On 2/7/06, Rob Kelley (yahoo) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Michael: > > The Weekly Standard? Ha, that may take awhile: "The Weekly Standard > magazine is considered the prime voice of Republican neoconservatives, and > one of the most influential publications in Washington under the Bush > Administration." > [http://www.disinfopedia.com/index.php?title=Weekly_Standard ]
My point! They (currently) control the discussion. So if it's not coming from that direction it's not really being said (I'm pessimistic :-) ) Michael > > On 2/7/06, Rob Kelley (yahoo) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > The Nation gets hip to Network Neutrality... > > > > > From The Nation [posted online on February 1, 2006] > > > > > > http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060213/chester > > > > > > The End of the Internet? > > > > > > by JEFF CHESTER > > > > > > The nation's largest telephone and cable companies are crafting an > > > alarming set of strategies that would transform the free, open and > > > nondiscriminatory Internet of today to a privately run and branded > > > service that would charge a fee for virtually everything we do online. > > > > > > Verizon, Comcast, Bell South and other communications giants are > > > developing strategies that would track and store information on our > > > every move in cyberspace in a vast data-collection and marketing > > > system, the scope of which could rival the National Security > > > Agency. According to white papers now being circulated in the > > > cable, telephone and telecommunications industries, those with the > > > deepest pockets--corporations, special-interest groups and major > > > advertisers--would get preferred treatment. Content from these > > > providers would have first priority on our computer and television > > > screens, while information seen as undesirable, such as peer-to- > > > peer communications, could be relegated to a slow lane or simply > > > shut out. > > > > > > Under the plans they are considering, all of us--from content > > > providers to individual users--would pay more to surf online, > > > stream videos or even send e-mail. Industry planners are mulling > > > new subscription plans that would further limit the online > > > experience, establishing "platinum," "gold" and "silver" levels of > > > Internet access that would set limits on the number of downloads, > > > media streams or even e-mail messages that could be sent or received. > > > > > > To make this pay-to-play vision a reality, phone and cable > > > lobbyists are now engaged in a political campaign to further weaken > > > the nation's communications policy laws. They want the federal > > > government to permit them to operate Internet and other digital > > > communications services as private networks, free of policy > > > safeguards or governmental oversight. Indeed, both the Congress and > > > the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) are considering > > > proposals that will have far-reaching impact on the Internet's > > > future. Ten years after passage of the ill-advised > > > Telecommunications Act of 1996, telephone and cable companies are > > > using the same political snake oil to convince compromised or > > > clueless lawmakers to subvert the Internet into a turbo-charged > > > digital retail machine. > > > > > > The telephone industry has been somewhat more candid than the cable > > > industry about its strategy for the Internet's future. Senior phone > > > executives have publicly discussed plans to begin imposing a new > > > scheme for the delivery of Internet content, especially from major > > > Internet content companies. As Ed Whitacre, chairman and CEO of > > > AT&T, told Business Week in November, "Why should they be allowed > > > to use my pipes? The Internet can't be free in that sense, because > > > we and the cable companies have made an investment, and for a > > > Google or Yahoo! or Vonage or anybody to expect to use these pipes > > > [for] free is nuts!" > > > > > > The phone industry has marshaled its political allies to help win > > > the freedom to impose this new broadband business model. At a > > > recent conference held by the Progress and Freedom Foundation, a > > > think tank funded by Comcast, Verizon, AT&T and other media > > > companies, there was much discussion of a plan for phone companies > > > to impose fees on a sliding scale, charging content providers > > > different levels of service. "Price discrimination," noted PFF's > > > resident media expert Adam Thierer, "drives the market-based > > > capitalist economy." > > > > > > Net Neutrality > > > > > > To ward off the prospect of virtual toll booths on the information > > > highway, some new media companies and public-interest groups are > > > calling for new federal policies requiring "network neutrality" on > > > the Internet. Common Cause, Amazon, Google, Free Press, Media > > > Access Project and Consumers Union, among others, have proposed > > > that broadband providers would be prohibited from discriminating > > > against all forms of digital content. For example, phone or cable > > > companies would not be allowed to slow down competing or > > > undesirable content. > > > > > > Without proactive intervention, the values and issues that we care > > > about--civil rights, economic justice, the environment and fair > > > elections--will be further threatened by this push for corporate > > > control. Imagine how the next presidential election would unfold if > > > major political advertisers could make strategic payments to > > > Comcast so that ads from Democratic and Republican candidates were > > > more visible and user-friendly than ads of third-party candidates > > > with less funds. Consider what would happen if an online > > > advertisement promoting nuclear power prominently popped up on a > > > cable broadband page, while a competing message from an > > > environmental group was relegated to the margins. It is possible > > > that all forms of civic and noncommercial online programming would > > > be pushed to the end of a commercial digital queue. > > > > > > But such "neutrality" safeguards are inadequate to address more > > > fundamental changes the Bells and cable monopolies are seeking in > > > their quest to monetize the Internet. If we permit the Internet to > > > become a medium designed primarily to serve the interests of > > > marketing and personal consumption, rather than global civic- > > > related communications, we will face the political consequences for > > > decades to come. Unless we push back, the "brandwashing" of America > > > will permeate not only our information infrastructure but global > > > society and culture as well. > > > > > > Why are the Bells and cable companies aggressively advancing such > > > plans? With the arrival of the long-awaited "convergence" of > > > communications, our media system