Red Bank TV

According to this article on CNET, part of the giant Communications, Consumer's Choice, and Broadband Deployment Act approved by the Senate Commerce Committee yesterday with a 15-7 vote includes provisions that would prevent states from enacting laws that would prevent municipalities from selling their own broadband service.

As the article says: states including Florida, Texas, Virginia and Pennsylvania have enacted laws intended to curb those projects (like municipal Wi-Fi), measures that are often backed by companies like Verizon and Comcast.

Municipal broadband, especially wireless, should be of interest to Net Neutrality proponents.  In areas serviced by a fiber provider the only real foreseeable competition for the fiber ISP would be municipal Wi-FI.  The telcos know this; that is why they have fought so hard for state laws banning towns from building muni-Wi-Fis.  Access Tiering plans can only work if the ISPs do not have real competition. 

In a town served by a fiber provider and a muni-wireless consumers would have a real choice of ISPs.  In that kind of environment it is hard to see either ISP cordoning off portions of their bandwidth for third party use.  In other words the competition would help protect Net Neutrality.

That is one of the reasons I am following the progress made by Summit NJ on their muni-WiFi project.  It is also one of the reason why I want Red Bank to ask Verizon how they would react to a Red Bank muni-wifi.

Posted by Tom at 07:02 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Via Engadget:

Verizon and Actiontec bring 100Mbps FiOS to homes

My question is, how much of that 100Mbps is Verizon going to consider public internet and how much of it will be cordoned off for their partners?

Posted by Tom at 04:51 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Does anyone else see parallels between the argument that Verizon is making for national cable franchises and the Net Neutrality debate?

He is how I see the similarities:

Verizon says that they want be able to compete nationally on a level playing field with other cable operators.  They say that small towns, such as Red Bank, are acting as gatekeepers saying who gets to provide cable TV services to homes in town.  Sure, Verizon could provide a sort of video on demand service over their DSL lines but that wouldn’t be as good as true cable TV.  Most consumers would end up sticking with true cable TV instead of using some slow, clunky DSL video on demand service.

Content providers say that they want to be able to compete on a level playing field with other content providers.  They say that ISPs, like Verizon, want to act as gatekeepers saying who gets to have dedicated bandwidth to homes.  Sure, the content providers could provide their services over the public portion of the ISPs lines but that wouldn’t be as good as having true dedicated bandwidth.  Most consumers would end up using the ISP’s partner services that have dedicated bandwidth instead of using some slow, clunky public bandwidth service.

It really seems like the same argument to me.  Anyone else see it differently?

Posted by Tom at 04:34 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Cory Doctorow, editor of BoingBoing, has a nice write up on Net Neutrality in this week’s InfoWeek (h/t Richard Bennett ).

I’ve given it a quick once over on the train ride this morning and it seems to me that I share a lot of Cory’s point of view.

Cory says about Net Neutrality:

We need to fix this, though, and there may never be a better time to do it. The Bells are hunting at the FCC for the right to compete with cable TV providers. (They have the advantage of having deals in place with all the municipalities and may be able to trounce the cable companies.) They're in the mood to deal, and savvy K Street lobbyists might be able to scuttle the Bells' TV ambitions if they don't back off on the neutrality question.

Sound familiar?  That’s pretty much the exact approach I’ve been advocating on this blog for the last couple of months.  In my opinion it is a fair approach.  Consumers gain added cable competition and guarantees of the internet as a fair and level playing field and the telcos gain cable tv franchises; what could be wrong with that?

Posted by Tom at 08:10 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

A little help please.  Can anyone point out some people that actually support Access Tiering?

I understand that there are plenty of people who do not want the government messing with the internet so they are anti-NN legislation.  That I get, but that is not the same as being in favor of tiering. 

I understand that there are people who make the technical argument that QoS and packet prioritization may be important to help keep the flow of data efficient.  That’s an important technical argument but it doesn’t necessarily mean that ISPs should be the ones who get to say how what gets prioritization.  

My question is a little more basic.  Who actually supports ISPs being able to determine who gets to have access to those VPN like higher levels of service?  Other than people who work for ISPs I can’t see who would be in favor of this.

If you are one of these people please point me to your blog or website. I promise I’ll read what you have to say and listen to your point of view.  I’m sure I’ll have questions for you, it’s just that I can’t wrap my mind around why you would want to turn that power over to the ISP.

