THE LWVCT MEDIA
STUDY: Concurrence achieved a long time ago!
Concurrence
Unofficial Page -
read up on the subject of WIFI and
technical matters. Sorry it took us so long to mention that
LWVCT adopted it!



League
has been thinking about
Net Neutrality and related subjects for a while!
C O N T E N T S
- LEGISLATION CT 2008 - click
here.
- New
CT LWV position on Internet and the Media - click
here!
- Fall Conference on
E-Democracy: A 21st Century Citizen's Right to Know and
Participate NOW STREAMING HERE!
- What's new...and a story not brand
new, that may explain some technical things!
- More
new stuff
- link here
to report on high speed internet
access in U.S.A. as of 2006 - compare this to what I-BBC reports: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/7114728.stm#anchor
- INTRO to
the topic: inspired by Free Press' presentation at LWVCT Convention '07...
- Which
Committee is in charge of these issues in the U.S. House of
Representatives?
- Tech info;
- THE
NEXT GENERATION - WIMAX - modem for laptop,
alternative possibly the real alternative to WiFi (no technical
problems) - similar speeds to DSL (?)
- Interesting insight:
GOOGLEBLOG;
- CT
news.
- Duke University WiFi problem?
Apple I-phone culprit...
- WiFi
locations and cost (if not
FREE). NOTE: not
an all-encompassing list - http://pcworld.jiwire.com/
- More on
WiFi in CT.
- Background reports on WiFi and Media
Study
matters...F.C.C. latest.
Since the CT League
achieved concurrence...
Oklahoma, Utah Lead
Going Cell-Only; Calif, NY Lag
NYTIMES
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Filed at 12:21 p.m. ET
March 11, 2009
Trendy California isn't a trendsetter when it comes to relying on cell
phones. And while the 1987 movie ''Wall Street'' helped introduce the
then-brick-sized mobile phone to popular culture, New York and other
Northeast states lag in dropping landlines. Surprisingly, Oklahoma and
Utah lead in going wireless, according to federal estimates released
Wednesday.
At least 26 percent of households are now cell-only in Oklahoma and
Utah, the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimated.
That rate was at least 20 percent in nine other states -- Nebraska,
Arkansas, Idaho, Iowa, Kentucky, New Mexico, Texas, South Carolina and
Tennessee -- and the District of Columbia.
The study is sure to be watched closely by telecommunications companies
trying to understand state and local markets better, and by government,
academic and commercial survey researchers using telephone polling to
monitor health trends, politics and much more.
The CDC, blending its own 2007 survey data with Census updates, found
the prevalence of cell-only households varies widely by state --
sometimes within regions and even between neighboring states. This is
tied to differences by state in demographics known to predict
wireless-only ownership, especially being young and renting rather than
owning a home.
States with the fewest cell-only households: Vermont (5 percent) and
Connecticut, Delaware and South Dakota (6 percent each). South Dakota
was near the bottom even though next-door Nebraska was near the top.
Also below 10 percent: Rhode Island, New Jersey, Hawaii, California (9
percent), Montana, Massachusetts and Missouri.
In New York -- where Michael Douglas as corporate raider Gordon Gekko
roamed lower Manhattan barking orders on a huge early cell phone in
''Wall Street'' -- 11 percent of households were cell only.
The study also estimated how many adults only have cell phones. Those
estimates mostly came within a point or two of the household numbers.
The study's lead author, Stephen Blumberg, senior scientist at the
CDC's National Center for Health Statistics, noted the data are from
2007 and all signs indicate people keep substituting cell phones for
landlines at a steady pace.
''We would expect that today in 2009 the prevalence rates in every
state have increased, perhaps by 5 percentage points or more. What we
don't know is whether the rate of growth is the same in every state,''
Blumberg said in an interview.
By asking about telephone usage in its monthly in-person health
surveys, Blumberg's agency is the only source for data on prevalence of
cell-phone-only households. It estimates more than one in six American
homes -- 17.5 percent -- had only wireless phones as of a year ago.
The health survey doesn't have enough interviews to produce reliable
state-level estimates in most states, so Blumberg's team looked to the
Census Bureau's Current Population Survey, with large state samples.
The researchers compared CPS data on demographic groups known to be
associated with cell phone usage and adjusted the CDC state estimates
to conform.
U.S. telephone surveys, especially on the state level, typically sample
only landline phones. There's growing evidence from the 2008 election
that excluding cell phones could hurt poll accuracy, at least a little.
Blumberg noted that in health surveys omitting cell-only respondents
could, among other things, underestimate the number of smokers and
binge drinkers -- and, paradoxically, those who exercise regularly.
AT&T
Plans to Add 30 New Cell Sites in Oklahoma
NYTIMES
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Filed at 11:31 a.m. ETS
March 11, 2009
OKLAHOMA CITY (AP) -- AT&T Inc. said it will add more than 30 new
cell sites in Oklahoma this year and will launch its third-generation
mobile broadband network in Ada, Ardmore, Enid and Muskogee.
Steve Gray, vice president and general manager for AT&T's mobility
and consumer markets in Oklahoma and Arkansas, said Tuesday the
expansion builds upon last year's investments in the state, including
almost 20 new cell sites and the launch of its 3G network in Shawnee,
Lawton and Bartlesville.
''We are constantly evaluating our network and its performance,'' Gray
said. ''We have enjoyed a great amount of growth over the past 20
years.''
He said the size of the investment is attributable to the size of the
telecommunication company's customer base in the state.
''We are determined to continue to keep our market. It's very, very
competitive out there,'' Gray said.
Nationwide, AT&T said it will invest between $17 billion and $18
billion in 2009. The company declined to disclose the size of its
investment in Oklahoma but said it invested more than $675 million in
its Oklahoma network between 2006 and 2008.
Gray said he expects no increase in consumer costs as a result of the
expanded services.
''What we think we have is a great value for the consumer,'' he said.
Some of the new cell sites will be located across the Oklahoma City and
Tulsa areas and in Shawnee. Chickasha, Lawton, Stillwater, Weatherford
and several other areas also will receive new cell sites and additional
AT&T coverage.
AT&T will also continue expanding its AT&T U-verse services,
including AT&T U-verse TV, AT&T U-verse High Speed Internet and
AT&T U-verse Voice.
AT&T also has completed the integration of nearly 275 cell sites in
Oklahoma that it acquired from Dobson Communications. The former Dobson
sites are in Adair, Cherokee, Craig, Delaware, Garfield, Mayes,
McIntosh, Muskogee, Nowata, Okmulgee, Ottawa, Pittsburg and Washington
counties.
Gray said AT&T's focus in investing in its wireless and wired
networks is velocity and mobility.
''We are fast-paced culture, so immediate gratification is the thread
running through us,'' he said.
Gov. Brad Henry said the company's expansion plans will provide
Oklahomans with faster and better options for reaching emergency
services and business communications.
''Creating a more robust communications infrastructure provides
numerous benefits to Oklahoma consumers and is a big plus in terms of
bolstering economic development and luring new companies and industry
to our state,'' Henry said.
Deal Collapses for
Free Wi-Fi in Parks
NYTIMES
By Sewell Chan
January 7, 2009, 1:29 pm
Updated, 5:48 p.m. | The long-troubled arrangement to install wireless
Internet networks in Central Park and other New York City parks has
quietly collapsed after the contractor, Wi-Fi Salon, ran out of money
because it could not find corporate sponsors.
The networks were quietly shut down in October and Wi-Fi Salon is
removing the equipment from the park locations, which include seven hot
spots in Central Park, two in Prospect Park, and others at Washington
Square, Battery, Riverside, Van Cortlandt, Pelham Bay and Flushing
Meadows-Corona Parks, as well as Orchard Beach. This does not affect
the privately provided free Wi-Fi at Bryant Park and other locations.
The collapse of the deal was reported Monday by Wi-Fi Net News and
picked up today by the NYC Wireless blog and Crain’s New York Business.
The parks department confirmed that the city terminated the contract in
anticipation of a new plan to offer high-speed wireless at locations
across the city, including the parks.
In 2004, Wi-Fi Salon agreed to pay the city’s Department of Parks and
Recreation $90,000 over three years for the right to wire 10 parks in
four boroughs, including Central Park. (The deal was extended once, for
an additional $30,000 for a fourth year.) The fairly tiny concession
fee was a fraction of the larger costs needed to make the networks
operable. Without sponsorships to sustain those costs, the company’s
founder, Marshall W. Brown, said he had no choice but to shut it down.
Wi-Fi service will continue at Bryant Park, where it has been offered
by the Bryant Park Corporation for six years. (Photo, 2006: Don Hogan
Charles/The New York Times)The collapse of the deal does not affect
other, private arrangements for wireless access in parks. Perhaps the
best-known Wi-Fi initiative in city parks, at Bryant Park, has been up
and running, under the direction of the Bryant Park Corporation, since
June 2002.
In addition, the Alliance for Downtown New York created wireless hot
spots at eight Lower Manhattan sites from 2003 to 2005, including City
Hall Park, Bowling Green and the new Wall Street Park.
NYC Wireless, a nonprofit group that did the technical work for those
projects and managed the Bryant Park network in its first year, has
also set up networks at Union Square, Stuyvesant Cove Park, Madison
Square Park, Brooklyn Bridge Park, Robert F. Wagner Jr. Park and
Jackson Square Park.
But the deal with Wi-Fi Salon, which is based on the Upper East Side,
was one of the most ambitious efforts for wireless access in some of
the city’s largest parks. The parks department awarded the contract in
October 2004 after Verizon Communications, which had been initially
selected, backed out of the deal.
While the company installed a network in October 2005 at Battery Park
in Lower Manhattan, it missed a deadline that autumn to finish the work
at the other parks. The parks department finally set a July 2006
deadline for Mr. Brown’s company to get up and running.
Mr. Brown said he would complete the work, saying that Nokia, the
Finnish telecommunications device manufacturer, had signed on as a
sponsor. The Nokia sponsorship ended at the end of September 2007, and
after that, Wi-Fi Salon raised money by providing wireless service at
several special events in the parks.
The parks department decided to terminate Wi-Fi Salon’s contract after
it failed to meet a Dec. 5 deadline to make a concession payment of
around $23,000; the department also says the company was delinquent in
paying earlier concession fees to the city.
“I tried my best but could not get the payment in time,” Mr. Brown said
in a phone interview. He said he still owes the city $578. “I’ll be
able to pay by the end of the month,” he said, adding that it would
take perhaps $20,000 to remove the equipment.
The setback does not mean the Bloomberg administration has given up on
offering Internet access.
“The city will soon unveil a series of digital inclusion initiatives
focused on expanding access to, and adoption of, broadband technology,
including service in parks across the city,” said Jama Adams, a
spokeswoman for the parks department.
Nor has Mr. Brown given up. He has another company, Wired Towns, that
seeks to create partnerships with business improvement districts that
want to offer free wireless Internet in their neighborhoods. Last year,
the Union Square Partnership agreed to work with Wired Towns to restart
a network in Union Square Park and its surrounding streets.
OUTLOOK 2009 TECHNOLOGY
WiMax edges closer to city;
Network to deliver fast, wireless Internet may arrive later in year
Chicago Tribune
By Eric Benderoff |
Tribune reporter
January 3, 2009
The future of the Internet was supposed to arrive in Chicago by the end
of 2008. Instead, WiMax landed in Baltimore and is heading to
Portland. So when will the powerful, high-speed wireless network
arrive here? It looks like late in 2009, although the newly
merged company rolling it out has yet to confirm plans.
"Chicago is very high on our list," said Todd Rowley, vice president
for Sprint's WiMax network, which the carrier calls 4G. "We have many
hundreds of cell sites operating already in the area. I hope it will be
available in the latter half of the year."
The network already is in place, stretching from Gary to Rockford, but
isn't ready to go live. Sprint Nextel Corp. completed its
wireless network merger with Clearwire Corp. in December. In addition,
the $3.2 billion transaction includes investments by Comcast Corp.,
Intel Corp., Google Inc. and Time Warner Cable. Why did Baltimore
get the nod over Chicago?
Sprint and Clearwire wanted to see how well the wireless signals would
traverse older homes with thick walls and how it would travel over
hills and a harbor. Also, Baltimore's compact footprint was more
appealing than Chicago's sprawl. WiMax has the muscle to compete
against the high-speed, land-based home Web connections provided by
AT&T Inc. and Comcast Corp. Yet it also doubles as a cellular
network for Sprint, making it accessible from home or the road.
"I was getting 5-megabit-plus download speeds on my laptop throughout
Baltimore," said Jeff Thompson, president and chief executive of
Towerstream, which offers a commercial WiMax network in Chicago. "To do
that on a mobile device, it was amazing."
Launched in September, Sprint conservatively promotes average data
download speeds between 2 and 4 megabits per second. By
comparison, for home use, AT&T offers high-speed connections
between 1.5 and 6 megabits, depending on price, while Comcast offers
speeds as high as 12 megabits. The next market to get WiMax will
be Portland, Ore., expected to be announced next week at the Consumer
Electronics Show in Las Vegas.
