/AR2006062201763_pf.html
ANOTHER GOOD REASON TO UNPLUG NOW!
Your scare tactics will raise the ire of a very vocal community, but your basic premise is incorrect: that the evil Internet access providers need to be prevented from managing the traffic on their network because they may potentially degrade or block service. Using this logic I would assume that you agree with Bush to go to war against Iraq because they have WMD. Now that WMD have actually been found you could make your point. In any case, the FCC has been effective in policing any abuses so why do we need additional vague and potentially harmful legislation. The truth is that most net neutrality legislation will potentially stifle innovation on the Internet because it will make utilization of traffic shaping tools illegal. These tools are mechanisms that Netflix, Google video, Vonage and many other Internet application providers can utilize to guarantee a consistent and quality user experience. Throwing more bandwidth at the problem is not the answer because there are other choke points in the network. Be careful advocating policy over the Internet because it may actually hurt instead of helping. I for one would pay an extra $5 per month to cable and telephone companies to give me the ability to increase the priority of my VoIP and streaming video traffic as it moves through the network.
Daniel:
True that the RBOC and cable companies will make money from implementing this service, but they know that they cannot discriminate towards their own IPTV and VoIP services. That is why they announced offering it to other Internet application providers. The problem is that they were less than smooth articulating their plans to customers. RBOC executives are not known for their ability to communicate well. This capability is being offered in Europe and Asia and no one is complaining there. Search Technorati for blogs on net neutrality and RBOC. You will find a couple of blogs providing an unbiased analysis.
It’s the end of the internet as we have known it. I don’t think there is any stopping it now. I’m Irish so I had no say in what happened in the American decision. But you know what, needier did any of you US citizens. The Republicans are on the side of the telecom companies and hold the majority, no amount of lobbying was going to change that. We are supposed to live in free societies where governments reflect the will of the people, the majority of people do not want an end to net neutrality, yet it happened anyway. It seems all we do in a democracy is choose the rice old men who rule us.
Nice explanation. & yeah, this is pretty serious. *signed*
TeraLink Was Here!
I am a UK watcher of RocketBoom but I feel strongly about Net Neutrality. If this doesn’t happen then its big business and the government collaborating to make more cash. It’s totally corrupt, dishonest and even if it is not illegal in the law it should be. Everyone can tell right from wrong.
SUPPORT NET NEUTRALITY!!!
Word
Check out KATG.com to learn more about how to make money from this AND save the internet. ok it’s porn
with extra cheese
Guys… drop the craigslist thing. You were fine until then. Craigslist had their window size set to 0 which triggered a bug in software that is distributed to all cox customers. Craigslist could have fixed this at any time. One server setting for them, vs trying to get every cox customer to update their software. (Which has been fixed by the way).
Both were at fault, but Craigslist could have fixed theirs in about 5 minutes had they chosen to do so. What’s worse is that people keep trumpeting them around.
Now… The point is valid that a cox type entity could certainly intentionally do this type of thing to a craigslist type of company. But that ISN’T what happened here. I have no problem with that being presented as a what could happen, but it keeps getting put up as a fact of what did happen and that’s not true.
Excellent job to all involved.
oh yeah…. (really) nice shoes.
Ok, Amanda. I for one will not kiss up to you and pretend that you gave some prize-winning presentation reguarding this issue. You, and too many people on this site, seem to think that the internet is some sort of God-given right. Earth to Rocketboom: You are using PRIVATE companies to access the internet. Where to you get off demanding that the government control what these private companies can and cannot do with their services? If you dont like the way they do business, GET ANOTHER ISP! Seriously, you all are sounding like a bunch of spoiled brats.
The intrnet has NEVER been a public entity, someone has to make money in order for this thing to survive. That may not compute in the tra-la-la world of Rocketboom, but most people with a basic understanding of economics could figure this one out.
Does it suck? Yes! But who ever said life was fair.
btw. Can Rocketboom become political neutral? I think I’ll work a bill through congress to force you to do that.
Oh that amanda is so wacky. I love to hear crazy consperices! I give credit at least she did not try to blame george bush for all of what she was talking about. Remember kids!! Liberalism is a metal disorder..
Bin Ladin owns, runs and operates the internet. End of story.
M-I-C-K-E-Y M-O-U-S-E
Remember when the net had no ads whatsoever?
What do you see now?
Cyber terrorism. Darwinian economics.
I am Bin Ladin Inc. and I own the internet.
Bin Ladin owns, runs and operates the internet. End of story.
M-I-C-K-E-Y M-O-U-S-E
Remember when the net had no ads whatsoever?
What do you see now?
Cyber terrorism. Darwinian economics.
I am Bin Ladin Inc. and I own the internet.
yah i think you owe to everyone to be politically neutral. you should try presenting things without your personal opinion involved so much. you want to be a great new online news service but you are just as good as CNN or worse. Try being more like fox news unbiased. As a forerunner in video blogging rocketboom neutrality is a must!
SPEAK OUT! EMAIL ROCKETBOOM TODAY AND DEMAND NEUTRALITY!
Adelphia cable blows chunks…whoops, that was out-loud, wasn’t it?
Great report. Mr. Telcoman I pay so I don’t from FREE.
