The nation's largest telephone and cable companies -- including AT&T, Verizon, Comcast and Time Warner Cable -- want to be Internet gatekeepers, deciding which Web sites go fast or slow and which won't load at all.
They want to tax content providers to guarantee speedy delivery of their data. And they want to discriminate in favor of their own search engines, Internet phone services and streaming video -- while slowing down or blocking services offered by their competitors.
These companies have a new vision for the Internet. Instead of a level playing field, they want to reserve express lanes for their own content and services -- or those of big corporations that can afford the steep tolls -- and leave the rest of us on a winding dirt road.
The big phone and cable companies are spending hundreds of millions of dollars lobbying Congress and the Federal Communications Commission to gut Net Neutrality, putting the future of the Internet at risk.
Friday, April 30, 2010
Musicians Will Suffer
Musicians: Plug Into Net Neutrality at the FCC!
A short while ago we told you about the FCC’s Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on net neutrality. You may recall that we were thrilled to see the Commission was taking a proactive steps to ensure that the internet remains open and accessible to all. Even more encouraging was the fact that the FCC would be soliciting comments from stakeholders and the public, which of course includes musicians and fans.
Net neutrality is the principle that protects the open internet. It means that the smallest bedroom artist can use the same essential technology as the hugest band or label to get their music to potential audiences. The open internet has inspired an astounding array of widgets, applications and services that make it easier than at any other time in history for fans to legally access music, and for artists to engage in direct communication with listeners. All of this is due to the open structures of the web.
But some Internet Service Providers (ISPs) want to charge content creators (like musicians) a higher fee for the faster delivery of their sites and services. Those who couldn’t afford to — or didn’t want to — pay a “toll” would be stuck in the slow lane of the information superhighway. This would have a hugely negative impact on today’s artists, who depend on the open internet to reach fans, sell merchandise, distribute and promote their music, book shows and pretty much everything else that doesn’t involve getting on stage and playing. Actually, it helps there, too! Webcasting lets people around the world “tune in” to live performances. Case in point: Erin McKeown’s hugely successful “Cabin Fever” concerts, where she played sets from exotic locations around her house, broadcast live to fans around the world.
As we mentioned, the FCC is seeking public input on draft rules that would codify and supplement existing principles to safeguard the internet’s openness. This process is intended to secure and protect the many economic and social benefits of the open Internet by preventing anyone from restricting the free flow of lawful content and applications online.
FMC has built an online tool to help musicians, composers and songwriters file public comments in this proceeding. We think it’s incredibly important for the Commission to hear from the creative community on this issue. By using this musician-friendly app, all artists — big and small — can make their voices heard on a crucial issue. It’s actually kind of fun, too — a great chance to tell a Federal agency about how awesome you are.
You’ll be in great company: we’ve already seen comments from Kronos Quartet, R.E.M., Erin McKeown, Franz Nicolay of The Hold Steady, Imani Winds and more. We’ve also heard that groups like hip-hop heroes Dead Prez will also be submitting soon. Our comments tool guarantees your views will be submitted as part of the official FCC record. How cool is that?
Why not take a few moments to tell the FCC how you use the internet in your life and career? Check out our FCC Open Internet page to make your voice heard. Comments close on Jan. 14, so step lively!
A short while ago we told you about the FCC’s Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on net neutrality. You may recall that we were thrilled to see the Commission was taking a proactive steps to ensure that the internet remains open and accessible to all. Even more encouraging was the fact that the FCC would be soliciting comments from stakeholders and the public, which of course includes musicians and fans.
Net neutrality is the principle that protects the open internet. It means that the smallest bedroom artist can use the same essential technology as the hugest band or label to get their music to potential audiences. The open internet has inspired an astounding array of widgets, applications and services that make it easier than at any other time in history for fans to legally access music, and for artists to engage in direct communication with listeners. All of this is due to the open structures of the web.
