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