A number of WiMax-capable products will be introduced at the show,
including some from Schaumburg-based Motorola Inc. The strength of
WiMax is illustrated by the fact that nearly 500 WiMax devices are in
development, according to a recent talk by Ron Resnick, an Intel
executive and president of the WiMax Forum, an industry group. So
far, the most common WiMax product being used in Baltimore is a laptop
access card. That's what Towerstream's Thompson used to get on the
city's WiMax network during his visit.
Sprint also introduced in December a dual-mode modem that plugs into a
USB port to access either the carrier's 3G or 4G networks. By the
end of this year, there will be at least one mobile phone, perhaps
more, that can access either network, Rowley said. "It's a laptop
service mostly today."
Accessing the network costs $80 a month, he said, noting that mostly
singles and apartment dwellers in Baltimore are replacing their
land-based Internet service with WiMax. Some Chicago companies
are receiving a WiMax signal thanks to Towerstream. The
Providence, R.I., company has offered a version of "fixed wireless"
broadband for about 8 years and has been a pioneer in pushing for WiMax
standards.
"We have about 1,300 customer connections," Thompson said, with "more
than 100 in Chicago."
Those customers receive a WiMax signal to their building, where the
signal is then distributed via wires to individual desktops, much like
any other business-type IT infrastructure. But as WiMax networks
get more robust, Towerstream will be able to offer customers other
services, like roaming with portable devices. "When WiMax starts
getting advertised like Wi-Fi did, and I think you'll start seeing that
late in 2009, that will really help the market," Thompson said.
Mr. Obama’s Internet Agenda
NYTIMES Editorial
December 16, 2008
President-elect Barack Obama recently announced an ambitious plan to
build up the nation’s Internet infrastructure as part of his proposed
economic stimulus package. Upgrading the Internet is a particularly
smart kind of stimulus, one that would spread knowledge, promote
entrepreneurship and make this country more competitive globally.
The United States has long been the world leader in technology, but
when it comes to the Internet, it is fast falling behind. America now
ranks 15th in the world in access to high-speed Internet connections. A
cornerstone of Mr. Obama’s agenda is promoting universal, affordable
high-speed Internet.
Mr. Obama, who had notable success with online fund-raising and voter
turnout, spoke during the presidential campaign about the
transformative power of the Internet to improve Americans’ quality of
life. He argued that it could, among other things, reduce health care
costs, create jobs and make it easier for citizens to participate in
government decision-making.
In a speech this month about his economic stimulus plan, he said that
he intends to ensure that every child has a chance to get online and
that he would use some of the stimulus money to connect libraries and
schools. It is a critical goal. Children trapped on the wrong side of
the digital divide are deprived of a fair chance to educate themselves
and to compete for high-skill, high-paying jobs.
Mr. Obama has also been a strong supporter of “network neutrality,” the
principle that Internet service providers should not be able to
discriminate against any of the information that they carry. Net
neutrality laws are necessary to ensure that Internet service providers
do not block content they disagree with or give financial breaks to big
tech companies, squeezing out smaller competitors and stifling
innovation.
Mr. Obama will need to work with Congress — and fight against corporate
lobbyists — to accomplish some of his goals. Some he can achieve on his
own. With the right appointments to the Federal Communications
Commission, he should be able to get good net neutrality regulations.
“This is the Eisenhower Interstate highway moment for the Internet,”
argues Ben Scott, policy director of the media reform group Free Press.
Restoring America to its role as the world’s Internet leader could be
an important part of Mr. Obama’s presidential legacy.
NEWS RELEASE
from...
The Alliance for Community Media is the
national nonprofit membership organization representing the interests
of over 3000 Public, Educational, and Governmental (PEG) access
organizations. For more information
contact the Alliance
at 202-393-2650.
September 18, 2008
U.S House Subcommittee will ask FCC to examine harm to public,
educational and governmental television
In response to testimony from Alliance for Community Media members
yesterday, the House Appropriations Committee’s Subcommittee on
Financial Services and General Government voiced strong bi-partisan
support for public, educational, and governmental (PEG) access for
communities and asked the FCC to examine whether AT&T and other
cable operators are in compliance with the Cable Act of 1984.
In opening remarks, Subcommittee Chairman Congressman Jose Serrano
(NY-D) and Congressman Mark Kirk (IL-R) expressed concern that local
PEG access channels are in danger of declining or disappearing as a
result of the current regulatory and business environment.
Barbara Popovic, Executive Director of Chicago Access Network
Television, representing the Alliance, and Michael Max Knobbe,
president of the Alliance’s New York chapter, and Executive Director of
BronxNet, presented testimony that detailed multiple problems with PEG
access channel delivery arising out of recent actions by the FCC, state
legislatures, the cable industry and AT&T. Problems that were
outlined included a loss of funding and channels, movement of PEG to
higher numbered channels (referred to as “channel slamming”), reduced
quality and functionality of existing channels, and loss or reductions
in public cable drops to schools, libraries and other public centers.
Regarding the issues of AT& T’s treatment of PEG channels, Ms.
Popovic said “Bottom line, AT&T, the company that promotes ‘choice’
in cable franchising, is giving viewers no choice when it comes to
PEG.” Mr. Knobbe discussed the problems associated with channel
slamming, which include additional costs to consumers to view PEG
channels.
FCC Media Bureau Chief Monica Desai agreed that at least one of these
practices may be illegal, stating “We believe that placing PEG channels
on any tier other than the basic service tier may be a violation of the
statute.” When asked why the FCC was not enforcing that provision
of the statute, Ms. Desai indicated that the FCC needed a formal
complaint in order to act, and had not received any. In response,
Subcommittee member Adam Schiff (CA-D) stated that he believed the FCC
had authority to enforce the law whether or not they’d received
complaints.
In closing, Subcommittee Chairman Serrano (NY-D) and Representative
Kirk (IL-R) announced that they would send a letter to the FCC asking
it to deal with the issues raised at the hearing.
Community Access
Channels Feel Snubbed By AT & T
Hartford Courant
By AMANDA KUSHNER | Courant Staff Writer
August 10, 2008
Advocates for community access programming say they are getting snubbed
by AT&T in the telecommunications giant's bid to provide television
service in Connecticut.
Nineteen months after AT&T began offering television programming
through telephone lines, only one community access channel is up and
running on the service, called U-verse.
While a handful of the approximately 40 community access channels in
the state are contemplating joining U-verse, others aren't so sure.
They say U-verse would stymie their efforts to serve their viewers and
offers poor picture quality, no closed captioning and no ability to
record programs.
Under the current system, U-verse bundles all community access programs
on one channel, rather than giving each its own channel, as cable
television does. The government and education channels are also
bundled. To watch a community access channel on U-verse, viewers must
turn their TVs to Channel 99, click OK on a remote control to load the
stations, scroll through potentially dozens of options, find the one
they want and wait for the station to load.
U-verse is available in more than 80 towns in the state, but AT&T
won't release exact figures of subscribers, said David Mancuso,
AT&T spokesman.
Community access programmers fear being lumped together on one channel,
potentially denying them viewers who might find them while channel
surfing or on a guide menu.
Although numbers are not available on how many people watch community
access channels, educational and local government programming
supporters stress the value of the stations.
"Our job is to embrace and really foster that public voice," said
Jennifer Evans, executive director of West Hartford Community Access.
She said until the station is offered its own channel, it is reluctant
to join U-verse.
"New technology provides so many opportunities and it should always
enhance the experience," she said. "We hope that they will improve
their system so they can carry us as a full channel."
In Wallingford, U-verse subscribers used to watching community access
programming during election season complained in 2007 when they
couldn't find the right channel, said Susan Huizenga, chairwoman of a
regional cable advisory council.CT-N, a nonprofit station that covers
state government, isn't on U-verse yet because officials there believe
the quality of their programming would be degraded, said William
Bevacqua, director of communication and marketing for CT-N. AT&T
offered to bundle CT-N and CT-N2 on their own channel, but the station
and AT&T disagree over who will cover the costs, Bevacqua said.
The Alliance for Community Media, which represents more than 3,000
community access channels nationwide, believes the U-verse service is
problematic, and is working with state legislators and federal
regulators to resolve the issues.
"The channels are treated in a substandard and inferior manner to other
commercial and noncommercial channels," said Matthew Schuster, chair of
the alliance's board of directors.
AT&T is trying to address the complaints. John Emra, regional vice
president for external and legislative affairs for AT&T,
acknowledged Channel 99 initially had inferior picture quality, but
said it has since been upgraded to match other channels on the service.
Users must now wait about 30 seconds to load community access channels,
but Emra said an update in the next couple of weeks will cut that time
to 8 seconds. In the spring an additional upgrade will shorten the time
to 3 seconds, Emra said.
Not everyone is unhappy with U-verse, however.
Sound View Community Media, which serves six towns in the Bridgeport
area, is the only channel in the state on Channel 99.
"It is going very well and we are receiving quite a few compliments,"
said Thomas Castelot, president of Sound View.
Branford Community Television and North Haven Community Television have
signed on to U-verse, and Nutmeg Television is close to signing a deal,
Mancuso.
U-verse is obligated under state law to provide community access
channels, and Attorney General Richard Blumenthal said AT&T is
being monitored to make sure it honors that obligation."We are hearing
some complaints, but we are still at such an early stage that we can't
really reach definitive conclusions," Blumenthal said.
Blumenthal said his office would "take action to address complaints if
they are persistent and pervasive."
Evans said she hopes AT&T will fix the problems.
"We honestly want it to look good. We never dreamed we would be a
channel that no one could get to."
FCC set to test
wide-range broadcast internet
DAY
By Kim Hart
Published on 7/25/2008
Wasington - The nation's top technology companies have spent millions
of dollars and nearly two years building devices, poring over laptops
and working in federal labs trying to come up with a new way of
providing high-speed Internet to bandwidth-hungry cities as well as
hard-to-reach rural regions.
Last week, the companies moved from lab to field.
Engineers from the technology heavyweights, including Motorola and
Philips, lugged their laptops, antennas and other equipment to parks,
homes and high-rises around the Washington area, hoping to prove to the
Federal Communications Commission that the unlicensed airwaves between
television stations, known as white spaces, could provide a new form of
mobile Internet service.
Using white spaces “will provide a way to provide broadband across long
distances at much faster speeds than cellphone networks and WiFi,” said
Jake Ward, spokesman for the Wireless Innovation Alliance, which
includes Google, Microsoft, HP and Dell.
The group is trying to convince regulators that using the airwaves will
provide broadband to rural schools, beam high-definition online video
to low-income households and let consumers stream music while sitting
in highway traffic.
First out of the gate was a team from Motorola. On a recent steamy day
in the middle of Patapsco Valley State Park about 10 miles west of
Baltimore, Dave Gurney, an engineer for the company, set up shop in a
parking lot surrounded by dense forest.
A large black box the size of a suitcase hooked up to a laptop sat near
the base of a tree-covered hill. An antenna perched on a tripod rested
a few feet away. A group of engineers stared intently at the
contraption, as if it were about to spring to life.
”It's done!” Gurney said. He held his breath as the men leaned in
further and quickly jotted down a cryptic list of numbers. Then he ran
the test again.
The stakes are high for this mysterious black box. Tech giants and
Silicon Valley start-ups are betting that using white spaces could
extend the Internet's reach. They also hope it will spark a new wave of
portable devices.
But the idea faces big hurdles. Broadcasters use adjacent airwaves to
beam TV shows to viewers, and they say the technology could interfere
with over-the-air signals. Wireless microphone users, from pop stars to
mega-church ministers, say using white spaces could blot out their
sounds.
White-space backers say their devices will be able to detect and avoid
frequencies being used by broadcasters and wireless mics. Critics say
the devices are not reliable enough.
The FCC is trying to settle that debate. For more than a year, the
agency has been testing prototypes with mixed results. An early
prototype built by Microsoft failed to operate in the FCC's lab.
Microsoft later determined the device was broken.
The FCC is now testing other prototypes built by Philips and Motorola
as well as Silicon Valley start-up Adaptrum and Singapore-based
Institute for Infocomm Research. The Motorola device connects to a
database of TV stations operating within 200 kilometers and scans the
airwaves nearly every second for other signals that may pop up
unexpectedly, such as a wireless microphone.
If the device senses that it is within or close to a TV station's
coverage area, it is supposed to avoid that station's frequency. It
then ranks empty frequencies by their proximity to existing signals. If
a new signal suddenly appears, the white-space device should
automatically switch to another open channel.
”We're testing multiple times to make sure the results are consistent,”
Gurney said.
But the results can be hard to decipher. At the first location,
Motorola's device indicated that channel 51, for example, was open and
available. At the second location, the device picked up a weak signal
on the channel, suggesting that it was already in use.
