Two of "The 15 Biggest Tech Disappointments of 2007"

source: http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,140583-page,1-c,techindustrytrends/article.html

"#14. Screwed up to the Max:

Municipal WiMax

It sounded like a great idea: big cities would offer wide-area wireless Internet access as part of their infrastructure, the same as roads, traffic lights, and sewers. A cheap, fast Net connection anywhere within city limits, 24/7. What's not to love?

Then public and private WiMax ventures started dropping like flies. Sprint and Clearwire called off their plans to build a nationwide WiMax network, after Sprint CEO Gary "bet the company on WiMax" Forsee got canned last October. Earlier this year EarthLink bailed on its offer to foot the bill for a Wi-Fi network in San Francisco. Similar city-funded projects have bought the farm in Chicago; Milwaukee; and Anchorage, Alaska. Even Silicon Valley--arguably the most Net-centric community this side of Mars--has had a hard time getting its WiMax plans off the ground. The big reason? Cost. Unwiring the whole valley would cost an estimated $200 million, or $133K a square mile. SV geeks can always park their cars near the Googleplex in Mountain View, whose wireless network covers 12 square miles. As for the rest of us, well, we can hope and pray that the search titans win the FCC auction for the 700-MHz wireless spectrum next January, and then decide to open their network to the world. Does Google have to do everything?"

"#6. Un-Neutral: The Broadband Industry

Remember those halycon days when you paid $40 to $60 a month for "unlimited" broadband service and it actually was unlimited? Kiss those days goodbye. In 2007 we learned that some of the largest ISPs in the country--Comcast, Cox, Qwest, Cablevision, and Charter among them--throttle or otherwise interfere with BitTorrent traffic on the sly. Comcast denied it at first, then admitted to "traffic shaping" to discourage bandwidth-sucking peer-to-peer users. Now it's being sued by angry customers. Suddenly the whole Net Neutrality argument doesn't seem like such a bad idea.

Meanwhile, all the major telecom providers who blithely handed their bitstreams over to the NSA without a subpoena are now demanding retroactive immunity for the deed. Whose bits are they, anyway?"

It was a great idea: to connect everybody with an inexpensive technology and grant the access for free. Such project would bring a lot to our country, let's hope that a part of the 700MHz wireless spectrum would be open for anybody to use.

Answer from Dianne Feinstein, United States Senator

Thank you writing about changes to media ownership rules. I appreciate hearing from you.

The effects of allowing a smaller number of companies a larger share of the media market concerns me. Any loosening of media ownership rules could seriously impact both the structure of the media sector and the relative negotiating power of individual companies. I am concerned that deregulation will put more power into the hands of media conglomerates, which could lead to neglect of local programming, eliminate competition, and reduce diversity of programming in the broadcast industry.

I have introduced legislation with Senator Byron Dorgan (D-ND) which would force the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to postpone any changes to media ownership rules until it takes steps to promote the broadcast and carriage of local programming by broadcasters, and to increase independent women and minority ownership representation. It would also require the FCC to wait at least 90 days before voting on a proposed rule change and to provide at least 60 days for public comment on it.

Please know I pay close attention to all proposed changes to media ownership rules and I will do what I can to ensure a competitive, pro-consumer marketplace. If you have any further questions or comments, please do not hesitate to call my Washington, D.C. staff at (202) 224-3841. Best regards.

Sincerely yours, Dianne Feinstein
United States Senator

Further information about my position on issues of concern to California and the Nation are available at my website http://feinstein.senate.gov/public/. You can also receive electronic e-mail updates by subscribing to my e-mail list at http://feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=ENewsletterSignup.Signup.

"March 15, 2002: F.C.C. Rules On Cable Access" (source NewYorkTimes)

Permalink: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A02EFDE1E39F936A25750C0A9649C8B63&sec=&spon=&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink

"Technology Briefing | Telecommunications: F.C.C. Rules On Cable Access

Published: March 15, 2002

The Federal Communications Commission exempted cable Internet companies from laws that force telecommunications providers to open their lines to competition, saying the decision was necessary to ignite more investment in high-speed Internet services. Unlike telephone companies, cable companies are required to share their lines only when specifically told to by the government. As a condition of the AOL Time Warner merger, that company was forced to offer a choice of Internet service providers on its high-speed lines. Broadband Internet service that is carried over telephone wires, known as digital subscriber line service, is governed by telephone regulations. The Bell companies must share their lines if they want to be able to sell their Internet services nationwide. Yesterdays vote, classifying cable Internet access as an information service, rather than a telecommunications service subject to the open-access provision, makes it unlikely that cable companies will have to share anytime soon."

