Net neutrality

On 5/9/06 16:27, "Peter Sichel" <psichelsustworks.com> wrote:

>> That said, I can't argue with the fact that the phone/cable companies own
>> the lines going into your house and should be able to provide whatever
>> service they want over them.
>
>
> This is a common misunderstanding that needs to debunked in no uncertain
> terms.
>
> The so called "last mile" or broadband lines going into your house are what is
> called a "natural monopoly" for which there is unlikely to be a practical
> alternate infrastructure.

That used to be true. However, with things like FIOS and other such
connections, you can't say the same with any kind of guarantee anymore.

--
John C. Welch Writer/Analyst
Bynkii.com Mac and other opinions
jwelchbynkii.com

On May 9, 2006, at 5:24 PM, Marc Zeedar wrote:

> Marilyn Matty on 5/7/06 wrote something to the effect of:
>
>>> This is how the whole advertising industry works. A newspaper
>>> charges
>>> advertisers to deliver their ads to subscribers after it has already
>>> charged the subscribers to deliver the paper to them.
>>
>> There isn't a newspaper or magazine I know if that doesn't rely on
>> advertising revenues to heavily subsidize subscriptions.
>
> Uh, you've never heard of _Consumer Reports_? They accept no
> advertising at all.
>
> Granted, they are one of the few mainstream publications like that,
> but there are thousands of tiny
> newsletters and niche market periodicals that are either entirely
> or mainly financed by subscription
> revenue. Obviously their subscription prices are higher than
> general interest publications, but the
> point is that there are models for such businesses.


They are one out of a very, very few out of over 14,000 regularly
circulated publications (not counting one offs and one shots). I'll
hazard a guess that over 99% of the 14,000 are advertising supported.
The models of 100% subscriber supported publications are few and
subscription prices astronomical; I suspect a majority of them, like
Consumer Reports (and I am a big CR fan and subscriber) are published
by non or not for profit organizations, and in most cases donations
subsidize the cost of publication, even at their significantly higher
subscription rates.

A headline in the business section of yesterday's NY Times
underscores what is an alarming trend of periodicals loosing paid
circulation and becoming increasingly dependent upon advertising
revenue - "U.S. Newspaper Circulation Fell 2.5% In The Latest Period"

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/09/business/media/09paper.html?
_r=1&oref=slogin

One of the reasons given for the decline is that publishers are
eliminating what advertisers consider marginal subscribers, though
not mentioned are the effects recent scandals in newspaper and
magazine circulation audits in which many "top tier" publishers were
caught padding the numbers - reporting is being more carefully
monitored).

In general, advertising revenue is becoming increasingly important to
publishers.

Marilyn

On May 9, 2006, at 5:24 PM, Larry Rosenstein wrote:

> At 7:40 PM -0700 5/7/06, Marilyn Matty wrote:
>> I'll bet there are a lot of ISPs having major agita over the free
>> municipal broadband programs some cities, including SF (which will be
>
> Mostly the phone/cable companies. They have succeeded in getting
> state laws passed restricting cities from developing their own
> Internet services. For example, in Pennsylvania:
>
> <http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,118706,00.asp>
>
> Independent ISPs (eg, Earthlink) have been active in bidding for the
> opportunity to construct and operate wireless networks, because they
> are in danger of being shut out of the broadband market otherwise.

I think Earthlink landed the paid portion of the SF municipal
broadband program.

Marilyn

At 14:24 05/09/06 -0700, Randy B. Singer wrote:
>Our Constitution wasn't created in a vacuum. We know exactly what the
>Founding Fathers were trying to achieve and why. The principle underlying
>just about everything in the Constitution is that our Founding Fathers
>didn't trust government.

With that caveat that "Founding Fathers" is not an exact term and that they
didn't all agree. Obviously the original constitution didn't have the
protections on personal rights. I'm not strong enough on constitutional
history to expound on this, but the authors of the constitution decided not
to include personal rights. Others disagreed, leading to the first ten
amendments. AFAIK none of them trusted government, but had different ideas
on how best to control it.

>Looking for limitations on
>private actions in the Constitution (with the exception of the 13th
>Amendment) is thus innappropriate.