Motorola's engineers say that means the signal changed slightly between
locations, and the device would be able to avoid that channel as soon
as it was detected. But Bruce Franca, vice president of policy and
technology for the Association for Maximum Service Television, a
broadcasting industry group, is skeptical.
”The results of every single test were different,” he said. “The device
failed to recognize that certain channels are actually being occupied
by TV signals. ... Clearly this is not ready for prime time.”
Shure, which makes microphones and other audio equipment used in
Broadway shows and sports games, argues the tests have not proven that
the prototypes can consistently detect TV signals, let alone wireless
microphones that hop on frequencies without notice.
The FCC plans to test the white-space devices at an entertainment venue
in the next few months. The National Football League has offered the
Baltimore Ravens' stadium or the Washington Redskins' park as possible
venues. And the Recording Academy, which puts on the Grammy Awards, has
offered up the Lollapalooza music festival in Chicago next month for
testing.
”That's where the rubber will meet the road,” said Mark Brunner, senior
director of brand management at Shure.
Global
Dreams for a Wireless Web
NYTIMES
By JOHN MARKOFF
Published: May
25, 2008
Menorca,
Spain
SITTING on the
porch at Finca Torrenova, his 800-acre retreat on this
Mediterranean island, Martin Varsavsky ticks off the credentials of the
group of Internet entrepreneurs finishing lunch at a nearby table.
“He has 40
million uniques, he has 50 million, and he has 8 million,”
Mr. Varsavsky says, referring to the number of visitors to Web sites
owned by his guests — many of whom are also business associates and
have joined him for several days of brainstorming about the digital
future.
These days,
commercial victory on the Internet is all about scale, and
Mr. Varsavsky, a 48-year-old from Argentina, can be forgiven for
speaking longingly and in detail about his peers’ achievements. No
stranger to success — he has had a tidy crop of new media and
telecommunications hits since the 1990s — he is still struggling to
bring his newest Internet venture to fruition.
Three years
ago, aiming to create a global wireless network, he founded
FON, a company based in Madrid that wants to unlock the potential power
of the social Internet. FON’s gamble is that Internet users will share
a portion of their wireless connection with strangers in exchange for
access to wireless hotspots controlled by others.
The swaps, in
theory, would allow “Foneros” to have ubiquitous, global
wireless access while traveling for business or pleasure. But despite
$55.2 million in backing from such corporate heavyweights as Google and
BT, the former British Telecom, as well as newer enterprises like Skype
and a handful of venture capital firms, FON and Mr. Varsavsky are still
missing a crucial ingredient: scale.
At the moment,
there are just 830,000 registered Foneros around the
world, and only 340,000 active Wi-Fi hotspots run FON software. Because
it’s built upon the concept of sharing Wi-Fi access, FON works well
only if there are Foneros everywhere.
And as he
struggles to expand the FON network, Mr. Varsavsky faces
particular hurdles now that the Internet’s commercial side has reached
a crossroads. Born a few decades ago as an anarchic, digital version of
a barn-raising, the wireless Internet is now a battleground between two
giant technology consortiums seeking to rein in the Web’s chaotic
openness in favor of creating uniform, global access built upon
wireless data networks.
The two camps,
known as WiMax and L.T.E., for “long-term evolution,”
are both top-down, highly structured approaches that will cost billions
of dollars to build and may close a door on some of the architectural
openness that led to the rapid growth of the Internet.
But their
potential advantage is that closed standards can encourage
the kind of growth that offers more access to mainstream consumers and
business users, as occurred when Microsoft imposed a measure of
conformity on software development.
For his part,
Mr. Varsavsky hopes that FON can offer a middle ground —
deploying the original, bottom-up strengths of the early Internet
movement and at the same time wedding them to a more formal, corporate
approach to expansion.
Although FON
faces huge obstacles in realizing those ambitions, the company also has
a growing number of devotees.
“The wireless
Internet market today is fragmented and complex — it can
be accessed through 3G operators, through WiMax, through private
hotspots, through paid hotspots and through corporate networks,” said
Michael Jackson, a partner at Mangrove Capital in London and a former
FON board member. “In summary, it is a nightmare for a consumer. FON
can and will change this.”
But others have
their doubts.
“I know that
the people at Google like this idea,” said John Saw, the
chief technology officer at Clearwire, the WiMax start-up of Craig
McCaw, which recently announced a $14.5 billion joint venture to build
a nationwide WiMax network with Sprint, Google, Intel, Comcast and
others. “But we’re skeptical.”
Undeterred, Mr.
Varsavsky says that what he currently lacks in scale he
can make up for in huge cost savings, particularly because FON avoids
the expensive proposition of having to build a worldwide network of
cellular towers and Wi-Fi nodes from scratch.
“Our army of
Foneros is a much more efficient way of distributing a
signal,” he says. “We believe WiMax operators will be happy to have
some customers use their services for free and save billions in
infrastructure deployment.”
MR. VARSAVSKY
has worked overtime trying to line up more high-profile
partners for FON. To that end, he traveled to Cupertino, Calif., last
fall to meet with Steve Jobs, the chief executive of Apple.
During that
90-minute meeting, Mr. Varsavsky says, the two men discussed why a
partnership might make sense.
Apple has sold
millions of its Wi-Fi routers to residential customers,
and its community of Wi-Fi users who share router access would be an
ideal platform for FON. For his part, Mr. Jobs had developed an
interest in Wi-Fi sharing because of the expanding number of iPhone
users who are often frustrated by locked Wi-Fi access points.
But, Mr.
Varsavsky says, from the moment that he and Mr. Jobs met,
their discussion devolved into an argument. (Mr. Jobs did not respond
to requests to comment on the meeting.)
At the outset, Mr. Varsavsky recalled, Mr. Jobs asked sharply, “Who
needs your community?” and “Why should British Telecom bother to do a
deal with you, and why shouldn’t people just leave their routers open
for sharing?”
Mr. Varsavsky
says he responded, “Why should you bother to do a deal
with AT&T? Shouldn’t iPhones just be connected freely with any
cellphone network?”
Mr. Varsavsky
says he left the meeting with the uncomfortable feeling
that Apple might end up as a competitor rather than as a partner. But
it wasn’t only because of Mr. Jobs’s legendary stubbornness that the
Apple meeting apparently went awry. Mr. Varsavsky’s own substantial ego
also came into play — something he freely acknowledges when he talks
about how he first got into business.
“My father died
and my mother was saying, ‘Martin, get a job, get a
job,’ ” he recalls. “And I would go to job interviews and they would
say, ‘How do you see yourself in five years?’ And I would say, ‘Well,
at least as your boss!’ ”
That attitude
surfaced in other forums as well. In high school in
Argentina during the 1970s, he says, he persuaded classmates to open
their own office supply store to compete with a store across the street
from their school. He also declared his interest in left-leaning
politics, which he said attracted the attention of the Argentine
military junta that was purging high schools of dissidents. In the
“dirty war” of 1976-83, the government killed thousands it suspected of
being leftists.
An officer told
the school to expel him, Mr. Varsavsky says, and he
left for Brazil. Around the same time, he believes, his cousin was
kidnapped and killed by the military. The Varsavsky family fled to the
United States, and Mr. Varsavsky earned his undergraduate degree in
economics and philosophy at New York University in 1981. He later
attended Columbia University, where he received graduate degrees in
international affairs and business administration.
MR. VARSAVSKY
says start-ups got into his blood during graduate school,
when he made his first million in a real estate foray: renovating and
reselling lofts in New York.
After moving to
Spain in the 1990s, he had three big telecommunications
and Internet successes. He says that a $200,000 investment he made to
start a long-distance company, Viatel, in 1990 was worth about $240
million when he cashed in his stake in 1999; that the 5 million euros
he used to start Jazztel in 1997 has given him a stake now worth about
150 million euros; and that the 38 million euros he used to start a
Spanish Internet service provider, Ya.com, in 1999 had grown to about
149 million euros when he sold the company the next year.
Then, after
this first round of success, Mr. Varsavsky was hit with a
loss that he describes as a striking, gut-wrenching failure. His German
start-up EinsteinNet, founded in 2000 as an effort to sell software
over a private fiber optic network, collapsed in 2003, leaving him with
a personal loss of $50 million.
“I used the
most money of my own in a company where I lost it all, and
I consider it my business black eye,” he recalls, saying that he also
drew a valuable lesson from the misadventure: “I don’t invest on my
own. If other people don’t want to back me, it’s a sanity check.”
TO that end,
Mr. Varsavsky has become a tireless networker, traveling
the world to participate in a continuous parade of technology
conferences and cultivating a global retinue of friends and contacts.
He has also been active on the philanthropic front, earning kudos from
a onetime resident of the White House.
“Martin
represents the future of entrepreneurial culture and is helping
to transform the way people give,” former President Bill Clinton says.
“He has found different ways to use his acute business sense and
creativity to improve our world and the lives of others.”
This month, Mr.
Varsavsky brought together more than 70 Internet
business people and technologists from Europe, Asia, Latin America and
the United States for a conclave on his Menorca farm. Some guests
represented the more than 20 digital enterprises in which he has a
stake; others were “friends of Martin,” a loose-knit group that
comprises his informal business network around the world.
The four-day
conclave featured several unscripted “tech talks” in which
entrepreneurs described problems they faced building their businesses.
Participants included Lukasz Wejchert, the chief executive of Onet,
Poland’s dominant Internet portal.
Deals with
companies like Onet will be crucial if Mr. Varsavsky is to
make good on his goal of having a million FON customers on each of
three continents by 2010. The two companies recently came close to a
deal, Mr. Wejchert says, but Onet decided that it was still to early
for it to become an Internet service provider in Poland because the
regulatory environment worked against new entrants.
That major
players like Onet are beginning to find FON a potentially
profitable partner is promising, and Mr. Varsavsky’s formidable
networking abilities with politicians and entrepreneurs are also a
plus. Ultimately, however, FON’s success will hinge on its strategic
soundness and operational prowess — not on Mr. Varsavsky’s skills at
working the cocktail circuit.
He likes to
refer to FON as a “revolution,” but so far his crusade has
had difficulty gathering momentum because formal corporate alliances
have been slow to jell.
In Mr.
Varsavsky’s approach, FON’s business is subsidized by
non-Foneros — passing Web surfers who buy time for access to the
network — which he can then share with FON’s customers. The approach is
different from that of Boingo, a Wi-Fi aggregator based in Los Angeles
that charges users a monthly fee for using hotspots while they are
traveling.
Yet both FON
and Boingo have faced significant resistance from Internet
service providers that carefully restrict access to their customers,
leaving the idea of a seamless wireless Internet based on Wi-Fi
technology an unfulfilled dream so far.
Mr. Varsavsky
said he initially hoped that selling $30 Wi-Fi routers
embedded with FON software would be all he needed to expand the ranks
of Foneros around the globe. But this approach failed to gain traction
fast enough, and he shifted gears. Now he is trying to steadily stack
up distribution deals with I.S.P.’s.
While some
I.S.P.’s have ignored his company, Mr. Varsavsky says FON
has gained ground among I.S.P.’s that are looking for a way to attract
new customers in competitive markets as well as to compete with
high-speed wireless cellular networks.
FON now has a
growing range of alliances, including ones with the BT
Group, Neuf Cegetel in France, Livedoor (a Japanese I.S.P.), and Time
Warner in the United States, as well as a recent agreement with the
city of Geneva, which is distributing hundreds of FON routers to
residents. Now strongest in Britain, France and Japan, FON has recently
made progress with new agreements with two major Japanese retailers and
a Taiwanese I.S.P. And Mr. Varsavsky said he is close to major
agreements in India and Russia.
FON’s losses
have shrunk from more than a million euros a month to less
than 500,000, Mr. Varsavsky says. He also hasn’t given up his belief
that a coming generation of wireless Internet technology will
eventually give FON an even bigger boost.
The first
generation of Wi-Fi technology was limited in range, making
it impractical for Foneros to share their routers widely. But a new
wireless technology, known as 802.16, which should be more widely
available to consumers over the next two years, will offer far greater
ranges.
This next
generation of wireless communication, called WiMax by Intel
and others, may allow him to complete his dream — in effect making it
possible to weave together a wireless digital network in an urban area
with nothing more than an army of Foneros willing to let their routers
be used as micro cell towers.
“Why should
anyone have to build their own towers?” he asks.
FON’s future,
he argues, will revolve around universal access to the
wireless Internet. In the meantime, he faces a big obstacle in one of
the world’s most lucrative communications markets: the United States,
where newer cellular networks with flat-rate pricing may prove a
challenge because they will provide universal high-speed coverage.
In Europe, the
Internet landscape looks more promising. The European
Commission’s decision last summer to place a price cap on voice calls —
to make cellphones more affordable for residents traveling within the
European Union — didn’t include mobile data. Recent high-speed wireless
networks introduced in Europe also use per-megabyte pricing,
discouraging the streaming of large files like video.
That leaves a
potentially big opportunity for a widely accessible
sharing solution for travelers. Yet even in Europe, there are potential
roadblocks, not the least of which has been a historically inhospitable
atmosphere for entrepreneurial gambits.
