<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><?xml-stylesheet title="XSL_formatting" type="text/xsl" href="rss_style.xsl" ?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">
<channel>
        <title>ZDNet Blogs</title>
        <link>http://blogs.zdnet.com</link>
        <description>ZDNet Blogs Focus: Net Neutrality</description>
<item>
<title>The governmental-communications complex: net neutrality now!</title>
<link>http://blogs.zdnet.com/storage/?p=234</link>
<pubDate>Wed, 07 Nov 2007 12:45:00 -0800</pubDate>
<dc:creator>Robin Harris</dc:creator>
<guid>http://blogs.zdnet.com/storage/?p=234</guid>
<description><![CDATA[This isn't about technology George Ou ought to be in marketing: his impassioned apology for Comcast's intrusive "network management" (see A rational debate on Comcast traffic management) almost makes sense. By dragging the discussion down into the details of cable's technical inadequacies he glosses over the important issues. The #1 issue is that if private telecommunications carriers are allowed to pick and choose what packets they carry then we have handed the government a blank check to censor and monitor private communications. Common carriage is settled law In 1845 - over 160 years ago - New York telegraph companies were legally required to provide impartial service on a first-come, first serve basis.  It shall be the duty of the owner or the association owning ... ]]>
</description></item>
<item>
<title>Net neutrality debate re-ignites</title>
<link>http://blogs.zdnet.com/open-source/?p=1601</link>
<pubDate>Thu, 25 Oct 2007 10:25:10 -0700</pubDate>
<dc:creator>Dana Blankenhorn</dc:creator>
<guid>http://blogs.zdnet.com/open-source/?p=1601</guid>
<description><![CDATA[The recent blocking of BitTorrent by Comcast has re-ignited the network neutrality debate. Rep. Rick Boucher has called Comcast on the carpet,  but AT&T has responded forcefully. They not only deny the need for network neutrality, they call it a positive harm, adding there is no such thing as a cable-phone duopoly. One interesting point here is that rural areas, which formerly were grossly under-served by the old Bell System, are now leading the drive to restore competition. In "Southside" Virginia, the Mid-Atlantic Broadband Cooperative now delivers 80 Mbps link-ups to area schools, allowing for high-quality videoconferencing. They also support Wireless ISPs which wish to compete with the telcos. MuniWireless says the municipal wireless market grew 35% this year, despite well-publicized setbacks ... ]]>
</description></item>
<item>
<title>The future of net discrimination, brought to you by Comcast</title>
<link>http://blogs.zdnet.com/Burnette/?p=420</link>
<pubDate>Wed, 24 Oct 2007 07:09:44 -0700</pubDate>
<dc:creator>Ed Burnette</dc:creator>
<guid>http://blogs.zdnet.com/Burnette/?p=420</guid>
<description><![CDATA[Imagine a busy intersection at rush hour. All the cars are moving slowly, but making progress. Everyone will eventually get home but it might take a while. To relieve the problem the city could build more or bigger roads but that's expensive. Meanwhile, along comes an ambulance that needs to get through. The ambulance is not treated like every other vehicle.  It turns on a siren and cars move out of the way to let it pass. The driver may even press his magic traffic light remote to make the light turn green for him. Nobody minds too much because they can imagine themselves being in that ambulance, needing to get to the hospital right away. And besides, it ... ]]>
</description></item>
<item>
<title>AT&amp;T's Randall Stephenson: 3G iPhone and saving the world from Net Neutrality</title>
<link>http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/?p=6717</link>
<pubDate>Tue, 23 Oct 2007 10:39:06 -0700</pubDate>
<dc:creator>Dan Farber</dc:creator>
<guid>http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/?p=6717</guid>
<description><![CDATA[During his interview at the Web 2.0 Summit, AT&T Chairman and CEO Randall Stephenson explained why Apple went with the slower EDGE network in the U.S. instead of the faster 3G variety ("Steve Jobs wanted to be on the EDGE network. He wanted the broadest, most ubiquitous data network. It   s the only one that covers the entire country."), and said that AT&T would have a program for corporate that want to buy hundreds or thousands of iPhones (currently each employee must be buy a phone and have a separately billed account). Om Malik extracted some more data out of AT&T Chairman and CEO Randall Stephenson about the iPhone. Om chatted with Stephenson after his on stage interview at the Summit, and ... ]]>