But some Internet Service Providers (ISPs) want to charge content creators (like musicians) a higher fee for the faster delivery of their sites and services. Those who couldn’t afford to — or didn’t want to — pay a “toll” would be stuck in the slow lane of the information superhighway. This would have a hugely negative impact on today’s artists, who depend on the open internet to reach fans, sell merchandise, distribute and promote their music, book shows and pretty much everything else that doesn’t involve getting on stage and playing. Actually, it helps there, too! Webcasting lets people around the world “tune in” to live performances. Case in point: Erin McKeown’s hugely successful “Cabin Fever” concerts, where she played sets from exotic locations around her house, broadcast live to fans around the world.
As we mentioned, the FCC is seeking public input on draft rules that would codify and supplement existing principles to safeguard the internet’s openness. This process is intended to secure and protect the many economic and social benefits of the open Internet by preventing anyone from restricting the free flow of lawful content and applications online.
FMC has built an online tool to help musicians, composers and songwriters file public comments in this proceeding. We think it’s incredibly important for the Commission to hear from the creative community on this issue. By using this musician-friendly app, all artists — big and small — can make their voices heard on a crucial issue. It’s actually kind of fun, too — a great chance to tell a Federal agency about how awesome you are.
You’ll be in great company: we’ve already seen comments from Kronos Quartet, R.E.M., Erin McKeown, Franz Nicolay of The Hold Steady, Imani Winds and more. We’ve also heard that groups like hip-hop heroes Dead Prez will also be submitting soon. Our comments tool guarantees your views will be submitted as part of the official FCC record. How cool is that?
Why not take a few moments to tell the FCC how you use the internet in your life and career? Check out our FCC Open Internet page to make your voice heard. Comments close on Jan. 14, so step lively!
Cons of Internet Regulation
A complete takeover by the government or even other telecommunication giants can lead to violation of net neutrality and will dampen effectiveness of this medium. It will be against net neutrality principle and will allow certain websites to limit their content to paid customers. Internet regulation will also tend to curb the freedom of expression, which is perhaps one of the most conspicuous factors that are instrumental in the success and popularity of this medium. For years the Internet has been an open source of information. A stringent regulation policy will mean limited access to the extensive source of information.
Whether Internet regulation is good or bad might be a matter of debate, but what we can do to increase the effectiveness of this medium is to use it wisely! It is a tool that needs to be used with a sense of responsibility and common sense
Whether Internet regulation is good or bad might be a matter of debate, but what we can do to increase the effectiveness of this medium is to use it wisely! It is a tool that needs to be used with a sense of responsibility and common sense
Pros of Internet Regulation
A stringent internet regulation can help to curb the innumerable illegal activities over the net. Internet regulation will also help to prevent the large number of financial frauds, phishing, identity thefts, credit card thefts and many other illegal activities, which are possible because of the unregulated and unrestrained Internet activities. Although there exist several laws about child pornography or prosecutions of pedophiles, these issues are still rampant on the Internet. Internet regulation will also mean stringent policies over unjustified defamation.
FCC
One of the FCC's five commissioners, Jonathan Adelstein, said during a recent symposium on FCC Internet Video Policy that the FCC's rules shouldn't permit "illegal acts." Sure, illegal downloading is a serious problem, especially if you're a copyright-holding movie studio. But does that mean the FCC is actually against net neutrality, in general?
Basic Definition
Network neutrality (also net neutrality, Internet neutrality) is a principle proposed for user access networks participating in the Internet that advocates no restrictions by Internet Service Providers or governments on content, sites, or platforms, on the kinds of equipment that may be attached, and on the modes of communication allowed, as well as communication that is not unreasonably degraded by other traffic
Thursday, April 29, 2010
Net Neutrality Videos
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9jHOn0EW8U
http://www.jbs.org/privacy-internet-freedom-blog/5525-preserve-internet-freedom-beware-obamas-net-neutrality
http://www.jbs.org/privacy-internet-freedom-blog/5525-preserve-internet-freedom-beware-obamas-net-neutrality
Commentator positions on Net Neutrality
In recent years, legal commentators have debated the precise definition of net neutrality and the existence and danger of monopolistic actors in internet-related markets. Like others,net neutrality proponents have had considerable difficulty defining the concept or its enforcement, Proponents of net neutrality gereally fear that monopolistic internet access providers will monopolize the "last mile" connections to end users, limiting their access to content. Others worry that sucessful monopolists will also favor their own vertical services by excluding or disfavoring other content providers. Net neutrality is their answer to these threats.
