Category: network neutrality

The Washington Post’s editorial board on Network Neutrality: Boy, do they need someone who knows the media business working there!

The Washington Post’s editorial position on media and communications policy issues has generally taken a pro-consolidation line over the years. This is ironic and sad, especially given the concerns expressed by the paper’s two top editors about the dramatic decline of quality in U.S. journalism. But in their much acclaimed “News about the News: American Journalism in Peril,” Len Downie Jr. and Robert G. Kaiser fail to acknowledge at all the role which consolidation contributes to the deterioration of journalism. For the impact of media industry lobbying on media ownership has led to newsroom cutbacks and an industry orientation to journalism `light.’ But Downie and Kaiser—as well as their editorial board colleagues—fail to make the connection between regulatory safeguards and a media system that serves a broad range of information needs in a democracy. Nor is the Post ever clear to its readers about what it is really doing when it comes to lobbying Washington to advance its own corporate interests. For example, the paper has never well explained the Post Co.’s political support for the elimination of the broadcast-newspaper cross-ownership safeguard (which is about to be taken up, once more, by the FCC).

In the case of network neutrality, the Post should have been more candid about the political role its parent (Washington Post Co.) is playing. It’s not as simple as [we have] “interests on both sides of this issue.” The Post Co’s cable subsidiary president, Thomas O. Might, has been on the cable lobby board of directors (NCTA) for years. The Post therefore has been intimately involved in the closed-door strategy developed by the NCTA to over-turn the rules requiring an open, non-discriminatory Internet. In addition, the Post’s clout enables it to distribute its content over GE/NBC/Microsoft online properties–something a start-up would find it difficult to readily obtain.
On the merits of the Post’s argument, we can only say that they are either being disingenuous with readers or are incredibly naïve about the media business. In its editorial, they dismiss our concerns that–in the absence of network neutrality– the Internet will come to resemble the cable T.V. industry. They claim that technology will ensure the low-cost production of content. But what they ignore is that like cable, the company that controls the wires (or airwaves, in the case of wireless), can determine how each packet of content fares on the network. The few cable and phone companies, which now control 98% of the U.S. broadband market, can use their power to choose winners and losers (as the cable TV industry has done with video programming). In addition, those content providers that can best promote and process their interactive content will also have a digital leg up. Without net neutrality, the online programming owned or affiliated with the phone and cable broadband duopoly will always be in the lead.

As for speculation—it’s not. The equipment to control the Net’s future is being rolled out, as we speak

Will Microsoft, Yahoo!, Diller, etc. Send in the Ads to Save Net Neutrality?

It’s time for the six big new media corporate supporters of network neutrality to get real—or go back to Silicon Valley, Seattle, or Aspen. What’s needed now—after the disastrous and humiliating vote in the House—is the one thing that politicians really respect and fear—TV ads. Letters from Microsoft and visits from cyber wunderkinds aren’t enough, especially with the PR and lobbying blitz underwritten by the Telco’s. As the Senate Commerce Committee takes up network neutrality this week, it’s time for Gates, Brin, Barry Diller, Terry Semel, and Bezos to get real (we acknowledge with respect the work done by eBay CEO Meg Whitman asking one million of its members to take action).

The copy for the ad is a no-brainer: `The big Phone and Cable Companies (yes—our partners AT&T, Verizon, Comcast) want to have a monopoly over the Internet. They want to jack up the prices you and I pay for service. They want to transform the ‘Net into a pay as surf toll road filled with commercials and the kinds of programs the FCC will soon impose stiffer fines for. Help us stop them. (So, okay, that’s not the ad. But they can afford their own copywriter.)

So, we ask. Will these companies devote the resources—a pittance to their bottom lines—to help save the U.S. digital communications system from these corporate cutthroats? Or, are they really a two-faced bunch of new media conglomerates that don’t have the best interests for the democratic potential of the broadband Internet at heart?