“Europe has a
larger market than the U.S.A., but it is culturally
fragmented and risk-averse,” Mr. Varsavsky says. “But the differences
are narrowing, and now there are European venture capitalists and a
local entrepreneurial culture.”
Yet he remains
undaunted when he discusses his unfinished revolution and FON’s
prospects.
“FON,” he said,
“is like a telephone company built by the people,” he said.
Spectrum Auction
Raises $19.6 Billion
NYTIMES
Article Tools Sponsored By
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: March 18, 2008
Filed at 4:57 p.m. ET
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Bidding has closed on a record-setting government
airwaves auction, with the total amount pledged reaching nearly $19.6
billion. But enthusiasm in the result was tempered by doubts concerning
the future of a proposed emergency communications network.
The total was the most bid since the Federal Communications Commission
began using auctions in 1994 to decide who should be granted rights to
use the publicly owned airwaves.
About one-sixth of the spectrum at auction was dedicated to the
creation of an emergency communications network for first responders.
But the so-called D block did not attract the minimum bid required by
FCC auction rules.
E-Democracy:
A 21st Century Citizen's Right to Know and Participate...LWVCT Fall
Conference
If you want to participate in the
League of Women Voters Media Study, JOIN the Weston LWV HERE:




LEFT TO RIGHT:
Keynote speaker CT Att'y General Richard Blumenthal, Jon Bartholomew of
Common Cause, Tony Riddle of Alliance for Community Media, Alexandra
Russell of Free Press
WATCH THESE GREAT
PRESENTERS! This
program is 2 hours and 20 minutes long.
DIRECTIONS:
Click on the appropriate link below, depending on whether you have a
broadband (cable or dsl) internet connection, or a dialup modem
connection. The video is in Windows Media Player format. If
you are using Internet Explorer, and have Windows Media Player
installed on your computer, the program should begin playing shortly
after you click on the link. With some other browsers, such as
Firefox, the entire download will have to occur before the program will
begin playing. That may take considerable time, depending on the
speed of your connection. The files are very large, due to the
length of the program! The broadband version is 354 mB
(megaBytes) in size, and the dialup version is 54 mB. If your
computer does not have Windows Media Player installed, you can download
and install it from www.microsoft.com. Microsoft
has a version of WMP for Apple as well as for Windows computers.
Once the download
process has completed, but not before, you will be able to skip around
to arbitrary points within the program, by dragging the position slider
in the Player program.
Cable or DSL:
http://www.lwvweston.org/LWVCT12-1-07CableVersion.wmv
Dial
Up:
http://www.lwvweston.org/LWVCT12-1-07ModemVersion.wmv



FALL
CONFERENCE 2007:
E-Democracy: A 21st Century
Citizen's Right to Know and Participate
At
the Capitol, Saturday morning, December 1, 2007 9am to Noon in
the Old Judiciary Room...CT State Capitol, 210 Capitol Avenue,
Hartford. Interest around the country in the program - example here.
HOW DID IT GO? WATCH
IT AT THE LINKS ABOVE!!!
It
was fantastic,
AG great, other speakers super and audience q&a spectacular (and
the Old Judiciary Room was packed)!!! President
Jara Burnett started us off, reporting on the Media Study's near
completion and preparation for presentation to Local Leagues.
Kathy Wilson of the Hartford LWV moderated most ably.
Food for thought as LWVCT Media Study Committee prepares final document
for member Concurrence! It was truly inspiring to hear
Att'y General Blumenthal thank the League for letting him talk about
deep and serious issues for our democracy (rather than consumer issues
only as his portfolio as CT AG lets him do usually).
Common Cause was delighted to hear what CT and its AG were up to;
PEG specialist from Alliance
for
Community Media in D.C.
was SUPER and
had the full background
about PEG--where its been and where it must go. Advocating for
the people, Alliance for Community Media was thoughtful and gave the
Study Committee some direction.
A rousing presentation by Free Press (reminding us that the League is
an organization that she admires and sees as an invaluable ally in this
push for an open Internet)...
---------------
Keynote Speaker: CT Attorney General Richard Blumenthal -
get some background here;
Watch Ben Scott
of Free Press speak about net neutrality on YouTube
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ladtEC-G7pU
and...on
the
iPod hearings at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A8hxJ73320M
STAMFORD
WIFI







Photos in bottom 2
rows courtesy of the City of Stamford IT guys. THANKS!
STAMFORD WIFI ZONE- a way to support universal access in
compact areas - all you need is a laptop and a library card.
It
works
like this: in a part of the downtown of Stamford, CT: from
public buildings and public spaces, DSL access is free to anyone with a
CT Library card. Within a circle of connectivity, users may
access the Internet free. The spot where this started is Stamford
Library, then to City
Hall and to parks andpublic plazas, hopefully from roof tops to the
train station.
This is an experiment of "One Coast, One Future," and a similar WIFI
experiment is up and running @ a train station in Norwalk; there
should be something going on in Bridgeport, too.
WIFI ALLIANCE
DEFINITION
AND LEXICON FROM THE
SOURCE
Wi-Fi
allows LANs to be deployed without cabling for client devices,
typically reducing the costs of network deployment and expansion.
Spaces where cables cannot be run, such as outdoor areas and historical
buildings, can host wireless LANs.
As of
2007 wireless network adapters are built into most modern laptops. The
price of chipsets for Wi-Fi continues to drop, making it an economical
networking option included in ever more devices. Wi-Fi has become
widespread in corporate infrastructures, which also helps with the
deployment of RFID technology that can piggyback on Wi-Fi [2].
Different
competitive brands of access points and client network interfaces are
inter-operable at a basic level of service. Products designated as
"Wi-Fi Certified" by the Wi-Fi Alliance are backwards inter-operable.
Wi-Fi is a global set of standards. Unlike mobile telephones, any
standard Wi-Fi device will work anywhere in the world.
Wi-Fi is
widely available in more than 250,000 public hotspots and tens of
millions of homes and corporate and university campuses worldwide. WPA
is not easily cracked if strong passwords are used and WPA2 encryption
has no known weaknesses. New protocols for Quality of Service (WMM)
make Wi-Fi more suitable for latency-sensitive applications (such as
voice and video), and power saving mechanisms (WMM Power Save) improve
battery operation.
Disadvantages
of Wi-Fi
Spectrum
assignments and operational limitations are not consistent worldwide.
Most of Europe allows for an additional 2 channels beyond those
permitted in the US (1-13 vs 1-11); Japan has one more on top of that
(1-14), and some countries, like Spain, prohibit use of the
lower-numbered channels. Europe, as of 2007, is now essentially
homogeneous in this respect. Some countries, such as Italy, formerly
required a 'general authorization' for any Wi-Fi used outside an
operator's own premises, or require something akin to an operator
registration.[citation needed] Equivalent isotropically radiated power
(EIRP) in the EU is limited to 20 dBm (0.1 W).
Power
consumption is fairly high compared to some other low-bandwidth
standards, such as Zigbee and Bluetooth, making battery life a concern.
The most
common wireless encryption standard, Wired Equivalent Privacy or WEP,
has been shown to be easily breakable even when correctly configured.
Wi-Fi Protected Access (WPA and WPA2), which began shipping in 2003,
aims to solve this problem and is now available on most products. Wi-Fi
Access Points typically default to an open (encryption-free) mode.
Novice users benefit from a zero-configuration device that works out of
the box, but without security enabled, providing open wireless access
to their LAN. To turn security on requires the user to configure the
device, usually via a software graphical user interface (GUI). Wi-Fi
networks that are open (unencrypted) can be monitored and used to read
and copy data (including personal information) transmitted over the
network, unless another security method is used to secure the data,
such as a VPN or a secure web page. (HTTPS/Secure Socket Layer)
Many 2.4
GHz 802.11b and 802.11g Access points default to the same channel on
initial startup, contributing to congestion on certain channels. To
change the channel of operation for an access point requires the user
to configure the device.
Wi-Fi
networks have limited range. A typical Wi-Fi home router using 802.11b
or 802.11g with a stock antenna might have a range of 45 m (150 ft)
indoors and 90 m (300 ft) outdoors. Range also varies with frequency
band. Wi-Fi in the 2.4 GHz frequency block has slightly better range
than Wi-Fi in the 5 GHz frequency block. Outdoor range with improved
(directional) antennas can be several kilometres or more with
line-of-sight.
Wi-Fi
pollution, or an excessive number of access points in the area,
especially on the same or neighboring channel, can prevent access and
interfere with the use of other access points by others, caused by
overlapping channels in the 802.11g/b spectrum, as well as with
decreased signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) between access points. This can
be a problem in high-density areas, such as large apartment complexes
or office buildings with many Wi-Fi access points. Additionally, other
devices use the 2.4 GHz band: microwave ovens, cordless phones, baby
monitors, security cameras, and Bluetooth devices can cause significant
additional interference. General guidance to those who suffer these
forms of interference or network crowding is to migrate to a WiFi 5GHz
product (802.11a) usually a dual band product as the 5GHz band is
relatively unused and there are many more channels available. This also
requires users to set up the 5GHz band to be the preferred network in
the client and to configure each network band to a different name(SSID).
It is
also an issue when municipalities[3], or other large entities such as
universities, seek to provide large area coverage. Everyone is
considered equal for the base standard without 802.11e/WMM when they
use the band. This openness is also important to the success and
widespread use of 2.4 GHz Wi-Fi, but makes it unsuitable for
"must-have" public service functions or where reliability is required.
Interoperability
issues between brands or proprietary deviations from the standard can
disrupt connections or lower throughput speeds on other user's devices
that are within range. Additionally, Wi-Fi devices do not, as of 2007,
pick channels to avoid interference.
-----------------------
Glossary:
LAN - A system of connecting PCs
and other devices within the same physical proximity for sharing
resources such as an Internet connections, printers, files and drives.
When Wi-Fi is used to connect the devices, the system is known as a
wireless LAN or WLAN. (See WAN, WLAN, WMAN, WPAN).
RFID - Radio Frequency
Identification. An electronic identification
technology that uses radio frequency signals to read identifying data
contained in tags on equipment and merchandise. An alternative to bar
codes.
WIFI - A term developed by the Wi-Fi
Alliance to describe wireless local area network (WLAN) products that
are based on the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers'
(IEEE) 802.11 standards. (See Wi-Fi CERTIFIED™ - "The
certification standard designating IEEE 802.11-based wireless local
area network (WLAN) products that have passed interoperability testing
requirements developed and governed by the Wi-Fi Alliance.")
WPA2 - Wi-Fi Protected Access 2. The
follow on security method to WPA
for wireless networks that provides stronger data protection and
network access control. It provides enterprise and consumer Wi-Fi users
with a high level of assurance that only authorized users can access
their wireless networks. Based on the ratified IEEE 802.11i standard,
WPA2 provides government grade security by implementing the National
Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) FIPS 140-2 compliant AES
encryption algorithm and 802.1X-based authentication. There are two
versions of WPA2: WPA2-Personal, and WPA2-Enterprise. WPA2-Personal
protects unauthorized network access by utilizing a set-up password.
WPA2-Enterprise verifies network users through a server. WPA2 is
backward compatible with WPA. Like WPA, WPA2 uses the 802.1X/EAP
framework as part of the infrastructure that ensures centralized mutual
authentication and dynamic key management and offers a pre-shared key
for use in home and small office environments. Like WPA, WPA2 is
designed to secure all versions of 802.11 devices, including 802.11b,
802.11a, and 802.11g, multi-band and multi-mode. (See WPA2-Enterprise,
WPA2-Personal).
WMM - Wi-Fi Multimedia. A group of
features for wireless networks that
improve the user experience for audio, video and voice applications.
WMM is based on a subset of the IEEE 802.11e WLAN QoS draft standard.
WMM adds prioritized capabilities to Wi-Fi networks and optimizes their
performance when multiple concurring applications, each with different
latency and throughput requirements, compete for network resources. By
using WMM, end-user satisfaction is maintained in a wider variety of
environments and traffic conditions. WMM makes it possible for home
network users and enterprise network managers to decide which data
streams are most important and assign them a higher traffic priority.
(See 802.11e, QoS).
------------------------
Questions about the subject of
"WIFI":
In the
U.S.A.? In Connecticut?
What role
does population density play?
Topography?
Is it a
good
option in
remote areas otherwise underserved by commercial providers?
- What
is government's role?
Entry
level ones here in Connecticut, the "Land
of Steady
Habits":
AVAILABLE AT LWVCT
OFFICES... video of LWVCT
Convention 2007 activity in main meeting room, (for those Leagues not
able to be at the one-day event)...

freepress
speaker at LWVCT
Convention '07 tells their version of the story...POWER POINT
presentation here!
The who, what, when, where, why, and how of Wi-Fi; "Net
Neutrality" - where WiFi fits into the new
LWVCT Study.
WiFi?
Why not!
