This guy (the author, not you Rob) references nuclear power like it's a BAD thing! Concern for large companies exercising their market power over their netwokrs isn't going to get much traction when it only comes from people on the extreme.
Jim > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf > Of Rob Kelley (yahoo) > Sent: Tuesday, February 07, 2006 12:50 PM > To: nycwireless@lists.nycwireless.net > Subject: [nycwireless] The End of the Internet? > > > 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/ > > > > -- > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.15.1/250 - Release > Date: 2/3/2006 > > -- NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/ Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/ Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
