Posts about netneutrality

Neutrality winning?

The Wall Street Journal reports that AT&T offered concessions to the FCC to get its merger approved, including a promise to follow the principles of net neutrality.

Splain it to us

Susan Crawford does a masterful job explaining net neutrality.

Fight! Fight!

The Wall Street Journal pits McCurry against Craig Newmark over net neutrality and Craig wipes the floor with that company-line spewing spin machine. Says Craig:

I realize you’re cleverly using Colbertian “truthiness,” and I just can’t compete with that. Nerds are notoriously literal.

What we’re looking for is just fairness, a level playing field, no regulation or stuff like that. In America we believe that if you play fair and work hard, you get ahead. We don’t want the government to give special privileges to the big guys, particularly not at the expense of small business and consumers. We don’t want more regulation and we don’t need lawyers involved where the free market functions well. I guess we’re for capitalism.

Current net neutrality (as currently conceived) functions well, allowing innovators to create wealth and help us all out. Why should the FCC or Congress fool with that? We’ve seen that the telecoms don’t need more privileges, they need to get serious about using their existing resources….

Even Mike’s clients have confessed that they intend to discriminate. They consistently forget who owns the airwaves and public rights of way on which they’ve built their fortunes. They frequently break their commitments…

Net neutrality is the embodiment of American values of democracy and fairness. Let’s keep it that way. I joined the SavetheInternet.com coalition and signed a petition to Congress. Mike, you talk about preserving competition; when can we expect you to sign up?

Dangerous dolts threaten our internet

When I started reading this story about an effort to use radio bandwidth to provide ubiquitous, cheap or free (ad-supported), broadband internet access across the country, I started to get happy. But then I saw the dolts who were proposing this and the dangerous things they doing and I want to make sure they don’t get anywhere near our internet. At the end of the story, The Times reports:

M2Z plans to include a filter with the free service that would block access to “indecent” material, a definition Mr. Sachs said could be made by the government, just as it controls standards for broadcast television.

“Give us the spectrum and we’ll provide free service and we’ll live with the decency guidelines,” Mr. Sachs said.

If this post were a podcast, you’d hear an anguished and angry scream right now. Evil fools. They invite government censorship of our internet, a Trojan horse that would only lead to more censorship (insert idiotic level-playing-field argument here).

Just as idiotic, they want the government to give them that spectrum for free. Ha! Yes, let’s get ubiquitous, free, broadband internet access across America as a strategic imperative. But let’s auction that business off to the best players. And let’s require net neutrality.

So who are these fools? The Times says:

Milo Medin, chairman and chief technology officer of M2Z, which is based in Menlo Park, Calif., declined to discuss the company’s plans. Mr. Medin, a founder of the @Home Network, a high-speed Internet company that became Excite@Home and went bankrupt in 2001, started the company with John Muleta, a former head of the wireless division at the F.C.C.

@Home: The Enron of the Internet. These bozos lost billions and botched an easy opportunity to bring internet access to almost every home in the country once and now we’re supposed to give them bandwidth?

It’s worse than that. @Home tried to strongarm content providers a decade ago, telling them that if they did not make proprietary and premium deals with @Home and allow the service to cache and serve their content — and pay for the privilege — then @Home would not give them full-speed access. They were the first enemies of net neutrality. And who was the architect of this dastardly scheme? Guess.

Keep these dangerous dolts away from our Internet.

Save the Internet, indeed

Save the Internet is a campaign to protect net neutrality, “the internet’s First Amendment,” which means, in David Weinberger’s words, “that the people who provide connections to the Internet don’t get to favor some bits over others.” To do otherwise is just bad business.

The age of business models built on scarcity and on keeping your customers from doing what they want to do is over. Now we just have to make sure that Congress doesn’t try to keep it on artificial life support.

: Steve Baker asks for some context, please.