is undergoing a major > > > transformation. Telephone and cable giants envision a potential > > > lucrative "triple play," as they impose near-monopoly control over > > > the residential broadband services that send video, voice and data > > > communications flowing into our televisions, home computers, cell > > > phones and iPods. All of these many billions of bits will be > > > delivered over the telephone and cable lines. > > > > > > Video programming is of foremost interest to both the phone and > > > cable companies. The telephone industry, like its cable rival, is > > > now in the TV and media business, offering customers television > > > channels, on-demand videos and games. Online advertising is > > > increasingly integrating multimedia (such as animation and full- > > > motion video) in its pitches. Since video-driven material requires > > > a great deal of Internet bandwidth as it travels online, phone and > > > cable companies want to make sure their television "applications" > > > receive preferential treatment on the networks they operate. And > > > their overall influence over the stream of information coming into > > > your home (or mobile device) gives them the leverage to determine > > > how the broadband business evolves. > > > > > > Mining Your Data > > > > > > At the core of the new power held by phone and cable companies are > > > tools delivering what is known as "deep packet inspection." With > > > these tools, AT&T and others can readily know the packets of > > > information you are receiving online--from e-mail, to websites, to > > > sharing of music, video and software downloads. > > > > > > These "deep packet inspection" technologies are partly designed to > > > make sure that the Internet pipeline doesn't become so congested it > > > chokes off the delivery of timely communications. Such products > > > have already been sold to universities and large businesses that > > > want to more economically manage their Internet services. They are > > > also being used to limit some peer-to-peer downloading, especially > > > for music. > > > > > > But these tools are also being promoted as ways that companies, > > > such as Comcast and Bell South, can simply grab greater control > > > over the Internet. For example, in a series of recent white papers, > > > Internet technology giant Cisco urges these companies to "meter > > > individual subscriber usage by application," as individuals' online > > > travels are "tracked" and "integrated with billing systems." Such > > > tracking and billing is made possible because they will know "the > > > identity and profile of the individual subscriber," "what the > > > subscriber is doing" and "where the subscriber resides." > > > > > > Will Google, Amazon and the other companies successfully fight the > > > plans of the Bells and cable companies? Ultimately, they are likely > > > to cut a deal because they, too, are interested in monetizing our > > > online activities. After all, as Cisco notes, content companies and > > > network providers will need to "cooperate with each other to > > > leverage their value proposition." They will be drawn by the > > > ability of cable and phone companies to track "content usage...by > > > subscriber," and where their online services can be "protected from > > > piracy, metered, and appropriately valued." > > > > > > Our Digital Destiny > > > > > > It was former FCC chairman Michael Powell, with the support of then- > > > commissioner and current chair Kevin Martin, who permitted phone > > > and cable giants to have greater control over broadband. Powell and > > > his GOP majority eliminated longstanding regulatory safeguards > > > requiring phone companies to operate as nondiscriminatory networks > > > (technically known as "common carriers"). He refused to require > > > that cable companies, when providing Internet access, also operate > > > in a similar nondiscriminatory manner. As Stanford University law > > > professor Lawrence Lessig has long noted, it is government > > > regulation of the phone lines that helped make the Internet today's > > > vibrant, diverse and democratic medium. > > > > > > But now, the phone companies are lobbying Washington to kill off > > > what's left of "common carrier" policy. They wish to operate their > > > Internet services as fully "private" networks. Phone and cable > > > companies claim that the government shouldn't play a role in > > > broadband regulation: Instead of the free and open network that > > > offers equal access to all, they want to reduce the Internet to a > > > series of business decisions between consumers and providers. > > > > > > Besides their business interests, telephone and cable companies > > > also have a larger political agenda. Both industries oppose giving > > > local communities the right to create their own local Internet > > > wireless or wi-fi networks. They also want to eliminate the last > > > vestige of local oversight from electronic media--the ability of > > > city or county government, for example, to require > > > telecommunications companies to serve the public interest with, for > > > example, public-access TV channels. The Bells also want to further > > > reduce the ability of the FCC to oversee communications policy. > > > They hope that both the FCC and Congress--via a new Communications > > > Act--will back these proposals. > > > > > > The future of the online media in the United States will ultimately > > > depend on whether the Bells and cable companies are allowed to > > > determine the country's "digital destiny." So before there are any > > > policy decisions, a national debate should begin about how the > > > Internet should serve the public. We must insure that phone and > > > cable companies operate their Internet services in the public > > > interest--as stewards for a vital medium for free expression. > > > > > > If Americans are to succeed in designing an equitable digital > > > destiny for themselves, they must mount an intensive opposition > > > similar to the successful challenges to the FCC's media ownership > > > rules in 2003. Without such a public outcry to rein in the GOP's > > > corporate-driven agenda, it is likely that even many of the > > > Democrats who rallied against further consolidation will be "tamed" > > > by the well-funded lobbying campaigns of the powerful phone and > > > cable industry. > > > > -- > > NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/ > > Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/ > > Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/ > > > > -- > NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/ > Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/ > Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/ > -- NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/ Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/ Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
