House Preparing New Net Neutrality Legislation, It Appears

With the caveat that introducing a bill in the U.S. Congress is not a guarantee it will be considered, House Energy and Commerce Chairman Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) apparently is preparing to introduce new legislation creating a framework for network neutrality that, in its present form, seems to be far less onerous than rules the Federal Communications Commission has been attempting to put into place.

The draft also would prohibit the FCC from imposing regulations on broadband Internet access service or any component of the service under Title II of the Communications Act, except when a broadband Internet access provider prefers to do so.

The rules would apply to all consumer broadband connections, wired and wireless.

The short draft, which of course always could be amended into something quite different, should it advance, basically codifies the existing "Internet freedoms" rules the FCC has bee using, without apparently adding language that prohibits application of quality-of-service features to consumer broadband access.

The rules would prohibit service providers from blocking lawful content, applications, or services, or prohibit the use of non-harmful devices, subject to reasonable network management. Service providers do not object to those rules.

The draft also would prohibit "unjustly or unreasonably" discriminating against lawful traffic over a consumer’s wireline broadband Internet access service. Depending on later elaboration and interpretation, this likely would not be objectionable to service providers, either.

The draft language also would allow reasonable network management practices, specifically saying that such practices  "shall not be construed to be unjustly or unreasonably discriminatory."

The language also specifically makes clear that it addresses consumer broadband connections, not all broadband connections, an important distinction as one would not want any new rules to apply to business services.

The draft language so far does not elaborate on whether enhanced services or other quality of service features are permissible. The language so far focuses on "minimum" standards of behavior, but does not specifically address whether consumers have the right to buy services that offer expedited or quality-assured delivery.

read the bill here

Online Marketing, Local Search and Mobile Search to Drive Six-Fold Increase in Internet Traffic

http://makemoneyonlinelab.org/online-marketing-local-search-and-mobile-search-to-drive-six-fold-increase-in-internet-traffic-2

Two in Three Likely Colorado Voters Say Government Spending Too High

http://bendegrow.com/2010/key-poll-two-in-three-likely-colorado-voters-say-government-spending-too-high-affects-them-personally/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=key-poll-two-in-three-likely-colorado-voters-say-government-spending-too-high-affects-them-personally

RIM hopes enterprise tablet secures franchise

http://www.google.com/reader/i/?source=mog&gl=us#stream/user%2F05579064408535224496%2Fstate%2Fcom.google%2Freading-list

Apple iAd gaining traction

The Apple iAd mobile advertising platform is on track to gain 21 percent of the nascent mobile ad market. Google is expected to dip to 21 percent, a drop from 27% last year, and Microsoft will drop to seven percent share, from 10 percent last year, IDC predicts.

Of course, it is still a $500 million revenues annual market, but growing quite fast.

Apple iAd gaining traction on mobile ad competitors

Sony Ericsson Dumps ‘Failed’ Symbian OS

It wasn't so long ago that Nokia executives would point out how difficult mobile phones and mobile operating systems are, essentially arguing that new mobile operating systems would have a tougher time than they thought.

Now it is Symbian that appears to have failed, while the Apple iOS and Android keep growing.

Sony Ericsson confirmed that it had no plans for new Symbian products, while a Gartner analyst labeled the open source mobile operating system as a failed experiment.

We probably won't hear comments of that sort anymore.

Sony Ericsson Dumps ‘Failed’ Symbian OS

Public Pensions are a Crisis

We have a big public pension obligation crisis brewing, in case you didn't already know that. If we don't fix it, we will someday discover that nearly 100 percent of funds intended to support local education will be going to pay retiree benefits.

National Poll Infers Little Support for Net Neutrality, Maybe

Hart Research Associates conducted a national survey finding that opposition to government Internet regulation remains high with more than 75 percent of respondents agreeing that the Internet is currently working well and over 55 percent stating that the federal government should not regulate the Internet at all.

Some will interpret the results as relatively overwhelming citizen rejection of the notion of "network neutrality," but that probably overstates the results. Proponents will argue that net neutrality is about protecting people from future potential abuses, and does not address today's experience.

Granted, the average person wouldn't have a clue what "network neutrality" is, so asking a pointed question would likely result in dubious or skewed results.

Still, there seems to be a clear sentiment that the government is not likely to make things better if it becomes more active in things related to the Internet, with the exception of privacy protections and child safety.

When asked if the federal government should regulate the Internet, 57 percent responded “no”. Of the 31 percent who thought the federal government should regulate the Internet, more than two thirds said any such regulation should be focused on privacy, online safety and protecting children.

National Poll Finds More Than 75 Percent of Americans Agree the Internet is Working | Broadband for America

Bandwidth Caps Could Limit Netflix's Streaming Service in Canada

Netflix recently has launched "streaming only" service in Canada, and fixed-line provider bandwidth caps might be a key issue.