Watch your TV screens to find out.

As the House Votes on Net Neutrality, A Case Study of a Non-Neutral Net/Verizon-Disney’s Broadband Deal Illustrates Power of Telco Powerhouses

When Verizon and Disney signed a “long-term programming agreement” in 2005, it illustrated why the Congress should enact net neutrality safeguards. Disney sought to secure the broadband gate keeping power that Verizon (and only a few others) have over both digital TV and Internet distribution. Under the deal, Verizon agreed to distribute (via its FIOS service) a dozen channels on the preferential expanded basic tier. They included: ABC Family, ABC News Now, Disney Channel, ESPN, ESPN2, ESPN Classic, ESPNEWS, ESPNU, ESPN HD, ESPN2 HD, Ton Disney and SOAP net. Disney also gained favorable distribution for its Spanish language content and its video-on-demand library,

But more importantly, Verizon agreed to bless a Disney owned “broadband product portfolio” including “ABC News Now, Disney Connection, ESPN360, Movies.com and a newly launched broadband soap opera product.” This will likely give Disney content the fast-lane service (including better promotion) that Verizon, AT&T and cable want to impose for the online medium. In addition, in an example of how a Verizon can police the Internet for its favored customers, the agreement included a promise by the phone giant to identify subscribers who are infringing on Disney’s “copyrighted works.” Verizon agreed to “forward and track notices to its subscribers allegedly engaged in the unauthorized distribution of Disney’s copyrighted works, without identifying the subscribers to Disney, and either provide subscriber identifying information pursuant to lawfully served subpoenas or terminate Verizon Internet service provided to subscribers who have infringed Disney copyrights and received multiple notices.”

Without network neutrality, every content provider will have to try and negotiate some deal with a Verizon or Comcast. The Internet should operate without gate keepers and online snoops. Let’s not let them turn the Net into Mickey Mouse. Congress must stand up to the special phone and cable interests

Memo to Heritage’s James Gattuso: The era of trickle down media economics is over

For too long, conservative media and communications advocates have supported a policy regime that has failed the public. Just give (fill in all or your favorites) the broadcasters, the cable companies, the phone companies, the technology companies a “free” rein, and all of our needs for a diverse, competitive, and democratic system will flourish. Technology, if left unfettered, will fulfill its potential (see his blog entry at Technology Liberation Front). Like the trickle-down economists, Mr. Gattuso and colleagues have held sway with many politicians and FCC commissioners. But—media history has proved them wrong. That’s why we are not going to let them do to the Internet what they have done to commercial broadcasting and cable communications.

Just leave us alone, eliminate all public interest policies, and the technology will fulfill its democratic potential. That’s what commercial radio said in the early 1930’s. Broadcast TV echoed it during the 1950’s. Cable used it to win “deregulation” in 1984. Consequently, we have a homegenous system of broadcasting and cable where there is no real diversity, little in-depth journalism, barely any competition. Such a laissez-faire media environment has harmed the country, principally through undermining the potential for serious journalism.

The rhetoric of Mr. Gattuso and many of his anti-network neutrality allies is wrapped around a decades old critique of communications policy. In their world—the public are just consumers. They are not citizens or other active members of the community. They espouse that the interests of the network provider should be paramount. We believe it’s the interests of everyone: teachers, parents, children, journalists, the poor and countless others that must be taken into account when conceptualizing policy for communications. Democratic expression—not corporate profits—must come first. The market will still have plenty of room (and will do even better if it treats people fairly and helps build a stronger U.S.)

I am amazed that many so-called experts ignore what’s really going on in the commercial marketplace—let alone behind the scenes in the policy sphere.
First, there are clear plans to change the way the Internet works. It’s not about generating revenues to build out the network. It’s about greed—money for a few telecom giants. At the expense of a communications system that serves all—for other commercial giants, small businesses, non-profit corporations, and the average Jane and Joe. AT&T, Verizon, and Comcast want to seize what they are already calling their “pipes” to give themselves the monopolistic advantages they have lost as a result of technological change.

