Main

October 03, 2007

Hey New York! That was my idea!

I know I've been out of the blogging game but when a New York City Politician does exactly what I've been asking for I can't help but post. 

Seems like a politician in NYC thinks that they shouldn't let Verizon sell cable TV unless they respect Net Neutrality.  Hey!! That was my idea!!

 NY Daily News

 

Verizon cable TV deal worth too much to be done in secret





In the next few weeks, the city is expected to conclude talks with Verizon over a new 15-year franchise that would let the telephone giant offer cable TV service throughout the city.

For New Yorkers fed up with price gouging and poor service from Time Warner and Cablevision, the two goliaths that monopolize land cable service in the five boroughs, this should be welcome news.

Well, think again.

The Verizon talks will likely set the pattern for City Hall's renewal of the Time Warner and Cablevision franchises, both of which expire next year.

No one has any idea if that will be better for the public or for the shareholders of Verizon and the cable companies.

Mayor Bloomberg's aides have conducted all the Verizon talks in virtual secrecy. They refuse to share their strategy with the City Council, which authorized the franchise talks in a resolution last year.

"People keep calling me and asking, 'When are we getting a Verizon deal?' I tell them, I have no idea," said City Councilman Tony Avella (D-Queens), who heads the city's Franchise and Concessions Committee.

Avella says he has tried for 18 months to schedule a City Council public hearing on the cable contracts, but Speaker Christine Quinn, who has built a close relationship with City Hall, has blocked his efforts.

A spokesman for Quinn said yesterday the speaker was not aware of Avella's requests.

Given the mind-boggling financial value of a cable franchise in this town and the amount of time New Yorkers spend watching cable, it's amazing how little attention is being paid to these negotiations.

In 2005 alone, cable company revenues in the five boroughs surpassed $1.6 billion. That figure has exploded since then, largely because of Triple Play - the combined package of cable, Internet and phone service.

The constant advances in communications technology have made it tough for government officials to figure out which policy best serves public needs.

"The communication monopolies are trying to lock up the system for their own possession," says State Assemblyman Richard Brodsky (D-Westchester), who heads the committee that oversees public utilities.

Verizon, for example, has lobbied fiercely across the country for statewide cable franchises. It doesn't want to negotiate separate deals with every city and county the way cable companies did more than two decades ago.

Brodsky says he's willing to grant Verizon that statewide franchise, but only in exchange for tough consumer protections.

A bill he introduced in Albany this year would require Verizon to provide cable service to all communities, not just the wealthiest ones. It would earmark 7% of all cable revenues for government fees and public access programming, instead of 5% some cable companies pay, and it would require Verizon to guarantee "Net Neutrality."

That's the term consumer advocates use to denote a policy of nondiscrimination in Internet service to all customers. Verizon and the traditional cable companies want the right to charge different prices for different speeds of service.

Verizon opposes the Brodsky bill because of its Net Neutrality provision.

Bloomberg officials have yet to reveal where they stand on Net Neutrality or on demanding more government and noncommercial public access channels.

When the nine public channels were established for New York City, cable systems offered a mere 80 or 90 channels. Today, with cable capacity reaching many hundreds of channels, local communities deserve a bigger share of them for noncommercial programming.

Once the talks with Verizon or any other firms are completed, all contracts will be submitted to the city's Franchise and Concessions Review Committee for a vote, said Nicholas Sbordone, spokesman for the city's Department of Information Technology & Telecommunications.

As for Verizon, company spokesman John Bonomo would only say, "We are not at liberty to comment about negotiations."

Well, cable service is too important to be carved up behind closed doors. It's time for some public access on these giant cable deals.

 

August 01, 2006

TechDirt article and discussion on Net Neutrality

Techdirt has an article posted about the Editorial Mike McMurry wrote in the Baltimore Sun.  The gist of the article and comments (although the discussion has gotten a bit off track) seems to be that there are a lot of lies and exaggerations being put forth by both sides of the discussion.  I agree with that sentiment.  I’m not sure why we can’t have a reasonable public debate by the real people involved on both sides of the issue.  Most of the main players are incredibly intelligent and eloquent, why they feel they need to hide behind PR groups is beyond me.