Aren’t the laws that govern the phone companies (common carrier) different from those of tv and broadcast (public interest). The common carrier laws are more for public service entities, where the broadcast and cable laws cover areas like foreign ownership, cross media ownership, and egad! FREE SPEECH. The internet can be impacted by common carrier laws (government), or protected under free speech and the first amendment (the bill of rights and the U.S. Constitution). Seems to me that the internet can spread Democracy faster than a utility. Get off the grid, get on the internet and be free. Comments?
Neutrality: Thanks
In the usual business structure, a source, Nike say, creates something, a distributer, Sears say, buys it from them, and makes it available to its customers who reimburse Sears for the item and all the distribution costs.
In the Internet world, Google, Yahoo, and others create something, Verison, say, pays no money for it at all, and makes it available to their customers who reimburse Verison for the all the distribution costs but not the cost of the item since Verison got it for free.
If Sears, Wall Mart, and other major distributors baned together and told a source that it would have to pay for having them as its distributors, they would be engaging in extortion, and would be subject to severe penalties since this is a criminal offense.
However, when Verison, AT+T, and other major Internet distributors ban together and request that their, free, sources have to pay for having them as distributors, people actually take them seriously!
Teddy Roosevelt must be spinning.
This is awesome. You’re voice is being heard. You’ve got a great opportunity to expand that even more exponentially right now. Post all of your videos on YouTube… all your archived pieces and all new pieces… Your audience, which to a large degree at the moment includes ANYONE LOOKING FOR ONLINE VIDEO CONTENT… and right now more people are migrating to YouTube to watch video onine. The same growth rate that happened to Myspace a little while back is CURRENTLY going on at YouTube. You get a surge in connectivity just by being at the current hotspot of connectivity. You’re going to be on there just like you’re on MySpace… recognise the trend and get on there sooner to best use the current to connect with more people
This is awesome. You’re voice is being heard. You’ve got a great opportunity to expand that even more exponentially right now. Post all of your videos on YouTube… all your archived pieces and all new pieces… Your audience, which to a large degree at the moment includes ANYONE LOOKING FOR ONLINE VIDEO CONTENT… and right now more people are migrating to YouTube to watch video onine. The same growth rate that happened to Myspace a little while back is CURRENTLY going on at YouTube. You get a surge in connectivity just by being at the current hotspot of connectivity. You’re going to be on there just like you’re on MySpace… recognise the trend and get on there sooner to best use the current to connect with more people
casual just got bumped up ehhh…
wow…wonderful, essay like in your face video
“In the Internet world, Google, Yahoo, and others create something, Verison, say, pays no money for it at all, and makes it available to their customers who reimburse Verison for the all the distribution costs but not the cost of the item since Verison got it for free.”
Verizon has to pay for all of the infastructure to carry that “free” content from Google to you. If Google was putting a greater strain on that infastructure to the point where Verizon had to pay money in order to expand their network in order to accomodate Google, then Google has recived a free boost. Google recives billions in on-line revenue, while Verizion doesnt get a dime for making Google run smoother.
How is that fair? Oh yeah, the internet is a “right” so say the braintrust at Rocketboom.
Kevin Rose writes: Verizon has to pay for all of the infastructure to carry that “free” content from Google to you.
Verizon’s customers are paying for it. As a customer you pay a monthly fee for fixed bandwidth, which you can use as you like. Google’s content costs Verizon no more to carry over their customer’s wires than any other content.
while Verizion doesnt get a dime for making Google run smoother.
Because it didn’t cost a dime for “Verizion” to make Google “run smoother”. Verizon gets paid by their customers for the bandwidth they use. They don’t need to demand for money from Google as well. End of story.
http://www.sonyclassics.com/whokilledtheelectriccar/
LET THIS BE A LESSON TO YOU…ABOUT BIG BUSINESS
“Because it didn’t cost a dime for “Verizion” to make Google “run smoother”. Verizon gets paid by their customers for the bandwidth they use. They don’t need to demand for money from Google as well. End of story.”
How do you know that that monthly check that you mail off covers all the cost of getting that content to you? Many of these companies may be eating much of the cost so they dont have to pass it on to the end user, which will lead to a loss of customers if the bill gets too high?
“They don’t need to demand for money from Google as well”
Why not? Google’s content goes through their pipes just like your request for it.
Could you add subtitles? Pleease?
Kevin, if the money that the customers of Verizon pay is not enough, then Verizon should put up their prices rather than adopt this retarded get-money-from-both-sides scheme.
This is too important an issue to just brush away. Although Net Neutrality might not neccessarily mean the same thing as Fair and Equal Access, these are two concepts (by virtue of my profession) I must support. I suggest that in future episodes of RB, you deliver a summary of reactions to this piece.
What a trove of insight into both the information and the misinformation swirling around in this potentially emotional issue.
I still can’t grasp how maintaining access to craigslist (threatened for whatever reason) would be helpful to the tsunami victims — or was that the joke?
Better than the road analogy, Manhattan bridges and tunnels would be a better one — the Brooklyn bridge is free but it can take a while sometimes. The Battery Tunnel is a good alternate and sometimes worth a little money when you’re in a hurry.
Neither option, by the way, has any effect on the cost of real estate on Manhattan island - just as any potential net neutrality regs will not have any real effect on the costs passed around by the backbone providers.
Absolute garbage.
Kevin Rose writes: How do you know that that monthly check that you mail off covers all the cost of getting that content to you?
