Benton RSS Feed
THE US WILL NOT MANDATE NET NEUTRALITY
[SOURCE: Forrester Research, AUTHOR: Maribel D. Lopez]
Many have called for the US government to mandate "network neutrality" that will ensure all Internet traffic is delivered equally, consumer choice is upheld, and Internet innovation is not stalled. But, it won't happen in the next three to five years. Why? Because no problem exists today and legislating neutrality will not give consumers the best results. In five years, when rich content taxes networks and broadband adoption approaches saturation, the Federal Communications Commission will take a more hands-on approach and intervene if a consumer's access to content and service is being denied. In the meantime, operators should err on the side of limited prioritization and content owners should build priority delivery into carriage agreements.
http://www.forrester.com/Research/Document/Excerpt/0,7211,39310,00.html
(available for fee only)
The US Will Not Mandate Net Neutrality
WHAT CONGRESS IS LEARNING ABOUT 'NETWORK NEUTRALITY'
[SOURCE: Wall Street Journal, AUTHOR: Holman Jenkins]
[Commentary] Google, eBay, Amazon, Microsoft, and Intel are spending millions to tie up Congress in a bogus debate about "net neutrality" at a time when other important telecom work is being left undone. Verizon and AT&T are the targets, thanks to superfast Internet connections they are just starting to provide to consumers over which to deliver TV in competition with cable and satellite. Being peddled is a kind of IP fetishism -- a claim that any network that uses Internet protocol must operate like the Internet consumers think they're used to today, one undivided pipe between them and the world's Web sites. Of course, that's not really what consumers are getting today. Your cable operator may sell you one, two or three megabits of capacity for a broadband connection, but most of his pipe is reserved for his TV offerings. Verizon and AT&T have made clear they, too, will reserve a big share of their new pipes for their own value-added services, namely TV, and for other content distributors who are willing to pay for access to it. That's how they hope to recoup their investment. Yet it's obvious that, even as they roll out their TV services, they will be under competitive pressure to keep giving consumers bigger and bigger pipes for their own Web browsing. How do we know? Because that's what cable is already doing, and because Ed Whitacre and Ivan Seidenberg aren't so dumb as to try to make a business model out of denying consumers Web content at home that they freely get at work or at the local Starbucks. And, c'mon, there's plenty of time for Congress to act if a real problem materializes. The issue is Internet survival. The real issue is where will the big bucks come from to create an Internet capable of handling the services now envisioned, let alone those not yet dreamed up. Think back to the beginnings of radio and TV: Those business models would never have worked if consumers had had to foot the bill directly for programming. It's clear today that giving consumers the kind of Internet that will support high-definition video and gaming will require the bill to be shared by companies with a stake in putting the new services in front of consumers.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB114782606290854866.html?mod=todays_us_op...
(requires subscription)
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB114782606290854866.html?mod=todays_us_opinion
CAN THE FCC SAVE NET NEUTRALITY?
[SOURCE: WebProNews, AUTHOR: Jason Lee Miller]
The chief complaints of the telecommunications industry regarding the heated Network Neutrality debate are that regulation limits their ability to compete, build out infrastructure, and innovate; that regulation is unnecessary as principles outlined by the FCC are sufficient to guard it and that telcos like Verizon have already publicly committed to them; and that Net Neutrality is still too poorly defined to write legislation around it. Interestingly, the last two notions are mutually exclusive: How can Net Neutrality principles be simultaneously committed to while being nebulous and ill defined? This logical conundrum works in their favor as well as their opposition. Such is the tricky language and nature of Net Neutrality, and reason as well that people just learning of the issue are having difficulty pulling it down to earth. The devil in the details is causing a gridlock in Congress as talking points become more direct, but more confusing. Legislators seem to be sticking with their contributors on the whole; telecoms and cable sticking to their best interests; advocates playing the role of voice of the people. Again, the last two notions are mutually exclusive. Colin Crowell, who works for Net Neutrality proponent Rep. Ed Markey's (D - MA), told WebProNews that legislation is necessary because the FCC's fourth connectivity principle was "unenforceable." "A chief concern," said Crowell, "is that they're going to charge people for things they had before (for free)." Also, Crowell is unconvinced of Verizon's public commitment to Network Neutrality principles. When Verizon merged with MCI, he said, the FCC approved the acquisition on condition they stick to Net Neutrality principles. Crowell said Verizon lobbied "vociferously" to ensure those requirements would sunset after 30 months. "If they were committed, why did they lobby that?"
http://www.webpronews.com/insiderreports/marketinginsider/wpn-50-2006051...
Can The FCC Save Net Neutrality?
