Kenneth Corbin | May 7

InternetNews.com - A House subcommittee held a hearing today to consider legislation that would codify broad principles intended to prevent Internet service providers (ISPs) from slowing or degrading the delivery of certain content over their networks.

Once again, all sides of the Net Neutrality debate lined up to stake their positions while the House debated how to treat the latest bill addressing how traffic on ISPs should be treated.

At this morning's hearing before the House Energy and Commerce Committee's subcommittee on telecommunications and the Internet, ISPs warned that Net neutrality legislation could slow broadband deployment by imposing heavy regulations that would create uncertainties in the business model.

"The weak state of the economy is front pages news," said Walter McCormick, president and CEO of the U.S. Telecom Association. "But one of the bright spots is broadband," he added, warning that the law could put a "chill" on further investment in the sector.

If you are in the Stanford California area tomorrow. FCC hearing.
This is a huge deal coming down, as most Agonistas know. If you have
never been to a FCC hearing, it is well worth the effort.
http://www.savetheinternet.com/=stanford

Global Gridlock:
How the US Military-Industrial Complex Seeks to Contain and Control the Earth and it's Eco-System

by Dr. Kingsley Dennis
Global Research, March 31, 2008

Introduction

The Argentinean writer Jorge Luis Borges once famously wrote of a great Empire that created a map that was so detailed it was as large as the Empire itself. The actual map itself grew and decayed as the Empire itself conquered or lost territory. When the Empire finally crumbled, all that remained was the map. In some sense we can say that it is the map in which we live; we occupy a location within a simulation of reality. Although semanticists say that 'the map is not the territory', within this digitised age the territory is increasingly becoming the map and the separation between the physical and the digitised rendition is blurring. In this context, to 'know the map’ gives priority to intervene upon the physical. In recent years many of us have been scrambling to get 'on the Net' and thus be 'mapped'; within a few years we may find that living 'off the Net' will no longer be an option.

Today I received an accusatory, threatening email from Cox Cable.

Cox's message accuses me of downloading something from a "bittorrent" site or something like that. Although a thorough search of my computer found no evidence of what they mentioned, what this letter does prove is that Cox Cable and the NBC company are engaged in an active, coordinated program of spying on the American public. These two companies appear to have joined AT&T in tracking and gathering information on American citizens.

How widespread is this scheme? I know they are spying on me; are they spying on you, too?

Comcast spokeswoman Jennifer Khoury said that the company paid some people to arrive early and hold places in the queue for local Comcast employees who wanted to attend the hearing.

Some of those placeholders, however, did more than wait in line: They filled many of the seats at the meeting, according to eyewitnesses. As a result, scores of Comcast critics and other members of the public were denied entry because the room filled up well before the beginning of the hearing.

http://www.attytood.com/2008/02/comcastic_phillys_cable_giant.html

Submitted by lambert on Tue, 2008-01-29 09:52.

AT&T is planning to open “all packets” on the Internet, and examine them for intellectual property violations. Email, IM, everything. So, when Gizmodo writer Joel Johnson was invited onto AT&T’s Hugh Johnson Show to talk about gadgets, he decided to talk about that instead. The video:

Read more and watch the video at Corrente

Obama says what we want to hear:

Would you make it a priority in your first year of office to re-instate Net Neutrality as the law of the land? And would you pledge to only appoint FCC commissioners that support open Internet principles like Net Neutrality?"

Obama gave a resounding reply:

Peter Svensson | New York | October 19

AP - Tests confirm data discrimination by number 2 U.S. service provider

Comcast Corp. actively interferes with attempts by some of its high-speed Internet subscribers to share files online, a move that runs counter to the tradition of treating all types of Net traffic equally.

The interference, which The Associated Press confirmed through nationwide tests, is the most drastic example yet of data discrimination by a U.S. Internet service provider. It involves company computers masquerading as those of its users.

I think most regular readers here are already familiar with this theme, so I'll get right to the good stuff. A small startup ISP in Toronto is offering very different, very open web access. Read below to see (LINK):

Nomad does things a little differently. The company is subscriber-owned, volunteer-run, and open-source friendly. It offers a neutral Internet connection with no bandwidth caps or throttling, and it makes a point of creating wireless access points at the end of each DSL connection that can be used, for free, by the public.

http://zuma.theprawn.com/thedeclarationofindependence.txt

There is no mind/body split, nor any body/planet split, nor any Creation/planet split. As sure as the butterfly effect, everything is connected. Reality and it's consequences are their own record as sure as that in the light, as well as the radio waves, that emanates out from Earth every day.
That which is hidden is known to be hidden; the lump in the rug betrays itself. We see things as they plainly are.
To be at peace and productive and healthy, we must have civilization, between ourselves, and other nations, and with Earth herself. Earth on it's own is a model of self-cooperation, another aspect of Evolution Darwin apparently didn't emphasize (if noted at all).