Because they set the prices themselves. I have contracted with Verizon to provide me with a certain fixed bandwidth. They have promised me that I will get that bandwith with a reasonable degree of reliability for a price which they themselves have set.
If they can’t do it, they should charge correct prices. Trust me, they are not running at a loss — lacking any serious competition, telcos do not provide any service at a loss. Even they don’t claim that it costs them more to carry Google to a customer than the customer is paying. Instead they lie and say that “Google is using their pipes for free.” This is false. I am using their pipes, using the 1.5Mb/sec inbound bandwidth which I am paying for. Google pays millions for bandwidth at their end. That should be the end of it.
Kevin, if you don’t think Verizon or whoever is making enough money, why don’t you write them a personal check for whatever you think they need? I’m already paying the price they set for the service I use — inbound and outbound. They neither need to know nor care who I’m connecting to because I’m paying for both directions. And so, by the way, is Google, to their providers.
Way to Go…thanks for the superb and effective piece.
Go Net Neutrality!
Go Switzerland!
“These are companies who are generating massive profits as it is”
And thats what this boils down to. A bunch of socialist who want the federal government to take control of private business because the pricing structure is not cool with them. And the fact that you try to wrap it around the banner of “the government is just protecting me” BS is just sad. WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT PROTECTING YOU FROM SICKNESS! We are talking about you not being able to download boatloads of videos and music without having to pay more.
Welcome to a free market! If you dont want to play their way, THEN DONT USE THE D@MN SERVICE. Have no other choice? Take it up with your local government and open up some choices in your city.
Seriously, some of you seem to be thinking like children on this issue. The “telecos” are not a charity. They are in the business to make money, just like *GASP* the people at Rocketboom! I dont like the idea of what they want to do, but Im sure as hell not going support socialist style bill through congress in order to see that changed.
This is one of the worst assessments of Net Neutrality I’ve seen. Net Neutrality is not about making users select one ads-free classified site over another, its not about what is in consumers’ best interests. It is about two seperate sets of very powerful corporations that started in seemingly unrelated industries, but now find themselves in direct competition with one another.
It is unfair when companies such as Apple and Google directly compete with cable companies revenue producing endeavors, exploit the cable company’s assets in order to make a sale or profit, and expect this to continue without compensating the infrastructure companies. Film, Video, and TV show distribution, and advertising, are all becoming less profitable for cable companies, as are telephone calls for telcos due to VoIP, iTunes Music/Video Store, Google Video/AdSense, etc…
Of course RocketBoom releases something like this; They take the side of the web services company and of course would not want to pay additional bandwidth fees. This has nothing to do with the little guy because the little guy wouldn’t be effected by this until he was a player in the game, and once he was a player, he can afford it. Exclusive marketing alliances are also not as much of a concern, because theyre not in any company’s best interest; if one competitor works with one company, and another with another, then they both limit their power and scope. All the cable and telcos want is fair compensation for the vast amounts of bandwidth some companies use these days.
It is so cushy to be a website like these days. Simply, net based businesses need to get used to another line item in their budget and a slight decrease in their absurd ad revenue related profitability.
Nice volvo.
If you want to bitch about monopolistic practices, why not blog about the electricity service providers. You’ve not got much choice when it comes to which one to choose, right? Well, that’s fair. After all, they put the wires in. Hmmm so did the telco, though. But then you are not trying to make money off the back of the electricity provider, are you! Telco’s don’t want to restrict service, they want to charge to provide a premium service. BIG difference. But you know that, don’t you. And, btw, from out here in suburbia USA, I’ve got at least 4 choices for internet access. Even the most rural areas are getting 2 choices these days – cable or DSL.
Newsflash! Anyone who already deals with ordering data lines knows that the internet is already tiered! Blocking is definitely crap, but throttling is already business as usual for years. Too late!
wow. I’m Canadian. Podcast from Canada. You guys need a new puppet regime.
Wow. There are a lot of industry shills commenting here now. For example, “Modern Demagogue” writes: It is unfair when companies such as Apple and Google directly compete with cable companies revenue producing endeavors, exploit the cable company’s assets in order to make a sale or profit, and expect this to continue without compensating the infrastructure companies.
BZZZZT! Wrong. Tell whoever paid you to post that to give you material that fits the facts next time. The content companies do pay for bandwidth; they pay millions in fees to get their stuff on the internet. And they don’t use the last-mile bandwidth to the home without paying, because it’s already being paid for by the customers. When I download video from YouTube, I am using bandwidth that I have paid for. My contract says 768kbps up and 1500kbps down. The telcos are being compensated in the amount they are entitled to and at the rate agreed upon.
The problem is not that they aren’t being compensated (they are), the problem is they want a piece of everybody else’s action: give us money or we’ll prevent your customers from getting to your site. Even though the customer are paying already the full, agreed price for the bandwidth used.
Got any other lobbyist propaganda to peddle?
Harry Stottle, I doubt that the ISPs will have many qualms about operating on a whitelist-based scheme, moreover, on IP addresses. Are you honestly telling me that the anonymizer proxy you connect to will be able to afford these fees, and, even if they could, I doubt the ISP would take them, as all it would do is facilitate the anonymizer service punching a hole in their revenue scheme.
