Category: network neutrality

NetCompetition.Org: They Have Drunk Too Much Cable/Telco Lobby Kool-Aid

We hate to focus too much on this Telco-Cable industry funded lobbying effort. But its latest [9/29] self-heralded “one-pager” attacking network neutrality proponents requires a response (we admit we may have come down with a Sen. Stevens form of `fetish’ about this lobbying site). Netcompetition’s analysis comes from a naive view of the realities of the broadband market. The paper paints a glowing picture of what it believes is emerging broadband competition. Hence, with such prospective abundance of networks and content likely, it argues that the country ignore the calls for safeguards coming from net neutrality supporters. We are, suggests Scott Cleland, experiencing “unfounded pessimism and fear about the future of broadband…”

First, we have to say that history is on our side. Despite all the talk and proclamations about bypass and competition—we haven’t had much in the multichannel and telecom sector. It’s been a sad story of consolidation and broken promises. Two, Mr. Cleland is ignoring the powerful triple/quad play now being deployed by his funders. Their networks—and content applications and partnerships—will dominate our TV, PC, and mobile experience for many years. The current state of broadband concentration–along with the emerging marketplace conditions–should be unthinkable in a democracy. Two companies control the cable industry; two will dominate the telephone market. Already, old media incumbents are swallowing new players—such as the News Corp. takeover of MySpace. There is tremendous consolidation throughout the digital content marketplace.

Hey Netcompetition. Your argument that just over the hill our digital media system is awash in a Wizard of Oz golden glow doesn’t cut it. We need safeguards now.

It’s not pessimism, but honest realism with an eye on the needs of our democracy. That’s a currency in too short supply in the nation’s capital.

Shame on the GOP and Dems in California: Gutting Community Oversight of Broadband

If we ever needed evidence about how both major political parties are in the pocket of the telecommunications industry’s very deep pockets, all we need to do is look at California. The new cable law kills the historic and critical role local governments have played in ensuring cable systems are held accountable and required to do public service. Now all franchising (the licensing of cable systems) will be governed by a single statewide agreement. Doling out these “one-size fits all, lowest common denominator” deals will be the feckless Public Utility Commission.

Democratic honcho Fabian Nunez, the Speaker of the Assembly, concocted the new law. Yesterday, GOP Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed it. According to the Los Angeles Times, “AT&T spent $18 million through June lobbying and running television and full-page newspaper ads urging consumers to support the Nuñez bill — and then to thank Nuñez after it passed the Legislature.” [registration required]

The argument that Nunez and his Verizon and AT&T pals made to pass the bill was that only by gutting local oversight could California see cable competition. Boy, these folks should be ashamed. They have removed the key mechanism designed to ensure broadband networks serve local needs. There won’t be any serious competition—in either price or content. Just a few extra giants who are now free to run roughshod over both the cable TV and broadband business.

But money and power talks—and Nunez, Schwarzenegger and company played ball. Both parties in California have helped turn over a sizeable part of the country’s broadband resources to the very same interests which eliminated network neutrality.

PS: We note in the Los Angeles Times story the generally approving comments for the bill from USC’s Jeff Cole, the executive director of its Center for the Digital Future. Cole should have said [and the reporter should have identified if he did] that his center’s “Board of Governors” includes executives from AT&T (and other interests that supported the bill). As I said, money talks—with policymakers and too many “educational” institutions.

porn 69 moviesporn videos 69position 69 pornporn 69ingporn 6th gradeporn inch 7 penis70 pornoporn 70 s Map

Glover Park Group—Rupert Murdoch’s Flack Comes Out Against Open Net/ Sen. Stevens Uses Stealth Verizon-Paid Poll to Undermine Public Interest

The folks at the Glover Park Group—who last year helped conduct a stealth campaign to aid Rupert Murdoch—are now assisting Sen. Ted Stevens wreck the U.S. electronic media system. Stevens’ Commerce Committee released a poll yesterday slamming “onerous Net Neutrality regulations.” The Verizon-paid for poll illustrates how desperate Sen. Stevens and his phone/cable monopoly allies are (nothing about Verizon’s sponsorship is cited in the release or the poll—something the Commerce Committee should apologize to the public for).