IF IT'S NOT NEUTRAL IT'S NOT INTERNET
[SOURCE: Daniel Berninger, Tier1 Research]
[Commentary] The success of a proposal by AT&T and Verizon to end net neutrality does not threaten the Internet. The broadband customers of AT&T and Verizon will just no longer have access to the Internet. The development appropriately creates alarm among AT&T and Verizon's customers, but the combined customer bases of these companies represent less than 2% of the billion or so usersof the Internet. The fact access to the Internet requires net neutrality does not depend on laws passed by the US Congress or enforced by the FCC.Neutrality arises as a technical and business imperative facilitating the interconnection 250,000 independent networks that choose to participate in the Internet. Net neutrality will remain a requirement as long as it serves the interests of the global Internet community. The opposition to net neutrality arises like all regulatory debates as the means to raise prices, but people in the US already pay more for less bandwidth than citizens of Europe and Asia. Communication serves as an input to all economic activity, so expensive communications drags on the economy in the same way as high energy prices. Policy makers must decide between protecting the Bells 20th century business model or working to make sure US enjoys the benefits of the Internet. Internet traffic outside the US already dwarfs the traffic from within the US, and the failure of policymakers to defend net neutrality will only continue the trend of the US toward third world status in connectivity.
http://www.danielberninger.com/dbessays/2006/05/if-its-not-neutral-its-n...
* Information Highway Robbers
[SOURCE: InTheseTimes, AUTHOR: Joel Bleifuss]
[Commentary] What makes the Internet revolutionary is that it is democratic, open to anyone with a computer and an Internet connection. That could soon change.
http://www.inthesetimes.com/site/main/article/2653/
* Why Network Neutrality Is Important for the Future of Disaster Communication
http://www.digitaldivide.net/blog/Taran/view?PostID=14026
If it's not Neutral it's not Internet
SENATE TELECOM HEARING WITNESS LIST
[SOURCE: US Senate Commerce Committee]
In the first of two hearings to review S. 2686, the Communications, Consumers' Choice, and Broadband Deployment Act of 2006, the witnesses will be: Kyle McSlarrow, National Cable & Telecommunications Association; Walter McCormick, United States Telecom Association; Mayor Michael A. Guido, U.S. Conference of Mayors; Julia Johnson, Video Access Alliance; Gene Kimmelman, Consumers Union; Shirley Bloomfield, National Telecommunications Cooperative Association; former-Congressman Steve Largent, CTIA -- The Wireless Association; Joslyn Read, Satellite Industry Association; and Philip McClelland, Pennsylvania Office of Consumer Advocate. Thursday, May 18, 2006 10:00 AM (eastern)
http://commerce.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Hearings.Hearing&...
http://commerce.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Hearings.Hearing&Hearing_…
WHAT DOES $400,000 (PLUS) BUY THE BELLS?
[SOURCE: TPM Cafe, AUTHOR: Art Brodsky, Public Knowledge]
[Commentary] This Thursday, the Senate Commerce Committee will have its hearing on the 135-page telecom bill Committee Chairman Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) introduced. The bill ignores the threats to a neutral and open Internet. Knowing this bill is up for discussion, what kind images and messages do the telephone companies want to present to Congress? Take a trip through one jam-packed edition of the Washington Post and see what about $400k will buy. Be warned. The journey has many twists and turns.
http://www.tpmcafe.com/node/29907
* Debunking some Telco Disinformation
http://www.wetmachine.com/totsf/item/511
* HandsOfftheInternet.com -- More Sock-Puppetry from the Telecom Ministry of Propaganda
http://www.saschameinrath.com/2006may16handsofftheinternet_com_more_sock...
* Telecom Companies Flip Flop on Net Neutrality, Regulation of the Internet
[Commentary] Congressman Barton said that his bill preserves the Federal enforcement of net neutrality. The Hands Off the Internet telecommunications coalition is encouraging people to send letters to Congressmen, and the very first line is "I am writing to ask you to oppose "Net Neutrality." And yet they are supporting Barton's COPE Act. This doesn't make any sense. If they are so opposed to government regulation of the Internet in the form of enforceable net neutrality, what happened in the last few days to suddenly cause them to become fans of government regulation of the Internet? Apparently the telcos were for net neutrality and before they were against it. Or maybe it's the other way around. I get so confused sometimes.
http://www.mydd.com/story/2006/5/16/151434/049
What Does $400,000 (plus) Buy the Bells?