We all know that competition law—and the FCC—are not effective tools to protect either competition or [more importantly] public discourse. Conservatives have railed against government for years—esp. the FCC. Now they are saying, don’t worry, if there are problems—our bloated, corrupt and ineffective governmental institutions can take care of you. I don’t believe in buying the digital equivalent to the Brooklyn Bridge—nor should conservative media advocates argue for one.

The cable and phone lobby have used their collective political power to gain dominant control over U.S. broadband distribution. They went to the FCC and wiped out competition via other ISPs (there were thousands in the U.S. during the dial-up era). Phone and cable companies have lobbied side-by-side to prevent municipal or non-profit competition. They deliberately eliminated the policy requiring non-discriminatory treatment of content—a sure sign in my view they intend to discriminate (but come to our website to read white papers and other documents that show how such discrimination online will be done).

Both the cable and phone industry have the same business model—a souped up broadband video on demand kind of service filled with data collection, interactive ads, and other elements from our popular culture. They don’t need the network to differentiate—because they are the same. The vision they have for the future of the Internet is television. We deserve better.

Net neutral rules would enable new entrepreneurs to emerge and help protect free speech. Yes, Mr. Gattuso. It would lead to lobbying and lawsuits. The big cable and telephone companies will do anything to control the future of the U.S. media marketplace. But with net neutral rules, other voices will have a better chance to be heard. Voices—we hope—interested in building a better democracy and an Internet that serves all equitably.

PS: I’m sorry that Mr. Gattuso doesn’t like our pointing out some of Heritage’s funders that raise a potential policy conflict over network neutrality. But disclosure is very important. So when AT&T is a premium sponsor of Heritage—it behooves Mr. Gattuso to say so clearly. He also should have identified where Prof. Yoo—whom he quotes/cities frequently—gets some of his money as he attacks network neutrality (the cable lobby).

Why are Conservative Leaders, such as Grover Norquist, Fearful about Individual Freedom Online?

We are astonished at the reaction of all the so-called conservative/”free market” groups that have rushed to side with the telephone and cable monopoly in the network neutrality fight. This is battle between those who want to ensure our individual freedom to travel online wherever we wish to go, versus those who wish to create a private Internet toll-road. The Internet should not be a gated community. It’s the public square—with plenty of convenient shopping nearby.

So why oh why are the groups backing AT&T, Verizon, and Comcast—such as the Heritage Foundation, Americans for Tax Reform, CATO, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, the National Taxpayers Union—doing this? They claim that network neutrality supporters are either liberals desiring to “regulate” the web or that companies such as Google and eBay are looking for competitive advantages. But—they are simply wrong. And the public will pay dearly for their foolhardy bad judgement.

The phone and cable companies have plans to dramatically change the wide, open spaces of online into their private property. They want a digital monopoly—like they have had either in the phone or cable TV business.
It’s a land grab of the Internet in the U.S.—with restrictions on our freedom to travel online, new threats to our privacy, and lack of consumer choice. These so-called conservative groups have been badly misinformed—or are on the financial dole from the phone and cable lobby. Whatever the reason, it’s evident that they’re not well serving their members by selling out the Internet to a tiny handful of monopolists. (They should all identify whether they have taken money from the communications lobby and how much).

They are also unaware of the phone and cable plans for the Internet. When the Heritage Foundation’s James Gattuso says network neutrality would prevent “network owners…[from using] scare Internet capacity more efficiently” he ignores there plans to impose a pay as you go Internet toll road. That would mean that a phone or cable company could make it harder for us to access the website of our choice because they have given themselves priority. In other words—the public gets to stand or lumped into cramped digital economy class, while the phone or cable company puts itself in first class (paying for that service with the money they get from our bills each month).

