Re: More Telco-Sponsored Net Nuetrality Propaganda

[Valdis.Kletnieks () vt edu]

On Thu, 22 Jun 2006 00:20:41 -0000, Fergie said:

> A banner ad showed up atop one of the MSNBC story pages this
> afternoon, linking to this little caroon, explaining "See The
> Future of The Internet" -- and just as the massive (and sneaky)
> telecom "reform" legislation sponsored by Sen. Ted Stevens
> (R.-Alaska) is being debated in Washington.
>
> This "Internet of The Future" ad comes to us from the same folks
> who sponsor the "Hands Off the Internet" campaign -- the telcos.

Seen on Dave Farber's I-P list.  Note particularly the implied
conspiracy regarding monitoring:

> --- Begin Message ---
>
>
> From: David Farber <dave () farber net>
>
> Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2006 12:00:30 -0400
>
>
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>
> From: Dana Blankenhorn <dana () a-clue com>
> Date: June 21, 2006 11:54:45 AM EDT
> To: dave () farber net
> Subject: Re: [IP] more on Summary for Congress of proposed NN Act  
> Proposal
>
> http://www.danablankenhorn.com/2006/06/10_reasons_for_.html
> 10 Reasons for the Lack of Competition
> On Dave Farber's list today Gerry Faulhaber of the Wharton School  
> (right) asked an intriguing question concerning wireless broadband.
>
> Where are the competitors?
>
> Five years ago I spent a lot of time covering Wireless ISPs,  
> entrepreneurs (mostly in rural areas) who were using 802.11 to  
> deliver broadband service, often against the Bells.
>
> Given the political contempt people feel for the Bells, there should  
> be more of them. Why aren't there?
>
> Here are 10 reasons:
>
>  1.. Uncertainty. The Bells have been using the agencies of  
> government to change regulations and drive competitors out of  
> business for several years now. Their monopolies are actually  
> subsidized, through programs like the Universal Service Fund, which  
> by law must flow to the Bells if the Bells want the money.
>  2.. Backhaul. In many rural areas the Bells offer the only backhaul  
> for a WISP, and they charge prices geared toward keeping their  
> monopoly for it.
>  3.. Price Wars. As with cable "overbuilds" in the 1990s, incumbents  
> can drop prices and improve service where competition exists,  
> subsidized by captive monopoly customers.
>  4.. Frequency. If the FCC would open up more unlicensed spectrum,  
> instead of selling every hertz it sees to the incumbents, we'd have  
> more WISPs.
>  5.. Power limits. The FCC has uniform power limits for unlicensed  
> equipment, which must operate at microwave frequencies. If rural  
> areas had higher limits, WISPs would benefit.
>  6.. Bandwidth Hogs. A very small minority of WISP customers, mainly  
> engaged in music and/or video hoarding, pushed the industry toward  
> bandwidth limits, limiting their competitiveness.
>  7.. Rural Industry. The present WISP industry is very rural. Thus  
> the suppliers concentrate on rural WISP problems. Economics of scale  
> have not yet been brought to bear on the mesh gear that would fit  
> suburban or urban environments.
>  8.. Municipal Broadband Most companies that want to provide WISP  
> services in cities are trying to get concessions in order to become  
> sole providers. This discourages truly competitive entrants.
>  9.. Sponsors. The owners of competitive backhaul - Level 3 and  
> Google - have not been aggressive in enabling mesh technology sales  
> to entrepreneurs.
>  10.. Wall Street. Bankers don't want to bank competitive broadband  
> when they see the low profits being reported by the monopolists.
> Some very simple changes in government policy could change all this  
> in a heartbeat. (They could easily be initiated by FCC chair Kevin  
> <artin, left.) Opening up more unlicensed spectrum. Raising power  
> limits. Enforcing the anti-trust laws.
>
> Fact is the attitude of the present government is to endorse the  
> duopoly because it leaves law enforcement with a small number of  
> chokepoints through which it can monitor all online traffic. It's a  
> quid pro quo that is understood at the highest levels in both the  
> White House and AT&T offices in San Antonio.
>
> An overt conspiracy does not need to exist. This is a nod-and-wink  
> deal. But the fact is U.S. policies at all levels have, for nearly  
> six years, endorsed the re-creation of the Bell monopoly, leaving the  
> U.S. falling behind in the infrastructure which defines 21st century  
> economic success.
>
> Something needs to be done about that. There are things which can be  
> done. But expecting capital to flow into an industry the government  
> is discouraging doesn't mean the science is wrong, or the market has  
> rejected the idea.
>
> It means we need to change the policy. As with energy, get rid of the  
> incumbents' subsidies and create conditions under which competitors  
> can grow.
>
> Dana Blankenhorn   dana () voic us
> editor    www.voic.us
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Farber" <dave () farber net>
> To: <ip () v2 listbox com>
> Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2006 10:15 AM
> Subject: [IP] more on Summary for Congress of proposed NN Act Proposal
>
>
> > Begin forwarded message:
> >
> > From: Gerry Faulhaber <gerry-faulhaber () mchsi com>
> > Date: June 21, 2006 10:07:41 AM EDT
> > To: dave () farber net
> > Cc: faulhaber () wharton upenn edu
> > Subject: Re: [IP] Summary for Congress of proposed NN Act Proposal
> >
> > [for IP]
> > Amazingly, I find myself in agreement with Dana Blankenhorn.  This  
> > business of restricting the use of Internet to only service that   
> > follows IETF/RFC protocols really is fairy dust.  Does anyone  
> > think  that customers really care about "IETF/RFC Inside"?  In the  
> > few  minutes since I read Dana's post, I have thought of a dozen  
> > names  that Comcast/Verizon could call it other than Internet that  
> > would  work just fine in the marketplace.  And what about all the  
> > non- complying systems in place today?
> >
> > I also wholeheartedly agree with Dana about making the market   
> > competitive as the only true solution to this.  However, he seems  
> > to  think that Congress must act to "take away their monopoly right  
> > of  way."  In fact, Congress already did; the Telecom Act of 96  
> > removed  all local monopoly franchises, period.  Even further back,  
> > there are  FCC Pole Attachment rules requiring telephone companies  
> > to share  their poles at specified rates.  Everything is actually  
> > in place for  competitors to enter.
> >
> > The question is: with all the railing against "monopoly" BB   
> > providers, and all the rant about how well it works in Korea, how   
> > come we haven't seen competitive entry?  And with all the hype  
> > about  unlicensed wireless as the answer to the maiden's prayer,  
> > how come we  have almost no private entry into wireless BB (except  
> > Clearwire)?   I'll bet if all those great entrepreneurs spent less  
> > time writing  outraged letters to Congress, IP, etc., and more time  
> > building a  business plan to offer competitive BB, all our problems  
> > would be  solved.  And yet, and yet....where are the competitors?   
> > Why so much  whining and so little market entry?  Come on, guys; if  
> > it's a great  business for Comcast/Verizon (highly questionable,  
> > actually) then it  should be a great business for you.  Yeah, it's  
> > you I'm talkin' to,  buddy.
> >
> > Dana has it absolutely right; what he doesn't have (and should  
> > have)  is a business plan.  If he doesn't have it, then why not any  
> > of those  guys who signed on to the Internet Platform thing?
> >
> > Professor Gerald Faulhaber
> > Wharton School, Univ of Pennsylvania
> > Philadelphia, PA 10194
> > Professor Univ of Pennsylvania Law School
> >
> > ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Farber" <dave () farber net>
> > To: <ip () v2 listbox com>
> > Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2006 8:19 AM
> > Subject: [IP] Summary for Congress of proposed NN Act Proposal
> >
> >
> > > Begin forwarded message:
> > >
> > > From: Dana Blankenhorn <dana () a-clue com>
> > > Date: June 20, 2006 2:40:29 PM EDT
> > > To: dave () farber net
> > > Subject: Re: [IP] Summary for Congress of proposed NN Act Proposal
> > >
> > > I so admire the people behind the bill, and I hate to disagree   
> > > with them, but I do...
> > >
> > > http://www.danablankenhorn.com/2006/06/dont_call_it_in.html
> > >
> > > Don't Call it Internet Then
> > > A group of very clever folks -- David Reed, Bob Frankston, Bruce  
> > > Kushnick, John Mitchell, Dave Weinberger (left), Rahul Tongia,   
> > > Andy Oram, Steve Cherry, Dewayne Hendricks, John Bachir, Paul   
> > > Jones and others --  have gotten together to back a "solution" of   
> > > the network neutrality act dubbed the Internet Platform for   
> > > Innovation Act of 2006.
> > >
> > > Here's the full bill.
> > >
> > > Short version.
> > >
> > > Define the Internet as neutral, and take away the right of non-   
> > > neutral Bell and cable offerings to call what they sell  
> > > "Internet"   service.
> > >
> > > I think of it as magic fairy dust.
> > >
> > > First, it ain't gonna pass. Second, even if it does, it doesn't    
> > > matter unless there is real competition in the marketplace, so   
> > > people  can choose "real" Internet service without penalty.
> > >
> > > May I offer something equally simple, concise and (maybe even)  
> > > passable? That is, take away their monopoly right of way. Pass a   
> > > bill which states states, cities and other units of government   
> > > must make poles and other right-of-way available to competing   
> > > service providers.
> > >
> > > Short Version. Take away their monopoly.
> > >
> > > I compare the situation to what we face with oil refineries. As   
> > > you  may know, gas prices are high, and refinery prices are way  
> > > up.  No new refinery capacity has come on-stream for 25 years.  
> > > There is  no competition in the market, and no incentive for  
> > > refiners to  create  new capacity.
> > >