The proposal would impose higher costs on sites that account for a lot of bandwidth e.g. popular vlog sites. Regardless of the economics or fairness of the proposal, that is why RB is against it.
Ok, she was wrong about the Cox/Craigslist thing. Give her a break. She has a daily fricking vlog to do and I for one hope this stupid issue does not lower her head. (Is that a take? Thanks, guys. Crazy nutjob if I ever saw one, but watta doll!)
WOW! At lest in in the United Kingdom we have not looked at the internet as a way of a social/ economic intrument. Granted we have one telecom company running the infra strsucture, buut this has arised from a privatised government department, formaly the GPO and therefore access is/ was all inclusive.However, like everything over this side of the pond with the current politcal climate we will probally follow like sheep saying is it si ‘American’ and therefore ‘cool’. So we British must not get complacient. Great site thought provoking ideas
Thanks Amanda and crew, its not just her you know!
The telcos claim that net neutrality would prevent them from making enough money to keep upgrading their infrastructure. Um. Not quite.
The thing that is keeping them from upgrading their services to meet demand is the way they price net access - typically a flat monthly fee. This is popular with the consumer, but that is the real problem the telcos are facing.
The people who use more bandwidth should pay for it. That way there is always an incentive to the telco to invest in infrastructure, and the burden of cost is distributed fairly.
In the video, Amanda seemed to be concerned for the little guy trying to run a website. But what about the other little guy - e.g. my parents - who don’t know what bittorrent is, and just browse a few web pages and send emails - but they pay the same as someone who spends all day and all night downloading movies. Does that seem fair to you?
All I’m saying is, if people were willing to pay for their net usage, the telcos wouldn’t be forced in this situation.
Thank you Amanda.
Clear arguments. Let’s hope that big biz doesn’t squash us here like they have in every other place.
this is totally sensationalist. No ISP is going to block you from using craigslist ever, that’s totally ridiculous. More likely what they will do is offer improved behind the scenes traffic to certain types of traffic and decreased behind the scenes traffic to other types. For example they might make Google pay more, but big whoop, they have billions in profit. You won’t notice the difference.
Look what THEY did to the electric car.
You see THEY put out a hummer to guzzle more gasoline and people are so stupid, they bought into it. The virtual highway is no different than the concrete highway. IF they can they will.
GUAGE. GUAGE. GUAGE.
And they will, because they can. Because hummer brains exist everywhere.
I’m calling Daryl Hannah right now. Together up in some tree, we’ll figure out a way for James Birkett’s parents to get free net access. They don’t deserve to get gauged. gauged. gauged…
Do you hear me???
GAUGED!
UNPLUG NOW!
BUY SOME CORN.
Seriously you guys, good job, thanks so much for doing this video! We are trying to make as many people as we can aware of this too. Keep it up over there,
Arin & Susan
Eh the guy using the Kevin Rose name on here (obviously not the real Kevin Rose) has got some sand is his vagina. I mean what a rant.
Any chance you work for AT&T mate.
Noone owns the internet!!!!
I just got chills.
It’s a complex issue, but you can’t turn back the clock when it comes to advancing communication and technology. Information wants to be free.
And when all else fails: get your HAM radio license!
Nicely done! That was the “Picture”, here’s the “1000 words” version:
http://dig.csail.mit.edu/breadcrumbs/node/144
what’s sad is that these so-called telcos are acting like a bunch of pathetic idiots about this whole net neutrality thing. do they REALLY need more money? NO, they do not. why the HELL do they have to go and mess up a good thing then? as the saying goes, if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.
Enjoyed the content of this piece Friday June 23, 2006. Democracy does need to be vigilant in a market economy. I would urge Rocketboom to keep bearing the yoke of this important issue. There was piece on the radio this morning that spoke to not so much to access and who allows it, but the haves and the have nots in a world (country) where access to information can enlighted a road out of poverty, and where the lack of this access can make ensnare folks in chronic poverty.
many thanks, Iz
As a small-fry content developer, I do take issue with tiered proposals of access. However, whereas pleading with congress might bring about an enforced status quo, are there any other strategies for maintaining a free and open internet?
Aren’t we harming ourselves by relying on large corporations to supply our bandwidth… can we get around that somehow? Are there efforts being made in that direction? Let’s build our own bandwidth!
I agree with the other individual who says the craigslist issue just makes the argument weaker and more complicated. Let’s not be another spin doctor. Net Neutrality: a matter of life and death? Okay maybe like one in a five million chance. But the fact that it would affect everyone’s daily surfing habits makes for a much better argument and one that EVERYBODY can relate to.
AMANDA IS NOT ONLY BEAUTIFUL AND TALENTED BUT ALSO VERY SMART AND ARTICULATE. THIS IS THE BEST EXPLANATION OF NET NEUTRALITY I HAVE EVER SEEN. I’M GOING TO SHARE IT WITH EVERYONE I KNOW INCLUSING MY SEANTORS. WAY TO GO, AMANDA!
Wow, I’m shocked by how many of these comments appear to have absolutely no idea what net neutrality means.
Net neutrality is one of the founding principles of the Internet. The freedom to connect to an open network, often called “the cloud”, and exchange bits with anyone with little or no restriction. That is the technical meaning of net neutrality, and it’s why the Internet ever came into existance.