Posted by Tom at 05:38 PM | Permalink | Comments (4)

Jim Lippard has a Net Neutrality proposal up on his blog.  It appears to be similar in a lot of ways to the Stevens proposal.  Jim takes a level headed approach to his blogging and his proposal follows along those lines.  Check out his post and keep an eye on the comments.

Posted by Tom at 07:20 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

The Summit WiFI RFI responses were due last Friday.  Has anyone seen anything published about the responses yet?  Thanks -- Tom

Posted by Tom at 06:46 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Below I’ve listed 9 real world possible outcomes of the whole Net Neutrality debate.  I’ve listed them in order from best to worst.

Posted by Tom at 04:54 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

“He’s gong to sign it” That’s a quote from Verizon CEO Ivan Seidenberg in an article on Bloomberg talking about NJ legislation(ACS-804/SCS-192) that was voted on and passed yesterday.  Meanwhile, Anthony Coley, a spokesman for Governor Corzine declines to comment on the legislation, instead saying “We're going to take the time to review the details of the bill”

Aside from being smug enough to read the mind of the Governor, Verizon has spent millions of dollars on what the Asbury Park Press calls “a long, expensive lobbying campaign that featured advertising, phone banks and many other trappings of elective politics.”

So much money and effort went into this legislation that it really makes you wonder why is cable TV so worth it for Verizon?  Can you really make that much money off of cable TV?  I find that hard to believe. So why is this issue so important to the phone company?

In my opinion Verizon doesn’t care about Cable TV.  Their only interest is getting into more and more homes so that they can establish themselves as the dominant internet service provider in the state.  Cable TV gives consumers another reason to sign up for Verizon’s FiOS internet service.

The cable franchise legislation that passed has no Network Neutrality wording in it.  Verizon’s NJ cable TV franchise will be delivered to consumers over their high speed FiOS internet connection; thus it is appropriate to talk about Net Neutrality as part of NJ’s cable franchise discussion.

Verizon only stands to make a lot of money if they are able to get into enough homes and begin to sell off portions of their internet bandwidth to their partners.  There is too much new competition for them to make money off phone service, there is too much competition for them to make money off of cable TV, Apple is about to launch movie downloads through iTunes so there is a lot of competition for video on demand.  So how do they plan to make money if not from controlling their portion of the internet?

Cable competition is only one form of competition in NJ’s high speed internet connection boom.  Not only do we want competition for cable TV service but we want to ensure that internet competition is not hindered on those very same wires.

If competition and keeping the internet a level playing field is important to you than I urge you to contact Governor Cozine and ask him to raise the issue of Net Neutrality prior to signing this legislation into law.

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

I just read Andy Kessler’s article on Net Neutrality in The Weekly Standard and I think he makes a lot of sense.  Mr. Kessler takes a very level headed approach to the whole discussion and ends up with an entirely innovative solution.

Mr. Kessler points out that there are no real good guys in the Net Neutrality debate.  Billionaires v Billionaires.  He and I are on the same page, in that Net Neutrality is important for consumers and Federal legislation is the wrong answer.

Mr. Kessler comes up with a creative argument for using threats of eminent domain to keep the telcos in line, that’s the kind of out of the box thinking that we need to start using to address this issue.

Mr. Kessler just plain gets it and I encourage you to read his article.

Give Me Bandwidth . . .  by Andy Kessler

Posted by Tom at 11:01 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I met Juan, the guy who runs BlueJersey.net at the Personal Democracy Forum in NYC a couple of weeks ago.  We exchanged a few e-mails about Net Neutrality and he invited me to post on his web site.  I try to reach out to anyone in New Jersey that might be an audience for NN and Juan’s community is tuned in to politics in New Jersey as well as issues relating to the Internet; so I’ve had several posts over there.

Yesterday I cross posted a version of a post I put up here; the one that talks about Verizon’s hypocritical press release.

After posting to BlueJersey I noticed that right next to my post was an advertisement from a telco Astroturf operation.

To me this is just another clear example of why the telcos can not be trusted with the future of the internet.  Look at how they talk out of both sides of their mouths.

The follow image is a screen shot I took after posting to BlueJerset.net

Click on the picture for a higher quality look at the post.  The image is compressed slightly here to fit on the page. 

Posted by Tom at 06:33 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

A Taste Of Their Own Medicine

Hello, Can you hear yourself now??

