I might like to change that personally to “I don’t want an internet dominated only by monopolistic Telcoms.”

Healthy competition Scott – healthy competition. I know the research has been done, I’ve read yours, I don’t have another. I’ll find others but reality is that the “competition” people like Scott Cleland speak of is actually managed and controlled by the larger Telcoms therefore they aren’t true, healthy competition.

More Thoughts;

The Seattle Times – “The arrival of a wonderful communication tool to rural and poor areas of the country [the USA] is vital to the democratic principles of hearing every voice and every opinion. The Times’ editorial on broadband capacity notes the United States can be compared to a Soviet-era grocery store, and Japan’s Internet capacity to a Whole Foods. Countries wired for the future are automatically also wired for democracy, whether their leaders like it or not.”

This is spin bs;

“You’re not going to make more money if you’re a broadband provider by blocking web sites or impeding disfavored services,” said Mr. Billingsley. “This would quickly send customers packing to another provider. Instead, you’re going to want to offer customers more services, more things to access and therefore, you’re going to want to cut deals that are pro-consumer and offer choices.”

This is simply not true. Since our government is in bed with the major Telcos, there is no competition to truly speak of and we’ll be forced to continue to use what the monopolies have control over. That is why we used to have controls over monopolies!

Then, in an obviously blatant attempt at character assassination of a former FCC chairman, for the purpose of proclaiming their own self-righteousness, listen to this;

“The kinds of restrictions Hundt is seeking in order to benefit a handful of well-connected political players is not only wrong, but will also pose a serious threat to our vibrant and competitive wireless market—a market that consumers have enthusiastically endorsed in the absence of government regulation.”

Which really ought to read “The kinds of access restrictions AT&T is seeking in order to benefit itself and a handful of co-operative and well-paid political players is not only wrong, but will also pose a serious threat to our vibrant and competitive wireless market—a market that the major Telco monopolies are enthusiastically drooling over in the absence of government regulation.”

This entry has become a bit longer than I wanted so I’ll cut it off because there are other topics needing to be addressed. I’ll return to this again and again though… wake up America!!!

Post from: EveryJoe

The Reality of Net Neutrality!

Opening with what I personally consider a very interesting comment on the availability of the Internet “It strikes us as unfair that some people should enjoy such abundant access to this rich resource while billions of others aren’t so lucky” the Official Google Blog states, in their article “Our commitment to open broadband platforms”

So today, we’re putting consumers’ interests first, and putting our money where our principles are — to the tune of $4.6 billion. Let me explain.

In the U.S., wireless spectrum for mobile phones and data is controlled by a small group of companies, leaving consumers with very few service providers from which to choose. With that in mind, last week, as the federal government prepares for what is arguably its most significant auction of wireless spectrum in history, we urged the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to adopt rules to make sure that regardless of who wins the spectrum at auction, consumers’ interests are the top priority. Specifically, we encouraged the FCC to require the adoption of four types of “open” platforms as part of the auction:

* Open applications: consumers should be able to download and utilize any software applications, content, or services they desire;
* Open devices: consumers should be able to utilize their handheld communications device with whatever wireless network they prefer;
* Open services: third parties (resellers) should be able to acquire wireless services from a 700 MHz licensee on a wholesale basis, based on reasonably nondiscriminatory commercial terms; and
* Open networks: third parties (like Internet service providers) should be able to interconnect at any technically feasible point in a 700 MHz licensee’s wireless network

Go for it Googs!

SaveTheInternet already made note;

True Open Access

“In the wireless world, open access would free millions of cell phone users to connect to an open Internet via any device or carrier. It would also blow open competition across wireless networks currently locked by a few dominant carriers.

Under such a system the new iPhone wouldn’t need to be shackled to a carrier such as AT&T, which leverages exclusive control of the network to cripple many iPhone applications, stifle new ideas and competition in the marketplace and limit what users can do on the wireless Web.”

If I’m not making this clear, allow me these two repeat comments from Google and then SaveTheInternet…

1 – In the U.S., wireless spectrum for mobile phones and data is controlled by a small group of companies, leaving consumers with very few service providers from which to choose.

2 – blow open competition across wireless networks currently locked by a few dominant carriers.

It ought not be difficult to read between these lines. This is furthering the discussion about Net Neutrality within which has been expressed some of the greediest corporate and most ignorant government blather imaginable. Google was a target of the blather.

Go ahead and bristle, Ed. Or will we leave that up to the lackeys you left behind telling them to “Give ‘Em Hell,” like Jim Cicconi who said (with a hat tip to Om Malik);

“Not satisfied with a compromise proposal from Chairman Martin that meets most of its conditions, Google has now delivered an all or nothing ultimatum to the U.S. Government, insisting that every single one of their conditions “must” be met or they will not participate in the spectrum auction. Google is demanding the Government stack the deck in its favor, limit competing bids, and effectively force wireless carriers to alter their business models to Google’s liking. We would repeat that Google should put up or shut up— they can bid and enter the wireless market with any business model they prefer, then let consumers decide which model they like best.”

I found the opening comment by Google interesting because of the “abundance” of money flowing towards the Broadband carriers wallets as a result of the re-assembling of Mama Bell to the tune of $$$Billions in numbers unimaginable to most of the billions of folks who HAVE access not to mention the billions of those that don’t.

I also really enjoy this comment at GigaOM by Rocky K as its truth rings loud and clear in response to Cicconi’s twist;

“A federal agency is creating an auction which will generate as much cash as possible while trying to balance that against the public interest (increase productivity/lower prices for data access). AT&T has certainly influenced this board with their own position. When Google does the same (in a fashion that is much more focused on the public interest), AT&T’s response is to misrepresent Google’s letter.”

It’s not over ’til the fat lady sings AT&T! If appearances mean anything at all, Google, at the very least, is making it plain that they are thinking of the public interest. We all know who you’re thinking of first! “Why should they be allowed to use my pipes?”

Post from: EveryJoe

Is Google Bigger Than Ed Whitacre?