Stevens and company can’t really speak about the substantive issues involving Internet Freedom—because they lose. So Stevens and allies now appear to be hanging their argument supporting a closed Internet on a poll finding that only “very few registered voters are familiar with the issue of network neutrality.” As if the lack of public awareness about an important policy issue means something is wrong with it! Hello. Has the Senator been swallowing those tubes, instead of using them to get his talking points from the Glover Park Group flackery shop?

Now, to the “bipartisan” Glover Park Group (which did the poll with Public Opinion Strategies). Aren’t we tired of Democrats who take the big bucks and the public interest be damned? This poll was written to help phone companies scuttle policies designed to provide community oversight of electronic media. The poll should come with a warning: “this is a political tool.” That Stevens, Glover Park, and Public Opinion would hold it up as some objective measure is a sad joke. It’s a lobbying love letter for Verizon, AT&T, BellSouth and the USTA. It asks questions about network neutrality purposely designed to undermine it as an issue. Perhaps that’s why the poll doesn’t reveal who funded it. Such well-known Democratic operatives as Howard Wolfson, Joe Lockhart, and Carter Eskew run Glover Park. In 2005, the group helped Rupert Murdoch organize a campaign designed to keep bringing in extra cash for his Fox TV empire. Press reports say they also have worked for big cable companies as well.

By helping the phone lobby create a closed Internet, the Glover Park Group is undermining the country’s democracy. What great credentials alongside working for Fox.

title abc loan96 loans auto monthloans 5000 no check creditafrica loan microloans interest 3.9accedemic group loanpayday advantages of loansurl payday add loan Map

Democrats Wrong to Ask that 9/11 TV Movie Be Kept “Off The Air”—But They Should Be Asking Hard Questions About the Lack of Quality News and Entertainment and Media Policies

We don’t agree with the drumbeat coming from Democrats and others that this weekend’s Disney/ABC TV movie be pulled. Censoring such content is unhealthy in a democracy. ABC cannot afford to buckle under from Dem critics. The Dems pressure campaign, while helping to bring about some (much needed) editorial changes, appears self-serving. The Clinton Administration does bear some responsibility for the country’s lack of understanding about the rising tide of anger against the U.S. from abroad. The Clinton folks weren’t saints. Think what they did to the poor with welfare reform; how their egos bungled getting us national health care; or how they hailed the passage of the lobbyist-written (and media concentration giving) 1996 Telecommunications Act.

Democrats, by the way, were openly critical of CBS buckling under GOP pressure when the network cancelled its airing of “The Reagans” in 2003 (parent company Viacom eventually ran it on pay cable channel Showtime).

TV movies have always been confabulated affairs. Granted, Disney/ABC should have hired writers who are politically independent. And they should have stuck to the “script” of the actual 9/11 Commission report. But the real problem is that our media consolidated, ratings and right demographic audience targeted TV system isn’t focused at all on providing the public with a steady and serious examination of the world. TV lives in a fantasyland so it can better generate profits from advertisers. The networks and stations have no real public interest responsibilities, thanks to years of scuttling FCC rules. Congress keeps giving the TV networks everything they want, such as billions of free airwaves. Both Democrats and Republicans in Congress and at the FCC over the years have given permission for the TV industry to engage in ever-lowering standards. Except for Newt Minow’s sharp retort back in 1961 that television was giving the public a “vast wasteland,” broadcasters and cable companies have been given high-fives from a Congress satisfied with the system (meaning lots of campaign contributions and little analytical coverage of what’s really going on).