New clause in AT&T contracts:

Have you taken a look at AT&T's Terms of Service for High-Speed Internet (HSI) lately? Some changes they've made are downright draconian. In the section labeled "5.1 Suspension/Termination," AT&T says the normal stuff about lack of payment and so forth. But clause (c) says they can terminate your service for conduct that AT&T believes:

(c) tends to damage the name or reputation of AT&T, or its parents, affiliates and subsidiaries. Source: AT&T Terms of Service

And then there's Verizon's clause (which, so far as I know, is not new):

Without prejudice to any other rights that Verizon may have, Verizon reserves the right and sole discretion to change, limit, terminate, modify at any time, temporarily or permanently cease to provide the Service or any part thereof to any user or group of users, without prior notice and for any reason or no reason.

Martin at Scholars and Rogues thinks this is about net neutrality, and in a neutral sense it is. But in a larger sense it's about oligopoly and monopoly - and about free markets. Let me start with a digression. I've been reading about Franklin Roosevelt lately, and what I just read about today, specifically, was the rural electrification of America. See, until Roosevelt, 9 out of 10 rural citizens didn't have electric power, though most of the cities did. Roosevelt desperately wanted them to have power and made very sincere efforts to convince them to provide it. But they weren't interested. It just wasn't "worth it" to them to do so and every farmer who was market efficient to serve was already being served, because of course the if there was a profit to be made, someone would have made it.

So the government went ahead and did it themselves, and in response, rather than letting the government grab them all up, the private companies suddenly started doing it themselves. Massive new electrical projects drove rates through the floor, by 1950 9/10 farmers had electricity, and the companies were even making profits off it (public and private companies.)

More After the Jump

Adam Liptak | Sept 27

IHT - Saying it had the right to block "controversial or unsavory" text messages, Verizon Wireless has rejected a request from Naral Pro-Choice America, the abortion rights group, to make Verizon's mobile network available for a text-message program.

The other leading wireless carriers have accepted the program, which allows people to sign up for text messages from Naral by sending a message to a five-digit number known as a short code.

The dispute over the Naral messages is a skirmish in the larger battle over the question of "net neutrality" — whether carriers or Internet service providers should have a voice in the content they provide to customers.

UPDATE: Verizon Reverses Itself on Abortion Messages

Jim Puzzanghera | Washington | September 27

LA Times - A monthly phone bill of $50 now includes as much as $10 in taxes. And some in Congress warn that consumers soon could be hit with similar assessments for high-speed Internet access.

For nearly a decade, the lines carrying the Internet into homes and businesses have been a virtual tax-free zone. But that could change Nov. 1 when a federal ban on Internet access taxes expires.

Almost everybody agrees that the politically popular moratorium should be extended to encourage continued investment in the high-speed lines crucial to making new online activities possible, particularly video. But changing Internet usage has complicated the issue, threatening to derail an extension and raising the specter of local officials engaging in a land-rush-like race to enact new taxes for surfing the Web.

Washington | Sept 6

AP - The Justice Department on Thursday said Internet service providers should be allowed to charge a fee for priority Web traffic.

The agency told the Federal Communications Commission, which is reviewing high-speed Internet practices, that it is opposed to "Net neutrality," the principle that all Internet sites should be equally accessible to any Web user.

Several phone and cable companies, such as AT&T Inc., Verizon Communications Inc. and Comcast Corp., have previously said they want the option to charge some users more money for loading certain content or Web sites faster than others.

Is Net Neutrality really dead?
Revisit the original Agonist Net Neutrality Project ~qB

Declan McCullagh | September 6

CNN - If you haven't heard much about Net neutrality this year, you're not alone. It went from being the political equivalent of a first-run Broadway show, with accompanying street protests and high profile votes in Congress, to a third-rate performance with no budget and slumping attendance.

So what killed Net neutrality? Here's a list, in no particular order:

(see article at site for in-article links)

1. The Bush administration. Democrats may control Congress, but the White House and federal agencies matter. And the administration made it perfectly clear on Thursday that no new Net neutrality regulations are necessary. That gives the Republicans in Congress their marching orders, and a unified GOP front means the Democrats are more likely to expend ammunition elsewhere.

For those who are complaining about net neutrality consider this; because the internet is an open space of information I found someone’s tax returns in London England along with Social Security numbers, birthdates and addresses which could easily be have been found and used by the wrong person. I found this info on a general search engine that has millions of users per day.

Having no restrictions is leaving anyone to invade your computer and take your private information without you even knowing. I guess there are some people who think it is more important to download a movie for free than to feel secured that someone across the globe doesn’t have your personal info!!!

