Net Neutrality – It Still Matters October 25, 2009
Posted by Matthew Woolums in 21st-Century, Articles/Videos, Net Neutrality.1 comment so far
I haven’t blogged about Net Neutrality for some time, but there seems to be more of an effort to get Net Neutrality codified by law under the current Whitehouse administration. Of course there are other priorities at the moment, such as the health care issue, that receive a higher priority. For those of you who are new to this blog, or just aren’t familiar with the term, I like to think of Net Neutrality as a freedom of access to Internet services. Those who provide the access should not determine what I can and can not access. Why is this important? Check out the video below to get a better idea of the issue of Net Neutrality.
My thanks to Open Thinking for pointing out this YouTube video
France: Internet Access is a Fundamental Human Right June 11, 2009
Posted by Matthew Woolums in 21st-Century, History, Net Neutrality.add a comment
According to a ReadWriteWeb post, France’s highest court has declared that Internet access is a fundamental right. Nice to see that. Maybe we should have the right to access everywhere. Next up we need our access to be neutral.
Image from http://www.flickr.com/photos/aksdareflection/3097022791/sizes/o/
http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/is_internet_access_a_fundamental_human_right_franc.php
From a tweet by Karl Fisch - http://twitter.com/karlfisch/statuses/2119924288
Conspiracy, Hoax, or Some Marketing Thing? June 20, 2008
Posted by Matthew Woolums in Articles/Videos, Net Neutrality, Opinion.add a comment
I group calling itself “I Power” has posted a couple of videos puportedly uncovering a conspiracy on the part of ISPs and content producers to turn the Internet into another version of cable TV. On the face of it, the notion is preposterous. Content providers are mostly generating revenue by advertising. Only in rare circumstances are there successful models of the content itself generating income. If one company started charging, another could easily scoop up the ad revenue by offering their content for free. It is also ludicrous to think that in this day and age of citizens journalism, that people would continue contributing content for free if someone else was charging for that content on the other end. A quick check of any facts listed (no article by anyone named Pattyn in Time Magazine sort of makes it hard to claim he is one of their reporters) blows the whole thing up as delusional misinformation that only muddies the water. We need clear and concise information around the issue of Net Neutrality, not vague unsubstantiated rumors and conspiracy theories.
The people in the videos seem sincere, and I support efforts toward securing a reasonable assurance of Net Nuetrality, but I can’t help but wonder if the whole thing isn’t some marketting scheme like lonelygirl15 turned out to be. It also reminds me of claims we hear this time of year where a political candidate will air an attack ad about himself to garner sympathy toward a cause or campaign.
Some might say that this is an example of the failure of the Internet. Others love any conspiracy that can’t be disproved. In any case, it makes for an interesting discussion about verification of information, credibility of sources, and general critical thinking applied to the Internet experience. I’m just not buying it, whatever it is they end up trying to sell.
http://ipower.ning.com/netneutrality2
Inclusion – Cuban Style May 3, 2008
Posted by Matthew Woolums in Articles/Videos, Net Neutrality, Opinion.add a comment
CNET News is reporting that Cuba is allowing individuals to buy home computers. While we might find this a little odd, think of your home, and how different it might be if you were not allowed to own a computer, or (also recently allowed in Cuba) couldn’t purchase a cell phone. I think it is important for everyone to be included in the on-going conversation that is the Internet, and am glad to see that a close neighbor will finally get a better chance to be included. If any voice is to have value in the conversation, then ultimately all voices must have the opportunity to be heard.
http://www.news.com/8301-10784_3-9935007-7.html
Net Neutrality Update for April 2008 April 16, 2008
Posted by Matthew Woolums in Net Neutrality.add a comment
We start the April update with MediaShift’s Guide to Net Neutrality by Mark Glaser. This guide will fill in any gaps you may have about the issues and what is at stake. In the interest of presenting an unbiased report, an argument for and one against Net Neutrality are both included. The article also includes a global take on the issue, since the Internet isn’t the exclusive property of any one country. There are also many helpful linked resources.
http://www.pbs.org/mediashift/2008/04/digging_deeperyour_guide_to_ne.html
Smart Mobs is reporting how to listen to the FCC hearing at Stanford after it is recorded Thursday. The subject of the discussion is supposed to be on the future of the Internet, and it will be live blogged by the Free Press Action Network.
http://www.smartmobs.com/2008/04/16/tune-in-online-to-fcc-hearing-on-future-of-the-internet/
In a turn of events, Wired reports that Comcast is asking for a ‘bill of rights’ for file-sharers and ISPs. Comcast was the ISP that previously intentionally slowed down BitTorrent connections.
http://news.wired.com/dynamic/stories/C/COMCAST_FILE_SHARING
Net Neutrality Update for March 2008 March 22, 2008
Posted by Matthew Woolums in Articles/Videos, Net Neutrality, Opinion.add a comment
I haven’t mentioned Net Neutrality for a while, but in case you were wondering, it is still an important issue. If you are a little unsure about what Net Neutrality is, imagine that everyone in the US is receiving a service, and then that service provider decides to change the rules and charge people based on different ways that service might be used. If your electrical service provider decided today that they would charge extra for connecting solar energy devices in your home, that would be a deterrent to moving to alternative energy sources, right? What if they also decided to charge extra if you wanted to watch TV shows that argued against your right to use solar powered devices? That wouldn’t sit so comfortably, would it? Take it one step further and this service provider makes could make it financially almost impossible to purchase any devices that were not manufactured by them. Suddenly you are locked into a system that determines what you can do with the service instead of working for you.