Now the telco monopolies want to change that. They want to be able to charge special fees to anyone who sends data over their networks, that includes Google, and it includes Craigslist, and it includes Rocketboom.
Not only that, they also will be able to block sites they don’t like. For example, if MSN Search cuts a great deal with Earthlink, all Earthlink users could suddenly not be able to access Yahoo or Google. Net neutrality is the only thing that prevents that from happening.
Worse, the end-user could also be charged. Right now, you have free and open access to any site. All you pay for is access to “the cloud”, thanks to net neutrality. If you lose the right to access “the cloud” freely, telcos may imposed tiered pricing plans, just like basic cable service. Content, like movies made in the 80s that are commonly shown on HBO, cost the cable company practically nothing to broadcast, but you still have to fork over premium cable fees to even be able to watch 80s movies. That’s tiered pricing. If we don’t have net neutrality, that’s going to be perfectly legal on the Internet.
Another comparison is to the cell phone. Most cell phones can access the Internet, exchange data, check email, web, run apps. Does your cell phone do all that? Probably it does, but only if you pay your cell phone company for the access to those premium services. Cell phones DON’T have net neutrality, because cell phone internet access started with a tiered pricing and broken neutrality model from the beginning.
Meanwhile, the telcos have been flooding the market with misinformation about this issue being “Google” against the Telcos. That’s complete BS. Google is just standing up for the little guy, trying to make sure the Internet doesn’t become what the cellphone and cable networks already are. The telcos are literally spending millions of dollars on this misinformation advertising campaign.
We want net neutrality to continue. Its a complex issue, but its idiotic to burden the Internet with tiered pricing. Access to “the cloud” should be based only on how much you are willing to spend on your personal connection to “the cloud”, how much bandwidth you are willing to purchase. The telcos would have you in a tiered pricing model and would try to charge content providers for access, but that’s not good the Internet, the end-user, the small business, or Rocketboom.
Excellent video.
Another approach (I can’t produce it myself):
What if your telco limited the connectable telephone numbers by factors other than distance? And, if they can do this with URLs, telephone numbers may be next if they can establish a precedent.
Once the gate is opened …
I’ve done my part. Thanks Amanda and crew. See http://hyattsvilleh4x.com/index.php?post_id=105222.
OK so I’m late to this thread. I bid for placement with my Google AdWords. If somebody otbids me, they get a better placement. Google makes a lot of money that way. That’s the market. So why is that different from payment for faster/better service on the net? I see no upside in making laws for things that MIGHT happen (like Cox blocking CraigsList…which would totally not be to their advantage anyway). Let the market work.
wow, hindsight is 20/20
the last ‘manda rocketboom was the best one so far…
Daniel, you are an idiot. The window size had nothing to do with a browser window.
“We found that the Craigslist.org web site sends a TCP packet with a zero-length window. A zero-length window indicates the server is experiencing congestion and cannot handle more data.”
“Authentium’s initial response to the Craigslist.org webserver is exactly as specified by RFC 793 (which describes TCP) about the proper behavior when a host to which you initiate a TCP connection specifies a window size of 0″
http://lippard.blogspot.com/2006/06/matt-stoller-lies-about-site-blocking.html
apple sucks. quicktimes is one of the most evil programs very made.
DEAD DEAD I say to evil steve jobs.
he so wants to be bill gates.
what a liven hell that would become.
DEAD DEAD DEAD HIS HEAD HIS HEAD. lol
GBX
apple sucks. quicktimes is one of the most evil programs very made.
DEAD DEAD I say to evil steve jobs.
he so wants to be bill gates.
what a liven hell that would become.
DEAD DEAD DEAD HIS HEAD HIS HEAD. lol
GBX
This was Amanda Congden’s last Rocketboom podcast! :(
How is one country going to keep the NET neutral when the Internet is everywhere? Even if they did make these bills it would only cover that country and then not even websites outside the country.
Hey! If we just keep posting old Rocketboom episodes to DEL.ICIO.US—RB will live on FOREVER!
And I mean the REAL RB.
To all of YOU who think putting the Big Business Spin on things is the only way to retort, try reading this. Assholes !!!. The internet. In today’s information age it has become the “Great Equalizer”.
ME
Free American broadband!
In France, you can get super-fast DSL, unlimited phone service and 100 TV channels for a mere $38 a month. Why does the same thing cost so much more in the U.S.?
By S. Derek Turner
Oct. 18, 2005 | Next time you sit down to pay your cable-modem or DSL bill, consider this: Most Japanese consumers can get an Internet connection that’s 16 times faster than the typical American DSL line for a mere $22 per month.
Across the globe, it’s the same story. In France, DSL service that is 10 times faster than the typical United States connection; 100 TV channels and unlimited telephone service cost only $38 per month. In South Korea, super-fast connections are common for less than $30 per month. Places as diverse as Finland, Canada and Hong Kong all have much faster Internet connections at a lower cost than what is available here. In fact, since 2001, the U.S. has slipped from fourth to 16th in the world in broadband use per capita. While other countries are taking advantage of the technological, business and education opportunities of the broadband era, America remains lost in transition.
How did this happen? Why has the U.S. fallen so far behind the rest of its economic peers? The answer is simple. These nations all have something the U.S. lacks: a national broadband policy, one that actively encourages competition among providers, leading to lower consumer prices and better service.