Rather than ask Disney to drop this docudrama, it would better if the Democrats called for a serious national debate about the quality of TV in the U.S. I’m not saying censorship. But they should be asking the TV industry to provide the public with more in-depth news and analysis—locally and nationally. No more 22 minute evening news broadcasts or countless headlines repeated on cable TV. We require serious investigative reports and more time overall spent on examining the country’s myriad problems—and what can be done about them. The networks should be urged to produce TV movies and series that are derived from (dare I say it) literature. TV should be asked to embrace young writers and other creators from diverse perspectives and backgrounds to develop programming that changes the dumbing down formula of television. [Are they coming to take me away yet!].

The Dems—and the GOP—should also call for public policies that ensure the public can receive a more diverse stream of content. They means network neutrality for the Internet, along with new rules that prevent the broadcast, cable, and satellite business from being TV gatekeepers. The TV conglomerates must be required to pass thru to viewers and users all news and public affairs programming–especially in this era of interactive digital media (such as video on demand, etc).

Ultimately, we need a more informed U.S. public if we are to better understand the real path to 9/11, so many other critical issues, and what we must do to address them. That should be the drumbeat of the DNC and others.

pay 500 loans dayadjustable rate loans realestateadverse online loans creditalaska consolidation loans debt100 loans refinance21 loans paydayloans online 500 paydayloan amount of Map

agriculture livestock credit loansloan 9 direct consolidationloans 401k rulesloans administrator veterans ofalberta loan cheap car1000 canada payday loanloan ace brokerage businessalabama loan unsecured Map

Will "Expanded" Microsoft/Verizon Alliance Spell Problems for Net Neutrality?

We await to see if Microsoft continues to play a leadership role in the battle for Internet Freedom now that it has expanded its broadband business dealings with Verizon (including a “co-branded portal”). With the upcoming Senate vote, now’s a crucial time for action. If Microsoft doesn’t play an serious leadership role backing network neutrality legislation, it will reflect poorly on the legacy of Bill Gates. Will this deal with Verizon mean a Microsoft pull-back from the issue?

aircraft down 0 loansaffordable loan constructionloans state student alaska90-day loancollection loan student agency454 home loan equity$5000 loan unsecured500 loan credit need score purchase Map

It’s the 64 [Fill in the Amount] Question: Will Microsoft, Google, Yahoo!, Diller’s IAC, eBay, and Amazon Spend What it Takes to Sound the Alarm about Network Neutrality?

Will it be .64 cents or $6.4 million? With Congress soon coming back—and a possible Senate vote on network neutrality legislation just a few weeks away—it’s time for those who care about the democratic nature of U.S. digital communications to put up or…We think the public deserves to know what’s at stake (including, but beyond what Google felt it had to tell investors in its SEC filing). There should be full-page newspaper ads; 30-second spots on TV and radio; a major on-line ad campaign. The Works. Let’s tell the public what the companies know. That without network neutrality, the U.S. will not have a democratic Internet. That both diversity and competition will be harmed. That Congress is about to approve a massive give-away to a few special interests. That only a few years ago the Internet was rightly hailed as the “most participatory form of mass speech yet developed.” But that was the Internet with network neutrality. Without it, the Internet could become just a souped-up interactive cable TV-like service.

So. Messrs Gates, Schmidt, Semel, Bezos, Diller, and Ms. Whitman. What will be your legacy when it comes to network neutrality? Will it be that you courageously sounded the alarm—alerting the country to a real threat to our freedom? Or that you looked the other way, making deals while the Net’s future was decided behind closed doors?

Business for Social Responsibility: At Annual Conference, Guest Speakers Feature Anti-Internet Freedom and Obesity Boosting CEOs.

