Save Access

from: Tech Soup

What Will Tiered Internet Access Mean for NPOs?
Why nonprofits must join the fight to keep the net neutral

By: Henry Kumagai

June 12, 2006

Imagine if your nonprofit had to pay a fee to your Internet service provider in order for your Web site to turn up on search-engine results. Or what if your constituents could only access your site on a slower, more unreliable connection — unless you made a higher monthly payment to your ISP?

from: Light Reading

Telecom Trade Reps Are Very Well Paid Reps
JUNE 14, 2006

Maybe long-distance calling costs next-to-nothing, but having a voice in Washington sure ain't cheap for the big telcos and cable MSOs.

In fact, Light Reading has learned that Walter McCormick, CEO of the United States Telecom Association (USTelecom) commands a bigger payday than the heads of other communications-related associations, including the National Cable & Telecommunications Association (NCTA) and the Telecommunications Industry Association (TIA) .

from: Independent Weekly

JUNE 14, 2006
A tangle of telco laws

BY FIONA MORGAN

Just as consumers are becoming aware of things like net neutrality and media consolidation, Congress and the North Carolina legislature are acting like nobody's paying any attention.

Last week, the U.S. House of Representatives voted down a bill that would have enshrined network neutrality in national Internet policy, but gave the go-ahead to the Communications Opportunity, Promotion and Enhancement Act. The COPE Act is a massive policy overhaul that would allow powerful telecommunications companies to roll out the next generation of technology--Internet TV, especially--on the terms they've set for themselves, free from the public interest requirements of yesteryear. The Senate is now considering its own version; based on hearings held June 13 in Washington, things don't look good.

from: Free New Mexican

Udall Internet vote draws criticism

By STEVE TERRELL | The New Mexican
June 14, 2006

U.S. Rep. Tom Udall is getting heat from both sides of the political spectrum over his vote last week on a telecommunications bill opponents say jeopardizes the concept of "net neutrality" and an open, democratic Internet.

from: MSNBC

Your cable TV rights are in jeopardy

Posted: Tuesday, June 13 at 08:26 pm CT by Bob Sullivan

WASHINGTON D.C. -- Today, if you have a problem with your cable TV service, you can march down to City Hall and complain to the mayor. Or, your can show up at a city council meeting and make an old-fashioned stump speech. And the mayor and city council can actually do something about your problem.

from: Free Press

New Report Dismantles Industry Claims about Net Neutrality

Economic analysis separates empirical facts from theoretical fiction

WASHINGTON – The likely harm to consumers and the Internet economy if Congress abandons "Network Neutrality" will be substantial, according to a new economic analysis released today by Consumers Union, Consumer Federation of America and Free Press.

From: Independent Weekly

We want our #$% TV!

Lobbyists are capitalizing on consumer passion to push through a complex telecom bill that's full of bad ideas

By Fiona Morgan

What do you do when the phone goes out? Pick up your cell, maybe, or head down the street to the neighbor's, or get online. But when cable goes out? Perhaps you keep your cool, gentle reader, but most people lose it when a screen full of snow interrupts American Idol.

from: New Networks Teletruth

Teletruth News Analysis: June 13, 2006
Verizon's FiOS, AT&T's Lightspeed - The Rise of the Crippled Networks.

Dear Senate: Investigate this:

America is 16th in broadband and basing our Nation's future on inferior products that may never show up will be bad for our economic growth and technological edge. More importantly - We already paid over $200 billion in excess fees? What happened to the money and our promised fiber optic future?.

from: Tech Dirt

Inside The Beltway Newspapers Lying About Net Neutrality? What A Surprise
from the inside-the-beltway-logic dept

Two separate editorials from DC newspapers both oppose net neutrality efforts -- and yet, both seem to be filled with outright lies or misleading half-truths. As we've said repeatedly, the real issue with net neutrality is that there isn't enough competition in the broadband space. If there were real competition, network neutrality wouldn't even be on the table for discussion. The Washington Post tries to get by this point by claiming that there is real competition in the broadband space, stating that 60% of all zip codes have four or more choices. Of course, reading that language, you can tell immediately that it's coming from the FCC's discredited broadband penetration numbers. The FCC counts on a per zip code basis -- so if a broadband provider offers broadband to a single house in that zip code, the entire zip code is considered covered by that provider. The General Accounting Office's own study found much, much lower broadband penetration than the FCC numbers suggest. Laying wires should represent a natural monopoly. It simply doesn't make economic sense to lay too many identical sets of wires (it would be like building many competing, privately owned, highway systems: it's wasteful) -- which is why the government went around and granted many of these firms monopoly rights of way in the first place, with the promise of creating competition within the network, rather than between networks. When true wireless systems come along, then perhaps there will be the necessary competition, but don't buy the hype that cellular wireless, WiMax or satellite broadband are anywhere near being true competitors to fiber, let alone DSL or cable. We're still probably a decade away from seeing real competition from those quarters (though, reformed spectrum allocation policy could help there as well...).

from: Boston Globe

Move toward new cable TV rules may short low-income regions

By Associated Press | June 12, 2006

PHILADELPHIA -- Looking to quickly leap into the business of delivering TV broadcasts, telephone companies are leading efforts to rewrite the rules that for decades have given local governments control over who provides cable television in their areas.