</description></item>
<item>
<title>Will cable kill the video stars?</title>
<link>http://blogs.zdnet.com/Foremski/?p=199</link>
<pubDate>Sun, 21 Oct 2007 11:47:51 -0700</pubDate>
<dc:creator>Tom Foremski</dc:creator>
<guid>http://blogs.zdnet.com/Foremski/?p=199</guid>
<description><![CDATA[Comcast is likely blocking all large file transfers not just BitTorrent, which is why it can say it is not deliberately targeting any specific applications. How will YouTube and the 140 other video sharing sites survive? YouTube videos are up to 100 MB in size, other video sites take larger files. I've already heard anecdotal stories of people unable to upload video files to a video hosting platform. If Comcast is doing this then other cable and telco companies will be doing it too. Why is Comcast filtering out large files on its network? Because it needs the bandwidth. Take a look at its most recent quarterly financial report: (RGU = Revenue Generating Units) - Highest level of second quarter RGU additions in Comcast history RGU ... ]]>
</description></item>
<item>
<title>Comcast, BitTorrent and spam spam spam</title>
<link>http://blogs.zdnet.com/open-source/?p=1573</link>
<pubDate>Sat, 20 Oct 2007 07:12:20 -0700</pubDate>
<dc:creator>Dana Blankenhorn</dc:creator>
<guid>http://blogs.zdnet.com/open-source/?p=1573</guid>
<description><![CDATA[In all the words being written about Comcast's violating net neutrality and throttling down BitTorrent, no one has pointed to their excuse. Bandwidth. (To the right, a yummy pork shoulder and ham product from the good folks at Hormel.) Many small ISPs, especially if they're based on WiFi, routinely throttle down BitTorrent and other peer-to-peer applications. They have done so for years. Their bandwidth costs them real money, and the only way they say they can assure adequate speed to all is to minimize the movement of big files. But what's the biggest bandwidth hog out there? Spam. I use Comcast, and over 95% of what comes through my Internet connection each day is spam. Cleaning it out of my own Internet pipes ... ]]>
</description></item>
<item>
<title>AT&amp;T's Randall Stephenson: Don't dork up the rules</title>
<link>http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/?p=6687</link>
<pubDate>Fri, 19 Oct 2007 11:35:51 -0700</pubDate>
<dc:creator>Dan Farber</dc:creator>
<guid>http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/?p=6687</guid>
<description><![CDATA[Following are quotes from AT&T Chairman and CEO Randall Stephenson from his interview with John Battelle at the Web 2.0 Summit. On Net Neutrality We all want the same thing. We are kind of new in this, and we all want the Internet to flourish and grow rapidly. We come at it from infrastructure and we are plowing a ton of money. We are learning how to work together. Don't regulate until there is a problem. The rules get dorked up and nobody will invest in these businesses. If somebody steps out of line they need to be slapped--don't mess with the business model. I speak to politicians all the time. The American experience endures by its economic strength. Things that increase the velocity of ... ]]>
</description></item>
<item>
<title>Comcast's network controls: File sharing isn't Comcastic</title>
<link>http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/?p=6681</link>
<pubDate>Fri, 19 Oct 2007 08:37:18 -0700</pubDate>
<dc:creator>Larry Dignan</dc:creator>
<guid>http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/?p=6681</guid>
<description><![CDATA[Comcast, in a move to save bandwidth, is interfering with subscribers who want to swap files online. According to the Associated Press, Comcast is discriminating against some of its subscribers. Comcast's interference was confirmed by various tests by the AP. The strangest twist: Comcast computers masquerade as users. The big concern is that Comcast is setting a precedent for other ISPs to follow. No one in the story argues with the fact that Comcast can do anything it wants with its network. The AP reports: If widely applied by other ISPs, the technology Comcast is using would be a crippling blow to the BitTorrent, eDonkey and Gnutella file-sharing networks. While these are mainly known as sources of copyright music, software and movies, BitTorrent ... ]]>