Instead, the U.S. has a handful of unelected and unaccountable corporate giants that control our vital telecommunications infrastructure. This has led not only to a digital divide between the U.S. and the rest of the advanced world but to one inside the U.S. itself. Currently, broadband services in America remain unavailable for many living in rural and poorer urban areas, and remain slow and expensive for those who do have access.
For instance, when farmers gathered at this year’s Iowa State Fair to discuss their policy concerns with U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Mike Johanns, the topic on the minds of many was broadband. And for good reason. Twenty-five percent of Iowa’s rural communities have no access to high-speed Internet service, and over half of the remaining rural communities are serviced by only one provider. Those lucky enough to live in areas served by Iowa Telecom can pay as much as $170 per month for a DSL line.
President Bush has called for “universal, affordable access to broadband technology by the year 2007,” and Federal Communications Commission chairman Kevin Martin recently declared broadband deployment to be his “highest priority.” Martin recently took to the pages of the Wall Street Journal to tout “the dramatic growth in broadband services.” In his editorial he boasts of “fierce competition” among broadband providers and tells us we’re “well on our way to accomplishing the President’s goal.”
The facts tell a different story. Today, major cable companies and DSL providers control almost 98 percent of the residential and small-business broadband market. This trend is the direct result of FCC policies that fail to encourage real competition among broadband providers, giving free rein over the market to the cable and DSL giants. The corporate giants are also vigorously fighting to stop cities and towns from building “Community Internet” systems — affordable, high-speed broadband services funded in part by community groups and municipalities — even in places where the cable and DSL companies themselves don’t offer service. Yet, like rural electrification projects in the early 20th century, today’s Community Internet projects offer the best hope of achieving universal broadband service.
Like so many other challenges faced by the Bush administration, the response to the growing digital divide has been to redefine success and prematurely declare victory.
In the 1996 Telecommunications Act, Congress directed the FCC to oversee the timely deployment of Internet services that “enable users to originate and receive high quality voice, data, graphics, and video telecommunications.” Currently, this requirement translates into an Internet connection with typical download and upload speeds between 10 Mbps and 20 Mbps (megabits, or million bits, per second).
But the FCC defines a “high-speed” connection as one capable of transmitting data at a rate of 200 kbps (kilobits, or a thousand bits, per second) in one direction — about four times the speed of dial-up. At this slow speed, it is barely possible to receive low-quality streaming video, and is completely impractical to originate high-quality video.
The typical download speed of a DSL connection in the U.S. is 1.5 Mbps, while the average cable-modem connection downloads at 3 Mbps. These connections are adequate for streaming low- to standard-quality video, but are far too slow for applications like high-definition video. Furthermore, they pale in comparison to what is being offered in Japan, where consumers can download high-definition movies in less than five minutes.
Setting the high-speed standard so low allows Martin and the FCC to portray the increase in mediocre connections as a sign of progress. Other countries define broadband in a more honest way. For example, Canada has declared the minimum standard for broadband to be 1.5 Mbps in both directions — more than seven times faster than what the FCC considers to be “advanced service.”
Defenders of the status quo like Martin argue that since the U.S. spans a huge geographical area, it is wrong for us to expect the level of high-speed broadband service that Western Europe or Asia enjoy. But this ignores the success of sparsely populated nations like Canada, and cannot explain why densely populated cities such as San Francisco do not have access to the same types of high-speed connections found in Seoul, South Korea, or Tokyo.
Martin’s failure to confront the broadband problem becomes painfully obvious when you consider how his commission measures broadband availability and adoption. Instead of counting the number of subscribers in a particular area, the FCC considers an entire ZIP code as “covered” if at least one person living in that area has a broadband connection. This allows the FCC to make misleading boasts about how broadband coverage reaches 99 percent of the country.
Consider the case of Loudoun County, Va., a high-tech community just outside of Washington that’s home to Internet giant America Online. The FCC claims there are more than six broadband providers, on average, within each Loudoun County ZIP code. But a recent survey revealed that one-third of the county’s households are unable to purchase any broadband service.
Nationwide, the reality is only one in three urban and suburban American adults have broadband at home, and only one in six adults living in rural areas do. Furthermore, the choice of broadband providers available to these consumers is paltry. The FCC’s own data show that nearly 20 percent of all Americans report having no cable or DSL service providers in their neighborhood, and another 28 percent only had access to one provider. In President Bush’s home state of Texas, for example, 93 counties have only one broadband provider and 16 counties offer no service at all.
Most of the countries surpassing the U.S. in broadband speed and availability have “open access” rules governing both their cable and DSL industries. Open access rules require the owner of a network to allow its competitors access to the network at wholesale prices. These rules usually apply to networks that are “natural monopolies” like telephone systems and railroads, and in order to ensure innovation among competitors, these provisions usually do not apply to newly built infrastructure. Ultimately, open access benefits consumers by creating competition that leads to lower prices and new innovative services. You can credit open access with the drop in long-distance rates seen in the 1990s.
Nations like Canada long ago mandated that the local cable and telephone monopolies provide competing Internet Service Providers (ISPs) access to their networks at wholesale cost. However, here in the U.S., the FCC — backed by the Supreme Court in the Brand-X case — took the bizarre step of exempting cable Internet providers from all open access rules, while applying them in a limited fashion to the incumbent DSL companies.