Well, and the 18th. But that's the exception that proves the rule.

At 14:24 05/09/06 -0700, Marc Zeedar wrote:
> >There isn't a newspaper or magazine I know if that doesn't rely on
> >advertising revenues to heavily subsidize subscriptions.
>
>Uh, you've never heard of _Consumer Reports_? They accept no advertising
>at all.

Yes, Marilyn is in advertising. Hammer and nail problem; we IT people have
the same problem. It was only last September that I pointed out Consumer
Reports to Marilyn in another context; I also listed a number of other
magazines I subscribe to which demonstrate a wide range of advertising
dependence, from almost none to heavy.

http://db.tidbits.com/tbtalk/tlkmsg.lasso?MsgID=25464

Edward
Art works by Melynda Reid: http://paleo.org

At 2:24 PM -0700 5/9/06, John C. Welch wrote:
>The only time there is a requirement for impartiality is when
>government partisianship is involved. For example, not even Fox News can
>refuse to carry the Democratic Candidate for <office>'s ads if they also
>carry the Republican Candidate's ads. They can refuse ALL political
>programming, but if they allow one side of government to have access to air
>time, they have to give the opposing side equal time. But if they want, they
>don't ever have to broadcast pixel one of any political news ever again, and
>there's not much you can do about it from a legal standpoint.

You sure about this one? Fox news is cable and not over the airwaves.
I'm not sure they can't refuse DNC ads.
--
=alex hoffman

Friends:

        In large part, Marilyn is telling it like it is...but there is still
another essential element in the implied contract between newspaper
publisher and subscriber:
        The subscriber invariably expects the newspaper --be it daily or
weekly, or even monthy, as for some of the most successful nww
"alternatives" -- to reflect the American history of a free press,
reporting independently, competently and professionally, to cover news
events in balanced and trustworthy content.

        What's happening broadly across the complete spectrum of American
journalism is that far too many newspapers, surely feeling the
pressures Marilyn describes and others of both political and economic
origin, are seeking radical slashes in any cost-possible --which too
often turns out to be editorial staff.
        
        These days, in newspapers as elsewhere, the potent pressures of
union-joint/strengths are greatly diminished, offering vulnerabilities
not nearly so volatile for the past thirty years or so.
        SO, if indeed corporate pressures are prioritizing stock-exchange
expectations feeding stockholder demands, in the face of heavier
weights on the still-respectable but not-as-lush returns ratio, the
rest of this story becomes nearly inevitable -- with all standing in
the way that once-well/built wall called journalistic integrity.
        
        That, too, has and is changing, with the newer generation naturally
deficient in the shaping experiences which provided so much
perhaps-providential reality-based experience for the earlier-others,
involved intimately by professional working contacts with those
bringing about the great civil-issue advances during that previous
generation.
        instead they must cope daily, on a professional
communications-demanding level, with increasing needs for actually
achieving understandings and thus solid reporting on more complex
issues than ever, with widespread governmental distortion and sometimes
perversion of the basic factual realities, for both economic-driven and
politically-motivated rationales.

        There are basic ways to cut these basic costs, but not without
immediate damage to journalistic quantity and quality.
        You can staff a newsroom starkly -- and you will get bare-bones
coverage, done on-the-run and with precisely the kind of coverage that
word "stark" denotes.
        For quality journalism there has to be more -- not necessarily in
count-of-boots on the ground, but in all of those immeasurable and
immutables that good, strong, effective --and well-personned !!--
management can impart...personned since so many "with boots" there
these days are of the feminine persuasion.

        What is really at stake is the ongoing and extremely demanding
consideration directly affecting both journalistic quality, and the
bottom-line which keeps that stock-image bouncing, since it is at the
very heart of what newspapers, at least, are purported to do and why
they are allowed to do it as they have for 200 years in this nation. No
daily or other reporter's channel-to-print --and, now it is being
learned, on the InterNet, too !-- can purport to pattern its work
otherwise, and still continue to succeed -- which mans much more than
making the surprisingly large return still achieved, and often by the
very same corporate identities and chain operations so avid to slice
and slash away at those basic costs for any considerable reputation in
the profession.