</description></item>
<item>
<title>Phony choices in the net neutrality debate</title>
<link>http://blogs.zdnet.com/open-source/?p=1400</link>
<pubDate>Mon, 10 Sep 2007 08:34:53 -0700</pubDate>
<dc:creator>Dana Blankenhorn</dc:creator>
<guid>http://blogs.zdnet.com/open-source/?p=1400</guid>
<description><![CDATA[George Ou's long post on net neutrality -- he uses the Bell spin "net stupidity" -- is a great example of FUD. This is not a complex debate. It's not about government vs. "the market." The idea that monopolists represent "the market" is one of the biggest lies ever told. The debate is over control. The question is where will the Internet be controlled -- at the center or at the edge? Phone companies want central control, and they have lots of apologists. If the phone companies, who control the U.S. Internet today with an iron hand, can have centralized control, they can bill us all out the wazoo while not really improving anything. It's like Microsoft taking control of computing via the ... ]]>
</description></item>
<item>
<title>Your thoughts on net neutrality</title>
<link>http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/?p=753</link>
<pubDate>Fri, 07 Sep 2007 04:37:19 -0700</pubDate>
<dc:creator>Adrian Kingsley-Hughes</dc:creator>
<guid>http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/?p=753</guid>
<description><![CDATA[The Department of Justice has indicated that broadband providers are entitled to charge a premium price for a premium service.    Here's the DOJs key point from the filing:  The Department submits, however, that free market competition, unfettered by unnecessary governmental regulatory restraints, is the best way to foster innovation and development of the Internet.  Net neutrality is a touchy subject with people on different sides of the argument having vastly different views on what net neutrality will mean.    I'm going to assume that the readers here at ZDNet are technical and knowledgeable folks (that's right, isn't it?) and that if anyone has their finger on the net neutrality pulse, it's going to be the technical and knowledgeable.  So, with that in mind, what ... ]]>
</description></item>
<item>
<title>DOJ comments on Net neutrality; Histrionics ensue</title>
<link>http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/?p=6161</link>
<pubDate>Fri, 07 Sep 2007 04:08:01 -0700</pubDate>
<dc:creator>Larry Dignan</dc:creator>
<guid>http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/?p=6161</guid>
<description><![CDATA[The Department of Justice comments on potential Net neutrality regulations, indicates that broadband Internet providers can charge for premium services and the usual Armageddon chorus emerges.   After all, it's just wrong to charge for faster speeds when you have spent billions to build a network.   Russell Shaw calls it an outrage. MoveOn.org calls for Net neutrality to become a presidential issue, according to a statement Russell posted. And other folks are just freaked out by the DOJ comment. Of course none of these other folks spent billions to build a network before.  These things just magically appear.    But let's get real here. All the DOJ said is that imposing Net neutrality could deter investment in networks. If there's ... ]]>
</description></item>
<item>
<title>The iPhone bill demonstrates need for open spectrum</title>
<link>http://blogs.zdnet.com/open-source/?p=1332</link>
<pubDate>Thu, 16 Aug 2007 01:55:19 -0700</pubDate>
<dc:creator>Dana Blankenhorn</dc:creator>
<guid>http://blogs.zdnet.com/open-source/?p=1332</guid>
<description><![CDATA[It's bigger than the Star Wars kid. Bigger than the prairie dog looking funny at the camera. We're talking Macaca big.    It's the 300 page iPhone bill, in a box that cost $10 to ship, and nothing could better illustrate the need for open spectrum as we head into an election year.    The bill listed every text message, and every file the woman downloaded. That's how the phone companies roll. Everything you do is an event. Make a call and it's an event, send a message and it's a event, look at a web page and it's an event, watch a TV show and it's an event.    Every event is chargeable, separately.    The Internet runs differently. You are charged a monthly fee for your ... ]]>
</description></item>
<item>
<title>Google's open access challenge</title>