The Brand-X ruling affirmed an FCC decision to classify cable modem service as an “information service” and not a “telecommunications service.” Under the 1996 Telecommunications Act, information service providers are not subject to the open access regulations that are applied to telecommunications providers, such as DSL companies. To assert that cable-modem services have no telecommunications component is simply bizarre. Indeed, Justice Antonin Scalia said in his dissent, “When all is said and done, after all the regulatory cant has been translated, and the smoke of regulatory expertise has blown away, it remains perfectly clear that someone who sells cable-modem service is ‘offering’ telecommunications.”
The Supreme Court’s decision in effect ensures that consumers have no choice among cable-modem providers. This is because almost all municipalities grant a single cable provider the right-of-way to lay cable wire, in exchange for a portion of its local revenues — usually 5 percent.
While almost no competition exists within local cable Internet markets, consumers in some larger cities have been able to choose among several DSL providers. (Although thanks to other FCC decisions, customers often must purchase a phone line in addition to their DSL service.)
But the FCC recently decided to cut off this last frontier of competition by ending most of the remaining open access provisions governing the DSL industry. Bush’s FCC believes that open access is restricting innovation in broadband services.
However, the FCC’s own data indicates that open access in the DSL sector has contributed to growth in DSL services and the weakening of the cable companies’ monopoly power over the broadband market. It appears that the FCC is acting under pressure from telecom companies, which are demanding a “level playing field” in the wake of Brand-X. This move will permanently entrench a cable-DSL duopoly over the broadband market, ensuring higher prices and lousy service for consumers.
Now, some may see the recent “price wars” between such popular providers as Comcast and SBC as a signal that the market is functioning properly. Closer examination of introductory offers reveals them to be nothing more than bait-and-switch gimmicks.
SBC’s $14.95 per month offer for its “DSL-express” service — rolled out with much fanfare earlier this year — is merely an introductory rate, which requires signing a long-term contract with an expensive termination penalty. Furthermore, subscribers must be new SBC DSL customers, and must purchase the DSL along with the additional cost of SBC telephone service. The connection itself is extremely slow by most standards of “broadband,” as it only offers a maximum upload speed of 384 kbps. When spread out over three years, the true cost of the SBC offer is about $25 per month, not including the cost of the phone line, taxes and other fees. When these additional charges are included, the total cost averages out to well over $40 per month.
Rick Lindner, chief financial officer of SBC, told investors the offer was simply a way to lure customers away from cable companies and sell them other SBC products. Lindner explained that bundling low-cost DSL with phone service “suddenly takes you from … being a $15 product to being a $65 or a $70 customer.” He joked: “We’re out to pillage and plunder the industry, that’s our objective.”
The most promising alternative to the cable-DSL duopoly is Community Internet — universal, affordable high-speed broadband service provided by cities and towns or community groups. Hundreds of places — from Philadelphia and San Francisco to Chaska, Minn., and Granbury, Texas — are now viewing broadband as a public service, no different from water, gas or electricity. They are building Community Internet and municipal broadband projects to bring high-speed Internet to areas overcharged or underserved by the cable and DSL companies.
Community Internet projects come in many different forms, utilizing different technologies and various business models. Some projects are built and operated exclusively by a municipality, while many others operate under public-private partnership agreements. Although a few places receive broadband over power lines, or fiber laid directly to homes, the majority of Community Internet projects utilize “Wi-Fi” technology to create “hot-spot” zones of broadband coverage or, in many cases, build a “mesh network” to blanket an entire city. San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom is currently taking bids to build just such a network in his city, with Google offering to provide the service for free.
The story of tiny Scottsburg, Ind., illustrates how Community Internet can provide needed services that keep jobs and resources in the local economy. In 2002, Scottsburg Mayor Bill Graham was confronted with the possibility of two local businesses leaving town because his city had no broadband service. One of the companies nearly lost a key defense contract because its dial-up Internet connection repeatedly failed as it was trying to send in a bid.
The mayor contacted cable and DSL providers, who told him outright that providing broadband in his town just didn’t make business sense. As Graham told the PBS program “Now”: “We were in a crisis mode. We were gonna lose companies, gonna lose jobs. We just had to do something, you know. How many jobs can a small community lose? None.”
A committee formed by the city to find a viable solution to this problem quickly concluded that the answer was to construct a municipal wireless network. The city created the Citizens Communication Corporation, and within four months installed wireless transmitters on water and electric towers, producing a network that reaches over 90 percent of the county’s residents.
After the Scottsburg network was up and running, several DSL companies (the very same ones that had refused to service Scottsburg) went to the Indiana statehouse to lobby in support of a bill that would have prevented any other towns in the state from creating their own Community Internet systems. Fortunately, the powerful testimony of Mayor Graham convinced legislators to kill the SBC-backed bill.
However, across the nation, the cable and telecom companies, armed with powerful lobbyists and coin-operated “experts” are quietly working the halls of state legislatures and Congress in a concerted effort to kill off Community Internet. Over the past several years, 14 states enacted laws that ban or place limits on municipalities from building Community Internet projects.
Over the summer, Rep. Pete Sessions (R-Texas) — a former SBC executive — introduced an anti-Community Internet bill with the Orwellian title “Preserving Innovation in Telecom Act of 2005.” The legislation would prevent any city in the country from providing Internet access if a private entity offers service nearby — even if the private company serves as little as 10 percent of the residents.