But wait there’s more!!!

What do we want???

Posted by Tom at 04:46 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

This comes to me via the Asbury Park Press

The Changing Face of Telecommunications will be discussed at 11:30 a.m. Friday at the Lobster Shanty restaurant at 83 Channel Drive in Point Pleasant Beach. Dennis Bone, president of Verizon Communications New Jersey, will discuss how the deployment of new technologies will benefit businesses and consumers in this area. Admission is $30 for members, $35 for nonmembers. For information, call (732) 223-6632.

I'll be in the city and unavailable to attend this dog and pony show but if you are in the area why not stop by and ask about Verizon's plans for the future of the internet.

Posted by Tom at 06:24 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

ECONOMIC ANALYSIS AND NETWORK NEUTRALITY:
SEPARATING EMPIRICAL FACTS FROM THEORETICAL FICTION

Just read through Trevor Roycroft’s paper (see link above) on Network Neutrality and found it to be a reasonable analysis of the issue.  Trevor’s analysis was paid for by people who are advocating Net Neutrality legislation but Mr. Roycroft’s paper doesn’t delve into how to enforce Net Neutrality; instead he focuses on why Network Neutrality is good for competition.

Mr. Roycroft expands upon a lot of the issues I have been talking about here on the blog.  He talks about how alternatives to Net Neutrality will have a negative impact on competition and innovation, how Verizon wireless uses their control of their network to limit choice for subscribers, how Vertical integration of services will have anti-competition and anti-consumer effects and how fiber build outs by Verizon will make it unlikely that anyone else would invest in competing levels of service.

If you have been reading my blog then a lot of what Mr. Roycroft writes will sound familiar.

Posted by Tom at 06:15 AM | Permalink | Comments (28)

Let's look into the future and try to see what kind of internet service Verizon might be offering in Red Bank a year or so from now:

Verizon FiOS Internet Service

With the $39.95 a month plan you get:
45Mbps down/10Mbps up access to the public internet Plus
10Mbps dedicated MSN-for-FiOS on Verizon’s Private Network (VPN) Plus
5Mbps dedicated XBOX live on VPN Plus
2Mbps dedicated WebMD FiOS-Homelink on VPN

Meanwhile Comcast does it's best to keep up 

Comcast Internet Service

With the $35.99 a month plan you get
20Mbps down/5Mbps up
 

Verizon’s plan seems like a great deal, especially in today’s environment where most Americans have much slower internet access.  Let’s dive into the details a bit more.

Access to the Public Internet. 

Verizon is calling the “Public Internet” what we currently call “The Internet”, they have been advised by PR people to start re-defining the internet for political purposes.  IN my example Verizon’s fiber optic cables allow them to offer access to the “public internet” that is twice as fast as what Comcast can offer on their copper (in reality the sky is the limit when it comes to fiber).  Would anyone choose the plan offered by Comcast?  I wouldn’t; in fact there would be no real reason to even consider cable at that level of performance and at that price point.  This will lead to Verizon being the de facto internet service provider in the areas when they run fiber.

Verizon’s added services, via their Private Network. 

Verizon’s plans include offering these kinds of services bundled into their internet packages.  Their fiber gives them more than enough bandwidth to offer services like this.  The added services would be another reason why consumers would choose Verizon over cable.  My concern with these bundled VPN services is that they will implicitly limit competition and eventually lead to less innovation and less choice for consumers.

Limiting competition

Verizon will control who has access to their Private Network.  It is unlikely, and unlike Verizon’s current practices, that Verizon will open their Private Network to anyone who is willing to pay them.  Verizon likes to partner up with a single company in a sector and lock out competitors.  This will lead to less choice for consumers.

Posted by Tom at 04:52 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

During sporting events the television broadcasters all like to take time out to do what the call a “Game Reset”, it’s a quick way of recapping the events of the game and getting new viewers up to date.  Now would seem like a good time to do something similar here on the blog.  So without further ado I present RedBankTv.org’s blog reset:

Local Franchise Summary – Red Bank has approved Verizon’s application to operate a cable TV franchise and Verizon’s application has been forwared onto the NJ State Board of Public Utilities for final approval; after gaining the BPU approval Verizion will enter franchise negotiations with Red Bank.