<link>http://blogs.zdnet.com/open-source/?p=1235</link>
<pubDate>Fri, 20 Jul 2007 11:09:27 -0700</pubDate>
<dc:creator>Dana Blankenhorn</dc:creator>
<guid>http://blogs.zdnet.com/open-source/?p=1235</guid>
<description><![CDATA[You can have the money if you break the monopoly.    That's the summary of Google's proposal for 700MHz, as laid out in a letter from CEO Eric Schmidt to the FCC. Google will bid up to $4.6 billion for spectrum if it gets open access rules on it.    In a separate posting to the Google blog Chris Sacca (right) lays down "four freedoms" for the spectrum, which I've edited:     Open applications: The same freedoms found on the Internet to download software, content, or services;   Open devices: Devices must access any network consumers want.   Open services: Fairness in wholesaling use of the spectrum to third parties.   Open networks: Internet-type rules for connecting networks together.    All this idealism has a practical political point. Google aims to break the cellular ... ]]>
</description></item>
<item>
<title>Google: Backpedaling away from Net neutrality stance?</title>
<link>http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/?p=4651</link>
<pubDate>Wed, 14 Mar 2007 07:18:55 -0700</pubDate>
<dc:creator>Larry Dignan</dc:creator>
<guid>http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/?p=4651</guid>
<description><![CDATA[GigaOm's Drew Clark makes a convincing case that Google is backing off of its stance as Net neutrality champion.  Clark quotes Google Senior Policy Counsel Andrew McLaughlin saying:     Net neutrality will ultimately be solved by competition in the long-run,    describing fiber, broadband over power lines, and wireless efforts to crack    the existing telco-cable duopoly...Cutting the FCC out the picture would probably be a smart move. It is much better to think of this as an FTC or unfair competition type of problem.     McLaughlin goes on to say that there's a pragmatic view as long as telecom companies charge more based on quality of service. As long as these telecom giants don't discriminate all charging more is ok.  Clark outlines the situation very well. The ... ]]>
</description></item>
<item>
<title>Does the Internet need a do-over?</title>
<link>http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/?p=4490</link>
<pubDate>Tue, 13 Feb 2007 08:02:51 -0800</pubDate>
<dc:creator>Larry Dignan</dc:creator>
<guid>http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/?p=4490</guid>
<description><![CDATA[The Internet is maxing out, isn't viable over the long run and is being flooded by rich applications and thousands of gadgets. If the Internet were air traffic control you wouldn't fly.  That's the gist of a Computerworld report. Computerworld argues that the Internet needs a clean slate and researchers are increasingly targeting projects to oblige the idea.  According to the story, Nick McKeown, a computer scientist at Stanford University, says the Internet is    broken    in at least two places     security and mobility. He has created a prototype network called Ethane, which centralizes security.  Says McKeon:         Ten years ago, we were saying the Internet would change the world,    he says.    In a decade or two, we   d be doing air traffic control and remote ... ]]>
</description></item>
<item>
<title>Robert Pepper: Net neutrality's false choice</title>
<link>http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/?p=3929</link>
<pubDate>Fri, 10 Nov 2006 08:38:21 -0800</pubDate>
<dc:creator>Dan Farber</dc:creator>
<guid>http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/?p=3929</guid>
<description><![CDATA[Vint Cerf, one of the creators of the Internet and Google's vice president and Chief Internet Evangelist, and Robert Pepper, the FCC   s chief of policy development after 19 years and now Cisco's senior managing director of global advanced technology policy, faced off on the topic of net neutrality at the Web 2.0 Summit. It was a draw, and without the telecoms on stage, the fireworks were mostly two people who have known each other for years taking sides that were not all that far apart. After the debate, I interviewed Pepper about his views on Net neutrality. "The false choice is whether you are going to have tyranny or chaos. That's a really silly choice," Pepper said. "It's a question ... ]]>
</description></item>
</channel>
</rss>
