Red Bank TV

Sometimes it is ok to sit back and know that people out there are fighting the battle for you, but most of the time it’s not a good move.  When professional lobbyist fight about the issues that we care about you rarely see a personal commitment to the issues.  Professionals are in it for the money, for the most part.

This morning I came across an article on NJ.com about someone who had been fighting against the state-wide cable TV legislation.  This person was formally paid by the New Jersey Cable Telecommunications Association to fight Verizon.  Now she has taken the chief executive position in a group funded by Verizon.

If you are concerned about the issues I have brought up in this blog and how they affect Red Bank and New Jersey then I encourage you to get involved in the discussion.  We can not rely on lobbyist to speak for you; especially when they show time and again how their position can turn on a dime.

Posted by Tom at 06:09 AM | Permalink | Comments (2)

I’m still a bit pissed about comments made by Verizon before congress last week regarding Net Neutrality.  Verizon said that congress should be concerned about the impact a Net Neutral internet would have on such important services as home health care and communication for the disabled.
 
I started to think about how much of that precious bandwidth that could be used to advance "the widespread availability of such innovations as home health care monitoring and diagnosis, online education, telecommuting, and communications services for the disabled." (Testifying at a hearing on the Communications, Consumer Choice and Broadband Act of 2006 May 21 2006, Tom Tauke, Verizon executive vice president of public affairs, policy and communications) Verizon is using for their television offerings.  I’m no hard core network tech so maybe I could get some help from the readers.  Aren't Verizon's TV and internet services sharing the same wire?

Taking a look at Verizon’s channel lineup tells us that there is enough bandwidth on Verizon’s fiber for hundreds of sdtv, digital music, on demand video and HDTV programming.  I wonder if Verizon VP Tom Tauke would be willing to trade the bandwidth used by channel 821, a high definition channel called Wealth TV HD for the sake of saving lives. (via their website: WealthTV delivers to viewers informative shows that provide invaluable insights on what every American dreams of – from travel secrets to fast cars, from better etiquette to better investing, and much more)

Come on, isn’t anyone else mad or insulted that a major executive from a huge corporation could stand before Congress and in effect say “think of the little people”.  Heaven forbid that the free exchange of ideas on the internet bog things down to the point where we couldn’t get Verizon channel 430 or 431, Playboy TV or Playboy TV en Español.
 
I hope that bit of pandering pissed off some Congressional members the way it pissed me off.

Posted by Tom at 04:45 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Over the weekend I met with John from http://www.RedBankGreen.com for an article he is putting together about my adventures here on the blog.  John is a free lance writer, formally of the Star Ledger, who’s not been too happy with the quality of media coverage in our area.  Working with his graphic artist wife, John has big plans for Red Bank Green and from the looks of things he’s off to a great start.

Want to find out or discuss what’s going on in Red Bank? Stop by and check out the web site.  Have an idea for a story? From a simple block party to a big battle with a huge telco tell John about it and he’ll cover it.

Good luck John and thanks for getting involved locally. -- Tom

Posted by Tom at 06:46 AM | Permalink | Comments (2)

This comes via engadget: via RCR Wireless news

EarthLink to build Wi-Fi network for New Orleans

And EarthLink’s strategy paid off, as the New Orleans City Council approved an ordinance for the company to build a 15 square-mile Wi-Fi network to replace the city-owned network.

The telcos just don't get it. -- Tom

Posted by Tom at 06:38 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Posted by Tom at 11:50 AM | Permalink

In what is viewed as mainly a procedural vote, the House Judicial Committee surprisingly voted in favor of moving a bill legislating Net Neutrality out of committee.  H.R.5417 passed with a 20-13 vote.  News.com covers the story here and Rich Bennett blogs about it here.

Verizon and the other telcos should see that legislation for Net Neutrality is gaining momentum and its defeat in Congress is not a foregone conclusion. (No matter how many lobbyist and former press aids they hire) It may be in their interest to consider inviting Net Neutrality provisions into IPTV cable franchise agreements. 

Posted by Tom at 04:14 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

Some pretty scary comments from Verizon today in a press release.  Verizon executive vice president of public affairs, Tom Tauke says that if Verizon is not allowed to implement Tiered Internet plans then people won't be able get "the widespread availability of such innovations as home health care monitoring and diagnosis, online education, telecommuting, and communications services for the disabled."

He makes a compelling case for the government to take over the internet and not to use it at all for commercial purposes.  Maybe Verizon should hand over their portion of the internet for the sake of the public good.

Is that what you are saying Mr. Tauke?  Do you really care that much about home health care?  I’m impressed; very altruistic of you and Verizon.

Of course Mr. Tauke doesn’t think home health care or “communications services for the disabled” are that important.  He’s got some balls to float that balloon in front of Congress.  Let’s not disguise what Verizon really wants Mr. Tauke.  How about some frank communications about Verizon’s future plans for the internet, and stop playing games?

Posted by Tom at 12:48 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

This morning I’ve seen several references to a blog in Phoenix that lists the available broadband options in the area.

The poster, Jim Lippard, lists several DSLs, a cable company, a satellite provider, a couple of celluar providers and the municipal wifi network as options.

The problem with Jim’s list is that out of all of the options that he lists there is only one that could have a chance to deliver the same kind of bandwidth that Verizon’s FiOS can.  That would be the municipal wifi network.  Verizon knows this; that’s why they’ve fought to block municipal wifi’s around the country.  That’s why we need to keep muni-wifi as an option here in Red Bank.