Shame, shame on “Americans for Tax Reform” and the other groups. Why are they putting hard-working families last and the Internet `super size us’ media companies first?

cummins pornpics porn cumshotcumshots porn galleriesporn cumswallowingporn fuck cunt freeporn cup cakescurcumcise pornvideos cure pornstar Map

Two-Bit Torrent—Selling Out the ‘Net to give us “Dukes of Hazzard”

BitTorrent Bram Cohen made a stir recently when he questioned the reasoning behind the push for network neutrality. He told the BBC that he was concerned that net neutrality safeguards could “result in an absurdity like making it so difficult so ISPs can’t drop spam…or stop [hacker] attacks. The BBC said Cohen was “in the pantheon of Internet Gods” like Berners Lee.

But Cohen’s business deals with big media require closer scrutiny. BitTorrent is now working to develop “integrated monetization for paid and ad-supported content,” according to Interactive TV Today. Its new deal with leading anti-network neutrality company Time Warner will enable the cable giant to use BitTorrent technology to sell us such content as “National Lampoon’s Vegas Vacation, Natural Born Killers, and—“Dukes of Hazzard.” No doubt Mr. Cohen views the launch of what is called the “legal BitTorrent online video service” as his ticket to vast personal riches. (As part of its settlement with MPAA, BitTorrent is also working to remove what it considers illegal content from its service, including its search engine).

Mr. Cohen has made his deal—to get on the fast lane. What he should remember is that the Internet is more than a fancy digital distribution system for Hollywood. It has a role to play to ensure a equitable global civil society. That requires a internet where people and content are treated equitably—even if it means less profits for BitTorrent.

samples free movie bbwsamples movie bbw freedevil movie cry mayfree slut movieshuge tits movies freemovie trivia horrormovies amateur nudedevil movie may cry Map

Not-So Smart Mobs: The Wireless Industry War Against Net Neutrality

It’s not just the biggest phone and cable companies opposing a open Internet (net neutrality). It’s also the wireless industry—including companies providing cellular and mobile communications. One of the principal characteristics of our expanding ubiquitous digital media environment will be its reach—on the street, in transport, and everyplace else. New forms of political action and cultural expression could evolve if the U.S. can have a non-discriminatory mobile environment.

But that’s not what the CTIA-The Wireless Association wants. They are opposing network neutrality safeguards. In testimony before the Senate Commerce Committee earlier this month, CTIA’s chief Steve Largent warned of “many of the unintended consequences that would flow from some of the Net Neutrality regulations being considered [that] would have a particularly negative impact on wireless consumers.” What Largent really meant was that the wireless industry hopes to impose the same kind of toll booth regime for mobile communications. In their vision, ads and content supported by a McDonalds, P&G soap, Fox News or Disney will have preferential access. CTIA’s board includes T-Mobile, Cingular (AT&T), Sprint Nextel, Verizon Wireless and most of the key manufacturers. As we mentioned in yesterday’s entry, CTIA is also a member of the anti-open Internet group called netcompetition.org. (It’s time, by the way, we had a real anti-trust investigation of the mobile industry).

The united front of cable, wireless phone and wireless/mobile companies fighting against network neutrality is a good example of why we need serious policy safeguards (going beyond network neutrality) to protect freedom of communications in the U.S. Without such rules, the civic potential of Howard Rheingold’s Smart Mobs will be thwarted by powerful commercial forces.

NetCompetition.org: Distortions and Cable/Telco Flackery

We are disappointed that Scott Cleland would act as “chair” and chief advocate for this anti-open Internet group. Its “members” (really its financial backers) are a rogue’s gallery of some of the most powerful and avaricious big media companies: Verizon, Time Warner, Comcast, Advance Newhouse, and AT&T. This front-group also includes industry lobbying heavyweights NCTA, CTIA, USTA, and ACA. In other words, it’s a cable and Telco joint lobbying venture. The role that the cellular lobby (CTIA) plays here illustrates how both the wireline and wireless industries wish to jointly create a cash and carriage broadband distribution system.