        The fields of freedom for information flourish when properly
protected, and provided with the essential nourishing elements.
        For us, in our democracy, one of those essential elements is the
authoritative and also extremely essential reputation for not only
accuracy but balanced and trustworthy delivery of professional quality
news-coverage in a community, with solid, continuing
confidence-building public-issue discussion, leading to Constitutional
and truly public-interest decision via well-informed public opinion
operating via voter choice of trustworthy representatives, at all
levels.

        Look around you at your local ostensibly-"free" press, both
paper-print and screen-read -- see with your own eyes what is happening
nationwide.
        American journalism, at all levels, for a very long and essentially
important time, has served the nation as much more than one segment of
the publishing industry. A business it must be, with proper profit and
return ratio; but more than that it must be and has long been, too.
        That is what is chainging, with the once-vaunted home of freedom via
free speech and full discussion becoming, in far too many places, only
the newest way to wrap the advertising.

yrfriendhank

        "The advancement and diffusion of knowledge is the only guardian of
true liberty. "
                                        --- James Madison

On May 10, 2006, at 12:13 PM, Edward Reid wrote:

> At 14:24 05/09/06 -0700, Randy B. Singer wrote:
>> Our Constitution wasn't created in a vacuum. We know exactly what
>> the
>> Founding Fathers were trying to achieve and why. The principle
>> underlying
>> just about everything in the Constitution is that our Founding
>> Fathers
>> didn't trust government.
>
> With that caveat that "Founding Fathers" is not an exact term and
> that they
> didn't all agree. Obviously the original constitution didn't have the
> protections on personal rights. I'm not strong enough on
> constitutional
> history to expound on this, but the authors of the constitution
> decided not
> to include personal rights. Others disagreed, leading to the first ten
> amendments. AFAIK none of them trusted government, but had
> different ideas
> on how best to control it.

Wikipedia, in

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
United_States_Bill_of_Rights#Ratification_and_the_Massachusetts_Compromi
se>

and surrounding material, pretty well matches my dimming recollection
of what I was taught "a few" years ago (yikes--5 to 6 decades ago).

   -- John (nets weren't neutral back then: they favored the
fisherman over the fish)

You talk much about the monopoly the telcos have.  Perhaps you weren't around in 1984 when AT+T was forced to break up the best communications system in the world.  Since then, the telcos have been forced to allow anyone who wants to compete with them to use their cables rights of way, and even their employees to help them provide sservice to compete with the telcos.  So, where ya been?

Friends:

Point-missing, it seems to me (may have missed it in other msgs) is that the advertiser, with all those heavy-color, costly-art, best-quality repro-needs, coupled with more pages-filled (in many papers, at least) thatn for news-side, is costing the producer much more than the bare news-side/print costs.

In addition, since competition multiplying in broad new channels and increasing in those already in place, forcing producer into heavy-competition situation, the comparison of what can be squeezed out now on ad-side vs what was-there is going badly negative...especially with that distorted view of "the market" operating via the mythical "invisible hand", invulnerably coming down on right-point for all-concerned.

There is no such thing as true "free market" anymore, in most business and industrial areas, and that "invisible hand", albeith not all that hidden in many situations, is busily engaged in making manipulation the ongoing order-of-the day...ask some of those engaged in fighting for pure, if poor, survival, in many arenas surrounding yours.

Add to that the reality that, far too deeply intense and not too well-hidden, there is much more government control, or at least distortion and some perversion, of news-content these days, as well reported across a broad segment of the national press. So much so, it is obvious, that we have a D.C. scandal already brewing on this and its consequences...lobbyist named Abramoff, buddy-buddy with activist named Norquist, found at heart of that one. Norquist insists on "dragging government into the bathtub and drowning it", first starving it down to weakness by denying proper tax-nourishments.

Check for yourselves on ownership by corporate chains of most of the "free press" -- with consummate attention to their own corporate agenda, venues, and approaches to public issues at every level.