Now I’m not saying that the electrical company is doing that, but your Internet service provider might be. Did you know that “nearly 99 percent of all residential connections are provided by incumbent cable or phone companies” (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/timothy-karr/americas-internet-future_b_92763.html?) Your cable company already decides which channels you have access to on your TV. Do you also want them to decide which Internet sites you have access to on your computer or cell phone? That is an essential question to Net Neutrality.
Earlier this year, Verizon and AT&T plunked down a combined $16.3 billion for the largest blocks of licenses to use the public spectrum up for sale on the “700 band.” (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/timothy-karr/americas-internet-future_b_92763.html)
This means that a limited resource to provide Internet access was just sold to those same few limited companies that already make decisions about who does get access, and potentially what those subscribers are allowed to do with their access.Another part of Net Neutrality has to do with access. Many urban areas have considered (or have already started providing) free or reduced cost wireless access. In some places, this effort is falling short because there just isn’t enough profit for the providers.
EarthLink announced on Feb. 7 that “the operations of the municipal Wi-Fi assets were no longer consistent with the company’s strategic direction.” Philadelphia officials say they are not sure when or if the promised network will now be completed.For Cesar DeLaRosa, 15, however, the concern is more specific. He said he was worried about his science project on global warming.“If we don’t have Internet, that means I’ve got to take the bus to the public library after dark, and around here, that’s not always real safe,” Cesar said, seated in front of his family’s new computer in a gritty section of Hunting Park in North Philadelphia. His family is among the 1,000 or so low-income households that now have free or discounted Wi-Fi access through the city’s project, and many of them worry about losing access that they cannot otherwise afford (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/22/us/22wireless.html.)
This means that our friendly ISP is already limiting who can participate in this great social collaboration experiment. It isn’t all hopeless though. Even the ISPs have to account for market forces.
Prices for Internet service on the broader market also began dropping to a level that, while above what many poor people could afford, was below what municipal Wi-Fi providers were offering, so the companies had to lower their rates even further, making investment in infrastructure even more risky, he said (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/22/us/22wireless.html.)
So what’s next? The issue of Net Neutrality is still being debated. Legislation is working its way through congress (http://www.whereabill.org/#110_s215.) The FCC is holding meetings (http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2008/03/20/18487350.php There are even things you can do to participate in this on-going debate (http://www.savetheinternet.com/=faq#help.) Your voice is important, but only as long as others have the ability to hear you.
This article was inspired by a single twitter from Will Richardson.
BitTorrent Strikes Back February 16, 2008
Posted by Matthew Woolums in Fair Use, Net Neutrality, Opinion.add a comment
BitTorrent, the protocol, essentially allows for the distributed exchange of files. It isn’t really much different from http or ftp. Following copyrights and other applicable laws, it is efficient and simple. Distributing material in violation of copyright or other laws is wrong and creates problems for everyone else. Comcast, in their infinite wisdom, has been putting BitTorrent on a slow track, ostensibly because it uses too much of the service for which its customers have already paid. Turns out that won’t slow down the protocol for long. TorrentFreak is reporting that work is already underway to circumvent Comcasts questionable restrictions. The article explains the issue better than I can.
the new tracker peer obfuscation technique is especially designed to be a workaround for throttling devices
http://torrentfreak.com/bittorrent-devs-introduce-comcast-busting-encryption-080215/
Internet Freedom Preservation Act February 13, 2008
Posted by Matthew Woolums in Net Neutrality, Opinion.add a comment
Multiple sources are reporting that U.S. Representative Edward Markey is offering up another Net Neutrality bill, this one called the Internet Freedom Preservation Act. Here is the Scientific American article on the subject. While some are cheering the new bill, like the folks at SaveTheInternet.com, others are claiming it is a waste of money, like the folks at the Council for Citizens Against Government Waste. I’m sure others will chime in about whether the legislation is needed or not, or whether this particular bill adequately addresses the issue. My hope is that the legislation actual accomplishes more than just paying for a study and conducting public hearings.
In case you don’t think the Internet needs some sort of guarantee of openness, read this Scientific American article about the current practices of Comcast to decide which types of traffic should be restricted. Some of Comcast’s reasoning sounds more like ‘customers are great as long as they pay for a service that they don’t use very much’. You might also take a look at a recent turn of events where Google has decided to hijack specific web pages and replace them with their own content. These are not trivial issues in a world that depends so much on access to information.
Oh, and just in case you wanted to make use of this in the classroom, besides being a controversial topic, here is a mashup that tracks the progress of legislation on a Google map.
