The idea behind net neutrality is that the owner of the plumbing should not care what the plumbing is used for or who uses it. This means that just because you are the local cable company, you cannot discriminate in how your Internet service is priced or prioritized on your network to benefit your other businesses.

It was only a matter of time before really innovative companies like Google, Hulu, or Skype were able to use the data you already pay for to provide the same services the the ISP’s provide. For the phone company to charge $10 a month for caller id when it costs $.05 to provide in a non-competitive market is wrong. And to restrict the consumer from utilizing these services simply because they compete with you is just bad for the consumer.

Net Neutrality is all about fostering competition. The new and innovative use of bits and bytes across the broadband network has made cable and phone company as content providers irrelevant, whether they know it yet or not. That leaves them with one purpose: running a network.

Net Neutrality insures that the network they manage is open to competing services and does not discriminate or favor one application over another. To say that an application like Google Voice somehow violates these principals is bunk. Network neutrality has always been about phone and cable companies trying to maintain power in the face of the Internet Revolution. Nothing more.

Little does anyone remember, but back in the early 1990′s, there was an outcry from internet users across the country over a perceived notion that the  telephone companies were doing everything in their power to disrupt the use of dial-up modems on their networks.  Historically, internet regulation were non-existent or by the seat of the regulators pants. Today, evidence suggests that the Internet was not even recognized as a phenomenon or concern by most regulators until the mid 1990s, when it became obvious it would have a giant impact on the most basic business models. As a result, the rules or actions that can be identified with fair use do not seem to have been framed with the Internet in mind, and the time is ripe for change.

Here at The Lounge, we have been ranting for years that the Money Grubbing  Internet Service Providers be required to provide non discriminatory internet access, guaranteed speed and data access, and to be free from anti-competitive abuses and practices. As online gamers, streamers, and website owners, Lisa and I have experienced a plethora of disruptive practices from our ISP’s including attempts to cap our unlimited data plan, disruption of our online peer-to-peer gaming, and disconnects from our video streaming due to subjective issues such as ‘network congestion’ or ‘provider disruption’ All of this while we paid in excess of $50 a month for unlimited speed and data plans from ISP’s who in the end, gave us limited data and bandwidth while vilifying us as bandwidth hogs. A little history tells the story of why we must insist that ISP’s in some way shape or form take on the look of a ‘common carrier’ of old, and provide  non-discriminatory access to the world wide web.

In 1980,  the FCC ruled that firms that use basic telecommunications services to provide an enhanced service, such as information delivery, are not engaged in the provision of a basic common carrier telecommunications service, or local telephone service. Rather, they are providing an “enhanced” service and, accordingly, are not subject to the direct jurisdiction of the FCC. At the time, a telecommunications common carrier was the term used to describe a provider of telecommunications transmission service that offers its service to the public for a fee and, in contrast to a television station owner or a cable television operator, does not control the content of the information transmitted by its facilities or services. Rather, the carrier’s customer controls the content and the destination of the transmission.

Local and long distance telephone companies operated as common carriers, which historically have had close regulatory scrutiny by both federal and state agencies. The history of common carriage is fundamental to the discussion today. There was a series of FCC decisions that gave customers the right to attach approved devices directly to the network, which has allowed both ISPs and users to attach modems to their phone lines, a necessary precondition for dial-up access. Some observers also point to common carriage regulation as an important internet enabler. Entry by ISPs has been facilitated by common carrier rules which mandate nondiscriminatory access and reasonable rates apply to both the dial-up lines used by individual customers and the telephone network dedicated lines used by many ISPs to connect points of presence to the Internet. In 1997 the FCC affirmed an earlier ruling that the transmission between an end user’s premises and an enhanced service provider’s location in the same calling area would be treated as a local call, rather than as an interstate call, regardless of whether that transmission carries data, an e-mail message, or even  a voice call over the Internet. For the final years of the 20th century, the internet was truly open and free.

Today, this has all changed. The old model service providers like AOL and CompuServe who were among hundreds of providers who sold  services in a competitive market based on a ‘local call’ to a ‘common carrier’. Every day were were bombarded with offers from ISP’s who were willing to provide us with the deal of a lifetime, including free access if we were willing to dial their number. The FCC regulations of unfettered access to the network is what fostered this competition. With the advent of broadband technology, high-speed internet access has become ubiquitous. Today, a typical consumer has little or no choice in his local community in respect to a high-speed or broadband provider. A large majority of consumers are located in area’s where the only provider is the Cable TV company who in turn is the content provider for competing services. This leads to a corporate media dominance not seen since the early days of  Radio and it is quite obvious we need pro-consumer regulation at the provider level.

The simple fact is the  Service Providers have had no incentive to provide pro-consumer services and no need to create equal and unfettered access to data on their broadband networks. This, along with the consolidation of the providers makes regulation even more imperative. The real scary part is that over the last decade, has been a large contraction of  pipes, with only 4 or 5 dominate broadband providers available in the country, and the habit of these providers is to continue to use anti-consumer and disruptive practices to enhance their bottom line. Either way, as long as were are dominated by just a few providers and those providers continue to disrupt the flow of information on their networks, we must force the F.C.C. to regulate these providers for the good of the people.