1. What does net neutrality actually mean? Is it a meaningful protection for the web, or, as some say, a romanticized ideal that's getting in the way of progress?
Think of the pipes and wires that you use to go online as a sidewalk. The question is whether the sidewalk should get a cut of the value of the conversations that you have as you walk along. The traditional telephone model has been that the telephone company doesn't get paid more if you have a particularly meaningful call -- they're just providing a neutral pipe.
This argument is about whether companies selling highspeed transport mechanisms for the internet should be allowed to price discriminate -- charge different "content providers" (like YouTube) for the privilege of reaching you and me. Because Americans have so few choices of broadband access providers, allowing these providers to leverage their market power over transport in order to have exclusive control over "programming" online is a matter of great concern.
The risk is that the network providers will keep everyone who hasn't paid protection money to them at 2001 speeds.
2. The cable and telephone companies argue that they need additional revenue to build 'the internet of the future' and so the Googles and Amazons of the world (who will benefit from that new internet) need to pay their fair share. Is that a legitimate argument?
What they mean by 'the internet of the future' is a cable system -- not the internet. They'll be using their market power over broadband access to force us all to accept their cable-ized version of 'the internet' and to force nascent Googles to pay protection money. Those nascent Googles may never come into being -- so net neutrality is a right-to-life movement for new technology.
These incumbents don't have competition. We have no real information about their costs or how their networks work. We're having this argument about "need for additional revenue" in the dark. They've been promising to build broadband networks for a long time, and we're falling behind as a country.
We know from Japan that competition for broadband access (lower prices, higher speeds) comes when you force the incumbent to "unbundle" (let competitors use its facilities on nondiscriminatory terms). That's the real 'internet of the future.'
3. Net-neutrality's supporters are concerned that if you give the cable and telephone companies latitude to control who travels through their pipes (and at what speed), it puts those gatekeepers in a position to favor their own products and services over their competitors'. The fear is that innovation will suffer. Is that a concern you share?
Emphatically yes. The whole point of price discrimination (the goal of the cablecos and telcos) is that you get to choose who pays more to travel your network. Network providers will have every incentive to favor their own services and make exclusive deals, and in the absence of a simple rule of separation between transport and services ("you're only a pipe") we'll be trapped in litigation for years over what discrimination is appropriate and what isn't.
Innovation happened online because the transport (the pipes) were largely "dumb." This allowed new things to be developed without anyone having to ask permission of the telcos. The deepest pockets are not the deepest sources of innovation -- to the contrary. The telcos think of the internet as a "broken network." They only know about networks over which they have perfect control. When was the last time a new telephone service was introduced? Call-waiting?
4. Why do you think this issue has taken off with such a fervor in recent months?
The telcos almost got away with this -- communications law is arcane and full of acronyms. But it's easy for people to understand that the greater social good is to keep the internet open. The benefit to private companies of being able to maintain their business plans is not worth the burden on the rest of us. True, we don't know exactly what these larger social benefits of an open internet will be. But the history of the internet has just begun, and it is already a remarkable story.
Americans aren't "consumers" of the internet (the way we are of cable programming). We are "users," and almost 50 million of us have posted material online.
People want broadband internet access to be treated like a utility. Government may have a role in ensuring that this happens -- it's like keeping the highway system working.
5. Could you sketch out what groundrules you'd like to see govern the internet of the future?
This debate isn't about internet governance. This is about who gets to make decisions about prioritizing particular packets as they get close to broadband subscribers.
I'd like to see blazing competition for broadband access and have us catch up to Japan. We'll continue to only have a few transport providers in this country, because it's expensive to build a broadband network. This means that those basic providers (the cablecos and telcos) will have to open up their facilities to others -- the ISPs who connect to them.
I'd like to see many different choices of ISPs, all of whom can make whatever decisions they want about prioritizing particular packets.
