Re: [nycwireless] The End of the Internet?
Oh Alex how could you? It is one thing to be wrong on the facts, but to publicly slander an ally based upon nothing but your incorrect opinion? Thats awful. I have worked with Bruce, fighting on behalf of independent ISPs, for over 8 years. FIGHTING TO PROTECT YOUR BUSINESS -- lobbying in DC, filing with FCC, doing research proving the ISPs were harmed, suing, holding meetings, speaking at ISPcon, etc. He has done more than you have to protect ISPs and their access to the public network. Bruce is NOT financed by the anyone, let alone the CWA. Perhaps you are confused by the report Bruce published a couple of years back -- which was based upon a CWA report that documented that Vz workers were being forced by supervisors to obstruct and delay competitor installs and repairs. This report validated what many of us who used CLECs like Covad had experienced. This report HELPED bring pressure that eliminated the worst of these abuses for the past several years. Essentially, the CWA members were the whistle-blowers who felt what they were being asked to do was wrong. Yeah Bruce is nuts -- he's nuts to expect some gratitude from the people he has labored selflessly to protect. No good deed goes unpunished I guess . . . -> Joe At 1:20 AM -0500 2/13/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sun, 12 Feb 2006, Joe Plotkin wrote: Yesterday's NY Times has a column commenting on Bruce Kushnick's new book (below) -- in which Bruce documents the Baby Bell fraud. Now that the Bells have succeeded in their dream of an *unregulated monopoly* -- a wider constituency has awakened to the dangers Bruce has been fighting against for a decade. Anything Kushnick writes should be read with a bucket of salt. Not to say that he's right on many things, but there just as many things on which he's nuts. Currently he's financed by CWA, which is far more corrupt than VZ itself. -alex -- NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/ Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/ Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/ -- === Joe Plotkin DSL/Marketing Bway.net - NYC's Best Internet === Bway.net Note --> new address: 568 Broadway Suite 404 New York, NY 10012 phone: 212.982.9800 fax: 212.982.5499 efax: 772.365.5877 email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] DSL info: [EMAIL PROTECTED] web: http://www.bway.net === Fight the Monopoly! http://www.TeleTruth.org === -- NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/ Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/ Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
Re: [nycwireless] The End of the Internet?
On Sun, 12 Feb 2006, Joe Plotkin wrote: > Yesterday's NY Times has a column commenting on Bruce Kushnick's new > book (below) -- in which Bruce documents the Baby Bell fraud. Now that > the Bells have succeeded in their dream of an *unregulated monopoly* -- > a wider constituency has awakened to the dangers Bruce has been fighting > against for a decade. Anything Kushnick writes should be read with a bucket of salt. Not to say that he's right on many things, but there just as many things on which he's nuts. Currently he's financed by CWA, which is far more corrupt than VZ itself. -alex -- NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/ Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/ Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
Re: [nycwireless] The End of the Internet?
Yesterday's NY Times has a column commenting on Bruce Kushnick's new book (below) -- in which Bruce documents the Baby Bell fraud. Now that the Bells have succeeded in their dream of an *unregulated monopoly* -- a wider constituency has awakened to the dangers Bruce has been fighting against for a decade. > Joe February 11, 2006 What's Online A Rant. All 406 Pages of It. By DAN MITCHELL A NEW e-book tells a "sordid story" of business fraud, according to one reviewer. The book's author says it is "the largest fraud case in American history." Enron? WorldCom? No. It's much, much larger than either of those, though the use of the word "fraud" in this case is more a literary device than a legal definition. The book is "The $200 Billion Broadband Scandal" (newnetworks.com). The author is Bruce Kushnick, a longtime irritant to the telecommunications industry. continued at: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/11/technology/11online.ready.html?