US Federal Communications Commission commissioner Robert McDowell has raised an eyebrow at Google’s request to serve as an administrator of a national database detailing the use of “white-space” spectrum. Google was among a coalition of tech outfits that first floated the idea of allowing unlicensed WiFi  devices into the white spaces, which are portions of the licensed television spectrum that go unused by terrestrial TV channels. Google, no doubt already the gorilla in the White Space china shop, has had to defend itself against heavy opposition from those already in the spectrum, including television broadcasters and wireless mic users.

We here at The Lounge feel strongly about The White Space, and intend to do everything in our power to keep these frequencies out of the hands of the Media giants and firmly in the hands of local communities. Google, who at this point has monetized most everything they have touched, seems quite willing to develop the  database of available frequencies needed to make this plan work and they are willing to donate it to the public, in return for administrating that database. I for one don’t necessarily have a problem with this, simply because the database doesn’t exist and Google’s willing to develop it. I do feel strongly that the FCC should take a real good look, make sure the White Space will be freely available to Cities, States, and local business’  so they in turn can deploy their own wireless local networks, without paying those no good money grubbing media shysters to carry OUR FREE signal.

Below is an excerpt from The White Space. Click to read more.

The idea behind net neutrality is that the owner of the plumbing should not care what the plumbing is used for or who uses it. This means that just because you are the local cable company, you cannot discriminate in how your Internet service is priced or prioritized on your network to benefit your other businesses.

It was only a matter of time before really innovative companies like Google, Hulu, or Skype were able to use the data you already pay for to provide the same services the the ISP’s provide. For the phone company to charge $10 a month for caller id when it costs $.05 to provide in a non-competitive market is wrong. And to restrict the consumer from utilizing these services simply because they compete with you is just bad for the consumer.

Net Neutrality is all about fostering competition. The new and innovative use of bits and bytes across the broadband network has made cable and phone company as content providers irrelevant, whether they know it yet or not. That leaves them with one purpose: running a network.

Net Neutrality insures that the network they manage is open to competing services and does not discriminate or favor one application over another. To say that an application like Google Voice somehow violates these principals is bunk. Network neutrality has always been about phone and cable companies trying to maintain power in the face of the Internet Revolution. Nothing more.

There has been a ton of conversation lately about AT&T and Apple banning the Google Voice application in the IPhone store. The service has the potential to be a real windfall for the average consumer. Google Voice, which is already available on BlackBerrys, provides users with free domestic calls, inexpensive international calls, free text messaging, call routing and other services. It also makes it trivial to switch to a new phone service, because with GV, everyone calls the same number for all of your phones.  The simple fact that this system competes with the the Phone Company for services is just good for the consumer. Companies tend to be more pro-consumer when there is actually competition, and ATT isn’t keen on sharing the revenue from all those calls to Europe.

Google Voice is actually the old Grand Central, a system that let you forward all your calls to a new ‘local’ number. The Gordons are Grand Central users since 2006, and its an excellent service. You can set Google to ring your cell phone if someone calls your home phone, for example. You can have your work phone number ring every phone you have if your out on a long lunch. The kids can text to the GV number, and spam the whole damn family. Not a bad idea nowadays, and  if anything it keeps people connected for emergencies and group efforts. A family of 4 in Disney for a week with 1 contact number?

Google Voice closed Grand Central for renovations last year, and it wasn’t until recently that it began accepting new users, and there has still been some hassle associated with actually using the service. IPhone type apps like GV Mobile remove many of those hassles, which is why AT&T is keen to keep them off the iPhone.

The mobile app for Google Voice uses the regular PSTN connection to place a call to Google Voice, which then places a call out to the person you need to reach. Since these calls and text messages originate from your Google Voice, they display your Google Voice number for the recipients. The wireless number you buy from the cell phone company just became irrelevant. The Google Voice app essentially reduces the cell phone carrier to a dumb pipe, and that where the debate centers. As a matter of fact, this is ground zero for the Consumer Vs. the Money Grubbing Telco Shysters. If the average consumer dosen’t make a stink here, your liable to pay twice for every call you make in the future with your cell phone. The point is that your paying for data on the phone, but the phone company won’t let you use it for speaking. Even though its all just data, they won’t let you use your data that way.

Motive? The vast majority of executives at AT&T despise Google because the search giant represents their deepest fear: a future where companies like AT&T are just dumb pipes, over which content companies like Google deliver services that soak up advertising revenue which old school phone executives really do believe belongs to them. The baby bells hate Google so much, they pay obscene $amounts to besmirch  the search giant. Both Apple and AT&T conspired just this week to prohibit competition and limit the open Internet in order to protect revenues. While brand loyalists will proclaim such anti-competitive foolishness is just good business, methinks the AT&T and Apple decision to block the Google Voice application is a rare, clear example of a network neutrality violation and should be reviewed at the highest level of Government.

Even if you want to argue semantics and proclaim it’s not technically a neutrality violation because the filtering isn’t happening at a base network level, good for you. It’s still  anti-competitive behavior, we just haven’t invented the word for it yet, and we should be collectively wise enough to expect no different from the Money Grubbing Telecos. As we’ve said for many years here @ The Lounge, now is the time for Consumers to stand up for whats right, and make the Networks Neutral.