Community Internet opponents routinely accuse municipal broadband providers of being an unfairly advantaged competitor and offering an inferior service doomed to fail and bankrupt taxpayers. But the allegation that municipal broadband providers hold an unfair advantage because they are the beneficiaries of special tax and legal treatments doesn’t hold water.
For decades, the incumbent cable and Bell companies have enjoyed all the benefits of a protected monopoly status, granted to them by the FCC and by local municipalities. And over the past several years, these companies have received hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars to subsidize their broadband deployment efforts. The truth is that Community Internet projects pay taxes just like any other competitor. In fact, a study by the Florida Municipal Energy Association showed that private incumbent providers pay fewer taxes than municipal systems and receive more state and federal subsidies.
In addition to providing broadband to underserved areas, Community Internet projects often entice other competitors into the market. The same Florida study found that municipal construction of communication networks expanded “the number of private firms serving the same market by more than 60 percent.”
Yet the big cable and telecom companies continue to spread misinformation. A “fact sheet” distributed to journalists earlier this year by Verizon, detailing supposed failures of Community Internet projects, was found to be full of errors and mistakes, relying primarily on a 7-year-old discredited study of municipal cable TV networks.
Notably, municipal networks are arising because of the failures of the incumbent providers. Without them, the U.S. will continue to fall behind the rest of the world in broadband technology. Nations such as Canada and South Korea long ago realized the importance of public broadband, and incorporated municipal systems into their overall broadband strategies.
There are signs, though, that the tide may be turning in the U.S. against the cable and Bell companies. This year, spurred in part by success stories in places like Scottsburg, anti-municipal broadband bills were defeated in seven states and delayed in two others. Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J., have introduced a bill that would allow municipalities to provide Internet service and overturn existing state anti-municipal broadband laws. The bills are expected to receive further attention this fall.
But Congress needs to do more than just allow Community Internet projects. It needs to free up valuable “spectrum” for these wireless networks to operate on. Currently, most Wi-Fi devices operate on an unlicensed basis in the “2.4 GHz” region of the spectrum — a crowded area occupied by hundreds of different types of consumer devices such as microwave ovens and cordless phones. The physical properties of this end of the spectrum prevent wireless signals from penetrating obstacles and terrain. This means citywide networks using the 2.4 GHz band will require large amounts of antennae, raising the overall price of deployment.
If wireless networks were able to operate on lower-frequency spectrum — such as the region used by over-the-air television stations — the infrastructure costs would be much lower, potentially allowing Community Internet networks to offer extremely fast connections for as little as $10 per month.
In most areas, even in large markets like Los Angeles, large portions of the television spectrum go unused. (Just attach an antenna to your TV to see how many channels it picks up — odds are it will be less than a dozen, and most of those will barely be visible.) Congress should allow low-power wireless devices to operate on these valuable but unused channels.
Similarly, Congress could set aside a portion of the spectrum coming back to the government from the broadcasters, as part of the digital television transition. The current plan is to auction off this valuable resource to the cellphone companies to cover the cost of the war and tax cuts. But it’s hard to imagine a better use of the public airwaves than opening up the spectrum for everyone to use.
But the answer doesn’t lie solely in government either. What is needed is a truly competitive market, with many providers engaging in innovation that ultimately benefits all consumers. Government can play a role in making the market more competitive — both by deploying Community Internet projects and by requiring the cable and telephone companies to provide open access to their networks.
American innovation offers a solution to our broadband problem. It’s time for Congress, the FCC and the White House to stop protecting the corporate dinosaurs and start exploring alternatives that will foster a genuine free market in high-speed Internet services.
– By S. Derek Turner
Communication is indeed a matter of life or death. With the internet we\’re getting the chance to build the best and brightest planetary nervous system ever. If we do it right, our ability to share information can solve disease and end resource problems… plus help us make amazing works of art. The money-driven market model was for monkeys, and it\’s time for humanity to grow up and live up to ideals of equality.
Yet if anyone watching this can\’t intuit the truth…I…I don\’t know how they\’ll ever get it through their head. So I hope RocketBoom is logging IP addresses and names of the people who are leaving the negative comments. Then we can locate the cretins who are sabotaging the future, and quarantine them so they don\’t block our work at reaching out to everyone else. Like the people on Craigslist… well, the real ones.
Speaking of communication, there are some odd comments on this thread–which don\’t seem like ordinary spam. They talk about networks but then mention phoning Daryl Hannah and how Disney Characters names are spelled, or Quicktime and Steve Jobs. So I\’ll throw in my own note that \”GOUGE\” is the term B-Man was looking for–as \”GAUGE\” means to measure something, not to exploit it. Next:
1. squish color=pink tool=fist
2. squish color=purple tool=elbow
3. squish color=blue tool=phonebook brand=sbc
4. squish color=orange tool=shoe brand=z
Beyond that, I\’m looking forward to games of chess with the non-cretins, as long as I get to play the gold side. Though Rad girls in green shirts don\’t have to play silver if they don\’t want to! (Amanda\’s a pretty name, but why does the site say \”joanne colan\”?)
…—…\”Jim\”
P.S. \”I\’m a best selling author and I am NOT a cat! I write!! I write books and am a living, breathing person, not a cat.\”