Learn from the mistakes of others

<BLOCKQUOTE><EM>If you would have peace, prepare for war.</EM></BLOCKQUOTE><lj-cut text="The War on Net Neutrality"><A href="http://onthecommons.org/user/2?PHPSESSID=d19e80a7eee181e74780b0010724038b"><STRONG>David Bollier</STRONG></A><STRONG>, "</STRONG><A href="http://onthecommons.org/node/826"><STRONG>Save the Internet</STRONG></A><STRONG>", </STRONG><A href="http://onthecommons.org/"><STRONG>On the Commons.org</STRONG></A><STRONG>, 2006/02/13
</STRONG><BLOCKQUOTE><P align=justify><FONT color=#800080 size=2>It’s time to start paying very close attention to the coming fight to save the Internet. It’s easy to take for granted the Internet’s openness. But in truth, there is no legal or technical barrier preventing cable and telephone companies from turning the Internet commons into a proprietary “walled garden” resembling cable TV. And in fact, cable and telco executives have expressed a desire to make us pay more to browse the World Wide Web or stream videos. They’d like to leverage their “gatekeeper” powers by stipulating how many downloads and emails we can send or receive. They'd like to tell us what software applications or equipment we can connect to the Internet (via their onramps).

...</FONT></P></BLOCKQUOTE><STRONG>John Windhausen, Jr., "</STRONG><A href="http://www.publicknowledge.org/content/papers/pk-net-neutrality-whitep-20060206"><STRONG>Good Fences Make Bad Broadband</STRONG></A><STRONG>: Preserving an Open Internet through Net Neutrality", A </STRONG><A href="http://www.publicknowledge.org/"><STRONG>Public Knowledge</STRONG></A><STRONG> </STRONG><A href="http://www.publicknowledge.org/content/papers/"><STRONG>White Paper</STRONG></A><STRONG>, 2006/02/06</STRONG>
<BLOCKQUOTE><FONT size=2><P align=justify><FONT color=#800080>The genius of the Internet is its promise of unlimited accessibility. With very limited exceptions, any consumer with an Internet connection and a computer can visit any web site, attach any device, post any content, and provide any service.</FONT></P><P align=justify><FONT color=#800080>While the openness of the Internet is universally praised, it is no longer guaranteed, at least for broadband services. Recent Supreme Court and FCC rulings define broadband networks as unregulated “information services,” which means that the operators of broadband networks are no longer under any legal obligation to keep their networks open to all Internet content, services and equipment. </P></FONT>...</FONT></BLOCKQUOTE><BLOCKQUOTE><UL><FONT size=2><LI><A href="http://static.publicknowledge.org/pdf/pk-net-neutrality-summary-20060206.pdf">Executive Summary</A> (PDF)</LI><LI><A href="http://static.publicknowledge.org/pdf/pk-net-neutrality-whitep-20060206.pdf">Full Paper (without attachments)</A> (PDF)</LI><LI><A href="http://static.publicknowledge.org/pdf/pk-net-neutrality-whitep-20060206.doc">Full Paper (without attachments)</A> (Word DOC)</LI><LI><A href="http://static.publicknowledge.org/pdf/pk-net-neutrality-attach-20060206.pdf">Attachments</A> (PDF)</LI></FONT></UL></BLOCKQUOTE><P><STRONG>Jeff Chester, "</STRONG><A href="http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060213/chester"><STRONG>The End of the Internet</STRONG></A><STRONG>?", </STRONG><A href="http://www.thenation.com/"><STRONG>The Nation</STRONG></A><STRONG>, 2006/02/01</STRONG></P><BLOCKQUOTE><FONT size=2><P align=justify><FONT color=#800080>The nation's largest telephone and cable companies are crafting an alarming set of strategies that would transform the free, open and nondiscriminatory Internet of today to a privately run and branded service that would charge a fee for virtually everything we do online. </FONT></P><P align=justify><FONT color=#800080>Verizon, Comcast, Bell South and other communications giants are developing strategies that would track and store information on our every move in cyberspace in a vast data-collection and marketing system, the scope of which could rival the National Security Agency. According to</FONT> <A href="http://www.democraticmedia.org/issues/netneutrality.html">white papers</A> <FONT color=#800080>now being circulated in the cable, telephone and telecommunications industries, those with the deepest pockets--corporations, special-interest groups and major advertisers--would get preferred treatment. Content from these providers would have first priority on our computer and television screens, while information seen as undesirable, such as peer-to-peer communications, could be relegated to a slow lane or simply shut out.</P>...</FONT></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE><P><B>Chairman Stevens, "<A href="http://commerce.senate.gov/hearings/testimony.cfm?id=1705&amp;wit_id=3971">Opening Statement</A>", <A href="http://commerce.senate.gov/hearings/witnesslist.cfm?id=1705">Hearing on Net Neutrality</A>, 2006/02/07</B>
US Senate Committee on Commerce, Science &amp; Transportation, <A href="http://commerce.senate.gov/hearings/">Full Committee Hearing</A>
<A href="http://commerce.senate.gov/hearings/witnesslist.cfm?id=1705">Net Neutrality</A>: Tuesday, February 7 2006 - 10:00 AM - D-562
<DIV style="TEXT-ALIGN: center"><A href="http://commerce.senate.gov/archive.netneutrality020706.ram">video</A>&nbsp;- <A href="http://commerce.senate.gov/hearings/witnesslist.cfm?id=1705">witness statements</A></DIV><BLOCKQUOTE><FONT size=2><FONT color=#800080><P align=justify>Thank you all for coming. This hearing on Internet Neutrality is one of the most difficult but most important issues before this Committee as we consider revisions to the nation’s communications laws. </FONT></P><P align=justify><FONT color=#800080>How we decide the issue will determine whether cable companies and the telephone companies can generate the revenue needed to justify billions of dollars in investment to deploy fiber and upgrade existing broadband networks. It will also determine whether the Internet remains a free marketplace of ideas with no gatekeeper and free of interference or private regulation. </FONT></P><P align=justify><FONT color=#800080>As new services, particularly video, stretch the limits of today’s broadband capacity to the home, we are confronted with net neutrality arguments from the providers of broadband access, like cable, telephone companies and wireless providers on one side and arguments from Internet content and application providers like Google, eBay, Amazon, and Vonage on the other side. </FONT></P><P align=justify><FONT color=#800080>All sides are exploring new business models providing new offerings to their customers. Groups for and against regulation both make compelling arguments that their way is the best way to encourage investment, innovation, and job creation. Cable and phone companies argue against net neutrality regulation while content and application providers generally argue for net neutrality regulation. </FONT></P><P align=justify><FONT color=#ff0000>The <A href="http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-151A1.pdf">FCC has announced net neutrality principles</A>, but Chairman Martin has stated that regulation is not needed and that it will not be needed. We will hear arguments firsthand today from both sides and we will take them into consideration as we further examine updating telecommunications legislation upon completion of our hearings. </FONT></P></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE><A href="http://www.publicknowledge.org/">Public Knowledge</A> had this update today:
<A href="http://www.publicknowledge.org/">Telecommunications Legislation Approved by House Telecom Subcommittee</A>