I subscribe to Verizon’s FiOS service.  I’ve had dial-up, isdn, dsl and cable internet service.  Jim let me tell you, nothing touches what Verizon is providing over their fiber to the home network.  As the only fiber provider in my town I predict that they will become the defacto internet service provider in my area.  Their service is that much better.

That’s why I am concerned about Verizon’s statements about Net Neutrality.  I think their “slow” tier will still be faster than the other options we have in town so there would be no reason for consumers to switch to competitors once Verizon starts putting preferred providers on their “fast” tier and leaving the rest on their “slow” tier.

The only possible competition from Verizon would come from someone buying up “dark” fiber and creating their own internet backbone and providing the last mile via WiMax.

That is why we need to push Verizon in our town to respect Net Netruality and to not oppose a municipal wifi.

Posted by Tom at 06:36 AM | Permalink | Comments (3)

The Wall Street Journal has a very interesting online discussion going on between Craig Newmark (founder of craigslist) and Mike McCurry(founder of handsofthenet).  It seems to be a fair, moderated discussion of Net Neutrality.  It seems to focus all too much, in my opinion, on the question of federal legislation and less on the effect the lack of Net Neutrality will have on the future of the internet, but it is a very interesting read nonetheless.

The e-mail discussion between Newmark and McCurry 

The continuing discussion 

Posted by Tom at 04:33 PM | Permalink | Comments (19)

According to a report in Multichannel News, a FCC commissioner; Michael Copps, said at a press conference that the FCC has what it needs under current regulations the authority it needs to enforce Network Neutrality.

Commissioner Copps said: “I think we have authority to go now to the second phase of network neutrality, to make sure that there’s not discrimination against those that are not affiliated with the network owners,”

Commissioner Copps is referring to Title I of the Communications Act.  The general feeling I get from reading up on this Act is that it could be perceived either way; meaning some people perceive it as protecting Net Neutrality and some don’t.

Commissioner Copps comments are certainly welcome news in the fight to keep the internet a level playing field, but I fear that if he were to try to enforce Net Neutrality via Title I then we would end up in a lengthy battle in the courts with the outcome up in the air.

Nationally there seem to be two prevailing approaches to Net Neutrality:

1.  Push for legislation in Congress to give the federal government control over Net Neutrality

2.  Let the FCC handle Net Neutrality and then when a telco violates Net Neutrality we let the courts sort it out.

I don’t like either of these approaches.

I favor the approach of using the Cable TV franchise application process to express our concerns to the telcos and to let them know as consumers that if they don’t promise to uphold the tenets of Net Neutrality then we will choose not to do business with them.  And when I say “as consumers” I mean as communities, whether at the town level or the state level.

 
Tie Net Neutrality to the IPTV Cable TV process and we can affect Net Neutrality without new legislation or relying on courts legislating from the bench.

Posted by Tom at 06:34 AM | Permalink | Comments (72) | TrackBacks (1)

During a break out session at the Personal Democracy Forum someone mentioned the forums at NJ.com as an active area for NJ discussions.

Well, on the train ride home I whipped up a post for their forums.  It can be accessed (I think) by following this link.  Hopefully people in their Hardball Politics forum will respond to my post.

Here is the text of what I posted:

Stop Verizon’s anti-competitive future internet plans

New Jersey has a unique opportunity to take an advanced step to protect the internet by making sure it remains a level playing field; free and open so that competition can continue to drive innovation the way it has for the last 15 years.  The threat to free market competition comes from Verizon and its plans for the future of the internet.

Verizon executives have been speaking lately about their future plans for the internet and the bottom line is their vision is bad for New Jersey.  It’s bad for New Jersey’s small businesses, independent artists and just plain web surfers.

Verizon wants to change the internet from a level playing field into a tiered network where they pick and choose who has access to their high speed pipes.

The way the internet currently works we all pay for access to the internet, this allows us to surf to any web site that we choose to, in essence we are paying Verizon for admission to the web.  On the other side of the coin there are the businesses and people who run web-sites, like NJ.com, they pay their own internet provider to gain access to the internet. 

There are no additional road blocks between consumers and providers.  Verizon wants to change that.

In Verizon’s anti-competition vision of the future internet they want to build roadblocks between the provider and consumer; or you can think of it this way: Verizon wants to have two lanes over their network, a high speed lane and a slow speed lane.  Verizon would pick and choose who would have access to their high speed lane.  If someone wanted for example to compete with Verizon by offering on-demand movies over the internet then Verizon would choose to put them on their slow speed lane.

Verizon has said time and time again when asking for cable TV franchises that they are for more competition.  Don’t believe them.  They are only for more competition when it is in their interest.

The State Board of Public Utilities will now be tasked with deciding whether or not to approve Verizon’s application for a state wide cable TV franchise.  Verizon is using the same fiber optic connection that they use to deliver internet service that they will be using to deliver cable TV.  In fact they are using a technology called Internet Protocol TV (IPTV) to deliver cable TV.  It is absolutely appropriate for the BPU to question Verizon’s future plans for the internet when it comes time to deciding what is best for the future of New Jersey.  The BPU should make keeping the internet open and a level playing field when it evaluates Verizon’s cable TV franchise application.

Let the BPU know that you are concerned about Verizon’s vision of an anti-competitive internet; tell them Verizon must promise to keep the internet a level playing field or they should turn down the application.