_r=1&oref=slogin At 11:10 PM -0500 2/8/06, Dana Spiegel wrote: Jim, We should the telco's like we trusted them when they said they'd provide a fiber optic network to every home? Rght. I'll tell you what: If you believe the telco's, then I've got a bridge to sell you. From the article you pointed out: "McSlarrow pointed out that the cable industry has invested $100 billion on its networks in the last 10 years. This model works, he said, why change it to pursue "hypothetical theories."" Well, that's great, except we (the taxpayers) gave them $200 billion to invest in those networks over the last 10 years. Where'd the other $100 billion go? Dana Spiegel sociableDESIGN :: www.sociableDESIGN.com 123 Bank Street, Suite 510, New York, NY 10014 m +1 917 402 0422 :: f +1 760 454 3690 :: e [EMAIL PROTECTED] Read the Social Technologies blog: http://www.sociabledesign.com/blog Read the Wireless Community blog: http://www.wirelesscommunity.info On Feb 8, 2006, at 7:29 PM, Jim Henry wrote: Dana, Read this article: http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6305438.html?display=Breaking+News&referral=SUPP&nid=2228 and I think you will begin to see that such fears are unfounded. Jim -Original Message- From: Dana Spiegel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, February 07, 2006 11:09 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: 'Rob Kelley (yahoo)'; nycwireless@lists.nycwireless.net Subject: Re: [nycwireless] The End of the Internet? Jim, I hardly think that's the point. Besides the fact that Jeff Chester _is not_ extreme and _takes no side_ in the article re: nuclear power, you are (as I've come to expect from your posts) arguing irrelevant details instead of the larger issue. In the article below, which everyone should read, Jeff lays out a number of important points regarding the promises that were made when we (taxpayers) helped these companies build their networks, and these companies' failures to live up to their end of the bargain. Furthermore, instead of trying to provide what they promised to us, they are taking advantage of the monopolistic market position we put them in. Net neutrality is not a new thing. It is the oldest and most important part of the internet's infrastructure. Now, after pulling a bait and switch on us over the past 2 decades, the telcos are trying to pull another bait and switch on us. Dana Spiegel Executive Director NYCwireless [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.NYCwireless.net +1 917 402 0422 Read the Wireless Community blog: http://www.wirelesscommunity.info On Feb 7, 2006, at 9:16 PM, Jim Henry wrote: 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 Age
Re: [nycwireless] The End of the Internet?
Jim, We should the telco's like we trusted them when they said they'd provide a fiber optic network to every home? Rght. I'll tell you what: If you believe the telco's, then I've got a bridge to sell you. From the article you pointed out: "McSlarrow pointed out that the cable industry has invested $100 billion on its networks in the last 10 years. This model works, he said, why change it to pursue "hypothetical theories."" Well, that's great, except we (the taxpayers) gave them $200 billion to invest in those networks over the last 10 years. Where'd the other $100 billion go? Dana Spiegel sociableDESIGN :: www.sociableDESIGN.com 123 Bank Street, Suite 510, New York, NY 10014 m +1 917 402 0422 :: f +1 760 454 3690 :: e [EMAIL PROTECTED] Read the Social Technologies blog: http://www.sociabledesign.com/blog Read the Wireless Community blog: http://www.wirelesscommunity.info On Feb 8, 2006, at 7:29 PM, Jim Henry wrote: Dana, Read this article: http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6305438.html? display=Breaking+News&referral=SUPP&nid=2228 and I think you will begin to see that such fears are unfounded. Jim -Original Message- From: Dana Spiegel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, February 07, 2006 11:09 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: 'Rob Kelley (yahoo)'; nycwireless@lists.nycwireless.net Subject: Re: [nycwireless] The End of the Internet? Jim, I hardly think that's the point. Besides the fact that Jeff Chester _is not_ extreme and _takes no side_ in the article re: nuclear power, you are (as I've come to expect from your posts) arguing irrelevant details instead of the larger issue. In the article below, which everyone should read, Jeff lays out a number of important points regarding the promises that were made when we (taxpayers) helped these companies build their networks, and these companies' failures to live up to their end of the bargain. Furthermore, instead of trying to provide what they promised to us, they are taking advantage of the monopolistic market position we put them in. Net neutrality is not a new thing. It is the oldest and most important part of the internet's infrastructure. Now, after pulling a bait and switch on us over the past 2 decades, the telcos are trying to pull another bait and switch on us. Dana Spiegel Executive Director NYCwireless [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.NYCwireless.net +1 917 402 0422 Read the Wireless Community blog: http://www.wirelesscommunity.info On Feb 7, 2006, at 9:16 PM, Jim Henry wrote: 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'
RE: [nycwireless] The End of the Internet?