Shai Sachs | July 1

MyDD - A week ago I wrote a post called Organizing online workers, calling for an initiative to organize online workers into a pseudo-union. The organization drive would result, I theorized, in the formation of one or more voluntary membership associations, which would use solidarity to protect the interests of online workers, like bloggers, eBay sellers, Second Life vendors, World of Warcraft gold farmers, etc. I cited a number of benefits the association could accrue for its members, including legislative advocacy for policies important to online workers, such as net neutrality. In the comments, we had a great discussion about the feasibility of such an effort, the kind of tactics that might be successful, etc.

Well, that set off alarm bells high and low throughout the anti-net neutrality lobby, and one of its paid spokesmen, Scott Cleland, responded with a haughty retort.

Jason Gorss | Troy, NY | June 29

EurekAlert - A new study by researchers at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, AT&T Labs and the University of Nevada, Reno, suggests that an Internet where all traffic is treated identically would require significantly more capacity than one in which differentiated services are offered.

[snip]

The additional capacity needed for an undifferentiated network compared to a differentiated network is referred to as the Required Extra Capacity. The study estimates that the Required Extra Capacity in even modestly loaded networks could approach 60 percent. At times of heavy demand on the network, the Required Extra Capacity in an undifferentiated network could amount to an additional 100 percent or more of the total capacity required when differentiation is permitted.

. . . on key portions of the deal with the FCC?

via Sanford Nowlin at the SAEN AT&T blog.

. . . the same as the old boss? I wonder if Mr. Stephenson would do an interview with me Friday night?

Sometimes I think Elizabeth Edwards and her husband John are ready a few key progressive blogs, The Agonist being one of them. Why? Well, when I read things like this (plus his foreign policy speech) I can't help but to think the guy really may be for real. For example:

Edwards called on the FCC to set bidding and service rules for the upcoming auction to ensure that the public airwaves benefit everyone, not just big companies. Edwards asked the FCC to:

* Set aside as much as half of the spectrum for wholesalers who can lease access to smaller start-ups, which would improve service in rural and underserved areas.

* Require anyone who wins rights to this valuable public resource not to discriminate among data and services and to allow any device to be attached to their service.

* Make bidding anonymous to avoid collusion and retaliatory bids.

Harold Feld at Public Knowledge has the breakdown of exactly what this means, why and where the other candidates stand.

Update: MyDD has more and so does techPresident. From MyDD:

The rules of the auction are key, because if a wireless incumbent like AT&T, Verizon, or a cable-owned wireless carrier like Sprint can muddle up the economics of a wireless broadband network, they will.. If the FCC decides to auction the spectrum off in regional chunks, then Verizon can, say, bid up the price of the Northeast section. Since these networks only because profitable if they are national in scope, a large regional chunk controlled by an incumbent would prevent other bidders from creating an open national network.

And techPresident:

The fear is that the major broadband players, Verizon and AT&T, will be awarded the spectrum without giving other, smaller players a chance to bid. That would give these telecoms, who have already expressed an interest in making the Internet less free by proposing to charge users additional fees for high-traffic sites, too much power over this much-needed public resource.

Let's hope the other candidates pay attention and put more pressure on the FCC to do the right thing.

. . . that if the iPhone (and demand for it) are as great as I forsee it we might see some real change in US telecom oligopoly pricing and behavior. Not because telecom execs are suddenly interested in doing the right thing or that they have fallen in love with the iPhone, but that the public gets sick and tired of having shit phones with no multi-network interoperability. I say this because I'd buy an iPhone with no regrets if I could use it on my current network. (I simply will not do business with Ed Whitacre's AT&T.) But I can't use it on my network and I will be emailing them and encouraging others to reach out and express their dislike of current digital phone network policy. It's crap but penetration of new consumer goods are usually what force corporations to change their behavior.

Might the iPhone do for telecoms what the iPod has done for DRM?

What say you?

Chloe Albanesius | May 10

PC Magazine - Members of Congress on Thursday tangled with leading video providers over how to preserve the open architecture of the Internet while improving its quality and protecting intellectual property rights.

Representatives from YouTube, Sling Media, HDNet and others appeared before a House Energy and Commerce telecom subcommittee to discuss the future of video entertainment. Providers and lawmakers have grappled with a variety of issues that could change the way consumers access online video content, including net neutrality, copyright concerns and bandwidth issues.

Ed Whitacre, also known as the last monopolist or the man who rebuilt Ma Bell, has announced his retirement. His heir to the throne? Randall Stephenson. Sanford Nowlin has more on what Stephenson might do to fill Big Ed's shoes. Whitacre retires on June 3 of this year with a pension package worth $158.5 million.

Ian - his successor, Randall Stephenson, has said: "We’re going to control the video on our network. The content guys will have to make a deal with us."

Yup, that's the challenge of the man who wants to end a free and open internet you're hearing.