Posted by Tom at 04:49 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Verizon has gotten its wish; under the banner of increased competition they have pushed legislation through the Assembly that removes the need to work with local communities to come to agreement on cable TV franchises.  Now Verizon will apply for a state wide cable TV franchise.

Now Verizon should be held to clearly state their position on competition.  Verizon executives have made it publicly know that they oppose keeping the internet a level playing field and they plan to change the way internet traffic travels over their network.  They want to have a slow lane and high priced fast lane on the internet, in effect creating toll booths on the information super highway.

Their plans could keep NJ consumers from having the best choices available to them when surfing the web or keep NJ companies from having a fair shot at business on the internet.

Verizon will use the same pipes to deliver cable TV as they use to deliver internet service and they will use internet technology know as Internet Protocol(IPTV) to provide TV to your house.  The State Board of Public Utilities (BPU) should ask Verizon if they really are for competition and want to keep the internet a level playing field or if they are only for competition when it comes to getting a piece of the cable TV pie. 

The BPU should not grant Verizon a cable TV franchise unless Verizon promises our state that they will uphold the tenets of Network Neutrality.

Posted by Tom at 05:15 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Sorry for the lack of posts over the weekend.  Big personal weekend for me, as I proposed to Eileen Saturday morning at sunrise on the beach at 14^th street in Surf City NJ, the beach I used to lifeguard at.  Lucky for me she said Yes.

I’ll be catching up on the normal issues that this blog covers today.  But before I do I hope you caught CBS’s Sunday news this weekend.  CBS had a story that featured a couple of friends of mine Vince and Vance Moss.  You can watch their story by following this link: Army Twins on a Unique Tour of Duty . Keep an eye out for these guys; I’m sure you’ll be seeing more of them.

BTW I’m trying to follow up on a comment that someone posted on my blog giving me a heads up that some of the comments I have been receiving on the blog are not from who the appear to be from.

Posted by Tom at 06:59 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

There wasn't much in the news this morning. So I spent my time on the train posting to blogs around the web.  I find using google blog searches and rss feeds of those searches make an effective way to keep up on what is being said around the web.

I have links to the RSS feeds that I subscribe to and use to keep up with web discussions in the right side column of this page.

Posted by Tom at 06:39 AM | Permalink | Comments (27)

The artist Moby along with REM and other artists are starting to awaken to the threat the Net Neutrality poses to them and their industry.  If I were an artist in Red Bank I would be concerned about Net Neutrality too.  We live in a small town, we are a bit off the beaten path as far as artist are concerned ( with some notable exceptions ). Be that as it may the internet represents a great way to reach a huge audience from our small town.  Anything that threatens your reach beyond Red Bank puts you at a disadvantage and should be of concern to you.

 
Check out some of the stories about Moby and REM from around the web today.

Press Release , 463 Blog , News.com

Posted by Tom at 05:26 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Houston is joining the list of municipalities setting up a city wide wireless internet network.  This blog chronicles a conference call given by Mayor White of Houston this past Monday.  I don’t think Verizon reaches that far down south, I’m not sure.  I’d love to find out if Verizon is playing a role in Houston’s WiFi effort.

Posted by Tom at 05:09 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

The San Jose Mercury News (aka The Merc) is Silicon Valley’s newspaper.  The Merc has long had the reputation of being a leader when it comes to tech issues and tech reporting.  This past Tuesday The Merc ran an editorial stating that it supports protection of Net Neutrality.

They do not sugar coat the issue in the editorial; this is not a primer on Net Neutrality, they know their audience.   Here is a clip from the article:

Phone companies such as AT&T and Verizon have already made it clear that they want to divide the Internet into slow and fast lanes. Web sites and services that pay them a toll will travel on the fast lane, while others will bump along on the slow lanes.

The Merc editors treat this issue with the sober reasoning it deserves, this is not a snazzy web video or flashy web site, they give the facts, they outline the potential dangers and they state what actions should be taken.

 I encourage anyone with an interest in Net Neutrality to read The Merc’s editorial. You can read it by clicking on this link.

Posted by Tom at 04:41 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

Wow, big thank you to Liz Strauss for her post about my efforts here at RedBankTv.org.  Liz had previously posted about me on the portion of her blog devoted to Net Neutrality, but this post is a bit different.  Liz’s new post looks at how I am using the internet to get the word out about issues that are of import in my small town.  Liz says I’ve taken on the role of 21^st century Town Crier for the cause of Net Neutrality.  I’ll have to talk to Eileen to see if she can rent a Town Crier costume for me, at least a big ole tri-corner hat.

 Thanks again Liz.

Posted by Tom at 07:19 AM | Permalink | Comments (5)

Thank you to the local official who added an hour onto his busy day to stick around and take the time to talk to me last night.  I think the types of things that I am talking about are not the typical issues that you would expect to hear about when you get involved with local government.  I am very fortunate to live in a small town where the local government takes the time to listen to resident’s concerns.

I am not the best communicator and it may be easier for me to write some java programming code than to try to explain Net Neutrality to a non geek; but I was fortunate that the official took the time to listen and gave me a chance to try to come up with a coherent explanation of what Net Neutrality is and why our town should be talking about it.  I had a hard time of it but, given enough time, I think I was able to get my point across.  I think we had a productive meeting and I look forward to further discussions.