Some broadband packages offered by Rogers and others have a limit of as little as 2 GBytes a month, which would only allow for users to stream one Netflix movie a month.

Other providers offer 15 GByte and and 60 GByte caps, but one Netflix movie can take up between two and three gigabytes. so there is not much headroom.

Netflix's Streaming Service in Canada

Short Interest In Telecom Shares Grows

Short sellers recently have increased their positions in a number of telecom stocks, presumably suggesting they believe the prices will drop.

The market has probably become concerned that drops in landline customers is no longer being made up for by growth in cellular subscriptions.

Short Interest In Telecom And Tech Rises

T-Mobile Text Blocking Raises Old Issues in New Way

T-Mobile USA has been sued by EZ Texting, a provider of marketing campaigns using text mesaging. because T-Mobile USA blocked one of EZ Texting's campaigns.

The issue is far more complicated than some seem to believe. On one hand, this is pitched as an infringement of "free speech" rights. On the other hand it is seen as within the purview of any ad network or content publisher to decide what it will run, and what it will not run.

In other words, it is a manifestation of an ancient debate: Does the right of political speech belong to the speaker or the listener?

Also, though communications is regulated on a "common carrier" basis, which implies no "right of free speech" for the carrier (no blocking, for example), a commercial text messaging campaign is the use of a common carrier capability for an advertising campaign.

Historically, content publishers and media have had the nearly absolute right to reject any discrete bit of advertising, exercising their "free speech" rights.

These issues are not easily resolved. One might argue it is clear enough that the original intent of the U.S. Constitution was to preserve the right of free political speech for "speakers," not "listeners," originally for publishers of political tracts, pamphlets and the forerunners of newspapers.

More recently, the rules have shifted for electronic forms of communication, putting new emphasis on the "rights" of listeners or viewers. That's the foundation of all "local content" or "diversity" rules, for example.

But those interpretations conflict. Is the right of free speech primarily or necessarily for the speaker, or for the audience?

Secondarily, in this case, is texting a form of media, and therefore protected by free speech rights, when the use case is "advertising and marketing" rather than person-to-person communication of the common carrier type (private conversations and messaging)?

If the former, then T-Mobile has the right to reject an ad; if the latter, then all the messages must be delivered.

These sorts of questions have gotten more complicated as media have evolved, but there is a basic contradiction here, nonetheless. Is the right something that belongs to the speaker, or the listener? Courts have ruled both ways.

T-Mobile Claims Right to Censor Text Messages

What's the Form Factor for the Mobile Phone of the Future?

As much as the Apple iPhone has changed the expectations users have about what a mobile device should look like, and how the interface should work, there are no end of ideas about where device form factors and user experience are headed.

One Point of View on Net Neutrality

It isn't a view I agree with, but Tim Wu is an articulate proponent of the argument in favor of net neutrality.

Stimulus didn't save the nation from depression

Economists now say the Great Recession ended in June of 2009, when the economy began growing again. And now people are arguing the the trillion dollar American Reinvestment and Recovery Act "saved" us from a worse outcome. Really?

The ARRA was passed in February 2009. The recession ended in June 2009. By the end of September 2009 (after the recession had ended), just $36.2 billion had actually been received, either by agencies that would disburse funds, or directly by individuals.

Do you really believe less than $36 billion in ARRA spending had any meaningful impact?

http://www.recovery.gov/Transparency/RecipientReportedData/Pages/QuarterlySum.aspx?qtr=2009Q3

Stimulus didn't save the nation from depression | detnews.com | The Detroit News

A Scary Chart

There is something about this chart that should worry you. Note the length of the 1929 recession, about 44 months.

If you know your U.S. history, you know that the United States was in a "Great Depression" throughout the 1930s, getting out only sometime during World War II.

So the "official" recession last less than four years, though the Great Depression lasts up to a decade and a half.

Part of the reason is that there were two separate "recessions" during the Great Depression, if we can say something that sounds nonsensical.

Also, despite the moniker "roaring twenties," and the undeniable growth of that period, there were recessions in 1920, 1923, 1926 and 1929. Every three years, a reversal from growth to decline.

Given current worry about a double dip recession, and recent comments by the Federal Reserve suggesting it is worried about that happening, despite other "happy talk" about the low possibility of such an event, the 1920s and even 1950s record suggests one can say it is possible, perhaps even likely, there could be a growth reversal every three years, even in an otherwise robust economic climate.

If the last recession "ended" in June 2009, that might suggest another recession starting in June 2012 or so. Maybe its not strictly a "double dip," but two separate recessions. Americans won't care.

Nor does it provide any comfort to note there were "just" two recessions in the era we call the Great Depression. In other words, the formal definitions are one thing; the human experience quite another thing.