If the Internet would have been considered a "telecommunications service" today we would have a broader internet access and Net Neutrality granted by law.

My Letter to Representative Ellen Tauscher

"I think that if Net Neutrality is not enforced by law our Country will fall far behind the rest of the world. Government should see the Internet as a tool of free speech, and not just as a new way to sell products. Selling products came later on the Internet, because its main purpose is to connect people. Was born with that purpose and cannot be changed without risking our future.

The free flow of ideas on the Internet pushed innovation like never before. This free flow should not be stopped by ISP who think they own the Internet.
NO they just provide access to it. They shouldn't be allowed to censor, block or slow down the access to the Internet.

If the ISP want to provide their own fast content they can do it via another medium, but not by slowing down the others content to the user.

Please, I'm really worried about our future, stand up for Net Neutrality."

Find out where your Senators stand

http://www.savetheinternet.com/=senatemap
At the link above you can see which senators are pro Net Neutrality and which are not.
You should use it to see if the senator of your coutry is for Net Neutrality and if not call her/he to tell your opinion on it.

I already did it for those who lives in California and both our senators are pro bill.
Not everywhere is the same though! So feel free to call California's senators to thank them and call the other to persuade them!

Also here you can check who is Your Elected Officials in Washington!

here below our good senators.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA)
For Net Neutrality

Call Sen. Feinstein's office now at 202-224-3841

Say: "I'm calling to thank Senator Feinstein for supporting Net Neutrality and urge her to pass legislation introduced by Senators Byron Dorgan and Olympia Snowe. More than 1.5 million Americans have spoken out forcefully in support of Net Neutrality. Senator Feinstein must stand with us to prevent the largest phone and cable companies from controlling the Internet. I urge the Senator to vote Yes on the "Internet Freedom Preservation Act" (S. 215). We need to work together to pass pro-Net Neutrality legislation in this Congress. "

Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA)
For Net Neutrality

Call Sen. Boxer's office now at 202-224-3553

Say: "I'm calling to thank Senator Boxer for supporting Net Neutrality and co-sponsoring legislation introduced by Senators Byron Dorgan and Olympia Snowe. More than 1.5 million Americans have spoken out forcefully in support of Net Neutrality. Senator Boxer is standing with us to prevent the largest phone and cable companies from controlling the Internet. I thank her for co-sponsoring the "Internet Freedom Preservation Act"."

On May 18, the Senator made this statement:
[If we don't protect Net Neutrality,] we're going to put a lot of people in the slow lane--as a matter of fact, we're going to have a lot of people not able to access the Internet, and it's a very unfair system.""

Network Neutrality: What It Is, Why It Is Important, What You Can Do About It

Net neutrality remains a hot topic in 2007 as the US congress discusses again around whether providing truly equal access to every publisher on the Internet will remain a fundamental right or whether those having greater financial capabilities can rule a preferred distribution highway for themselves.

Photo credit: Sean Nel

As reported by the NY Times, Just two days ago two US senators have introduced legislation in support of Net Neutrality:

"Waiting just four days into the new 110th Congress, Senators Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.) and Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) introduced legislation today to impose network neutrality conditions on broadband carriers.

The bill, known as the Internet Freedom Preservation Act, would prohibit broadband carriers from discriminatory practices such as pricing in handling traffic from Internet content, application and service providers.

The legislation would also require carriers to offer consumers individual broadband service that is not bundled with television or telephone service."

For those of you who haven't followed the issue of net neutrality until now as well as for those who are eager to learn more about the problems and consequences that adverse net neutrality legislation would bring about, here are three video clips that may just give provide the extra insight, motivation and overview you were looking for.
Introduction to Net Neutrality - Save the Internet.com

This is a great video clip if you don't know anything about Net Neutrality and you want to get briefed about it in the simplest and most rapid way.

Duration: 3:55"

Human Lobotomy - Foureyedmonsters
Net Neutrality Open Source Documentary

What can you do? Spread awareness, make media and let everyone know what net neutrality is and who is attacking it. In this very nice video edited by Arin Crumley you get both a clear picture of the incommensurable damage that adverse net neutrality legislation would generate as well as a crystal clear example of what, those of you living in the US can do today to support true Internet neutrality.