I think the Net Neutrality proponents who were on the panel at the final session of this past Monday’s Personal Democracy Forum faced some of same challenges that I did.  Us geeks almost innately understand Net Neutrality and why it is important but we don’t do a good job of explaining it to non-technical people.  Even when the audience was Rep Anthony Wiener, a government official used to dealing with complex telecom issues, we need to do a better job of explaining in concrete terms why we are concerned about Net Neutrality.  I’m going fishing with my dad this weekend, he’s a salesman and non-technical, I think I’ll practice by trying to explain it to him.  I recommend that the proponents of Net Neutrality at the SaveTheInternet or MoveOn level get some practice in as well.

Posted by Tom at 06:56 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

I’ll be meeting with a local official today.  I wonder what the best approach is to opening the discussion of my issues.  When I spoke before the town council I started the conversation about A La Carte cable since I thought that would be easiest to understand but then by the time I started to discuss Net Neutrality I probably lost the audience.  Maybe in this one-on-one discussion I should go straight to the meat of Net Neutrality and see if I can do a good job of explaining the impact on our town.  Any advice?

Posted by Tom at 06:32 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Thanks again to those who have dropped me an e-mail of support.  Hopefully I am doing a decent job of spreading the word around our town.  I can see from the access logs that we are getting a lot of readers from around Red Bank and Monmouth County.  I’d love to hear from more of you.  Please feel free to post a comment or drop me an e-mail.  Be assured I wouldn’t post any personal e-mails on the site without your permission.

I hope that you agree that these are important issues to our town.  -- Tom

Posted by Tom at 04:42 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

Since it is a topic that doesn't seem to be getting as much press as Net Neutrality lately, I figured I'd post a link to Boston Globe columnist Alex Beam's column published yesterday.

 Here is a snippit from Mr. Beam's column:

''A la carte" is an interesting issue, because it aligns right-wing ''family-friendly" religious nuts with cranky, cheeseparing pseudo-libertarians like myself. The ''family" types want to buy just the channels that show ''Herbie the Love Bug: Fast and Spurious"; I just want to save a buck. Who's helping us fight the power? Federal Communications Commission chairman Kevin Martin has made noises about favoring a la carte but seems reluctant to push the pedal to the metal. Populist presidential aspirant Senator John McCain is said to be cooking up some legislation that would impose some a la carte pricing on Big Cable, but it hasn't appeared yet.

Here is a link to his column on boston.com: I don't want my MTV 

Posted by Tom at 06:37 AM | Permalink | Comments (19)

I’m not so sure that Rep. Anthony Wiener got the answer he was looking for when he asked for worst case examples of what could happen if the internet is not kept a level playing field.  The proponents of Net Neutrality need to work on their answer to that question.

When I try to explain why Net Neutrality is important to my small town officials I try to show the local affect.  Here is an example of how the demise of Net Neutrality could affect my small town:

Our town has a brand new performing arts center which houses one of New Jersey’s most active theater companies: The Two River Theater Company.  The TRTC may some day perform some new original play that not only entertains local Red Bank residents but draws attention from across the country.  (Maybe they get local resident Jon Bon Jovi to take a leading role in a play.  His fans would be the type of internet consumer who would watch an online performance in great numbers) To help promote the TRTC and Red Bank the company might want to do some type of internet broadcast or distribution of the performance.  With the Tiered Access internet model that the bosses of Verizon and the telcos are promoting the cost of getting the performance onto the high-speed tier would prevent the TRTC from making the performance available to the web.

That’s just one example of many (see: Kev Smith, local affects) I have for showing how Tiered Access would affect our small community.  I recommend that the Net Neutrality proponents start answering questions like Rep. Wiener in more concrete terms.  I can think of many ways of showing Rep. Weiner that his district would be affected.  Think of all the artists in New York and how they might be held back, think of all the small companies with great ideas that might be the next big thing that could be held back, think of all of the political activism in New York that might get stifled and I’m sure there are many many more examples.

I’m trying to make Net Neutrality a local issue with tangible affects.  I recommend that other proponents do the same.

Posted by Tom at 06:12 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

On the my normal train ride from Red Bank to Manhattan this morning I received an e-mail from Doc Searls inviting me to attend the Personal Democracy Forum which happened to be taking place in the city.  Thank you to Doc and Micah Sifry for helping me to attend an eye opening conference of bloggers and political activist.  I’m still digesting the conference but at the very least I was impressed by the breadth of people who are addressing these issues at the national level.  Though my focus is on what is of interest to Red Bank; it was reassuring to see just how many people share our concerns beyond our small town.

One of the breakout sessions included Princeton Ph.D. candidate and New Jersey blogger Juan Melli. Juan runs BlueJersey.net and has recently mentioned RedBankTv.org in his writing.

Another session, devoted to Network Neutrality, was moderated Rep. Andrew Wiener and featured speakers both for and against Net Neutrality legislation.  On that panel was Chris Wolf, head of the astroturfing web site set up by the telcos that I mentioned in a post last Friday.

I need to let everything I saw and heard today sink in and determine how what I learned today can be applied here in Red Bank.  For now let me just say thank you again to Doc and Micah; sorry I did not get a chance to meet you Doc and though I met Micah it was only for a second as he was very busy.

Posted by Tom at 06:31 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Here is a short list of weekend mentions from around the web:

• Doc Searls
  
• MyDD
• ME Strauss
• Blog Bites
• Zmetro
• Blue Jersey
  

Posted by Tom at 06:19 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

I’m looking to continue to build up our local support here in Red Bank.  If you know someone who lives in town or owns a business in town please tell them about this blog.  Tell them why it is important to address these issues locally.  Ask them to drop me an e-mail; I haven’t and won’t publish or use anyone’s correspondence without their permission.