State and Federal Franchise Regulation – Verizon has spent untold millions of dollars lobbying for new legislation at the State and Federal level that removes the requirement to work with local municipalities on cable franchises.  What has been the result of their big spending?  You guessed it; New Jersey’s legislature has passed a state wide cable franchise bill and it is now awaiting Gov. Corzine’s signature.  With pockets as deep as Verizon’s why should they stop at the state level?  Well, they haven’t and their lobbying efforts are paying off big at the federal level as well.  Steadily moving through the House and Senate are bills that would remove the need to work with towns or states on franchises.  The federal legislation looks set to pass and, depending on just how much Verizon wants to spend, it looks likely to pass in the few remaining sessions of this year.

A La Carte cable plans – Senator John McCain has introduced a bill calling for A La Carte cable plans, the FCC supports Sen. McCain’s bill and a Verizon spokesman was recently quoted as saying that A La Carte cable plans could offer them a competitive advantage to other cable companies.  That all sounds good but realistically no real progress has been made on this issue.

Municipal WiFi – It seems to me that the most interesting item to follow regarding Verizon and municipal WiFi’s has to be what is going on in Summit NJ.  Summit sent their RFI to Verizon and responses to the RFI are due in the coming week.  I’ve been corresponding with someone involved in the Summit project and I hope that she will keep me up to date with their progress.  If Verizon responds to the RFI it should tell us what tack they will be taking to discourage municipalities from getting into the WiFi game.

Net Neutrality – This topic has been all over the news as of late.  There is a continuing ill fated effort to put federal legislation in place to guarantee Net Neutrality.  The reality is that the telcos lobbying machine is too powerful for Congress to do anything other than pay lip service to Net Neutrality legislation.  I continue to advocate that efforts be made to raise Net Neutrality as a local issue and to tie it to Cable TV franchises.  So far there has been little reaction to my method.

Posted by Tom at 06:18 AM | Permalink | Comments (6)

The Net Neutrality discussion has gotten so skewed that nobody seems to remember what it is all about.  A lot of the Net Neutrality proponents have turned the issue into a pro v anti regulation (right v left) issue and engineers seem to say that the internet needs to be able to handle prioritized traffic.  Both of which really have nothing to do with the original Net Neutrality issue.

I think the original Net Neutrality question is simple, here it is:  Should ISP’s be the ones who determine what traffic gets priority over other traffic?  Please, figure out your answer to that question first then move on to the ancillary issues.

Posted by Tom at 04:41 PM | Permalink | Comments (4)

One of the reasons I started this blog was because I felt the federal Net Neutrality legislation faces an uphill battle in the face of the Telcos deep pockets and huge lobbying machine.  Taking a local grass roots stand for Net Neutrality is the best way to raise this issue, not by working from the top down in Congress, the telcos natural home turf.  Well, late last night the Markey Net Neutrality amendment was defeated on the House floor by a vote of 152 to 269.

The full COPE Act passed with a vote of 321 to 101.  The COPE Act is a sweeping telecommunications bill and is of import to us here in Red Bank because it further removes the regulations that require Verizon to negotiate with communities such as our for what is in the best interest of our town.  The COPE Act would supersede our own recent state legislation and allow for national cable TV franchises.

What does all of this legislation mean for our efforts?  From my point of view it doesn’t change the aim of this blog which is to get Red Bank officials to question Verizon on three key issues.   Verizon still wants to use our town as a role model and will continue to push forward within the current regulations while state and federal legislation is getting singed into law.

Posted by Tom at 06:08 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Looks like the Markey-Boucher-Eshoo-Inslee Amendment to HR 5252, the COPE Act, will be coming up for a floor vote soon.  My hope is that as Net Neutrality legislation moves forward Verizon and the other telcos will feel the pressure and move to self-regulate.  So I’ll be watching for the vote and hoping that it stays attached to COPE.

Posted by Tom at 04:37 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

A La Carte Cable means you get to pick and choose which television channels you want to subscribe to.  These plans are proven (by an FCC study) to help make cable more affordable for people with limited budgets and help bring educational programming into more households.   I’ve found some more A La Carte news items and I want to share them with you.

Yesterday Arizona Senator John McCain introduced new legislation into the Senate.  His Act is titled: The "Consumers Having Options in Cable Entertainment (CHOICE) Act of 2006 .  An article about the bill can be found on the website DailyIPTV.  The article describes Senator McCain’s bill as: “intended to give consumers more flexibility and choice in selecting channels from cable providers and is also intended to make the market more attractive to alternative providers and for IPTV by increasing the flexibility of the TV market throughout the US.”