<BLOCKQUOTE><P align=justify><FONT size=2><PALIGN=JUSTIFY><FONT color=#800080>On April 5, the House Telecom Subcommittee approved by 27-4 vote legislation allowing telephone companies into the cable business on a national franchise basis.</FONT> <A href="http://static.publicknowledge.org/pdf/20060412-house-telecom-print.pdf">The bill</A> <FONT color=#800080>also allows the Federal Communications Commission to enforce its net neutrality principles. The bill was amended to require the FCC to resolve any Net Neutrality requirements within 90 days and to raise the penalties to $500,000 per violation. The subcommittee defeated, 23-8,</FONT> <A href="http://static.publicknowledge.org/pdf/markey-amend-20060404.pdf">an amendment</A> <FONT color=#800080>by Reps. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), Rick Boucher (D-Va.), Anna Eshoo (D-Cal.) and Jay Inslee (D-Wash.) to substitute a more enforceable version of the plan.</FONT></P><P></P><P style="MARGIN: 0.5em 0pt" align=justify><FONT color=#800080>Even with the changes, we do not believe that the bill goes far enough. The provisions will not stop the cable and telephone companies from degrading Internet traffic and they do not contain strong enough penalties to discourage misbehavior. Without stronger legislation, the cable and telephone companies will have the power to change the fundamental nature of the Internet.</FONT></P><P style="MARGIN: 0.5em 0pt" align=justify><FONT color=#800080>We will post a text of the bill, with amendments, when it becomes available. The full Commerce Committee is expected to take up the bill the week of April 24.</FONT></P></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE></lj-cut>
<P></P><BLOCKQUOTE><FONT color=#800000><FONT size=2>QUI DESIDERAT PACEM, BELLUM PRAEPARAT; NEMO PROVOCARE NE OFFENDERE AUDET QUEM INTELLIGET SUPERIOREM ESSE PUGNATUREM.</FONT>
<DIV style="TEXT-ALIGN: right"></FONT><FONT size=2>FLAVIUS VEGETIUS RENATUS</FONT>, <FONT size=2>DE RE MILITARI</FONT>, 390 <FONT size=2>B.C.E</FONT>.</DIV></BLOCKQUOTE><BLOCKQUOTE><FONT color=#800000 size=2><I>Whosoever desires peace prepares for war; no one provokes, nor dares to offend, those who they know know to be superior in battle.</I></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE>


I commented recently on someone's blog about this issue. But I forget whom. Please remind me ... I want to revisit what I said.