Also, I’m looking to hear more from people who are starting to address these issues in their town.  Verizon is applying for a cable franchise in towns all over the state, let me know what they are up to in your area.

Posted by Tom at 06:03 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Verizon infamously hired an ‘astroturfing’ company to send faxes to the mayor of Red Bank proclaiming to be from local residents.  Mayor McKenna sensing something afoot with these faxes did a little research and called Verizon out.  Verizon wanted it to appear that there was a real grass roots effort in support of them being undertaken by the residents of our small town; but there wasn’t.  It was all made up and it backfired miserably.

Now the telcos are doing it again.  Have these guys got balls or what?  They set up a phony web site, designed it to appear to be run by a grass roots organization and started pushing a web video trying to discredit a real grass roots campaign. (I’m not going to link to their web site)

Posted by Tom at 12:46 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (1)

I’ve touched on why I think "keeping the internet a level playing field" is important in my small town in previous posts.

From local artists being able to distribute material, like Kevin Smith (who owns a comic book store in town) using YouTube to distribute his clerks 2 trailer, to local small and growing businesses; Net Neutrality can have a tangible local impact.

I have a meeting with a local official next week and I’m looking for more ideas to make Net Neutrality more of a local issue.  How should I go about doing this?

Posted by Tom at 09:01 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

The New Jersey Board of Public Utilities is the state authority that organizations wishing to gain a cable TV franchise appear before for review.  I’m wondering if anyone from that organization has looked at the issue of Net Neutrality.  They have a web site with a form for contacting the agency, so I dropped them an e-mail today to see if there was anyone there that I could speak to about the subject.

It’s a long shot but we’ll see if they get back to me.

Here is a link to their contact page.

Posted by Tom at 04:54 PM | Permalink | Comments (4)

A big thank you to ME 'Liz' Strauss over at Successful Blog for the write-up on my efforts here at the Red Bank TV blog.  I hope that people who read her post and follow her links over to here get interested in getting involved in their own community.

You can read Liz’s write-up by clicking here

Here is a snippit of what she had to say:

Blogs used well are transparent to the purpose they are used for. No one will be wrapping fish in Tom’s blog tomorrow, or the next day for that matter. There’s so much to talk about in what Tom is doing.

Posted by Tom at 12:23 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

There are two audiences I try to keep in mind as I post to this blog in my inelegant Jersey Shore writing style. 

1. The residents, business owners and local officials in Red Bank, New Jersey.  The town that I call home.
2. People beyond Red Bank who have concerns about emerging telecommunications issues and are looking for ways to do something about those issues.

To those of you from beyond Red Bank let me try to summarize my message to you:

If you are concerned about keeping the internet a level playing field, aka Net Neutrality, then talk to your neighbors, fellow community business owners and local political officials about your concerns.  The best way for big picture issues to gain traction is to start at the local, grass roots, level.

You may be in favor of federal legislation and you may sign big internet petitions but I think the best way to get you concerns heard is by starting at the local level.  The telcos need to start hearing from the local communities that they might not be welcome if they don’t change their business practices.

Right now in high profile communities all across the country Verizon and AT&T are applying for local cable TV franchises.  That means there are public hearings taking place, probably in a town near you, at which you can voice your concerns.  If enough people start asking questions at a local level then the telcos will start to hear those questions in business terms; it could signal to them that the market has concerns and it could cost us money if we don’t listen to those concerns.

There is legislation working its way up through state and federal levels of government that may change the landscape and remove the need for these local hearings.  The telcos will then be able to apply for State or National cable TV franchises.  At the hearings that will go along with those franchise applications there will be heavy reliance on precedent established at the local level.  If the question of Net Neutrality does not come up at the local hearings then how can it be brought up at the national level?  The telcos will say: “These issues were never brought up in the communities that approved our cable franchises, why should Washington tell local communities how to do their business?” and they will be right.

So, bring up these issues in your town.  Start a blog, let us know about it, write a letter to your local newspaper, contact your local town officials and attend the telco Dog and Pony show when it comes to town and ask questions.  Act Locally.

Posted by Tom at 07:27 AM | Permalink | Comments (2)

Verizon Wireless has started sending letters to ‘heavy’ users of their cell phone’s internet services telling them to not use the internet so much.  Verizon Wireless uses that tagline “It’s the Network” in their advertisements and it gives me pause when I hear stories of how they restrict usage of “The Network” to their services or tell people not to use “The Network” too much.  In our area Verizon Wireless does provide the best high-speed wireless service, just as their land based counterpart Verizon FiOS provides the best high-speed internet access.

So, internet users are faced with a choice; you can use Verizon Wireless which provides the highest speeds but only in the way Verizon Wireless wants you to use it or you can switch to a competitor with slower service but with a more liberal attitude towards usage.

Is it far fetched to make the jump from Verizon’s Wireless model to a future Verizon FiOS model?  I don’t think so.  I think you can deduce from some of the public comments that telco bosses have made that they would like to steer the future of the internet to look more like Verizon Wireless’s model.

I am concerned that an aspiring Red Bank artist, gaining popularity through distributing their art on the internet, will some day get a letter from Verizon or have their service curtailed and not have a viable alternative to Verizon.  Without assurances from Verizon that they will keep the internet a level playing field or that they would not oppose a Red Bank municipal WiFi network then this scenario may not be too far fetched.