The Business for Social Responsibility (BSR) group has an ad touting its annual conference in today’s New York Times business section [the Times Co. is a BSR “media sponsor”]. Featured as keynote speakers are Time Warner CEO Richard Parsons and Coca Cola’s chair and CEO Neville Isdell. The conference is supposed to help executives “learn about the best practices in corporate social responsibility (CSR) today — and what lies ahead.” The program has panels with titles as “Being Green is Glorious,” “Replicating Better Factories Cambodia,” and “Strategic Decision-Making on Climate Change: Exploring Voluntary and Regulatory Approaches.” H-P, Altria (Philip Morris), GE, McDonalds and many other heavyweights are sponsoring the conference. NGO’s also appear to play a role at BSR, as evidenced by the session entitled “Strategies for Improving Business Impact on Poverty: Unilever and Oxfam Look Ahead.”

But the idea of featuring keynotes from Parsons and Isdell, who are positioned as some kind of global corporate role model, is absurd. Parsons leads a company fighting against Internet Freedom in the U.S. Time Warner, as we know, is opposed to broadband network neutrality. Instead of being honored, Dick Parsons should be scolded. Parsons was also the key executive helping his former boss Gerry Levin and eventual partner Steve Case fool shareholders and investors (including pension funds) when they engineered the AOL-Time Warner deal [Washington Post may require registration]. Parsons was a key leader of the Time Warner effort to further media consolidation in the cable TV business—despite its consequences to freedom of expression and ownership diversity.

Now, Time Warner is working with AT&T, Verizon, Comcast and other allies to thwart the passage of network neutrality safeguards. Instead of being honored, Parsons should be roundly criticized for his lack of real corporate social responsibility.

As for Mr. Isdell. Well, let’s just say that Coca-Cola is actively promoting a digital media-saturated global youth obesity epidemic. Take a look here.

Among the funders of BSR include the Ford Foundation, the Hewlett Foundation, the (get ready for this!) U.S. Department of State, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. I think we should ask for a taxpayer refund and also urge those charitable foundations to press for some serious change at BSR. [The confence has one breakout session titled “The Internet, Freedom of Expression and Privacy.” It should be made a plenary event with both Parsons and Isdell required to listen to real leaders fighting for social justice, including an open and democratic Internet].

Heart [less] Institute: Part of the Telecom/Cable Lobby Support System

The Heartland Institute is one of the never-ending series of groups that attempt to place the interests of big phone and cable monopolies before those of the average American. Ideology shapes the findings of this group. If it had a MySpace page, its “friends” would include the Progress and Freedom Foundation, American Enterprise Institute, the Heritage Foundation, Cato, and the Pacific Research Foundation. They are a well-connected and networked web of organizations used to advance the narrow, monopoly-building agendas of Comcast, AT&T, Verizon, and a few others.

Now with a yearly budget in the millions, the Heartland Institute is keeping up a steady attack on the public interest campaign to restore online freedom [net neutrality] and broadband competition for the U.S. Internet. Take its most recent IT&T newsletter [no. Not named after the infamous super-conglomerate and scandalous company. It stands for Info Tech & Telecom News. But we think Heartland’s Freud must have slipped a lot when it chose that acronym]. In the September 2006 issue of IT&T, managing editor Steven Titch defends the upcoming mega-merger between AT&T (formerly SBC) and BellSouth. “This merger should be allowed to proceed,” he writes, because AT&T will provide “new investment and a growth strategy.” He attempts to make the case that poor BellSouth needs a government-approved mega-buyout to save its declining revenues. But Heartland’s analysis is distorted, designed to help out AT&T. So ignored, for example, is what Bell South told the SEC—and investors– in its 2005 10K report (before the pending merger helped shaped what it now claims). “We are a Fortune 100 company with annual revenues of over $20 billion. Our core business is wireline communications and our largest customer segment is the retail consumer. We have interests in wireless communications through our ownership of approximately 40% of Cingular Wireless (Cingular), the nation’s largest wireless company based on number of customers. We also operate one of the largest directory advertising businesses in the United States. We have assets of approximately $60 billion and employ almost 63,000 individuals…During 2004, we realigned our assets towards domestic wireless and increased investment in broadband to better position the company for the future. Specifically, our wireless joint venture, Cingular Wireless, purchased AT&T Wireless in October 2004, causing Cingular to become the largest wireless company in the United States and increasing the percentage of our revenue from wireless operations on a pro forma basis to approximately 40%. To further this realignment in strategy, we sold our Latin American operations to Telefónica Móviles in transactions that closed in late 2004 and early 2005…. As use of the Internet grows and as corporate data applications increase in sophistication and scope, the market for broadband and data services is expanding and evolving. BellSouth will continue to expand its capabilities in order to maintain a leadership position in the broadband and data communications market. Investment in service infrastructure is strategically managed to enable delivery of services offering increasing capacity and functionality. In parallel, we continue to use new advances in digital technology to bolster the broadband capabilities of our entire network. The emergence of high-performance broadband and digital infrastructure offers the ability to use these networks for real-time communications including voice and video using various technologies such as softswitches (software-based switching platforms) and voice over Internet protocol (VoIP).”