July 28, 2006

Business Week on what the telcos want

Thanks to the consumerist for pointing out this upcoming article at BW.  Looks like I’ll have some reading on the train home this afternoon.

Here is the Essay: The Phone Companies Still Don't Get It
They block competition and charge too much. You call this a communications revolution?


This is an image from the article:

July 14, 2006

Bellsouth stock downgraded; in part due to Net Neutrality

quick post of a news item:

BellSouth Stock Downgraded On Reg Uncertainty

... said the broker. "Our specific concerns include the intensity of the net neutrality debate in the U.S. Senate"  ...

July 12, 2006

Verizon publicly lays out plans for tiering

Verizon EVP Tom Tauke, former Democractic Congressman from Iowa, spoke today at The Media Institute’s Communication Policy Forum, Thanks to ipdemocracy & Cynthia Brumfield for providing the links.

Tauke spoke of hypothetical deals that Verizon might enter into with content providers.

“For example, online video gaming is a growing business, and consumers of those sites expect a seamless experience for their role-playing and action games. Let’s say a gaming company has a game that requires 24 megabits of capacity. Consumers may be paying for Internet access speeds anywhere from, say, five megabits to 15 megabits. That company could enter into a commercial agreement with Verizon to provide online gamers the megabit burst they require for a quality experience.”

 

As I’ve been saying all along, this is the real way that the telcos plan on implementing tiering.  Not by blocking or restricting access to site but instead to enter into deals with partner content providers and provide them “private” bandwidth.

Mr. Tauke’s plan sounds innocuous enough; what gamer wouldn’t want an extra boost of speed when they need it?  You may be asking: How can you have a problem with that?

Here is why I think such boosting is bad for content providers and content consumers:

  1. Verizon will have complete control over who gets to have this speed boost. Nowhere in their track-record is there any indication that they will open this speed boost up to anyone with the cash to pay for it.  Verizon’s history, both wired and wireless, shows that they choose to partner up with very few providers and have no problem locking out competitors.  Can you download music on your Verizon Wireless phone? Sure, but only if you buy from Verizon.  Try buying from Apple, can’t do it.
  2. Developers that are not able to obtain access to Verizon’s speed boost will have to develop within the parameters of the limited bandwidth.  That means developers won’t be able to produce their top products, in effect they will be watered down, and consumers will be deprived of the best possible product.  An analogy would be a developer being restricted to developing for the XBOX only while others get to develop for the XBOX 360.
  3. Developers that are able to obtain access to Verizon’s speed boost will get lazy.  Give a developer an inherent advantage over their competition and they will design to that advantage.   Whether it is extra processing power or graphics power or speed boost; game shops focus on how best to show off their technical advantage and focus less on actual good game design.  The history of the video game industry is littered with examples showing this.  Consumers will be deprived of the best possible product when one developer has access to speed boost and another doesn’t.

It’s not just video games that Verizon wants to do this for.  It’s all areas of content delivery.  What you’ll end up seeing is that those providers who enter into a “commercial agreement to provide … megabit bursts” with Verizon will start to produce lesser and lesser quality product; while those providers with who Verizon does not partner with will be locked out.

Dear reader, please take a look at the big picture here.  Verizon and the telcos’ plans are bad for the future of the internet, not matter how innocuous their lobbyist make it sound, as ISPs get into the role of King Maker on the internet we will see reduced innovation and competition and we may very well end up with an internet that looks a lot less like the wide open American innovation engine it is today and a lot more like cable TV.

 

[ edit: updated links ] 

July 11, 2006

FiOS is transforming the speed and flexibility of the Internet

"Some people look at broadband and see an uncertain future. We look at broadband and see unlimited possibilities," "The power of broadband to innovate, integrate and equalize in the marketplace will not come from imposing limitations, but in lifting them."

 

"We have a window of opportunity to step into a new world of broadband and consumer choice, or we can step back into the old world of limited innovation and limited opportunity for consumers," "The stakes are high. The time to act is now."

 

"FiOS is transforming the speed and flexibility of the Internet"

 

All of those quotes are from Verizon VP Tom Tauke in a press release put out by Verizon today.

