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.

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.

There is a very big discussion concerning your right to privacy in the Electronic Age, and the average American has no clue they are even being watched.  Here are a couple of issues at hand.

Representatives from NBC, Microsoft, several digital filtering companies and telecom giant AT&T said the time was right to start filtering for copyrighted content at the network level.

and

E-Mail Surveillance Renews Concerns in Congress.

Filtering content?

Well for starters, every time you send an e-mail, attach a file, or request a page or content on the internet, you do it through your ISP. ISP’s like Cablevision or Verizon provide you with access to the net. You pay to use the servers.  Filtering searches for bits of code. Like a ‘copyright’. Or in the case of the NSA, an algorithm is used to find the unusual. It reads and interprets them. Copyright holders will pay big bucks to let ISP’s look for their content. The Feds will subpoena for it, and in the end, every e-mail, attachment or file will be read.

What could that possible mean to me?

Its exactly like the post office opening each and every letter looking for a copyrighted picture or a tape, or a note to Kendall Myers.  If the ISP’s ’find’ a problem, they may refuse to send it. Or they may invoke a TOS case. Or they may rat you out unless you get sanitized.

Some people feel filtering is a conspiracy; a way for ISP’s to monetize their monopoly position via a racket. Ooops, our filters caught too much Twitter traffic today, and since Twitter is not our partner, were going to slow down or deny page loads. Oops, you didn’t pay a premium, you can’t embed pictures in your e-mail. You can do these things on the fly if you monitor every packet.

Someone checking each and every file on the internet in hopes of finding someone who MAY be trading a copyrighted file or is involved in a terrorist act would be invasive, to say the least. We better make it the law that at the minimum, filtering of data must be an approved act, subject to the same principals as snail mail, and we better do it soon.

E-Mail Surveillance Renews Concerns in Congress.

Under the surveillance program, before the N.S.A. can target and monitor the e-mail messages or telephone calls of Americans suspected of having links to international terrorism, it must get permission from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. Supporters of the agency say that in using computers to sweep up millions of electronic messages, it is unavoidable that some innocent discussions of Americans will be examined. Intelligence operators are supposed to filter those out, but critics say the agency is not rigorous enough in doing so.

The rising concern among some members of Congress about the N.S.A.’s recent operation are raising fresh questions about the spy agency. All we can do is implore our local Representatives to control who can open and read our e-mail. Laws need to be written to protect our privacy, and they need to be written now.

Here at the Lounge, we have been talking for years about how broadband providers have manipulated our bandwidth to increase profits on their content side. How ISP’s are proposing Deep Packet Inspection for network management and  e-mail, and how that’s like the post office charging for a ghetto stamp. We have talked quite often about the need for more competition in the broadband market and how in competitive markets, ISPs act much more pro-consumer. We talked about how in markets that do lack competition, the cable industry has flooded State and Local government with FUD and untold $$millions while lobbying for regulations that stifle competition and innovation.

The one thing we haven’t talked about is Net Neutrality. What is it, how it can help us diversify our media choices and how it just might stimulate a whole new world of media distribution, like the Television did 50 years ago. Hulu, Ruku, XBox, Tivo and Boxee are popular alternatives to the traditional cable distribution model, and those Money Grubbing Cable TV shysters are doing everything to make them fail. It’s time we helped, and Net Neutrality might just be the law we all need.

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 to benefit your other businesses. Streaming a 3 gig movie should not, for example, be more expensive than streaming the same amount of data from a cable branded stream. Net Neutrality would address the DPI issue in that it would de-monetize the data, it would make it illegal to click-watch without opt-in, and make it illegal to ‘cap for crap’ unless the Exaflood really does happen. In a nutshell, it would make the Internet a dumb pipe, just what they invented 20 years ago.

The carriers very much want the FCC to stay as far away as possible from the network neutrality debate. And if their actions are any indication, they are trying very hard to push through as much change before the government steps in. In proposing what looked like Internet pricing intended to ward off competition to its cable TV business, Time Warner set off  a shit storm of criticism. This time around, it looks like Congress is starting to get involved, and where Congress goes the FCC soon follows. A Democrat-controlled FCC will probably not roll over for cable companies quite as easily as the Bush FCC did. After seeing this particular danger lurking, Time Warner bailed on the new pricing, at least for now. This was a direct result of the potential for increased oversight, not because the average customer would pay much higher prices. TW really doesn’t give a crap about you the customer, and that’s why I expect it to show up again in somewhat different form sometime in the next few months. Either way, everyone must understand that laws are needed now. Once these pricing plans go live, there will be very little we can do about it.

In closing, there is simply was no reasonable justification for the per-gigabyte pricing that Time Warning Cable was proposing. I cannot imagine a situation in which a gigabyte of Internet data should cost $1 from the cable company, when it costs them about 3 cents to produce in a non-competitive market. I strongly believe that Internet companies should provide either access or content, but not both. Verizon should not discriminate against Yahoo because it has a deal with Google. The Internet carrier should handle traffic for both companies equally. Time Warner was planning to charge those kind of rates to help kill the ‘On-Demand video market. That’s a fact. The way I look at it, Net Neutrality may be the only thing between me and all those streaming re-runs of Speed Racer.