All of this is intended for further illumination of the heart-of-the-matter here: Network Neutrality, which basically seeks to protect, preserve, extend and strengthen the basic principle of the First Amendment, now threatened by all-of-he-above, especially monopoly-only single-paper-in-my-city situations.

Oregon is badly served by that situation in capital, Salem, with consequences growing from failures in the public discussion entailed for any daily operating with First Amendment guarnatees, in any capital of any state.

yrfriendhank

"Democracy is scary because it helps people to think." -- Susann Kaltwasser 2004; leader of Salem Citizens Forum, e-amil open-discussion channel.

On 5/11/06 03:58, "Henry Clay Ruark" <hankatlmaipns.com> wrote:

> In large part, Marilyn is telling it like it is...but there is still
> another essential element in the implied contract between newspaper
> publisher and subscriber:
> The subscriber invariably expects the newspaper --be it daily or
> weekly, or even monthy, as for some of the most successful nww
> "alternatives" -- to reflect the American history of a free press,
> reporting independently, competently and professionally, to cover news
> events in balanced and trustworthy content.

This has never been the case. Media has always been biased. Sometimes rather
blatantly, i.e. The late 19th/early 20th centuries, but this idea of news
media as bastions of objectivity is just wishful thinking and "good old
days-ist" dreams.

Franklin and Adams were biased as it gets, so on and so forth. People like
to think that somehow, what's happening today is new or different, but with
regard to biased media, it just isn't so.

--
John C. Welch Writer/Analyst
Bynkii.com Mac and other opinions
jwelchbynkii.com

On May 11, 2006, at 1:58 AM, DJRobinsaol.com wrote:

> You talk much about the monopoly the telcos have. Perhaps you
> weren't around in 1984 when AT+T was forced to break up the best
> communications system in the world. Since then, the telcos have
> been forced to allow anyone who wants to compete with them to use
> their cables rights of way, and even their employees to help them
> provide sservice to compete with the telcos. So, where ya been?

Until recently, when much of that requirement went away with respect
to data connections. Meanwhile, as seen by much of the country, AT&T
has put itself back together (OK, it's SBC--which previously
swallowed Pacific Bell and others--using the AT&T name they acquired
with the smallish remnant of AT&T).

There were times and places when and where ILEC field people would
slip on coveralls for the CLEC whose customer they were visiting, and
put a suitable magnetic sign on their vehicle. I don't know whether
that still goes on anywhere.

ILEC = Incumbent Local Exchange Carrier
CLEC = Competitive Local Exchange Carrier

   --John

At 1:58 AM -0700 5/11/06, DJRobinsaol.com wrote:
>Since then, the telcos have been forced to allow anyone who wants to
>compete with them to use their cables rights of way, and even

That's not true when it comes to Internet services. The FCC ruled
that telcos do not have to lease access to their wires to independent
ISPs: <http://www.newrules.org/info/access.html>.

--
Larry Rosenstein
lrosensteincatsincharge.com

On May 11, 2006, at 1:14 PM, John C. Welch wrote:

> This has never been the case. Media has always been biased.
> Sometimes rather
> blatantly, i.e. The late 19th/early 20th centuries, but this idea
> of news
> media as bastions of objectivity is just wishful thinking and "good
> old
> days-ist" dreams.
> Franklin and Adams were biased as it gets, so on and so forth.
> People like
> to think that somehow, what's happening today is new or different,
> but with
> regard to biased media, it just isn't so.

But what makes this more problematic now than at the beginning of the
20th century is the consolidation of media. When there are twenty
newspapers in a city the size of New York, and independent newspapers
in several cities, the truth can be discerned by comparing the
various reports and the various biases. But when you have fewer
newspapers, with media consolidation meaning that a few major chains
own all the major newspapers, the truth becomes much easier to
willfully obscure. Instead of intimidating or buying off 200
newspaper reporters, you only have to intimidate or buy off 3.