Duration: 10'

Senator Dorgan Introduction to Bill S 215

Sen. Byron Dorgan says he introduced the bipartisan “Net Neutrality Act” (S. 215) to protect the Internet’s promise to foster the “ultimate in democracy” and to stop the online market grab by large phone and cable companies seeking to impose new tolls on the Web. (source: Savetheinternet.com)

Duration: 1' 48"

One-minute opinion: Newsweek Steven Levy on Net Neutrality

In this micro-clip, Andy Pessler of vlog Beet.tv captures Newsweek journalist Steven Levy's view on the importance of net neutrality legislation preserving unfettered access to small independent publishers.

Duration: 1' 16"

On his blog Pessler writes:

"Here Newsweek's Steven Levy comes down in favor of the regulation ... all » because it evens the playing field of the Internet. So much of the value of the Internet is in its 'come one, come all' format - any grassroots or organic company, non profit or movement can gain traction and visibility and rise up to compete with the largest and most visible Internet companies.

When money enters the picture, that dynamic changes to the detriment of those that do not have it.

In that so much of the Internet is user generated content and smaller companies (ahem - the Long Tail) the Net Neutrality outcome has important implications for vlogs like Beet.TV."

source: http://www.masternewmedia.org/news/2007/01/13/network_neutrality_what_it_is.htm

Human Lobotomy - Save the internet

what is at stake? why Net neutrality is important?
This video explain it all.


This other video is about the humanity of the internet and in my opinion is the proof that the Internet is the ultimate platform for Freedom of Speech.

Not even they could stand it

Today I wandered on this post of "Hands off the Internet", a blogger or a group of bloggers that stand for "Internet Freedom". Before this morning I didn't know the difference between "Net Neutrality" and "Internet Freedom", but indeed there is. The first one talks about what the Internet should be, a democratic way to exchange information from one person to another, the second is about keeping the Government from regulating the ISPs (Internet Service Providers).

So indeed there is difference: one is about making sure that the message a person sends arrives with the same speed and same "priority" as any other message of any other person that uses that way to communicate, the other one is about making sure that the ISP are free to do what they think best. Can you see the difference here?

But with the post I read I found out that neither them could bare the fact that Comcast was delaying and stopping customers internet traffic. So, how come they don't agree anymore to their "Internet Freedom"? Do they still think ISP should be free to do anything they want on their network? And Comcast has 22% of the internet subscribers, which means a lot of people. It is in fact the biggest ISP in the US and the fact that they hijacked 22% of American’s internet traffic should make everyone (even the people of "Hands off the Internet") reflect about what just happened.

Are we going to let this happen again?

The Innate Neutrality of the Internet

Net Neutrality

SAVE THE INTERNET

The Internet has always been a way of communication that is absolutely democrat. The information hosted in a server, when requested, would be sent through wires to the clients who requested it. It's like connecting two people. One has some information, and the other one is asking for that information. In all this the wire only transports the information. The wire is neutral because it delivers all the information with the same speed and the same priority. That is the democratic way the Internet is as we know it today and it's called "Network Neutrality".

But there is another truth that might change all this. It is fact that all the information that comes through wires into our houses passes first through a gateway, owned by the Internet Service Provider (ISP). That means the gateway has complete control over the information traffic that passes through it. That's why police and FBI cooperate with ISPs (like AT&T, Comcast, Verizon, and so on) in order to track down cyber-criminals and so on. All information on the Internet passes through these gateways.

But what happens if one day a filter is applied to the traffic passing through a gateway? Let's say that all information from or to a country is blocked. Or the information from and to a company (for example MySpace.com/ Google.com/ Yahoo.com/ NewYorkTimes.com) is blocked. Or maybe only the information about democratic (or republican) senators. Or all the video-kind information.

The ISP might require you to pay more to be able to see videos on the Internet. Might ask MySpace.com or NewYorkTimes.com to pay a fee if they want to be reachable to the ISP subscribers. The democrat senators might just be censored because of their political affiliation.

Some filters might be set to just slow down the traffic from and to a location so that for example ISP can require a tax to those companies who wants send and receive information in the express lane, while the others have to stay in the slow lane.

It is so that one of the most democratic creations of men can be bounded. Net Neutrality can be violated by ISPs if Internet freedom and neutrality is not guaranteed by law. The world wide democracy that Internet represents can be changed into a tyranny by ISPs who only care about profits.

This topic already matters to me because I believe that democracy exist when to people are able to communicate together without external interference; when somebody interferes in that conversation, it's called dictatorship.