Read research
study that raises the major
questions (in the Executive Summary) and gives an excellent overview...
(found via Google from footnotes on "Broadband" - Wikipedia).

Above is an example of "WIFRY" - narrowing
signal for better quality and range (also can use a WOKTENNA) -
instructions below:
Make
2.4GHz parabolic mesh dishes from cheap but sturdy Chinese
cookware scoops & a USB WiFi adaptor! The largest so called "WIFRY"
or "WOKTENNA" (12"= 300mm diam) shows 12-15dB gain (enough
for a LOS
range extension to 3-5km),costs ~US$5 & comes with a user friendly
bamboo handle that suits WLAN fieldwork- if you can handle the curious
stares! Neater boutique versions may better appeal indors.
What is
it ("WiFi")?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wi-Fi
Some
more on
what it is...
http://computer.howstuffworks.com/wireless-network.htm
How
is WiFi building in America?
Imagine
having to make this type
of system work over
greater
distances than
from the kitchen to the
upstairs office!
And
from the
Free
Press website (nice graphics):
TECHNICAL
INFO:
Want to talk like a Wi-Fi techie? Some
words you should know...

What
is "bluetooth?" Bad
circulation in your teeth?
Here's a link to another "glossary"...here is annd
more definitions of computer terms; another!
Wi-Fi Alliance - its the IEEE
802.11a-g and an "n" version is forthcoming, according to our
technical consultant - on the web: http://wi-fi.org/
A Subect of
Interest All Over The World
http://www.wifinetnews.com/
Bluetooth
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bluetooth
BLOGGING IT:
http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.com/
We
found this niche blog article - blog itself has now been merged into
the The Wireless Report (www.thewirelessreport.com), which covers all
things wireless - http://wifi.weblogsinc.com/2006/01/24/two-u-s-cities-make-top-10-hotspot-list/
B A C K G R O U N D R E
P O R T S . . .
THE
BASICS:
Most
users know they need a laptop that's equipped with a wireless card to
connect to a WiFi network. Here are some other tips about how to get a
strong signal from a citywide system.
•
Look
for a node: Before you subscribe, look to see where the closest node is
to your building. If it's within eyesight, you're more likely to get a
strong signal.
• Work by
a window: If possible, use your computer near a window on the first or
second floor. You won't get a signal from the middle of a building with
no windows.
• Use a
CPE: To get a signal indoors, use a wireless router called a CPE, or
customer-premise equipment, that strengthens the signal. EarthLink
offers one at no charge to customers who sign up for a one-year
subscription and sells them to other customers for $69.95.
Source:
Chronicle research
AT&T Rolls Out DISH Service In Ex -
BellSouth States
NYTIMES
By REUTERS
Published: April 2, 2008
Filed at 2:10 p.m. ET
Skip to next paragraph Reuters
NEW YORK (Reuters) - AT&T <T.N> said on Wednesday it is
rolling out a joint video, Internet and phone service with satellite
provider DISH Network Corp <DISH.O> in states previously covered
by BellSouth Corp.
AT&T, which acquired BellSouth in late 2006, has stopped marketing
DIRECTV Group Inc <DTV.O> service in the nine states, a spokesman
told Reuters.
AT&T has not yet made a final decision on video partnerships for
its entire territory, and was still in negotiations with DIRECTV and
DISH, the spokesman said, adding a decision was due by the end of the
year.
(Reporting by Yinka Adegoke and Ritsuko Ando, editing by Richard Chang)
Comcast to Stop Hampering File-Sharing
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: March 27, 2008
Filed at 3:34 p.m. ET
PHILADELPHIA (AP) -- Comcast Corp., an Internet service provider under
investigation for hampering online file-sharing by its subscribers,
announced Thursday an about-face in its stance and said it will treat
all types of Internet traffic equally.
Comcast said it will collaborate with BitTorrent Inc., the company
founded by the creator of the popular BitTorrent file-sharing protocol,
to come up with better ways to transport large files over the Internet
instead of delaying file transfers.
Since user reports of interference with file-sharing traffic were
confirmed by an Associated Press investigation in October, Comcast has
been vigorously defending its practices, most recently at a hearing of
the Federal Communications Commission in February.
Consumer and ''Net Neutrality'' advocates have been equally vigorous in
their attacks on the company, saying that by secretly blocking some
connections between file-sharing computers, Comcast made itself a judge
and gatekeeper for the Internet.
They also accused Comcast of stifling delivery of Internet video, an
emerging competitor to the core business of the nation's largest cable
operator.
It was not immediately clear what effect, if any, the move will have on
the FCC's ongoing probe, but Net Neutrality groups remained skeptical.
''This deal is the direct result of public pressure, and the threat of
FCC action, against Comcast,'' said Marvin Ammori, general counsel of
Free Press, a media reform group. ''But with Comcast's history of
broken promises and record of deception, we can't just take their word
that the Internet is now in safe hands.''
Shares in Comcast rose 29 cents, or 1.5 percent, to $20 in midday
trading Thursday.
Comcast has said that its practices were necessary to keep file-sharing
traffic from overwhelming local cable lines, where neighbors share
capacity with one another.
On Thursday, Comcast said that by year's end, it will no longer target
files based on the type of protocol used, such as BitTorrent's, and
will instead explore alternatives.
''The outcome will be a traffic management technique that is more
appropriate for today's emerging Internet trends,'' Tony Werner,
Comcast's chief technology officer, said in a statement.
One option is to delay file transfers for the heaviest downloaders,
regardless of protocol, the Philadelphia-based company said.
Comcast said it also was monitoring Time Warner Cable Inc.'s experiment
in placing explicit caps on the monthly downloads for new customers in
Beaumont, Texas. Subscribers who go over their allotment will pay
extra, much like a cell-phone subscriber who uses too many minutes in a
month.
But Comcast may be wary about charging certain users more because of
competitive pressure, especially after rival Verizon Communications
Inc. said recently that such traffic is legitimate and that its FiOS
network can handle the flow, said Harold Feld of Media Access Project,
a nonprofit advocacy group in Washington, D.C.
Comcast has been hampering the BitTorrent file-sharing protocol, which
together with the eDonkey protocol, accounts for about a third of all
Internet traffic, according to figures from Arbor Networks. The vast
majority of that is illegal sharing of copyright-protected files, but
file-sharing is also emerging as a low-cost way of distributing legal
content -- in particular, video.
On Thursday, Werner all but embraced peer-to-peer file transfers,
saying the techniques have ''matured as an enabler for legal content
distribution.''
The company initially veiled its traffic-management system in secrecy,
saying openness would allow users to circumvent it. Werner said the
company now would ''publish'' the new technique and take into account
feedback from the Internet community.
Comcast and BitTorrent said they want to work out network management
issues privately, without the need for government intervention.
FCC Commissioner Robert McDowell agreed as much, saying in a statement
that ''the private sector is the best forum to resolve such disputes.''
For its part, BitTorrent acknowledged that service providers have to
manage their networks somehow, especially during peak times.
''While we think there were other management techniques that could have
been deployed, we understand why Comcast and other ISPs adopted the
approach that they did initially,'' Eric Klinker, BitTorrent's chief
technology officer, said in a statement.
Comcast also said that the issue is larger than BitTorrent. It said it
was in talks with other parties to find solution, although the cable
company might not have much of a choice.
Verizon recently announced that by sharing information with Pando
Networks, another file-sharing company, Verizon was able to speed up
file-sharing downloads for its subscribers while reducing the strain on
its own network. AT&T Inc. has been looking at similar
collaboration.
However, phone companies are in a better position than cable companies
to deal with file-sharing traffic, since neighbors don't share capacity
on phone lines.
Hopes for Wireless Cities Fade as Internet
Providers Pull Out
By IAN URBINA, nytimes.com
March 22, 2008
PHILADELPHIA
— It was hailed as Internet for the masses when Philadelphia officials
announced plans in 2005 to erect the largest municipal Wi-Fi grid in
the country, stretching wireless access over 135 square miles with the
hope of bringing free or low-cost service to all residents, especially
the poor.
Municipal officials in Chicago, Houston, San Francisco and 10 other
major cities, as well as dozens of smaller towns, quickly said they
would match Philadelphia’s plans.
But the excited momentum has sputtered to a standstill, tripped up by
unrealistic ambitions and technological glitches. The conclusion that
such ventures would not be profitable led to sudden withdrawals by
service providers like EarthLink, the Internet company that had
effectively cornered the market on the efforts by the larger cities.
Now, community organizations worry about their prospects for helping
poor neighborhoods get online.
In Tempe, Ariz., and Portland, Ore., for example, hundreds of
subscribers have found themselves suddenly without service as providers
have cut their losses and either abandoned their networks or stopped
expanding capacity.
“All these cities had this hype hangover late last year when EarthLink
announced its intentions to pull out,” said Craig Settles, an
independent wireless consultant and author of “Fighting the Good Fight
for Municipal Wireless” (Hudson Publishing, 2006). “Now that they’re
all sobered up, they’re trying to figure out if it’s still possible to
capture the dream of providing affordable and high-speed access to all
residents.”
EarthLink announced on Feb. 7 that “the operations of the municipal
Wi-Fi assets were no longer consistent with the company’s strategic
direction.” Philadelphia officials say they are not sure when or if the
promised network will now be completed.
For Cesar DeLaRosa, 15, however, the concern is more specific. He said
he was worried about his science project on global warming.
“If we don’t have Internet, that means I’ve got to take the bus to the
public library after dark, and around here, that’s not always real
safe,” Cesar said, seated in front of his family’s new computer in a
gritty section of Hunting Park in North Philadelphia. His family is
among the 1,000 or so low-income households that now have free or
discounted Wi-Fi access through the city’s project, and many of them
worry about losing access that they cannot otherwise afford.
Philadelphia officials say service will not be disconnected.
“We expect EarthLink to live up to its contract,” said Terry Phillis,
the city’s chief information officer.
But when City Council leaders here held a hearing in December to
question EarthLink about how it intended to keep service running and
complete the planned network, the company failed to show up.
Officials in Chicago, Houston, Miami and San Francisco find themselves
in a similar predicament with EarthLink and other service providers,
and have all temporarily tabled their projects.
Part of the problem was in the business model established in
Philadelphia and mimicked in so many other cities, Mr. Settles said.
In Philadelphia, the agreement was that the city would provide free
access to city utility poles for the mounting of routers; in return the
Internet service provider would agree to build the infrastructure for
23 free hotspots and to provide inexpensive citywide residential
service, including 25,000 special accounts that were even cheaper for
lower-income households.
But soon it became clear that dependable reception required more
routers than initially predicted, which drastically raised the cost of
building the networks. Marketing was also slow to begin, so paid
subscribers did not sign up in the numbers that providers initially
hoped, Mr. Phillis said.
Prices for Internet service on the broader market also began dropping
to a level that, while above what many poor people could afford, was
below what municipal Wi-Fi providers were offering, so the companies
had to lower their rates even further, making investment in
infrastructure even more risky, he said.
EarthLink, which has seen a recent decline in profits and subscribers,
lost its chief executive, Garry Betty, to cancer in January 2007, and
with him went one of the nation’s most vocal advocates of municipal
Wi-Fi. Mr. Betty’s successor, Rolla P. Huff, announced plans to cut
costs and move the company in a new direction by laying off about 900
workers, about half the company’s work force, and withdrawing from
municipal wireless projects.
Chris Marshall, an EarthLink spokesman who declined to be interviewed,
said in an e-mail statement, “We concluded that our Municipal Wi-Fi
operation is not consistent with our strategic direction and we’ve
committed to a plan to sell the Muni Wi-Fi assets.”
For San Francisco residents, EarthLink’s change of plans was an
especially big letdown. Unlike most other cities where municipal
wireless was going to be offered in free hotspots and at a reduced
price for residential service, San Francisco planned to offer citywide
wireless free in a three-way deal with EarthLink, which was to build
the grid, and Google, which would have paid to advertise through the
network.
“It was a huge disappointment for us,” Mayor Gavin Newsom of San
Francisco said about EarthLink’s shift in course, “and, with all due
respect, it doesn’t seem like a smart way to run a business to work
with a city for two years over a major plan and then suddenly one day
to call and say you are pulling out.”
Mr. Newsom said that rather than select a single Internet provider to
blanket the city, he might team up with multiple nonprofits and
companies, and set up smaller free Wi-Fi areas, especially in poor
neighborhoods.
Smaller cities, too, have run into problems with municipal wireless
efforts.
Tempe, for instance, was one of the first midsize cities in the nation
to go live in 2006 with its municipal wireless network, after erecting
about 900 routers on utility poles and contracting with Gobility, a
Texas-based provider, for residential service at about $20 per month.
In December, the company suddenly pulled service after failing to get
enough subscribers.
“The entire for-profit model is the reason for the collapse in all
these projects,” said Sascha Meinrath, technology analyst at the New
America Foundation, a nonprofit research organization in Washington.