With Verizon looking to do business in our town, now is the time to ask Verizon about these issues.

Posted by Tom at 06:30 AM | Permalink | Comments (2)

Om Malik has a post looking for people who are making broad telcom issues more of a local issue.  I think that is what we are doing here on this blog.  Hopefully we’ll get his attention.

Here is a snippet: 

It is time to add coverage of the hyper local problems of broadband, video franchising, and other issues such as problems faced by municipalities. Patrick Hynes focuses on the battle between Cablevision and Verizon in the New York’s Long Island region. And if somewhere along the way, we find a success story, brilliant. Since I cannot be everywhere, it would need some help from the readers/community. If you are a citizen reporter, and can shed light to the issues involved, drop me a line, or a link. Any suggestions on how best to track it all would be welcome. - Om

Posted by Tom at 12:07 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

The city of Winston Salem South Carolina published its formal Request for Proposal for a city wide wireless plan on Monday.  The entire RFP can be found here.  http://www.winstonnet.org/wireless_initiative/documents/rfp.doc

Posted by Tom at 06:36 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Thank you to Esme Vos at MuniWireless.com for pointing me to a letter to the editor written by a Verizon VP in which he states that Verizon is not against municipal WiFi networks. 

Writing in response to an article by John M. Eger titled: Freeing Cities From Telco and Cable Monopolies on the website Government Tech, Verizon Communications vice president state and local government, Walter White, states Verizon’s positions on municipal wireless networks.

Mr White plainly states in his response: Verizon is not against muni Wi-Fi.  Mr. White then goes on to make Verizon’s case that in the current fiscal and technological environment that municipality owned and run Wi-Fi do not make sense.  Whether or not muni Wi-Fi’s make sense right now isn’t really my issue; I agree that Red Bank would have to take a hard look at a muni Wi-Fi before building one.  My question is: Would Verizon oppose a Red Bank municipal Wi-Fi network?  Mr. White says no.

It would seem that Verizon should be able to provide a short simple written answer this question if Red Bank formally asks it.  Our town council should ask this question.

Posted by Tom at 05:58 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

*** Update - This post is actually from December. I only came across it today. 

David H. Deans, the Senior Partner of Deans & Associates, and the founder of GeoActive Group USA, has a short post on his blog today including a quote from a Verizon Spokesman.  Here is a short quote from his blog:

But both carriers(AT&T & Verizon) seem quite amenable to à la carte pricing, even as the cable and satellite operators fight tooth-and-nail to nip the idea in the bud. “There is some feeling that this may be a differentiator for Verizon or AT&T,” said Verizon spokesperson Eric Rabe. “This could be something that either company adopts to differentiate themselves, but we are still examining our options in this area.”

This is the kind of thinking you would expect to see from a well run company.  I hope to hear more about this and I'll try to contact Mr. Deans and/or Mr. Rabe. 

Posted by Tom at 08:29 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

Nate Anderson writes a bit about the Verizon conference call over on Ars Technica

Here's a quote:

...this example nicely illustrates the web of relationships purchased by major industry groups in the hope of influencing public policy for their best interests. The goal is to make it look as though pressure on an issue is coming from many different directions (not just from the company's lobbyists), and the more "independent" a source appears, the better.

Posted by Tom at 01:33 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Another New Jersey Town heard from Verizon last night, Haddonfield, NJ.

There are also presentations and hearings coming up in several more New Jersey towns.  They are:

If you know someone who lives in one of these towns and you think these issues are important then please encourage them to attend their local hearings or visit this website for more information.

Posted by Tom at 06:39 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Verizon is obviously concerned that they are on the wrong side of the Keeping the Internet a Level Playing field debate.  They seem a bit scattered in how they are addressing the issue.  They held a conference call today ( I was unaware of this call ) during which they did a reportedly pretty poor job of stating their position.

Turk at Kung Fu Quip was on the call and provides the coverage:

Bloggers have been doing a good job beating the hell out of the telcos and cable companies on net neutrality, so it was about time for opponents of net neutrality to try and persuade them regarding the error of their ways. To that end, they held a conference call on the topic this afternoon. Honestly, I was surprised that they would do this, given that the telcos really launched this debate through their offhand comments about “their networks”. But they wanted to take it on, so I wanted to listen in.

Posted by Tom at 04:57 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

I’ve been reading up on what can be included in a Cable TV franchise agreement.  So far I’m pretty discouraged; at first glance it would appear that it will take some serious legal limbo’ing to put binding verbiage covering my three issues into the agreement.  Looking back now it may have been better to have pushed harder against Verizon’s request to be granted a franchise.  I’ve started advising people in other towns to address these issues prior to granting approval.

 
Then again, maybe this is still exactly the right way to address these issues.  The whole point here is to press Verizon to address these issues, not to keep them out of town.  I don’t believe there is anything that forces our town to finish franchise negotiations in any set period of time.  Sometimes the best way to draw attention to issues is to slow down the process.

 
There may not be room in the legal document that is the franchise agreement for provisions regarding my three issues (I still don’t know that for sure) but there is nothing that says our town council can not formally ask Verizon to formally answer our questions.  If it comes to light that our franchise negotiations are being held up due to Verizon not wanting to answer our questions then it may draw even more attention then it would have at the start of the process.