> > > The solution: open up the market. Open the market to other forms  
> > > of energy with a price floor under which all forms of energy can  
> > > find  a market, then offer a higher floor to non-carbon processes.  
> > > Get  rid of the subsidies the oil companies now enjoy.
> > >
> > > The same solution is needed here. The difference between energy  
> > > and Internet service is that, in Internet service, the cost of    
> > > provisioning actually is going down, thanks to Moore's Law. The   
> > > cost  of running a bit over fiber continues to go down. The cost  
> > > of  running  a bit over the air continues to go down. This is no  
> > > longer  30-year  property (like a refinery). it's fast becoming  
> > > three-year  property,  even one-year property. You don't write  
> > > your PC off over  five years  anymore -- when it breaks or gets  
> > > too slow for the new  software you  buy a new one.
> > >
> > > The Intenet solution, in other words, is simpler. There are ample   
> > > new supplies of real Internet bits available. They don't need   
> > > subsidy.  All they need is an opportunity to come to market.
> > >
> > > Once they do the competition will change the Bells' incentives,   
> > > and force them to offer more bits, at lower prices, or go out of   
> > > business.
> > >
> > > Once this kind of solution was called conservative. Today's  
> > > conservatives, unfortunately, are too busy sucking at the   
> > > corporate teat to recall what they're supposed to be about. (See   
> > > above for an example.)
> > >
> > > Frankly I don't care what you call it.
> > >
> > > I call it setting the market free.
> > >
> > > Dana Blankenhorn   dana () voic us
> > > editor    www.voic.us
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Farber" <dave () farber net>
> > > To: <ip () v2 listbox com>
> > > Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 12:59 PM
> > > Subject: [IP] Summary for Congress of proposed NN Act Proposal
> > >
> > >
> > > > Mime-Version: 1.0
> > > > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
> > > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=WINDOWS-1252; delsp=yes;  
> > > > format=flowed
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Begin forwarded message:
> > > >
> > > > From: Seth Johnson <seth.johnson () RealMeasures dyndns org>
> > > > Date: June 20, 2006 12:29:19 PM EDT
> > > > To: ecommerce () lists essential org, broadcast-
> > > > discuss () lists essential org, A2K () lists essential org, upd-
> > > > discuss () lists essential org, commons-law () sarai net
> > > > Subject: [Upd-discuss] Summary for Congress of Our NN Act Proposal
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > John Mitchell has just produced a wonderful summary of our
> > > > proposed legislative approach for Congressional staff.  See
> > > > below.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Seth
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > http://www.dpsproject.com/CongressSummary.html
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Introduction and Summary for Congressional Staff
> > > >
> > > > (Click here for the proposed "Internet Platform for Innovation
> > > > Act of 2006" [http://www.dpsproject.com/legislation.html])
> > > >
> > > > Attached is a fresh approach to "network neutrality."  It
> > > > recognizes that the Internet is, in fact, neutral.  Neither slick
> > > > promotions offering "premium" or "exclusive" services, nor
> > > > thoughtful legislation, can change that.  Any service offered by
> > > > one of the many networks that form a part of the "network of
> > > > networks" called "the Internet" which favors the delivery of some
> > > > data packets over others based on their content, source or
> > > > destination, is simply not "the Internet."  To pass off access to
> > > > specially modified networks as "Internet access" is false and
> > > > deceptive.
> > > >
> > > > In over thirty years of global standards and Internet service
> > > > provider behavior, Internet participants have come to assume that
> > > > their traffic will be passed without interference. Because the
> > > > global "Internet Protocols" of the Internet are based on this
> > > > concept, neutrality is inherent in it.  So, when Congress seeks
> > > > to preserve network neutrality, it need not do so by "regulating
> > > > the Internet," as it would be difficult and unnecessary to
> > > > legislate fundamental global protocols of Internet router
> > > > behavior.  Rather, it is far better to allow Internet-connected
> > > > services and specially-tailored networks (even if perceived as
> > > > more valuable to some) to compete freely in the marketplace,
> > > > regulating those who would misrepresent them as "Internet"
> > > > services or "Internet access."  This has the critical advantage
> > > > of not allowing the standards to be overridden by these custom
> > > > modifications.  Without standards, there is no competition or
> > > > ability to connect between networks.
> > > >
> > > > For as long as we have had an Internet, we have also had "local
