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?
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 $$$$$.
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'.)
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.
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.
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.
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)
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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..
*recent comments
Comments for friday june 23, 2006 : casual friday
Sorry for the shady details. Any one with better details?
Great job.
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.
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 $$$$$.
My net is free, i'm in the UK. Your laws wont affect me.
Excellent summation by 'Manda. And it is always nice to see the uber-vehicle making a cameo.
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.
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!
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?
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.
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.
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
EVERYBODY UNPLUG!
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.
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.
Maybe you'll wake up when the telcos limit access to your campaign website, because they don't agree with your politics.
Excellent, Amanda and Drew.
Keep up the good work!
-SK
sgl
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?
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?
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
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
what is happening there in the US?
You raised my curiosity. I will start some reading.
Thanks,
Gunther (Germany)
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!
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.
TeraLink Was Here!
SUPPORT NET NEUTRALITY!!!
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
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.
oh yeah.... (really) nice shoes.
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.
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.
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.