 
I’m going to have to adjust my approach, but I still advise you to ask your local officials about these issues from the get-go.

 
We’ll see where this leads next. Stay tuned.  If you know more about the cable franchise please feel free to let me know about it.

Posted by Tom at 04:39 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Just wanted to drop in a couple of links to some very useful forums that discuss all things Verizon FiOS.

I came across the BroadBand Reports forums a couple of years ago.  I found it when reading up on Verizon’s DSL service and how they had just upgraded their service to 1.5mbs downstream.  Now my FiOS service beats that upstream.   You’ll find some of the most knowledgeable BroadBand geeks around on their forums.  Their FiOS discussions are particularly pertinent.

Then just today I was invited to another forum.  Jonathan Kramer runs the CableTV.com forums and I am really looking forward to some interesting discussions over there.

If you want the geeks perspective on FiOS and all things related to Verizon’s service (including some great tech support) I advise you to check out those forums.

Posted by Tom at 04:12 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Nate Anderson over at the highly respected geek web site Ars Technica has been consistently putting out some of the best stuff on Keeping the Internet a Level Playing Field.

His latest post talks about just how much money the big telecoms are spending fighting the cable companies.  If you are interested in this topic I recommend keeping an eye out for Nate’s posts.

Posted by Tom at 11:54 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Left - Train on stage in Red Bank NJ

Above - Tom and Eileen at the show

Eileen and I went to see the band Train on Wednesday night at the Count Basie Theatre here in Red Bank.  Fun show, these are some hard working guys; they really gave us our money’s worth.

Artist like Train and especially aspiring artist should be aware that Keeping the Internet a Level Playing Field is of crucial importance to them.  If Verizon and the telcos have their way then they will restrict access to web sites such as YouTube, Google Video, Apple’s iTunes and limit the ways for artist to get their material out to their fans.

That is why it is important to local artist or even national acts like Train to push for Keeping the Internet A Level Playing Field.

Posted by Tom at 07:22 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I’m going to try to refer to Net Neutrality as Keeping the Field Level; as in Keeping the Playing Field level.  It’s really about making sure everyone has a fair chance to play, without being bullied by the big telcos.

The article on HuffPo gets into how the Net Neutrality Act name is pretty bad.  How about the: “Keep the Playing Field Level Telecom Act” or "The Level Playing Field Telecom Act".  Something like that would play a lot better.  Plus it conveys a sense of saving the free-market instead of heavy regulation.  If the purpose of the act is to Keep the Playing Field Level for the big and small guys then isn’t that the essence of free-markets?

Posted by Tom at 06:09 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Arianna Huffington has an interesting article today on why the term: Net Neutrality won’t fly.  I tend to agree with her because I know I am having a hard time getting non geeks excited about this issue. 

Posted by Tom at 01:31 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Posted by Tom at 07:21 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Verizon’s new cable TV service really is just an extension of the internet. That is why Net Neutrality belongs in the conversation.  It really doesn’t take a long news search to see that Verizon sees their cable TV as just an extension of their internet service.

Here are some quotes from a recent article in which the president of Verizon Delaware was quoted:

From an article By Kate House-Layton, Delaware State News

"This is really a reaction to the evolution of technology," said William R. Allan, president of Verizon Delaware.

"With the advent of the Internet and the advent of broadband technology being spread through the country, this is a convergence of all these services."

"Everything is now digitized," Mr. Allan said. "We want folks to think of Verizon as the premier broadband and communications company."

If high ranking Verizon officials publicly admit that their cable TV service is just an extension of the internet then they should have to explain what their position is on Net Neutrality as part of cable franchise discussions.

Posted by Tom at 10:59 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Answer:
The future of the Internet depends on it!

Read Tim Wu's article on Slate.com to find out more.

I think Tim does a nice job of explaining this issue in non geek speak.

Here's a quote: To take a strong example, would it be a problem if AT&T makes it slower and harder to reach Gmail and quicker and easier to reach Yahoo! mail?

Posted by Tom at 08:38 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

The Communications Workers of America are addressing Verizon’s dealings in New Jersey with a new ad campaign starting today.  Here’s a blurb from their press release: 

CWA is urging the New Jersey legislature to instead enact legislation providing universal access to affordable, high speed broadband; reasonable build-out requirements and timetables for the state; and effective enforcement mechanisms and penalties for failure to meet standards and timetables.

You can read their press release here

Posted by Tom at 06:30 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Met with a local TV news producer yesterday.  They are working on a big story looking at the whole relationship between Verizon and New Jersey.  It was an interesting discussion and they wanted to know a little bit about how I felt about Verizon’s application for a cable TV franchise in Red Bank.  Hopefully I was helpful to them.  From what I gather they will be talking to some local officials and will probably be shooting part of their story in town; if you see a camera crew in town tell them I say hello. The story will air some time this fall. 

Posted by Tom at 06:18 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

If a telecom (Verizon, AT&T etc...) wants to use Internet Protocol over their new fiber optic lines to offer cable TV service in your town then get involved.  Ask the following questions; either in person by going to your local hearing or by contacting your local government official:

1. Will (insert telcom name here) offer “A La Carte” cable plans in our town?
2. Would (insert telcom name here) oppose a free or low cost municipal wireless internet service (muni-WiFi) in our town?
3. Will (insert telcom name here) promise to keep the internet a level playing field; thus helping our town's artists, businesses and web surfers, by respecting the tenets of Net Neutrality?