But the “research” and information on netcompetition.org is shoddy and reflects a vision promoting monopoly power and greed. Mr. Cleland and his allies should know better. Net Neutrality is about democracy—removing barriers to the distribution of content essential for a civil society to function. That’s why nearly all the consumer and good government groups support network neutrality. It’s not about the corporate welfare of a Google or Microsoft. It’s about ensuring there are as few gatekeepers as possible for content promoting such applications as political speech, civic engagement, non-profit arts and culture, education, life-long learning and everything else we require in a digital society. I don’t have time here to rebut all their assertions (they all all shamefully misleading). This is a mean-spirited, propagandistic website. Mr. Cleland should have the group change its name to more honestly reflect what they are about: netmonopoly.con

U.S. Broadband and the Public Interest: A Deafening Silence? Now is the Time to Raise the Stakes

As the Senate considers legislation that could set the framework for U.S. digital communications for years to come, we are disappointed about the narrowness of the debate. Network neutrality, while vitally important, should not be the “end-all” in terms of addressing how the public interest must be served in the emerging digital era. Public interest groups and others should be pressing members of Congress and other allies to address how, for example, broadband communications can generate financial and other resources for Americans trapped in poverty. We should be asking now how phone and cable high-speed systems can be used to improve public education. Where are the calls for policies that would break open the lock that cable, phone, and broadcast companies will still have over digital television services? The time is also ripe to address campaign reform in the era of targeted digital advertising (where big money will still largely determine one’s political reach). Privacy, including protections from both government and commercial surveillance, should also be on the agenda.

Two weeks ago, NY State Attorney-General Eliot Spitzer decried the “lack of vision and investment” when he released a “universal broadband access” plan for New York. Spitzer was referring to his state. But we believe there is overall a “lack of vision” coming from those who care about the future of the country. Everyone who knows digital media recognizes that it will be one of the most powerful forces shaping our society. We will be defined as a culture by what we do with the ubiquitous, interactive, personalized, and virtual system that is about to unfold.

Network neutrality has justly generated a tremendous response—thanks to the good folks at Free Press, Common Cause and many others. But it is the `no-brainer’ of broadband politics. Stopping a Bell/cable takeover of the Internet is clearly required. But so are policies that ensure that today’s network neutrality proponents—such as Microsoft, Yahoo! and Goggle—aren’t just allowed to privately prosper. They and the phone and cable companies ultimately share the same business model—a broadband system where consumerism plays the dominant role in our lives. We must demand more than just an Internet that can deliver interactive ads.

Once legislation passes, our U.S. broadband system will quickly evolve. Market structures will be created. It will be harder to make changes. We understand that with a heavily business captured Administration, Congress, and FCC, a public interest agenda would be impossible to get. But it would set the stage for what should be raging and passionate action in the years to come to create a digital media system that nurtures free speech, civic participation, and social justice. With Senate Commerce Co-chair Daniel Inouye now in support of net neutrality and greater community control, groups may have an ally to begin such a call.

clips dbz pornporn buu majin dbzpornos dbzpornography dc firstddd stars pornstar gay dead pornactors dead pornstyles dead porn Map

Verizon’s “Community Studio”—Civil Rights Digital Tokenism?

Last week’s announcement of a “new pilot program” from Verizon’s FIOS digital TV service that it will offer on-demand “public interest and civil rights content” needs to be seen in the context of U.S. media history. It’s not surprising that as Verizon and the other phone companies lobby to change U.S. media law—including sweeping away the open and non-discriminatory nature of the Internet in the U.S.—they would make such tentative promises (notice the word “pilot” in its release). Call us cynical. But we can’t really believe that the phone giant’s announcement, which “emerged in discussions between Verizon and more than 35 civil rights leaders” wasn’t timed to undermine the growing public opposition to its plans for a privatized and `command and controlled’ digital communications system. After all, Congress is about to vote—as early as next week—on new national broadband media communications laws.