Senator McCain’s press release says: "For almost 10 years, I have supported giving consumers the ability to buy cable channels individually, also known as a la carte, to provide consumers with more control over the viewing options in their home and their monthly cable bill," he added. "Cable companies have resisted this and have continued to give consumers all the 'choice' of a North Korean election ballot."

Federal Communications Commision chairman Kevin Martin is also quoted in the DailyIPTV article.  Mr. Martin supports Senator McCain bill and says: “I support Sen. McCain's efforts to increase cable competition and choice for consumers, as well as to remove regulations that keep potential competitors out of the video business."

The telcos are spending a huge about of money to remove the need to work with municipalities and states to gain approval to operate national cable TV franchises.  Senator McCain’s Act is reassuring; it says to me that even if we can not get Verizon to address what we feel is best for Red Bank then there are people in the Senate who are looking out for the issues that concern small towns like ours.

Posted by Tom at 06:29 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

There is a lot of action going on in Congress regarding Net Neutrality.  With votes and hearings coming up next week Sergey Brin, co-founder of Google, went to Washington to talk to politicians about the issue.

Here is a link to an article on c|net with coverage of Brin’s trip.

Posted by Tom at 04:48 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Summit NJ is a small town that is similar in many ways to Red Bank. Over a year ago Summit started formally looking into municipal Wi-Fi by forming a committee to research the topic.  In May, after much hard work by their Wi-Fi committee, Summit put out a public Request For Information (RFI) on construction of a muni Wi-Fi.

Here is Summit’s “Vision” taken from their RFI

The City of Summit envisions selecting a commercial vendor to plan, install and operate a wireless broadband networking environment throughout the City where our citizens and businesses, community service and non-profit organizations, -- whether operating in their homes, places of business, in open spaces such as parks, recreation areas, and throughout our downtown business district – have reliable, always available, high speed wireless “ready access” to the Internet at reasonable costs. The City of Summit views this project as an opportunity to provide Internet access for its citizens throughout the city while reducing the City’s communications costs, improving the delivery services to residents and improving access to City Hall. The project will increase consumer choice and affordability while promoting digital inclusion for families who cannot currently afford internet access or any access at all. At the same time the Principle Vendor we seek will recommend profit sharing and revenue generating opportunities for the City of Summit. However, the City expects that the full cost of the project will be borne by the selected Principle Vendor, without any City funding.

Their 12 page RFI goes into more detail and it can be read by clicking on this link

I have contacted Summit and asked them what Verizon’s response to their plan has been.  Summit’s project admisitrator told me that they have asked Verizon to respond to their RFI and she feels that Verizon can see that the train has left the station and it makes no sense to oppose muni Wi-Fi’s; I hope she is right.  I’ll be following Summit’s progress closely with an eye towards what we in Red Bank can learn from them.

Posted by Tom at 06:37 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

An editorial in today’s (6/6/6) New York Times talks about municipal Wi-Fi networks.  Their editorial calls for New York to get into the Wi-Fi game.  The NYT talks about how local municipalities are leading the muni Wi-Fi movement.

Here is a blurb from the editorial:

Local governments are filling a leadership void at the federal and state levels, and they are going directly to providers to negotiate Wi-Fi deals. San Francisco's mayor has turned to Earthlink and Google. Earthlink, based in Atlanta, is also helping Philadelphia. In some of these deals, lower-speed connections are free, with higher speeds available at a price. The providers also hope to make money off advertising.

The editorial does not touch on telcos, such as Verizon, opposition to muni Wi-Fis but that fact that a major newspaper is calling for another major city to start looking into Wi-Fi should tell us that we should, at the least, be asking Verizon if they would oppose a Red Bank muni Wi-Fi

Posted by Tom at 06:24 AM | Permalink | Comments (65)

Did you know that an online reality show is being filmed, produced and distributed right here in Red Bank?  That’s right a web based 24/7 interactive reality show taking place in our little town.  I keep telling you readers that this Net Neutrality stuff is going to affect us right here in town and I think this is a great example of how.

