Home » Posts tagged 'net neutrality' (Page 3)
Tag Archives: net neutrality
Search neutrality?
Nowadays you will find that there is hardly a day that goes by in which google is not in the media spotlight. Topics having to do with Google are limitless. In today's New York times, Op-Ed Contributor Adam Raff, a co-founder of Foundem, an Internet technology firm, is asking people to demand that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) work toward "search neutrality." The premise of his argument is that in order to ensure equal access to the infrastructure of the Internet, FCC needs to impose regulations not only on Internet service providers but also on search engine companies. Raff points out:
Today, search engines like Google, Yahoo and Microsoft’s new Bing have become the Internet’s gatekeepers, and the crucial role they play in directing users to Web sites means they are now as essential a component of its infrastructure as the physical network itself.I think Raff is making an important argument here: search engines are a key part of the Internet's infrastructure. When we consider search engines as infrastructure it puts the Internet into a public utility dimension like electricity, telephone etc. If that's the case, then the public has a right to input into how search engines should work. I don't think there is any neutral search engine (sponsored links anyone?!) but it's worthwhile to think about search engine as public infrastructure. Currently Google controls over 70% of the search market and over 95% of Google's revenue comes from ad revenue. So it's clear that search results are not all about relevancy but are related to how Google can generate more profit through the placement of ads. If search engines were part of the public Internet infrastructure, then what would it look like? Can we find a model somewhere? How about libraries as a model? Continue reading
Free and open internet
Here's a simple, straightforward and thoughtful piece about what an open and neutral internet architecture means and why it's important. --that is all.
McCain’s “Internet Freedom Act” = dangerous oxymoron
[w:Net neutrality] is again in the news. John McCain has just come out with the oxymoronic S. 1836 "Internet Freedom Act" (as opposed to Representative Markey's H.R. 3458 "Internet Freedom Preservation Act of 2009"). The bill's actual title is "A bill to prohibit the Federal Communications Commission from further regulating the Internet." This is wrong for so many reasons. Net neutrality is the core tenet upon which the internet was built (all packets created equal!"). So in other words the FCC's proposed net neutrality regulations (and remember, the FCC has regulated every form of media communication in the 20th century!) will actually protect the non-regulation of internet traffic from telcos and ISPs who would like to turn the internet into a toll road. The Sunlight Foundation's Real Time Investigations points out that telecom companies worried about net neutrality have been spreading a lot of $$ around DC and the #1 recipient of their largesse is Senator McCain, the self-professed technological "illiterate", who, took in $894,379. But don't take my word for it, listen to Xeni Jardin and Jon Stewart describe the silliness of McCain's "Internet Freedom Act":
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| From Here to Neutrality | ||||
| ||||
FCC’s new Open Internet Blog
The Federal Communications Commission has a new blog: blog.openinternet.gov. The blog is intended to have "expert commentary from FCC staff on how best to preserve the Internet’s openness and questions that arise during this debate." And, in the first post on the site, FCC chairman Julius Genachowski says, "Our staff hopes to use this forum not only to share ideas but also to receive them. We encourage all visitors to weigh in with their own thoughts and engage in an open dialogue." Want a flavor of the blog? Try this bit about network neutrality from a post by the Jon Peha, the FCC's Chief Technologist:
Back in the 1980s, I spent much of my time thinking about an obscure topic – how to manage the flow of packets around the Internet, particularly if anyone were ever crazy enough to try telephone-like or TV-like services over what was obviously just a computer network. Like most grad students, I thought my dissertation topic was important to everyone. Sometimes after parties, my girlfriend at that time would remind me that a handful of engineers might care about such things, but normal humans, including lawyers like her, never would. But two decades later, it was mostly lawyers who were grappling with critical decisions on this topic, while most engineers paid little attention.The blog will also offer timely information on the FCC’s latest activities to preserve an open Internet. Continue reading
FCC chair Genachowski emphasizes support for net neutrality
We've been tracking net neutrality for a while but it seems to have gone below the radar. That is, until today when Julius Genachowski, chairman of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), gave a speech at the Brookings Institution in Washington D.C. and presented a series of open-access principles, emphasizing, among other things, net neutrality. And groups like Save the Internet cheered!
Genachowski added 2 principles to the FCC's original 4 principles of network freedom mapped out by Michael Powell in 2005 (see other 4 below):
(the other 4 principles are: (1) consumers are entitled to access the lawful Internet content of their choice; (2) consumers are entitled to run applications and services of their choice, subject to the needs of law enforcement; (3) consumers are entitled to connect their choice of legal devices that do not harm the network; and (4) consumers are entitled to competition among network providers, application and service providers, and content providers. See TechlawJournal for background)
On a side note, the speech was posted to the FCC's beta site called OpenInternet.gov built to "facilitate input and participation in the commission proceedings as this discussion evolves."
Latest Comments