 

I agree with his statements.  He just happens to be speaking to Congress about Net Neutrality legislation; whereas I think his comments make more sense when applied to his company’s future plans for the internet.

 

I agree FiOS is transforming the speed and flexibility of the Internet.  I fully believe that the only foreseeable competitor for FiOS will come in the form of muni-WiFi networks and we have seen how Verizon feels about muni-WiFis.  That is why I want Verizon to promise not to oppose muni-WiFis.

 

I agree that “The stakes are high and the time to act is now”.  That is why I think Net Neutrality should be address as part of any cable TV franchise application.

 

I agree that "The power of broadband to innovate, integrate and equalize in the marketplace will not come from imposing limitations, but in lifting them."  That is why Verizon should pledge to keep the internet a level playing field.

July 10, 2006

c|net Public Net Neutrality Debate

Just wanted to point out a public Net Neutrality debate going on over at CNET.  Molly Wood and Scott Clealand are going back and forth on the issue; as an added bonus readers are allowed to post comments.

Should be some interesting reading.  Take a look for yourself: Net neutrality: bring it on

July 06, 2006

Wireless as the model?

Mitch Ratcliffe on his blog Rational Rants at ZDNet titled “Verizon treads into the realm of The Prince” in which he covers some recent developments regarding Verizon’s wireless data services.  I am a heavy user of Verizon’s EVDO service.  It is the wireless broadband connection I use while taking the train to and from New York, so Mitch’s article is of particular interest to me.  It is Mitch’s coverage of the Net Neutrality angle however; that I am most interested in.

I’ve written before that I believe that if Verizon had a choice it would restructure (from a business model point of view) the internet so that it more closely resembles its wireless network.  Mitch helps point out some of the problems with Verizon’s wireless broadband network.

For example, Verizon’s says that user’s are not allowed to stream video over their EVDO network unless it is their VCast brand of video streaming.  Why is that?  I have the technical capacity to turn on my slingplayer and view streaming television to my laptop, I’ve tried it and it works every bit as good as the VCast service.  The reason why Verizon does not want me to do this is: quite simply, because Verizon does not generate any additional revenue from that slingbox, Verizon only makes money off of my monthly subscription fee.  Verizon has partnered up with select media providers to provide video streaming via their VCast service and through those partnerships they generate revenue from the content provider.   So not only do they make money off of my monthly subscription fee they also make money by effectively charging content providers to gain access to their network.

Does anybody disagree that in Verizon’s perfect world they would like to expand this model to the internet as well?  Let’s set aside technical and regulator barriers for a second.  Given its druthers, don’t you think that Verizon prefers their Wireless model to their landline ISP model?  I do.  That’s why I am concerned that the very smart people at Verizon are looking at very creative ways to slowly change the model of the internet to more closely resemble their Wireless paradigm.

June 29, 2006

Protection for municipal Wi-Fi approved in Senate Committee

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.

June 28, 2006

Parallels between national cable franchise argument and NN argument

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?

June 27, 2006

Doctorow calls for tying NN to cable franchises

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?

June 26, 2006

Who actually supports Access Tiering?

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.

June 23, 2006

Variations on Net Neutrality

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.

June 17, 2006

Weekly Standard on Net Neutrality, they get it

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

June 16, 2006

Verizon, I “can’t hear you now” when you have your foot in your mouth

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. 

VerizonFootInMouth

June 15, 2006

Another Example of Verizon Double Talk or Some Set on these guys

Verizon put out a killer press release today titled: “Verizon Sets the Record Straight on Cablevision's False Advertising Campaign; Calls on Cable Monopoly to Step Aside and Allow Cable Choice and Competition for Consumers to Flourish in New Jersey”

Surly I’m not the only one who sees the irony in this.  Verizon, and all the telcos for that matter, want to have their cake and eat it too and they are none too embarrassed to say so in public.

A Taste Of Their Own Medicine

Verizon says: An ad published yesterday in the Asbury Park Press, as well as radio ads being broadcast on WKXW-FM and other radio stations around the state, use scare-tactics and distortions to lobby for legislation that would protect Cablevision's cable-TV monopoly.
In an apparent effort to cloak Cablevision's involvement, the ads note
that the sponsor is CSC Holdings. However, CSC Holdings is the operator of Cablevision Systems Inc.