Charlton


--
Charlton Wilbur
cwilburchromatico.net

[And with that, let's begin winding down this thread, which, though very interesting, has veered astonishingly far from its original topic. -Joe]

On May 11, 2006, at 4:58 AM, Alexander Hoffman wrote:

> At 2:24 PM -0700 5/9/06, John C. Welch wrote:
>> The only time there is a requirement for impartiality is when
>> government partisianship is involved. For example, not even Fox
>> News can
>> refuse to carry the Democratic Candidate for <office>'s ads if
>> they also
>> carry the Republican Candidate's ads. They can refuse ALL political
>> programming, but if they allow one side of government to have
>> access to air
>> time, they have to give the opposing side equal time. But if they
>> want, they
>> don't ever have to broadcast pixel one of any political news ever
>> again, and
>> there's not much you can do about it from a legal standpoint.
>
> You sure about this one? Fox news is cable and not over the airwaves.
> I'm not sure they can't refuse DNC ads.

Fox broadcasts on both - although they don't have a 24/7 news channel
over airwaves, they do have news programming every day via their
stations and affiliates (Fox News at 11, etc.)

Marilyn

Interesting article on Net Neutrality:

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/TechNews/Internet/2006/05/12/1576629-ap.html


Randy B. Singer
Co-Author of: The Macintosh Bible (4th, 5th and 6th editions)

Routine OS X Maintenance and Generic Troubleshooting
http://www.macattorney.com/ts.html

On May 9, 2006, at 5:04 AM, <tidbits-talktidbits.com> wrote:

> On May 7, 2006, at 10:40 PM, Dan Frakes wrote:
> > On 5/4/06 8:48 PM, "Eliza Gaul" wrote:
> >> This is how the whole advertising industry works. A newspaper
> charges
> >> advertisers to deliver their ads to subscribers after it has
> already
> >> charged the subscribers to deliver the paper to them.
> >
> > The above implies that the media company is "double-charging" --
> that a
> > subscription already covers the cost of the paper.

> The revenue from subscriptions covers only a very small fraction of
> of the cost of producing and delivering a magazine.

> > The revenue from a newspaper's subscribers doesn't even come close
> to
> > covering the costs of producing and distributing the paper;
> conversely, few
> > legitimate newspapers or magazines survive on advertising revenue
> alone.
>
I'm sorry but I apparently failed to make the initial point clearly. I
don't see anything wrong with how a newspaper charges. As you point
out, the newspaper industry probably wouldn't work otherwise.
Subscribers won't pay the full cost so advertisers cover a significant
part of the cost. My point is that this isn't much different on the
surface from what the broadband providers are trying to do. Their
subscribers aren't willing to pay the full cost - or at least not the
full cost the provider perceives - so the provider is looking elsewhere
for more income.

I can't control the content of my newspaper and it appears that I may
not have full control of my internet service. The only choice I have is
to buy different paper or to choose a different broadband provider.

To carry the analogy further, how would everyone feel if the government
tried to tell newspaper publishers what they could and couldn't do with
their newspaper service? The same folks who are calling for net
neutrality enforced by the government would be decrying the government
interference with the freedom of the press. I know that the broadband
providers have benefitted from government support and so have more
civic responsibility but the two situations seem to me to be at least
similar.

I don't like what the broadband providers are proposing, but for me,
government interference with my access to information is a bad idea
also. I would rather be given the option, maybe at a higher cost, for
neutral net service and I would hope that content providers would
refuse to pay blackmail. In any case I would prefer to let the market
do it's thing.

On 10 May 2006, at 13:13 , Eliza Gaul wrote:
> To carry the analogy further, how would everyone feel if the
> government
> tried to tell newspaper publishers what they could and couldn't do
> with
> their newspaper service?

If the only newspaper you were allowed to buy was Bob's World News,
I'd probably feel pretty good about it.

Most people have a choice of MAYBE two providers, and far too many
have only one choice, or only one realistic choice.

--
"You're an elf and you're going to wear panties like an elf." David
Sedaris, Santaland Diaries

A friend on another discussion list contacted Senator Barbara Boxer about
the Net neutrality issue. I though that folks might find the canned
response that she received interesting. (Message reproduced by
permission of Lois Richter.)