Mr. Meinrath said that advocates wanted to see American cities catch up
with places like Athens, Leipzig and Vienna, where free or inexpensive
Wi-Fi already exists in many areas.
He said that true municipal networks, the ones that are owned and
operated by municipalities, were far more sustainable because they
could take into account benefits that help cities beyond private
profit, including property-value increases, education benefits and
quality-of-life improvements that come with offering residents free
wireless access.
Mr. Meinrath pointed to St. Cloud, Fla., which spent $3 million two
years ago to build a free wireless network that is used by more than 70
percent of the households in the city.
But projects covering larger cities have proved far more difficult to
sustain financially, and much of the attention has turned now to
Minneapolis, which is rolling out a network based on a new business
model that many market analysts believe will avoid the financial risks
that EarthLink encountered in Philadelphia and elsewhere.
In Minneapolis, the Internet service provider agreed to build the
network as long as the city committed to becoming an “anchor tenant” by
subscribing for a minimum number of city workers, like building
inspectors, meter readers, police officers and firefighters.
This type of plan is more viable, according to market analysts and city
officials, because the companies paying to mount the routers and run
the service are guaranteed a base number of subscribers to cover the
cost of their investment.
Some companies have also begun offering technological alternatives that
may help expand wireless access.
Meraki, a wireless networking company based in Mountain View, Calif.,
has jumped into the void in San Francisco with a program it calls “Free
the Net.” The company sells low-cost equipment that can be placed in a
person’s home to broadcast a wireless signal. The company also sells
inexpensive repeaters that can be placed on rooftops or outside walls
to spread the original customer’s signal farther. The combination of
the two types of equipment creates a mesh of free wireless in
neighborhoods. The company says it has almost 70,000 users throughout
San Francisco.
Back in Philadelphia, Cesar’s older sister, Tomasa DeLaRosa, said she
had faith that city officials would find a way to finish the network
and keep her Internet service going.
“Our whole house is totally different now,” said Ms. DeLaRosa, 19, who
had never had Internet access at home until last December because she
could not afford it.
After signing up for a job training program and completing its course
work, Ms. DeLaRosa received a free laptop, training and a year’s worth
of free wireless service from Esparanza, a community group.
Greg Goldman, chief executive of Wireless Philadelphia, a nonprofit
organization that was set up as part of the city’s deal with EarthLink,
said that about $20 million had already been spent on the network, and
only about $4 million more would be needed to cover the rest of the
city.
Mr. Goldman’s organization is responsible for providing bundles that
include a free laptop, Internet access, training and technical support
to organizations like Esparanza so they can use them as incentives for
their low-income clients like Ms. DeLaRosa to complete job training and
other programs.
“For us and a lot of people in this neighborhood,” Ms. DeLaRosa said,
“the Internet is like a path out of here.”
State Commissioner Brokers
Meeting With AT&T, Union ; Communications Giant Has Plans To
Eliminate 213 Jobs In Connecticut
DAY
By Patricia
Daddona,
Published on
2/2/2008
AT&T's
union president has agreed to meet with the company and a state
commissioner to address not only the announced 213 company layoffs but
also the larger issue of work leaving Connecticut.
William
Henderson, the president of the Communications Workers of America Union
Local 1298, met late Friday with Joan McDonald, commissioner of the
state Department of Economic and Community Development. John Olsen,
head of the AFL-CIO, joined them, they said.
“We're going to
see where it goes,” said Henderson, who was miffed initially that Gov.
M. Jodi Rell has not yet met with him personally.
“This is not an
AT&T labor issue as much as it is a state of Connecticut issue,”
said Henderson. “We are bleeding jobs in Connecticut and I'm asking the
governor to put a tourniquet on. My point was our communication system
in this state is as important to Connecticut as I-95 is because we have
to have the best on the information highway.”
The concern
also is looming, he said, that more AT&T jobs could be lost here
when the contract is renegotiated in 2009.
AT&T is
eliminating 213 jobs as it shifts collections work to Tennessee, global
accounts to Dallas, and repair work to Ohio. Positions will be lost at
call centers in Hartford, New Haven and Meriden.
“This is the
beginning, not the end” of a steady erosion of jobs in the state,
Henderson said.
McDonald said
Rell has asked her to take the lead among a variety of commissioners,
including the head of the state Department of Labor. She said she will
have a “roll-up our sleeves working meeting to see what types of
initiatives might make sense” before anything goes to the governor.
The meeting
McDonald plans to hold with AT&T and Henderson will address
training programs to “make sure that our work force locally has all the
right skills” as well as broader “macro” issues about jobs in the
state, she said.
Earlier in the
day, McDonald said Henderson refused to meet with her, but Henderson
disputed that, saying he didn't see the point in meeting with anyone
but the governor since Rell could best effect change. Later, the two
met with Olsen.
Attorney
General Richard Blumenthal, who urged Rell by letter to meet with
Henderson, said Friday Rell is in a position to intervene and help
prevent AT&T layoffs much the way the governor of Massachusetts
has.
“I'm somewhat
dismayed and disappointed by the complete refusal to speak personally
with the two sides,” Blumenthal said. “Only the governor will have the
kind of sway and persuasive influence that would reverse this decision,
with all due respect to the commissioner. None of this is to be
personally critical, because I know the governor shares a concern for
jobs and families.”
McDonald said
Rell has been delegating responsibility on the matter and “not refusing
to meet” with Henderson.
Rich Harris, a
spokesman for the governor, said Rell is busy attending to the budget
and getting ready for the upcoming legislative session, which begins
Wednesday.
“Gov. Rell's
record is clear,” he said. “She will fight tooth and nail to save any
job that she can. She remained as concerned about these jobs as she was
about the jobs at the sub base, MetLife, Aetna, ING and all of the
other jobs she's fought for. The governor's going to work with all of
her commissioners ... to see what the best way to proceed will be and
that's an evolving strategy.”
Seth Bloom, an
AT&T spokesman, emphasized that directly affected employees will
have the option of taking a severance package or moving into other
positions within the company. And to lessen the impact of severance on
these employees, the company extended the severance offer to a larger
group of employees, which is expected to open up new positions for
workers, he said.
“There
certainly are other call centers in other states that will do this
work,” said Bloom. But “every person who has a job with us will
continue to have a job with us unless they take a severance package.
Furthermore, we continue to add jobs to the state's economy where we're
growing for U-Verse broadband and wireless.”
AT&T's
union president has agreed to meet with the company and a
state commissioner to address not only the announced 213 company
layoffs but also the larger issue of work leaving Connecticut.
William
Henderson, the president of the Communications Workers of
America Union Local 1298, met late Friday with Joan McDonald,
commissioner of the state Department of Economic and Community
Development. John Olsen, head of the AFL-CIO, joined them, they said.
“We're going to
see where it goes,” said Henderson, who was miffed
initially that Gov. M. Jodi Rell has not yet met with him personally.
“This is not an
AT&T labor issue as much as it is a state of
Connecticut issue,” said Henderson. “We are bleeding jobs in
Connecticut and I'm asking the governor to put a tourniquet on. My
point was our communication system in this state is as important to
Connecticut as I-95 is because we have to have the best on the
information highway.”
The concern
also is looming, he said, that more AT&T jobs could be
lost here when the contract is renegotiated in 2009.
AT&T is
eliminating 213 jobs as it shifts collections work to
Tennessee, global accounts to Dallas, and repair work to Ohio.
Positions will be lost at call centers in Hartford, New Haven and
Meriden.
“This is the
beginning, not the end” of a steady erosion of jobs in the
state, Henderson said.
McDonald said
Rell has asked her to take the lead among a variety of
commissioners, including the head of the state Department of Labor. She
said she will have a “roll-up our sleeves working meeting to see what
types of initiatives might make sense” before anything goes to the
governor.
The meeting
McDonald plans to hold with AT&T and Henderson will
address training programs to “make sure that our work force locally has
all the right skills” as well as broader “macro” issues about jobs in
the state, she said.
Earlier in the
day, McDonald said Henderson refused to meet with her,
but Henderson disputed that, saying he didn't see the point in meeting
with anyone but the governor since Rell could best effect change.
Later, the two met with Olsen.
Attorney
General Richard Blumenthal, who urged Rell by letter to meet
with Henderson, said Friday Rell is in a position to intervene and help
prevent AT&T layoffs much the way the governor of Massachusetts
has.
“I'm somewhat
dismayed and disappointed by the complete refusal to
speak personally with the two sides,” Blumenthal said. “Only the
governor will have the kind of sway and persuasive influence that would
reverse this decision, with all due respect to the commissioner. None
of this is to be personally critical, because I know the governor
shares a concern for jobs and families.”
McDonald said
Rell has been delegating responsibility on the matter and
“not refusing to meet” with Henderson.
Rich Harris, a
spokesman for the governor, said Rell is busy attending
to the budget and getting ready for the upcoming legislative session,
which begins Wednesday.
“Gov. Rell's
record is clear,” he said. “She will fight tooth and nail
to save any job that she can. She remained as concerned about these
jobs as she was about the jobs at the sub base, MetLife, Aetna, ING and
all of the other jobs she's fought for. The governor's going to work
with all of her commissioners ... to see what the best way to proceed
will be and that's an evolving strategy.”
Seth Bloom, an
AT&T spokesman, emphasized that directly affected
employees will have the option of taking a severance package or moving
into other positions within the company. And to lessen the impact of
severance on these employees, the company extended the severance offer
to a larger group of employees, which is expected to open up new
positions for workers, he said.
“There
certainly are other call centers in other states that will do
this work,” said Bloom. But “every person who has a job with us will
continue to have a job with us unless they take a severance package.
Furthermore, we continue to add jobs to the state's economy where we're
growing for U-Verse broadband and wireless.”
Microsoft and
Yahoo's shotgun marriage
Friday
1 February 2008 13:68 GMT
|
|
ANALYSIS
By Tim Weber
Business editor, BBC News
website
|
Jerry Yang's and Bill Gates' legacies are
at stake
|
Is this Bill Gates' last big throw?
Microsoft's proposal to buy internet veteran
Yahoo for a whopping $44.6bn (£22.4bn) certainly grabs the
attention.
But does it make business sense?
In a way this won't be the Microsoft founder's
problem. This summer Mr Gates will leave the company to work full-time
on fighting global poverty and diseases like Aids, Malaria and TB.
But the Microsoft managers who have to make it
work will be asked whether this is a case of one failing giant trying
to prop up another.
The Google factor
Yahoo has been on the ropes for a long time.
Once the top dog of the internet, the company
has been haemorrhaging users and money. With advertising income not
anywhere near where it should be, Yahoo's share price is stuck in the
doldrums.
|
"If Yahoo agrees to the deal
with Microsoft, it will be a shotgun marriage, but it will be Google
holding the shotgun."
|
Last June Yahoo's board chucked out chief
executive Terry Semel and brought back co-founder Jerry Yang to
recapture the firm's dominance - to little avail.
One word explains all of Yahoo's troubles:
Google. While Yahoo invested in content to lure its audience, the
search engine rival simply focused on delivering what users really
wanted: good search results.
Fighting over the mobile web
Microsoft has
watched Yahoo's struggle closely,
and seen the writing on the wall.
As Google has grown into a billion dollar
business, it has increasingly strayed into Microsoft's territory,
competing not just for advertising revenue but rivalling core Microsoft
products like email and word processing.
That alone would not be enough to persuade
Microsoft to make this unsolicited offer.
|
"Microsoft was late to the
internet and has always been playing catch up."
Darren Waters, technology editor, BBC News website
|
Don't forget, despite its many challenges
Microsoft is still in rude health. It has one of the world's largest
research and development budgets, and key software products like
Windows and Office are still licences to print money.
But Microsoft also knows that its stronghold,
the PC business, is getting less and less important.
The future of today's IT industry is the
rapidly growing mobile internet space, and Google has made no secret
that it is prepared to spend a lot of money to conquer this market.
Ultimately, Google and Microsoft pursue the
same market, although they approach it from two different directions.
Google wants to enable its customers to
organise and find the whole of human knowledge, and is providing the
tools to do so.
Microsoft is a provider of tools that just
happen to help users to process and use information.
Now both firms are meeting in the middle and
fight for market space.
Shotgun marriage
If Yahoo agrees to the deal with Microsoft, it
will be a shotgun marriage, but it will be Google holding the shotgun.
If Yahoo's management says "yes, I do", it will
be an admission that its attempts to turn around the company have
failed.
Yahoo shareholders, in turn, will not be able
to believe their luck. Microsoft was probably the only company with
pockets deep enough to bail them out.
For Microsoft, however, this is the deal that
could break it.
Making the offer is an admission that
Microsoft's management has been scared by the success of Google.
The bid is also an acknowledgement that its
numerous attempts to become a dominant internet content provider have
failed.
But to make it pay, Microsoft will have to
demonstrate that the combined company can offer a superior business
model.
The big bet
Microsoft is promising that together with Yahoo
it can offer "a competitive choice" that offers "more value... to
advertisers, publishers and consumers".