These questions need to be brought up during each franchise approval process.  This will make these issues part of the larger discussion that will take place when state and national franchise agreements are discussed.

If all that happens is that we raise the questions so they are part of the national dialogue then we will have done a good job.

I believe that we can find some towns out there that will bring real pressure on the telecoms to put these provisions into their local franchise agreements; I hope that my town will be one of the leaders in doing this.

Local discussions of these issues will make a real difference in the national dialogue.

Posted by Tom at 04:23 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Today’s New York Times editorial page (NYT free registration required to read the article) addresses Net Neutrality:

One of the Internet's great strengths is that a single blogger or a small political group can inexpensively create a Web page that is just as accessible to the world as Microsoft's home page. But this democratic Internet would be in danger if the companies that deliver Internet service changed the rules so that Web sites that pay them money would be easily accessible, while little-guy sites would be harder to access, and slower to navigate. Providers could also block access to sites they do not like.

Posted by Tom at 07:48 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Mayor Ed McKenna speaks out about the rush to bypass local towns best interests in a letter to the editor of the Asbury Park Press today.

Here is a quote from Mayor McKenna's letter:

That process (the local franchise application process) provides significant benefits to New Jersey communities, and these must be protected. It gives decision-making authority to local officials who know best the needs of their citizens. It provides a mechanism for us to make sure our residents have equal access to cable service. In addition, local franchising ensures large companies are accountable to the communities they serve.

Thank you Mayor McKenna for speaking out about this;  I hope to convince you and your fellow Council Members that Verizon should be held accountable to Red Bank on the three issues I am trying to raise.

Posted by Tom at 06:21 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Beyond Red Bank that is.  Welcome to the site.  I have received a lot of interest from people who live outside of our town.  Some visitors have said to me that these are national issues and State and Federal regulation will soon be in place to trump these local agreements.  I would like to address that in this post.

Verizon and AT&T are currently pushing to get into the cable TV business.  Current laws state that cable franchise agreements are set at the local level.  Verizon and AT&T are using big lobbying money at the national level to change these laws (The cable companies are spending considerably on lobbyist to fight this).  I expect that eventually their big money will win out and the requirement to apply for local cable TV franchises will go away. 

What will happen when the law changes and Verizon doesn’t need to apply for cable agreements at the local level?  I understand there to be two possibilities: 1. Verizon will have to apply for a national cable franchise of some sort or, 2. Verizon will have to apply for a cable franchise at the state level.

In either the National or State level cable TV franchise scenario the regulators will look to existing local agreements for precedent.  Our issues will be much better represented if some towns have raised them at the local level.  If, for example, Net Neutrality becomes one of the sticking points during the negotiation process at the local level then it will have to be on the table at the State or National level.

If we don’t begin to address these issues at a local level then Verizon will be able to say to the national regulators: These issues never came up in the towns that we have come to agreement with; if these issues are not important to the actual users out there then why should Washington dictate to the people across America how they get their cable TV?

That is one of the reasons why I feel that raising these issues locally is vital to making them national issues.  How do you feel about the effect addressing these issues at the local level will have on the broader negotiations to come?

Posted by Tom at 06:10 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

In my opinion fair and expansive competition is the key to the success of the American economy.  I’ve been surprised by some of the comments on this site that speak to competition.  In all of my posts I’ve been clear to state that I believe adding more competition to Red Bank’s cable TV market will be a good thing.

What I can’t quite figure out is why some of the readers of this blog think that Verizon likes competition.  Verizon is only for competition when it is to their benefit.  Let take a look at competition for services in Red Bank.

Cable TV Service – It is in Verizon’s interest to have competing cable TV service in Red Bank.  They’ve laid fiber optic cable in Red Bank and their business model only works if they can offer cable TV using internet protocol over that fiber. Verizon's Position is good for competition and good for Red Bank.

 
Municipal WiFi – A free or low cost Red Bank municipal WiFi service would compete with Verizon’s FiOS internet service.  More competition would help bring down the cost of internet access.  Verizon is against competing with a mun-WiFi Verizon’s position is bad for Red Bank.

Internet Access – Keeping the internet a level playing field by respecting the tenets of Net Neutrality is good for competition; the internet thrives on competition.  Verizon wants to restrict or slow down internet access to web sites that compete with its own.  Verizon is against competing with the Googles/Yahoos and Apples on the internet.  Verizon’s position is bad for Red Bank web surfers/artists and small businesses.

Hopefully you can see that Verizon is very much anti-competition when it doesn’t favor them.  So do you really think Verizon is for fair and expansive competition?

Posted by Tom at 04:45 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Thank you Verizon – Ups FiOS speed

I just read a press release from Verizon that says that they are upgrading existing FIOS plans; for Free! My FIOS plan will now go from 15mbps down/2 up to 20 down/5 up.  Those numbers are just astounding. They have to at least double the best cable speeds that Comcast has to offer in Red Bank.  Thank you Verizon.

I only wish that Verizon would promise that they will provide this service across the board no matter what web site I visit or what web service I use.  Unfortunately Verizon won’t promise that to Red Bank residents.  Why won’t Verizon promise us that?  It seems like a simple thing to commit to. That is; unless they want to get as many FIOS subscribers as they can at the high speeds and then eventually throttle back the throughput to non-Verizon partner sights.  I can’t think of any other reason why Verzion won’t promise us that.  What reasons can you come up with?

Posted by Tom at 04:10 PM | Permalink | Comments (4)