We may need to pay back the cablecos and telcos for their reasonable costs of building these broadband networks. But we should not let them control our future. The best and richest future for all of us is the unpredictable future.
Think of the pipes and wires that you use to go online as a sidewalk. The question is whether the sidewalk should get a cut of the value of the conversations that you have as you walk along. The traditional telephone model has been that the telephone company doesn't get paid more if you have a particularly meaningful call -- they're just providing a neutral pipe.
This argument is about whether companies selling highspeed transport mechanisms for the internet should be allowed to price discriminate -- charge different "content providers" (like YouTube) for the privilege of reaching you and me. Because Americans have so few choices of broadband access providers, allowing these providers to leverage their market power over transport in order to have exclusive control over "programming" online is a matter of great concern.
The risk is that the network providers will keep everyone who hasn't paid protection money to them at 2001 speeds.
2. The cable and telephone companies argue that they need additional revenue to build 'the internet of the future' and so the Googles and Amazons of the world (who will benefit from that new internet) need to pay their fair share. Is that a legitimate argument?
What they mean by 'the internet of the future' is a cable system -- not the internet. They'll be using their market power over broadband access to force us all to accept their cable-ized version of 'the internet' and to force nascent Googles to pay protection money. Those nascent Googles may never come into being -- so net neutrality is a right-to-life movement for new technology.
These incumbents don't have competition. We have no real information about their costs or how their networks work. We're having this argument about "need for additional revenue" in the dark. They've been promising to build broadband networks for a long time, and we're falling behind as a country.
We know from Japan that competition for broadband access (lower prices, higher speeds) comes when you force the incumbent to "unbundle" (let competitors use its facilities on nondiscriminatory terms). That's the real 'internet of the future.'
3. Net-neutrality's supporters are concerned that if you give the cable and telephone companies latitude to control who travels through their pipes (and at what speed), it puts those gatekeepers in a position to favor their own products and services over their competitors'. The fear is that innovation will suffer. Is that a concern you share?
Emphatically yes. The whole point of price discrimination (the goal of the cablecos and telcos) is that you get to choose who pays more to travel your network. Network providers will have every incentive to favor their own services and make exclusive deals, and in the absence of a simple rule of separation between transport and services ("you're only a pipe") we'll be trapped in litigation for years over what discrimination is appropriate and what isn't.
Innovation happened online because the transport (the pipes) were largely "dumb." This allowed new things to be developed without anyone having to ask permission of the telcos. The deepest pockets are not the deepest sources of innovation -- to the contrary. The telcos think of the internet as a "broken network." They only know about networks over which they have perfect control. When was the last time a new telephone service was introduced? Call-waiting?
4. Why do you think this issue has taken off with such a fervor in recent months?
The telcos almost got away with this -- communications law is arcane and full of acronyms. But it's easy for people to understand that the greater social good is to keep the internet open. The benefit to private companies of being able to maintain their business plans is not worth the burden on the rest of us. True, we don't know exactly what these larger social benefits of an open internet will be. But the history of the internet has just begun, and it is already a remarkable story.
Americans aren't "consumers" of the internet (the way we are of cable programming). We are "users," and almost 50 million of us have posted material online.
People want broadband internet access to be treated like a utility. Government may have a role in ensuring that this happens -- it's like keeping the highway system working.
5. Could you sketch out what groundrules you'd like to see govern the internet of the future?
This debate isn't about internet governance. This is about who gets to make decisions about prioritizing particular packets as they get close to broadband subscribers.
I'd like to see blazing competition for broadband access and have us catch up to Japan. We'll continue to only have a few transport providers in this country, because it's expensive to build a broadband network. This means that those basic providers (the cablecos and telcos) will have to open up their facilities to others -- the ISPs who connect to them.
I'd like to see many different choices of ISPs, all of whom can make whatever decisions they want about prioritizing particular packets.
We may need to pay back the cablecos and telcos for their reasonable costs of building these broadband networks. But we should not let them control our future. The best and richest future for all of us is the unpredictable future.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)