That holds true only if the combined Microsoft
and Yahoo can do what they did not achieve as separate companies,
namely develop search algorithms that rival those of Google.
Anything short of that would result in one of
the biggest destructions of shareholder value since the disastrous
merger of AOL and Time Warner at the height of the dotcom boom.
If Microsoft succeeds, it will be able to
extend its hold on the PC world to all aspects of our lives.
Bill Gates and his top managers are betting an
awfully large part of the company in the hope of making it a success.
|
F.C.C. Reshapes Rules
Limiting Media Industry
NYTIMES
By STEPHEN LABATON
Published: December 19, 2007
WASHINGTON — The Federal Communications Commission approved two new
rules on Tuesday that are likely to reshape the nation’s media
landscape by setting new parameters for the size and scope of the
largest news and cable companies.
One rule would tighten the reins on the cable television industry. By
stipulating that no one company can control more than 30 percent of the
market, the rule introduces fresh regulation to an industry where there
has been little of it, angering both the cable industry and Republican
commissioners, who favor a free-market approach.
The other rule, which gives owners of newspapers more leeway to buy
radio and television stations in the largest cities, is a step in the
direction of deregulation. It is intended to help the newspaper
industry, which is suffering from dwindling advertising revenue, and to
recognize that the historical conditions that gave rise to
cross-ownership restrictions have changed, now that more news sources
are available on the Internet and cable television.
But the change drew criticism from newspaper executives, who said it
was too modest to be meaningful, and from prominent lawmakers and
commission Democrats, who called it a Christmas present to the nation’s
largest conglomerates.
Both rules are certain to be reviewed by courts in the coming months.
On Capitol Hill, some lawmakers said Tuesday that they would try to
undo the rule about the newspaper industry.
Nevertheless, the votes were an important political victory for Kevin
J. Martin, the F.C.C. chairman, who presided over a contentious meeting
at which he re-established his control over the deeply divided agency.
Mr. Martin had suffered a sharp setback three weeks ago when he was
unable to find two commissioners to support a plan to regulate cable
television more tightly.
The decisions were a blow to Comcast Communications, the nation’s
largest cable company, which has grown substantially over the last
decade through a series of acquisitions and will now be unable to buy
more cable companies unless it can get the order overturned by a court.
By taking Comcast out of any bidding, the new rule was also a setback
to smaller cable operators thinking of selling to other companies.
As for the relaxation of the newspaper-broadcast rule,
telecommunications lawyers said it could pave the way for Rupert
Murdoch to win permanent waivers to control two television stations in
New York, as well as The New York Post and The Wall Street Journal.
In one 3-to-2 vote on Tuesday, Mr. Martin sided with the agency’s two
other Republicans to relax the newspaper-broadcast cross-ownership
rules in the nation’s 20 largest markets. Under the new rule, a company
can own both a newspaper and either a television or radio station in
those markets as long as there remain at least eight other independent
sources of news. If it is a television station, the rule requires that
it cannot be one of the top four.
Mr. Martin said that the change was a modest, though vital step toward
assisting the newspaper industry, which is struggling financially as
advertising and readership migrates rapidly to the Internet. “We cannot
ignore the fact the media marketplace is considerably different than
when the media ownership rule was put in place more than 30 years ago,”
he said.
In a second 3-to-2 vote, Mr. Martin joined with the two Democratic
commissioners to impose a limit to prevent Comcast, which controls
nearly 30 percent of the market, from getting larger. Mr. Martin has
been critical of the cable television industry for raising rates faster
than the rate of inflation and for failing to offer consumers enough
lower-price choices in subscription packages.
In a series of dissents, the commissioners took issue with Mr. Martin’s
assessments.
“In the final analysis,” said Michael J. Copps, a Democratic
commissioner who has led a nationwide effort against relaxing the media
ownership rules, “the real winners today are businesses that are in
many cases quite healthy, and the real losers are going to be all of us
who depend on the news media to learn what’s happening in our
communities and to keep an eye on local government.”
Robert M. McDowell, a Republican commissioner, was sharply critical of
the cable restrictions.
“The
cap is out of
date, is bad public policy and is not needed in today’s public market,”
he said. He called the cable rule “archaic industrial policy” that
would surely be struck down by an appeals court, as a similar rule was
six years ago.
Although Mr. Martin appears to have won a high-stakes battle over some
of the most significant policy decisions of his tenure, he has expended
significant political capital and made political enemies of powerful
industry groups and influential lawmakers.
For opposite reasons, both rules approved on Tuesday were sharply
criticized by industry. John F, Sturm, president of the Newspaper
Association of America, called the new cross-ownership rule “a baby
step in the actions needed to maintain the vitality of local news, in
print and over-the-air, in all communities across the nation.” Mr.
Sturm said he favored eliminating the cross-ownership ban completely.
On the other hand, the cable television industry accused Mr. Martin of
once again imposing unfair regulations on it.
David L. Cohen, an executive vice president of Comcast, said it was
“perverse to see the commission approving huge mergers by the Bell
companies while now telling cable companies, who compete toe-to-toe
with the Bells, that they may not also grow larger and achieve the same
efficiencies.”
Over the last year, the commission has approved a series of proposals
over the objections of the cable television industry. Last December, it
approved a measure to force municipalities to accelerate the local
approval process for the telephone companies to offer video services in
new markets. And two months ago, it struck down thousands of contracts
that gave individual cable companies exclusive rights to provide
service to apartment buildings.
Consumer groups, which have long pushed for tighter cable television
regulation, criticized the change in newspaper cross-ownership. “We’re
disappointed that he relaxed the rule,” said Gene Kimmelman, the senior
lobbyist in Washington for Consumers Union. “But the new language
creating a high hurdle in the small markets, if appropriately
implemented, could significantly limit the number of mergers that get
through, minimizing the danger to competition and diversity in local
news.”
A significant chorus in Congress has been deeply critical of Mr. Martin
and repeatedly requested that he delay action on the media ownership
vote. On Monday, 25 senators led by Senator Byron Dorgan, Democrat of
North Dakota, sent Mr. Martin a letter in which they vowed to take
legislative action to revoke any new rule or nullify Tuesday’s vote.
But in a letter to lawmakers from Commerce Secretary Carlos M.
Gutierrez, the administration expressed support for Mr. Martin.
Both the newspaper-broadcast ownership rule and the cable rule are
certain to be reviewed by federal appeals courts. Three years ago, a
federal appeals panel in Philadelphia struck down a series of
deregulatory measures proposed by Mr. Martin’s predecessor, Michael K.
Powell, including one that loosened the cross-ownership rules.
F.C.C.
Eases Media Ownership Rule
NYTIMES
By STEPHEN LABATON
Published:
December 18, 2007
WASHINGTON — By
the narrowest of margins, the Federal Communications Commission adopted
proposals by its chairman to tighten the reins on the cable television
industry while loosening 32-year-old restrictions that have prevented a
company from owning both a newspaper and a television or radio station
in the same city.
Last month the
chairman, Kevin J. Martin, suffered a setback when he was unable to
find two commissioners to support his proposal to more tightly regulate
cable television. But in a highly
contentious meeting on Tuesday, Mr. Martin re-established control when
he became the pivotal vote on two rules that could significantly
reshape the nation’s media landscape by determining the size and scope
of the largest news and cable companies.
In one 3-to-2
vote, he sided with the agency’s two other Republicans to relax the
newspaper-broadcast cross-ownership rules in the 20 largest markets. As
part of that order, the commission also granted dozens of permanent
waivers of newspaper-broadcast combinations in large and small markets
that had been given temporary waivers as they awaited the outcome of
the rulemaking.
In a second
3-to-2 vote, Mr. Martin joined with the two Democratic commissioners to
impose a limit that would prevent the nation’s largest cable company,
Comcast Communications, from growing much larger. Under that rule, no
company can control more than 30 percent of the market. Analysts say
that Comcast is close to that limit.
Mr. Martin has
said that a relaxation of the ownership rules was a modest, though
vital step toward assisting the newspaper industry as it struggled
financially as advertising and readership migrates rapidly to the
Internet. He has been critical of the cable television industry for
raising rates far greater than the rate of inflation and for failing to
offer consumers enough choices in subscription packages.
“We cannot
ignore the fact the media marketplace is considerably different than
when the media ownership rule was put in place more than 30 years ago,”
he said of the newspaper-broadcast rule.
The dissenting
commissioners complained strongly about the outcome.
Michael J.
Copps, a Democratic commissioner who has led a nationwide effort
against relaxing the media ownership rules, said the rule was nothing
more than a big Christmas present to the largest conglomerates.
“In the final
analysis,” Mr. Copps said, “the real winners today are businesses that
are in many cases quite healthy, and the real losers are going to be
all of us who depend on the news media to learn what’s happening in our
communities and to keep an eye on local government.”
“Despite all
the talk you may hear today about the threat to newspapers from the
Internet and new technologies, today’s order actually deals with
something quite old-fashioned,” Mr. Copps said. “Powerful companies are
using political muscle to sneak through rule changes that let them
profit at the expense of the public interest.”
And Robert M.
McDowell, a Republican commissioner, was sharply critical of the cable
restrictions.
“The cap is out
of date, is bad public policy and is not needed in today’s public
market,” he said. He called the cable rule “archaic industrial policy”
that would surely be struck down by an appeals court, as an earlier
rule was six years ago.
Although Mr.
Martin appears to have won a high-stakes battle within the commission
over some of the most important proposals of his tenure, he has
expended significant political capital and made political enemies of
powerful industry groups and influential lawmakers.
For opposite
reasons, both proposals approved on Tuesday have been criticized by
industry. The Newspaper Association of America has attacked the
proposal for being too modest, and said that Mr. Martin did not go far
enough.
“Today’s vote
is only a baby step in the actions needed to maintain the vitality of
local news, in print and over-the-air, in all communities across the
nation,” the president of the Newspaper Association, John F. Sturm,
said. “Eliminating the cross-ownership ban completely would enhance
localism by enabling broadcasters to increase local news and would not
distract from the diversity of viewpoints available to local audiences.”
The cable television industry has said it has repeatedly been an unfair
target of Mr. Martin, and that his efforts to regulate the industry are
at odds with the broader policies of the Bush administration to remove
or lessen regulations.
Over the last year, the commission has approved a series of proposals
over the objections of the cable television industry, including one
last December to force municipalities to accelerate the local approval
process for the telephone companies to offer video services in new
markets. Another one last October struck down thousands of contracts
that gave individual cable companies exclusive rights to provide
service to an apartment building.
Consumer groups, which have long pushed for tighter cable television
regulation, were split over the media ownership rules. Some were
relieved that it did not go nearly as far as they had feared and that
Mr. Martin tightened a loophole by making it more difficult for
companies to get exemptions from the rules in smaller markets. Other
groups were critical because they said the rule could open the door to
further consolidation and a decline in the diversity of voices on the
airwaves.
Moreover, a significant chorus in Congress has been deeply critical of
Mr. Martin and repeatedly requested that he delay action on the media
ownership vote. Earlier this week, 25 senators led by Senator Byron
Dorgan, Democrat of North Dakota, sent Mr. Martin a letter in which
they vowed to take legislative action to revoke any new rule or nullify
Tuesday’s vote. But the administration expressed support for Mr. Martin.
In a significant victory for the newspaper and broadcast industries,
Mr. Martin has signaled that he will not use the new rules to force any
companies that already have waivers or exemptions to sell some assets.
Some companies, including The New York Times Company, have been able to
own both a newspaper and a radio station in the same market under
permanent waivers because they held both properties before the
restrictions were imposed in 1975. Others have been granted what are
supposed to be temporary waivers while the agency considered how to
rewrite the rules.
Under Tuesday’s order, 42 newspaper-broadcast combinations that had
previously been granted temporary or grandfathered exemptions will not
be forced to sell any assets to comply with the new rule.
Both the newspaper-broadcast ownership rule and the cable rule are
certain to be reviewed by federal appeals courts. Three years ago, a
federal appeals panel in Philadelphia struck down a series of
deregulatory measures proposed by Mr. Martin’s predecessor, Michael K.
Powell, including one that loosened the cross-ownership rules.
The court said that the agency had the authority to relax the rules,
and that it also had the authority to impose some limits on ability of
a conglomerate to own both a newspaper and a television or radio
station in the same city. But the judges also concluded that that the
commission had not provided a reasoned analysis to support the limits
that it chose. The court has continued to hold the case and asked the
commission to report back to it once it reconsidered the rules.
The cable concentration caps, as they are known, have long been the
subject of debate and litigation at the commission. Six years ago a
federal appeals court in Washington struck down a rule that was similar
to the one adopted on Tuesday.
The three-judge panel concluded that the commission had failed to
provide an adequate justification to overcome the First Amendment
rights of the cable companies. But commission officials said that they
had provided a different justification for the new rule, which they
hoped would pass court muster.
Does
Eric talk to David? Guess not!