> > > > access networks," or LAN's, typically operated within a single
> > > > company.  Today, major network access providers have the
> > > > capability of offering very large LAN's, and even networks of
> > > > LAN's, which may look a lot like the Internet to many
> > > > unsuspecting consumers.  If such LAN providers happen to be the
> > > > only viable choice for Internet access, they will have the power,
> > > > working with a few major corporations, to replace the Internet
> > > > access for millions of Americans with access to a "walled garden"
> > > > containing only such portion of the Internet as they allow, and
> > > > in which only those companies willing and able to pay will be
> > > > able to have access - or best access - to their subscribers.  It
> > > > may be the case that some consumers will prefer the more limited
> > > > access being offered, but such offers must compete on their own
> > > > merits, and not at the loss of an open, consistent, and
> > > > predictable platform for the transport of innovative products and
> > > > services by all.  Conversely, if networks that treat applications
> > > > specially wish to create a global network consistent with their
> > > > practices, they can enter into appropriate processes and work to
> > > > develop standards.
> > > >
> > > > Thus, this proposal recommends that Congress authorize the
> > > > Federal Trade Commission to enforce a prohibition on false and
> > > > deceptive representations pertaining to "Internet access" while
> > > > leaving innovative networks free to develop their own proprietary
> > > > services, so long as their nature is not misrepresented.  This
> > > > approach will enable consumers to make informed comparisons among
> > > > the Internet access being offered as distinct from other products
> > > > and services offered by their Internet access providers, while
> > > > assuring that anyone who purchases true Internet access will get
> > > > what they bargained for - access to the global Internet,
> > > > unfettered communications throughout the globe, and access by
> > > > myriad competitors, individuals, advocates, and news sources
> > > > whose products, services and communications can be made available
> > > > to them on a level playing field.
> > > >
> > > >     * Introduction and Summary for Congressional Staff
> > > > (http://www.dpsproject.com/CongressSummary.html)
> > > >     * Facing Reality on Net Neutrality (http://dpsproject.com/)
> > > >     * Two Types of Neutrality
> > > > (http://www.dpsproject.com/twotypes.html)
> > > >     * Proposal: The Internet Platform for Innovation Act of 2006
> > > > (http://www.dpsproject.com/legislation.html)
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Upd-discuss mailing list
> > > > Upd-discuss () lists essential org
> > > > http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/upd-discuss
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > -------------------------------------
> > > > You are subscribed as dana () a-clue com
> > > > To manage your subscription, go to
> > > >  http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip
> > > >
> > > > Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/  
> > > > interesting- people/
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > No virus found in this incoming message.
> > > > Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> > > > Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.9.1/369 - Release Date:  
> > > > 6/19/2006
> > >
> > > -------------------------------------
> > > You are subscribed as gerry-faulhaber () mchsi com
> > > To manage your subscription, go to
> > >  http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip
> > >
> > > Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/ 
> > > interesting- people/
> >
> >
> >
> > -------------------------------------
> > You are subscribed as dana () a-clue com
> > To manage your subscription, go to
> >  http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip
> >
> > Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting- 
> > people/
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > No virus found in this incoming message.
> > Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> > Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.9.1/369 - Release Date:  
> > 6/19/2006
>
> -------------------------------------
> You are subscribed as valdis.kletnieks () vt edu
> To manage your subscription, go to
>  http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip
>
> Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/
>
>
> --- End Message ---
In fact, I'll do Dana one better, and point out that it explains why
billions of dollars of incentives to deploy high-speed access were allowed
to fail - if you want to do mass monitoring, you want your users on low-speed
DSL, not on FTTH....

Attachment: _bin
Description:

_______________________________________________
Fun and Misc security discussion for OT posts.
https://linuxbox.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/funsec
Note: funsec is a public and open mailing list.