I don’t know these guys and they don’t know me, all I know is that their company is based around the corner from my house, so without further ado here is some info about their show from their website:

OurPrisoner.com

Kieran Vogel will make Internet television history when he becomes the first person to give total control of his life to the Internet.  Kieran, age 35, lives at home with his elderly parents and his 54 year old half brother.  Kieran has never earned more than $10,000 a year working in pet stores while in pursuit in his lifelong dream of becoming a published writer and cartoonist.  Kieran has now decided that almost anyone could do a better job in making his decisions and he is willing to prove it.  OurPrisoner combines the best of prankish humor and the ultimate total life make over.  For 6 months he will be voluntarily confined to a suburban home where he will live under the watchful and controlling eye of the Internet.  Completely unscripted, every aspect of Kieran’s life will be streamed in real-time and unedited.

I say good luck to the guys at OurPrisoner.com, especially that Kieran guy, wouldn’t it be great if they hit it big, right here in our small town?

Now, how could Verizon’s plans affect the success of OurPrisoner.com?  Let’s say that these guys do hit it big and a year from now when it comes time for them to set up their second season Verizon announces that they are going to start their Access Tiering plans.  Verizon could say to the management of OurPrisoner.com that they will not be allowed onto the Verizon Private Network (Verizon’s new name for their top speed internet tier) because Verizon has struck a deal with Fox Reality and they are (hypothetically) going to produce their own version of OurPrisoner.com.  Our local Red Bank guys would be forced to compete at an arbitrary and artificial disadvantage to the Fox show. 

The OurPrisioner.com show may be better than the Fox show but since Verizon has struck a deal with Verizon then OurPrisoner.com viewers would not get a show that is as clear and interruption free as the Fox show.  Facing that kind of barrier to free competition would the OurPrisoner.com show survive?  What could be the potential financial impact for Red Bank?  Maybe OurPrisoner wouldn’t be able to hire the staff that they might have before, maybe they would have to shut down altogether and Red Bank would loose out on all that potential tax revenue.  I could think of plenty of adverse affects the loss of a popular show like OurPrisoner.com could have on our town.

 
I’m doing my best to get the word out about Net Neutrality and how it can affect people on a local level and stuff like this is a very clear example of how the future of the internet is in trouble and the local impact.

 
If any of the BigString or OurPrisioner guys are reading this then I urge you to contact our local town council and let them know that you are concerned about how Verizon’s plans may impact your future.

Posted by Tom at 04:37 PM | Permalink | Comments (3)

This is revised letter to Governor Corzine (version 1.2) revised 6/7, thanks for the feedback.

Dear Governor Corzine, as a software engineer and avid technologist, I am deeply concerned about Verizon's intentions to restrict internet access for New Jersey residents.  Verizon wishes to be the de facto gatekeeper on the internet, determining which content travels at what speed for the portion of its journey that travels over Verizon's wires.  Verizon's plans violate the tenets of Network Neutrality that have fueled growth and enabled healthy competition on the internet.  I fear that their plans will limit the choices for  New Jersey internet users and could put New Jersey businesses at a competitive disadvantage.
    
Since Verizon also plans to use the internet connections they provide to also offer cable television service, it is appropriate that their plans for both internet access and cable access be considered before passing new statewide cable TV legislation.  I am asking you to ask Verizon clear-cut questions about their business roadmap for offering internet access to their customer base, and whether their plans include limiting internet access based on the type of content delivered, or based on relationships they have with certain content providers.  For the sake of New Jersey's online businesses and consumers alike, please consider how Verizon's actions may negatively impact the obvious advantages of the present free market, before signing new cable TV legislation into law.
    
   Sincerely yours,

older version below 

Dear Governor Corzine, as a software engineer and avid technologist, I am deeply concerned about Verizon’s latest intentions with respect to internet access for New Jersey residents.  Verizon desires to act as a de facto gatekeeper on the internet; determining which content travels at what speed for the portion of its journey that travels over Verizon’s wires.  Verizon’s plans violate the tenets of Network Neutrality that have fueled growth and competition on the internet.  I fear that their plans will limit choice for New Jersey internet users and could put New Jersey businesses at a competitive disadvantage.

Since Verizon plans to use the internet connections they provide to also offer cable television service, it is appropriate that their plans for both internet access and cable access be considered before passing new statewide cable TV legislation.

 I am asking you to inquire with Verizon about their plans for their portion of the internet and to consider their answers and how they pertain to free market competition when you decide upon signing new cable TV legislation into law.

Sincerely yours,

Tom

Red Bank, NJ

Posted by Tom at 06:33 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)