Doesn’t sound like a corporate version of the Titanic to me.

What Heartland and its big telecom-supported “think tank” minions want is a system where the public has no rights. An AT&T—in Heartland’s view—should be able to do what it wishes, regardless of the costs to our democratic society. Journalists and consumers beware. Heartland has constructed an artificial view of the world based on fantasy spun from corporate lobbyist’ playbooks.

Hey, Big Spender: Telco’s and Cable Buy Favor on the Hill

The National Journal’s excellent David Hatch has kept his journalistic eye on all the telecom/cable lobbying money flowing in to Congress. Millions are being spent to keep lawmakers favorably disposed against net neutrality and other broadband safeguards. The majority of AT&T’s giving (67%) has gone to the GOP. Other big spenders include Comcast, BellSouth, Verizon and Time Warner (the latter should spend less on lobbying and more on privacy. But, of course, they really don’t want to).

Read David’s article. See how Speaker Hastert, House Commerce chair Joe Barton and many others have done well for themselves. And then follow the money when the voting on network neutrality comes this fall.

abendlich rauscht mp3 wald der schonwald mp3 abendlich rauscht schon derrauscht wald mp3 schon abendlich dercupid 112 mp3112 cupid mp3cupid 112 mp3112 cupid mp3fair advance wav mp3 australia Map

Telco CEOs to the Internet: We Own You and You Will Never Be Free

Top execs from Verizon, Qwest, and the USTA lobbying machine attacked the concept of network neutrality yesterday. They spoke at the annual lobbyist love-fest run by the Progress and Freedom Foundation. The exec remarks make clear that the leadership of the U.S. telephone industry is hazardous to the Internet’s health. For example, Verizon’s Tom Tauke dismissed concerns about what will happen to our democratic rights now that neutrality is lost. For the former Congressman turned top lobbyist, there are only consumer interests. “…I believe,” he said, “there is now an emerging consensus” that’s it’s all about consumers, reported Communications Daily [Aug. 23, 2006. Subscription only]. He said that calls for “non-discrimination” were coming from advocates of “old rules” (he meant the policies that made the Internet an open forum]. Meanwhile, the chief of the United States Telecom Association–Walter McCormick–said that his members “would oppose any bill with strong net neutrality language.” Qwest CEO Richard Notebaert chimed in that there was “no need for Congress to act where there’s no problem…”

Bolstering the industry’s jeremiad was the chief staffer for House Commerce chair Joe Barton. Howard Waltzman predicted, “there would not be a bill sent to the president that included [non-discriminatory net neutrality requirements] because the House would not agree to it.” Waltzman, the majority chief counsel, also proclaimed that “the Snowe-Dorgan amendment” requiring net neutrality would fail in the Senate.

These are the people—along with their bosses—who are placing the business plans of a few special interests before everyone else now online. Web 2.0 will be shaped to fit their image of broadband unless they are stopped.

alaska estate loan realloan advance cash $1000loans 100 mortgage commericalloans 103homebuyer loans 1st time000 loan 4099 auto loanloan adjustable rate Map