As we all know, at each point in the 20th Century as a new media technology emerged, corporate interests made many public interest promises. But once the industry had successfully won its political agenda (having disarmed or overwhelmed critics), such commitments were ignored. Commercial broadcasters back in 1934 promised that radio would be a “classroom of the air,” among many other public interest services. Broadcasters were able to split the educational community and win a 1934 Communications Act without any specific public interest mandates. Of course, what Verizon is doing now is lifted entirely from the cable TV industry political playbook. Cable was going to be—its leaders promised back in the 1970’s—a “community communications” service. There were going to be many channels for all, reflecting the nation’s diversity, at the local and national level. Eventually, as we know, cable broke those promises and used its political power (and a conflicted opposition, such as today) to make certain (via the 1984 Cable Act) that it would be able to focus its resources on national, commercial programming. (There were many remarkable and dedicated civil rights activists who fought to make cable truly diverse, including Charles Tate).

We can understand the frustration many groups have with cable TV. After all, the two leading African American channels are either owned or controlled by conglomerates (Viacom runs BET; TV One is a creature of Comcast). Many Spanish-language channels are also owned by giants or major media investors (GE/NBC/Universal runs Telemundo; Univision is run by A. Jerrold Perenchio and gets much of its programming from Latin America).

The Time to Ensure a Diverse Programming Landscape is Now

The stark lack of ownership by persons of color of programming content must be rectified in the emerging digital era. New local and national programming services should emerge that offer a range of meaningful and truly diverse content—including news, public affairs, and culture. In order to ensure this, such programming needs to be within the foundation of the new telephone company deliver system.

That will take a serious and significant long-time commitment in terms of funding and distribution support. Instead of a “pilot” program offering up a rotating monthly assortment of content from 35 groups, our telephone giants should be expected to `pony’ up and do something significant in terms of programming diversity. Otherwise, African-American, Latino/Hispanic and many others will primarily be addressed as consumers—not as citizens and community members (see the Cable Advertising Bureau site for how the African-American and Latino communities are viewed as a marketing bonanza). [Since Verizon makes, according to the same release announcing the “pilot,” some $90 billion in operating revenues, we think they could afford more than a tentative, VOD plan].

There is, of course, a perversity with Verizon calling its new venture “Community Studio.” Verizon, AT&T, Qwest and others are about to destroy much of “community” media, as they get Congress to kill off community oversight of cable/phone digital media (the Barton-Rush bill, for example). Since both the phone and cable industry also seek to permanently eliminate the Internet’s non-discrimination safeguard, online community voices will likely face new obstacles as well.

Behind Verizon’s negotiations with the groups, we understand, was Kathryn C. Brown, a Public Policy VP. Ms. Brown was a former chief of staff to Clinton-era FCC head William Kennard. It was Ms. Brown who replied, when asked to support public interest policies for broadcast digital TV, to tell her what the “low-hanging fruit” was on the issue (meaning some meaningless quid pro quo). Also working with Ms. Brown, we were told, was B. Keith Fulton, head of Verizon’s “Strategic Alliance Group” (“responsible for the company’s outreach to multicultural, senior citizen and disabled organizations”). Mr. Fulton first came to Washington as a National Urban League staffer interested in addressing the digital divide. He was soon scooped up by AOL Time Warner (its foundation) and began his career helping the communications lobby.

Finally, it’s worth noting that on the same day Verizon announced its civil rights and new media pilot, the National Association of Hispanic Journalists blasted the Bush Administration for its plans to not investigate the sorry state of minority broadcast ownership. The last federal report, in 2000, showed that people of color owned less than 3.8% of all broadcast stations. We wonder what a study will find—if one is done a few years from now—of how much major digital content will be truly diversely owned?