Verizon and the telcos are the kings of Astroturf, that is “cloaking” their involvement with ads or faxes, and they have the gal to call out a competitor for using the same tactics.  As I’ve said before: These guys have some set of balls.

Hello, Can you hear yourself now??

The presser continues: "It's time for Cablevision to step aside and allow true competition flourish in New Jersey," said Dennis Bone, president of Verizon New Jersey.

That’s a gem.  Let me try it: "It's time for Cablevision Verizon to step aside and allow true competition flourish in New Jersey,"
Verizon’s plans for the internet are anti-competition, and they turn around and say that about someone else.  Say it with me:  Have These Guys Got Balls or What?

But wait there’s more!!!

"The consumers throughout the state have clearly spoken: They want choice and competition, and they want it now," said Bone.
Yes! Yes we want choice and competition.  We want the choice to invest in municipal Wi-Fi if we choose, we want the choice to have A La Carte Cable service and we most definitely want the choice to use our fiber broadband connections any way we want.

What do we want???

More from the press release:  In May, both the state Senate and Assembly overwhelmingly approved legislation that will streamline New Jersey's antiquated, anti-consumer video franchise rules. In a procedural move, the Senate is required to vote again, and that vote could come next week. “We encourage members of the Legislature and the governor to focus on the many benefits of the video franchise legislation," said Bone. "With it, New Jerseyans all over the state will soon benefit from cable choice and competition.”

To the Senate members and Governor Corzine I say follow Verizon’s advice and voice your concerns over competition.  Voice you concerns about Network Neutrality and how it is bad for competition in New Jersey.  This issue needs to be addressed and New Jersey is the best place to address it.

New telecom to be discussed

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.

June 14, 2006

Roycroft Net Neutrality Study

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.

June 13, 2006

What a Verizon FiOS plan might look like in a non Net Neutral environment.

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.


Blog Reset – Get caught up in one post

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.

June 09, 2006

One more before the weekend

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.

House Net Neutrality amendment defeated on floor – COPE Act moves forward

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.

This does make my efforts to get Gov. Corzine to involve Net Neutrality into the New Jersey state franchise legislation discussion all the more urgent.  Gov. Corzine should use this opportunity to show Verzion how important we consider protecting the future of the internet.  The new federal cable franchise legislation will trump our own state legislation, by questioning Verizon on Net Neutrality and declining to sign our franchise legislation into law will send a loud signal to Verizon.

June 08, 2006

Net Neutrality Amendment up for vote in Congress tonight or tomorrow

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.

June 07, 2006

Google founder talks to Congress about Net Neutrality

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.

June 05, 2006

Red Bank Reality – OurPrisoner.com launches 6/14

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.

May 30, 2006

Wealth TV HD or saving lives? What’s it going to be Verizon?

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.

Tom Tauke says save wealth tv 

May 26, 2006

Discussion with a Pheonix blogger about Net Neutrality

I'm having a pretty reasoned discussion with Jim on his blog about Net Neutrality.  Please feel free to stop by and check out the post and the comments.

May 25, 2006

Net Neutrality legislation moves out of committee. Verizon I've got a way out for you.

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. 

Adding provisions to the cable agreements would have the effect of satiating Congress and Net Neutrality proponents without expressly written Federal legislation.  If Federal legislation gains traction the telcos should really think about this.  I invite Verizon to set the example in my town, Red Bank.  Give us some verbiage in our agreement and then you can hold us up as an example of your forward thinking.

Net Neutrality legislation moves out of committee. Verizon I've got a way out for you.

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. 

Adding provisions to the cable agreements would have the effect of satiating Congress and Net Neutrality proponents without expressly written Federal legislation.  If Federal legislation gains traction the telcos should really think about this.  I invite Verizon to set the example in my town, Red Bank.  Give us some verbiage in our agreement and then you can hold us up as an example of your forward thinking.

Verizon VP Tom Tauke makes the case for a government run internet

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?

Broadband Options

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.

May 24, 2006

Craigslist founder and the telcos talk

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 

Craigslist founder and the telcos talk

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