Dana, Read this article: http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6305438.html?display=Breaking+New s <http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6305438.html?display=Breaking+Ne ws&referral=SUPP&nid=2228> &referral=SUPP&nid=2228 and I think you will begin to see that such fears are unfounded. Jim -Original Message- From: Dana Spiegel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, February 07, 2006 11:09 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: 'Rob Kelley (yahoo)'; nycwireless@lists.nycwireless.net Subject: Re: [nycwireless] The End of the Internet? Jim, I hardly think that's the point. Besides the fact that Jeff Chester _is not_ extreme and _takes no side_ in the article re: nuclear power, you are (as I've come to expect from your posts) arguing irrelevant details instead of the larger issue. In the article below, which everyone should read, Jeff lays out a number of important points regarding the promises that were made when we (taxpayers) helped these companies build their networks, and these companies' failures to live up to their end of the bargain. Furthermore, instead of trying to provide what they promised to us, they are taking advantage of the monopolistic market position we put them in. Net neutrality is not a new thing. It is the oldest and most important part of the internet's infrastructure. Now, after pulling a bait and switch on us over the past 2 decades, the telcos are trying to pull another bait and switch on us. Dana Spiegel Executive Director NYCwireless [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.NYCwireless.net +1 917 402 0422 Read the Wireless Community blog: http://www.wirelesscommunity.info On Feb 7, 2006, at 9:16 PM, Jim Henry wrote: 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 de
Re: [nycwireless] The End of the Internet?
Jim, I hardly think that's the point. Besides the fact that Jeff Chester _is not_ extreme and _takes no side_ in the article re: nuclear power, you are (as I've come to expect from your posts) arguing irrelevant details instead of the larger issue. In the article below, which everyone should read, Jeff lays out a number of important points regarding the promises that were made when we (taxpayers) helped these companies build their networks, and these companies' failures to live up to their end of the bargain. Furthermore, instead of trying to provide what they promised to us, they are taking advantage of the monopolistic market position we put them in. Net neutrality is not a new thing. It is the oldest and most important part of the internet's infrastructure. Now, after pulling a bait and switch on us over the past 2 decades, the telcos are trying to pull another bait and switch on us. Dana Spiegel Executive Director NYCwireless [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.NYCwireless.net +1 917 402 0422 Read the Wireless Community blog: http://www.wirelesscommunity.info On Feb 7, 2006, at 9:16 PM, Jim Henry wrote: 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
RE: [nycwireless] The End of the Internet?
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."
Re: [nycwireless] The End of the Internet?
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 d
RE: [nycwireless] The End of the Internet?
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 ] The Network Neutrality issue represents the latest chapter in America's ongoing Broadband Scandal. We never got Fiber to the Home despite the extra charges we took on our phone bills to pay for it. Now Verizon finally comes up with its overpriced fiber product, FiOS. Bruce Kushnik puts it best: "Where's the 45MB I already paid for!" [http://muniwireless.com/community/1023 ] Consumers have a vested interest in making sure the telcos are brought in to account for the Broadband scandal. I remember the talk about needing to stay competitive in an information economy. Now, we're ranked 13th to 16th in the world depending on which survey you read, behind Korea, Canada, Germany, Sweden, Belgium, Italy and other nations. These days the telco is the "troll under the bridge": it charges exorbitant rates to consumers for substandard service. Now it's trying to charge content providers as well. Troll under the bridge. Game plan for consumers: 1. Fight for net neutrality and against the trolls under the bridge 2. Raise awareness of US Broadband ranking in the world 3. Spotlight the Broadband Scandal and demand the telcos be brought to account for it. Rob Kelley -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Michael Stearne Sent: Tuesday, February 07, 2006 1:06 PM To: Rob Kelley (yahoo) Cc: nycwireless@lists.nycwireless.net Subject: Re: [nycwireless] The End of the Internet? Let us know when The Weekly Standard endorses Network Neutrality, until then it's not going to get any attention. Good article though. 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 some
Re: [nycwireless] The End of the Internet?
Let us know when The Weekly Standard endorses Network Neutrality, until then it's not going to get any attention. Good article though. 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 fro
[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 broa