MCCAIN TO PROPOSE INCENTIVES FOR CABLE FIRMS TO OFFER A LA CARTE PRICING
[SOURCE: Los Angeles Times, AUTHOR: Jim Puzzanghera]
Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) plans to introduce legislation as early as today that would offer incentives for cable TV providers and network owners to allow viewers to pay for only the channels they want to receive. Sen McCain will offer a "bucket of goodies" to offset strong industry opposition to a la carte pricing, according to an aide, who spoke anonymously because the bill was not finished. The legislation would apply only to digital cable and would not force anyone to provide channels on an a la carte basis. "It's an incentive-based bill to ensure that consumers are provided more options and choices of buying channels," the aide said. McCain's bill has been anticipated for weeks, and his aide said it would be introduced before Congress leaves for the Memorial Day recess at the end of next week. The senator plans to try to attach the legislation to a major telecommunications bill that the Commerce Committee will vote on early next month. For cable companies, McCain would offer an unspecified reduction in the 5% maximum local franchise fee they pay to cities and towns for the right to offer TV service. For networks that have resisted unbundling their channels, he would extend some undisclosed Federal Communications Commission rules that would benefit programmers. For phone companies eager to offer TV service, the bill would give those agreeing to a la carte pricing a national franchise system so they'd no longer need to petition every community they want to serve. But the National Cable & Telecommunications Assn. would oppose such legislation, spokesman Brian Dietz said. "It is completely unnecessary for the federal government to disrupt a competitive marketplace and engage in the pricing and packaging of video services," he said. Cable operators have promised to offer family-friendly packages but say a la carte pricing would increase rates and limit diversity by forcing some niche channels off the air.
http://www.latimes.com/business/printedition/la-fi-alacarte17may17,1,531...
(requires registration)
McCain to Propose Incentives for Cable Firms to Offer a la Carte Pricing
TELECOM SECTOR DONATES TO SENATE COMMERCE CHAIRMAN
[SOURCE: Technology Daily, AUTHOR: David Hatch]
Telecommunications, media and Internet conglomerates seeking regulatory relief from the Senate Commerce Committee are giving generously to the campaign coffers of panel Chairman Ted Stevens (R-Alaska). The largesse is notable because Stevens, who is drafting the most comprehensive overhaul of telecom laws in a decade, is not up for re-election until 2008. "The election cycle never stops for an industry that cares about its business in Congress," said Massie Ritsch, a spokesman for the nonprofit Center for Responsive Politics. Sen Stevens received $130,750 from the industry during the period covering 2005 and the first third of 2006 -- substantially more than he garnered from any other sector, according to the nonpartisan PoliticalMoneyLine. Top corporate benefactors included AT&T with $10,000 in donations, Time Warner with $8,000 and Sony Pictures with $8,000, according to Federal Election Commission data compiled by PoliticalMoneyLine. CBS parent Viacom gave Stevens $6,500. The National Association of Broadcasters, ABC parent The Walt Disney Company, DirecTV, Fox parent News Corp., and the Recording Industry Association of America each donated $5,000. The contributions were made through political action committees that can give $5,000 per candidate for a primary and another $5,000 toward the general election. Commerce spokesman Aaron Saunders said it is "ludicrous" to suggest that Stevens shapes policy based on contributions. "Frankly, it's offensive," he said.
http://www.njtelecomupdate.com/lenya/telco/live/tb-NTRK1147809456462.html
Telecom Sector Donates To Senate Commerce Chairman
COMMERCE CHAIRMAN GET POWER POINTS
[SOURCE: Broadcasting&Cable, AUTHOR: John Eggerton]
Political power tracker Congress.org released its power rankings for members of Congress Tuesday. House Commerce Committee Chairman Joe Barton (R-Tex.) ranked as the sixth most powerful House member with a score of 45.56 combining ratings on 15 criteria of effectiveness. Senate Commerce Committee Chairman Ted Stevens ranked eighth in the Senate, but had a higher combined score at a 61.56.
http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6335188?display=Breaking+News
* See rankings for all members at: http://www.congress.org/congressorg/power_rankings/index.tt
http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6335188?display=Breaking%20News
MICROSOFT, DELL PUSH FCC FOR ACCESS TO UNUSED TV SPECTRUM
[SOURCE: IDG News Service, AUTHOR: Grant Gross]
Microsoft, Intel and Dell are pressing the U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to finish work on a 2-year-old technical proceeding that would allow new wireless devices to operate in unused television spectrum. They have cheered a new proposal in the U.S. Congress requiring the FCC to finish the proceeding on so-called white spaces unused by television stations in many U.S. markets. The Communications, Consumer's Choice, and Broadband Deployment Act, a wide-ranging telecom reform bill to be debated Thursday in the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee, would set a deadline for the FCC to finish the white spaces proceeding. The tech vendors want to build new wireless Internet devices that would locate unused spectrum designated for television use, but they can't start designing the devices because of a lack of direction from the FCC, lawyers for the three companies said at a press briefing last week. Broadcasters have opposed the proposal, however. Most television markets have several unused TV spectrum bands, and a greater use of white spaces could create a new demand for innovative wireless devices that can find unused spectrum, said Paula Boyd, regulatory affairs counsel for Microsoft. "The white spaces provide a greater opportunity for broadband deployment," she said. "It provides an opportunity for consumers to get new and interesting services and products." The tech vendors said they see broadband as a major driver for greater demand of their current and future products. But U.S. broadcasters have raised concerns that unlicensed wireless devices could interfere with their TV signals.
http://www.infoworld.com/article/06/05/16/78377_HNspectrummsdell_1.html?...
Microsoft, Dell push FCC for access to unused TV spectrum