---------------- Begin Forwarded Message ----------------
Date: 5/14/06 7:26 AM
Received: 5/14/06 7:58 AM
From: Lois Richter, loisGoTouring.com
Reply-To: Davis Mac Users Group, davismugspoke.dcn.davis.ca.us
To: DMUG, davismugspoke.dcn.davis.ca.us

Thanks to whoever posted the original alert about that legislation.
Below is Senator Boxer's reply.
-- Lois Richter

Begin forwarded message:
> From: senatorboxer.senate.gov
> Date: 2006 May 08
> To: <loisgotouring.com>
> Subject: Responding to your message
>
> Dear Friend:
>
> Thank you for contacting me regarding network neutrality, which is
> the principle that consumers should have access to the Internet
> content and applications of their choice without interference by
> network operators. I appreciate the opportunity to hear your views
> on this issue.
> As a longtime advocate for network neutrality, I believe that
> network operators should facilitate, not stifle, Americans' access
> to the Internet. Consumers will suffer if network operators are
> allowed to discriminate against their competitors' use of the
> network by giving certain content preferential treatment.
>
> I believe that individuals' ability to define and shape their
> experiences on the Internet has led to an explosion of creativity
> that has greatly benefited our economy and our lives. I fear that
> if network operators abandon the principle of network neutrality,
> the next generation of Internet innovators will be harmed.
>
> Congress is currently considering a number of bills on this issue.
> As a member of the Senate Commerce Committee, which has
> jurisdiction over broadband and telecommunications issues, please
> be assured that I will continue working to ensure that the Internet
> remains an engine of growth for commerce and ideas.
>
> Again, thank you for writing to me. Please do not hesitate to
> contact me again about this or any other issue of concern to you.
>
> Barbara Boxer
> United States Senator
>
> Please visit my website at http://boxer.senate.gov


----------------- End Forwarded Message -----------------

Randy B. Singer
Co-Author of: The Macintosh Bible (4th, 5th and 6th editions)

Routine OS X Maintenance and Generic Troubleshooting
http://www.macattorney.com/ts.html

Geoff Duncan's article is a wonderful summary of the arguments each party is using to claim the "higher ground" and thereby win from any legislative measures. But no matter what happens in that arena, the legislators cannot please everyone. Twenty years ago very few people could have predicted the net's current pervasiveness and its overall impact on a global scale. I'd vote for any measure which at least preserves, but also aims to encourage inventiveness and creativity to make the web even better than it is today. That will require a lot more wisdom than merely backing the case of either the telcos or the major internet sites.

Step back a few years to where we are in NZ. The Govt is forcing the main telco, Telecom, into an undundling of their monopoly on the copper network. Competitors already provide cheap toll call pricing over that network but have been noisy in wanting better access in the name of faster broadband connectivity at lower prices. The real question, however, is this; "Who is going to make the necessry investment to achieve that goal?" and "On what sort of timeframe?"

Like much of the debate on net neutrality, these are issues where legislative intervention will possibly achieve just as much harm as good.

Just my $0.02,

John Wolff Hamilton, New Zealand

I appreciate that you took on the difficult subject of Network Neutrality from a broad perspective and tried to be even handed. Never the less, I believe you missed an important distinction that would have helped your readers understand the issue.

Every network connection is between two endpoints. As an ISP subscriber, I am expected to pay for my end of the connection. By paying more, I can expect to get better performance on my end. The local network infrastructure is paid for by the network subscribers. Since I am paying for my end of the connection, I should have some freedom to regulate or control how it is used.

The issue of Network Neutrality is about whether ISPs should be allowed to tax or charge content providers on the OTHER END of the connection for access to "their" customers. In other words, can they double-dip by charging both the local subscriber for the facilities provided, and the remote content provider for access to the same facilities the local subscriber has also paid for. Should the telcos be allowed to setup toll booths on the part of the network the subscriber has paid for, in order to charge content providers who wish to deliver services through that network?

Until we consider each end of the connection to the shared Internet separately, we will remain hopelessly confused around Network Neutrality. Requiring Network Neutrality is not imposing regulation, but maintaining the Internet status quo of self regulation by the network users. If we as Internet users allow someone else to pay for our end of the network, we will gradually lose control over it.

Respectfully submitted,

- Peter Sichel Sustainable Softworks