Democrats Delay
a Vote on Immunity for Wiretaps
NYTIMES
By ERIC LICHTBLAU
Published: December 18, 2007
WASHINGTON — In a setback for the White House, Senate Democrats on
Monday put off until at least next month any decision on whether to
give legal protection to the phone carriers that helped with the
National Security Agency’s eavesdropping program.
The Bush administration had pushed for immediate passage of legislation
to grant immunity to the phone companies as part of a broader expansion
of the N.S.A.’s wiretapping authorities. But that will not happen now.
After daylong debate in the Senate on the wiretapping issue, Senator
Harry Reid of Nevada, the majority leader, announced at the end of the
day that there would not be time to consider the legislation this week
as he had hoped. With a dozen competing amendments on the issue and an
omnibus spending bill separately awaiting consideration, Mr. Reid said
he believed it would be difficult to give the wiretapping issue the
close consideration that it deserved this week before the Senate leaves
for its Christmas recess.
“Democrats are committed to improving our nation’s intelligence laws
while protecting Americans’ civil liberties,” Mr. Reid said. “We need
to take the time necessary to debate a bill that does just that, rather
than rushing one through the legislative process.”
Senator Christopher J. Dodd, the Connecticut Democrat and presidential
candidate, spent much of the day attacking the idea of giving immunity
to the phone companies, and he took credit for the delay.
“Today we have scored a victory for American civil liberties and sent a
message to President Bush that we will not tolerate his abuse of power
and veil of secrecy,” Mr. Dodd said in a statement.
“The president should not be above the rule of law, nor should the
telecom companies who supported his quest to spy on American citizens,”
he said. “I thank all my colleagues who joined me in fighting and
winning a stay in the rush to grant retroactive immunity to the
telecommunications companies who may have violated the privacy rights
of millions of Americans.”
In August, Congress hastily approved expanded powers for the security
agency in a vote that many Democrats said they regretted. That
temporary legislation expires on Feb. 1, and the White House had pushed
the Senate to approve legislation this week — including the much-sought
immunity for the phone carriers — so that an agreement could be worked
out in negotiations with the House. The House approved a wiretapping
measure of its own last month that did not include immunity.
Administration officials expressed disappointment with the Senate delay
in dealing with the wiretapping issue.
“It’s very disappointing,” Tony Fratto, a White House spokesman, said.
“There will be very little time to accomplish this when Congress
returns in January. Each day of delay brings us closer to reopening a
dangerous intelligence gap that we closed last summer.”The decision by
Mr. Reid to put off the vote was surprising because it came just hours
after the White House’s push for immunity for the phone carriers had
cleared an initial procedural hurdle Monday.
By a vote of 76 to 10, the Senate agreed earlier in the day to begin
debating the question of whether to provide legal immunity to the phone
carriers.
Even some Democrats who oppose the White House’s immunity plan voted to
support the motion Monday because they said it was important for the
Senate to resolve the issue one way or the other after weeks of debate.
The vote appeared to head off, at least for now, threats by some
opponents of immunity, including Senator Dodd, to delay a vote through
a filibuster.
Ultimately, the Senate is likely to consider three different
approaches: a plan by the Senate Intelligence Committee to immunize the
phone carriers from liability; a plan by the Judiciary Committee to
leave out immunity; and an alternative plan by Senator Arlen Specter,
Republican of Pennsylvania, to indemnify the companies from legal
liability by making the government responsible for any damages instead.
Senator Dianne Feinstein, Democrat of California, threw a fourth option
into the mix Monday by proposing that the foreign intelligence court,
the FISA court, be allowed to decide whether individual companies
should get immunity.
Even if the Senate does approve the immunity provision, the fight will
not be over. The House this month approved a proposal that left out
immunity for the companies, and the two chambers would have to meet to
reach an agreement.
There are 40 lawsuits pending against AT&T, Verizon and other major
phone companies over their alleged cooperation in the eavesdropping
program.
Dodd Halts Measure Aimed
At Reforming
FISA; Telecoms' immunity provision sidetracked by threat of
filibuster
DAY
By Ted Mann
Published on 12/18/2007
As his opponents for the Democratic presidential nomination stayed in
Iowa, scrambling for victory in the January primaries, Sen. Chris Dodd
of Connecticut came back to Washington and eked out a win on the Senate
floor.
With Dodd threatening a filibuster, Senate Democratic leaders pulled a
proposed reform of the Foreign Surveillance Intelligence Act Monday
night, agreeing to reassess a provision that would have granted
retroactive legal immunity to the telecommunications companies that
participated in the Bush administration's warrantless wiretapping
program. The withdrawal of the bill came after Dodd had been on
the
Senate floor — making speeches, threatening amendments, answering
questions — for roughly eight hours.
It also marked a major policy victory for the senator, and one that
justified passing up valuable campaigning time in Iowa, where voters at
the Jan. 3 caucus will likely decide whether Dodd goes on to future
primaries or goes home.
“Today we have scored a victory for American civil liberties and sent a
message to President Bush that we will not tolerate his abuse of power
and veil of secrecy,” Dodd said in a written statement Monday night,
after the compromise was announced. “The President should not be above
the rule of law, nor should the telecom companies who supported his
quest to spy on American citizens.”
Speaking on the floor, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said
the Senate would consider the FISA reforms when it reconvenes early
next year. The current law authorizing the FISA court, which was passed
as a stopgap measure in August, will expire in February. A House
version of the FISA reform bill does not include the wiretap immunity
provisions to which Dodd and others objected, and will have to be
reconciled with any eventual Senate version.
“What has taken place in this country has really hurt the confidence of
the American people in their government,” Reid said, going on to
mention the invasion of Iraq and the revelation by the news media of
the Bush administration's wiretapping program, which bypassed the
existing FISA courts without the knowledge of most of the Congress.
Seeming to anticipate criticism
for pulling the bill, Reid also said his concern and Dodd's about the
administration's anti-terrorist measures “doesn't mean we're any less
patriotic than anyone else.”
Dodd has argued for months that the immunity provision, like other
aspects of the Bush administration's policies for combating terrorism,
has forced Americans to choose between their established civil
liberties and the government's efforts to prevent attacks.
“They really promise a false debate on a false choice,” Dodd said in
the early going on Monday, referring to his opponents. “Security or
liberty, but never both.”
The high stakes of the debate convinced Dodd to pass up sorely needed
campaign time in Iowa to fight the immunity provision, a campaign aide
said.
“As far as the campaign is concerned, clearly he wants to spend as much
time on the ground as possible in Iowa,” the aide said. “But this is
something that is absolutely important to the senator. He feels
strongly about this.”
The other senators seeking the Democratic nomination — Joseph Biden of
Delaware, Hillary Clinton of New York and Barack Obama of Illinois —
all campaigned in Iowa Monday and did not participate in the debate.
In a floor speech, Dodd also accused the administration and those who
supported some of the wiretapping policies of forgetting the lessons of
the Senate's Church Committee — the panel that investigated 1970s-era
abuses of the nation's intelligence services, and eventually gave rise
to the FISA laws. That brought stern disagreement from others,
like
Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, who said it was proper to offer immunity from
lawsuits to telecommunications providers who “patriotically adhered to
legal letters” as they went along with the administration's request for
data.
Hatch also argued that opening telecommunications companies up to legal
liability could allow lawsuits to reveal the methods of their
surveillance, damaging national security.
“We may have been able to protect people in ways they will never know,”
Hatch said, “because this area is one of those areas that we just don't
talk about.”
Dodd had long pledged to filibuster the reforms of FISA — which had
been negotiated by his own party's leaders, Republican senators and the
Bush administration — on the grounds that it would improperly shield
from prosecution those who have intercepted the communications of
ordinary Americans without warrants. The senator had previously
tried
to block the compromise legislation by placing a “hold” on the bill,
and then threatened the filibuster after Reid called a vote on it
anyway.
Dodd, with several Senate allies in supporting roles, took to the floor
for hours Monday to attempt to amend the bill to remove legal immunity
for telecommunications that helped with the warrantless wiretapping,
and to filibuster the bill if those amendments failed. His aides
said
he was prepared for a much longer fight, including the relatively rare
step of a Senate filibuster. Under Senate rules, Dodd would have been
able to hold off a vote on the FISA bill only if he remained on his
feet and continued to speak, yielding only for purposes of questions
from his colleagues.
Dodd had a number of allies on the Senate floor, including Sen. Russell
Feingold, D-Wis., who said that senators had essentially been
intimidated into passing the temporary FISA law that will expire next
year. That law grants the secret FISA courts lesser powers to dictate
how surveillance of communications between foreign individuals and
parties in the U.S. is conducted.
“That legislation was rushed through this chamber in a climate of
fear,” Feingold said. “Fear of terrorist attacks, and fear of not
appearing strong enough on national security.”
Also yielding Dodd time to continue his arguments against immunity for
the telecom companies were Sens. Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts and
Bill Nelson of Florida, among others.
How's
that again department...where did
this New York TIMES reporter get his "news"and did it fit for print?
(See
articles above.)
Telecom Industry
Gets a Victory on Eavesdropping
NYTIMES
By
DAVID STOUT
Published: December 17, 2007
WASHINGTON — Telecommunications companies won a skirmish in the Senate
on Monday as a bill to protect them from lawsuits for cooperating with
the Bush administration’s eavesdropping programs easily overcame a
procedural hurdle.
By 76 to 10, with Democrats divided, the Senate voted to advance the
bill for consideration. A measure to block it, which was led by Senator
Christopher J. Dodd, Democrat of Connecticut fell short, as those who
wanted the bill to reach the floor got 16 votes more than the 60 needed
to achieve that goal.
What happens next is not immediately clear. A different bill, which
would not grant immunity to the companies, was also expected to be
introduced by Senator Patrick J. Leahy, the Vermont Democrat who heads
the Judiciary Committee. And whatever bill emerges from the Senate may
have to be reconciled with a House version that does not include
immunity.
The measures are meant to renew the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance
Act, legislation that has deeply divided the White House and Capitol
Hill and members of the House and Senate. Some action is necessary
fairly soon, because the current FISA law expires in February.
In his unsuccessful bid to block
the legislation, Senator Dodd urged
his colleagues not to immunize the telecommunications industry for
cooperating with the National Security Agency’s secret program of
eavesdropping without warrants. The program was disclosed late
in 2005
by The New York Times.
“For the last six years, our largest telecommunications companies have
been spying on their own American customers,” Mr. Dodd said. “Secretly
and without a warrant, they delivered to the federal government the
private, domestic communications records of millions of Americans —
records this administration has compiled into a data base of enormous
scale and scope.”
“I have seen six presidents — six in the White House — and I have never
seen a contempt for the rule of law equal to this,” Mr. Dodd asserted.
Another opponent of the immunization measure, Senator Russell D.
Feingold, called it “deeply flawed.”
“This time around, the Senate should stand up to an administration that
time and again has employed fear-mongering and misleading statements to
intimidate Congress,” said Mr. Feingold, Democrat of Wisconsin.
But supporters of the administration’s program of surveillance without
warrants have described it as necessary to protect Americans from
terrorists, and they insist the program strikes a sensible balance
between national security and personal liberty.
But not all of the 76 senators who voted to advance the bill
necessarily agree entirely with the administration. Some do, but others
no doubt voted to advance the bill so they can offer amendments to it.
For instance, Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, the ranking
Republican on the Judiciary Committee, said he would offer an amendment
that would substitute the federal government as defendant in lawsuits,
in place of the companies.
“The telephone companies have, I believe, acted as good citizens,” Mr.
Specter said.
President Bush has threatened to veto any measure that does not grant
immunity to the companies. The House version of the legislation,
enacted a month ago, was approved by 227 to 189, or dozens of “yes”
votes short of the two-thirds needed to overcome a presidential veto.
Dodd prepares to
filibuster federal surveillance bill
DAY
By Ted
Mann
Published on
12/17/2007
Sen. Chris Dodd
is preparing to filibuster a proposed overhaul of
federal surveillance laws this morning, objecting to a provision that
would grant legal immunity to telecommunications companies that
assisted the Bush administration’s warrant-less wiretapping program.
Dodd,
Connecticut’s senior senator and a candidate for the Democratic
presidential nomination, has spearheaded opposition to the retroactive
immunity provision for the telecom companies, and is trying to strip
the proposal from the Senate bill over the objections of his party’s
own leadership in the Senate.
The
administration and its “allies” in Congress have overstepped their
bounds in spying on Americans, Dodd said, while claiming their policies
are necessitated by the fight against terrorism.
“They really
promise a false debate on a false choice,” Dodd said on
the Senate floor. “Security or liberty, but never both.”
I-BBC
reports: how fast is your country's Internet download speed
(table)? http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/7114728.stm#anchor
Broadband speeds
around the world (graphic-map):
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/7098992.stm
Push for faster net 'premature'
|
|
By Jane Wakefield
Technology reporter, BBC
News, 3 Dec 2007
|
Fibre will cost up to £15bn to roll
out across the UK
|
The push for
next-generation broadband could be premature, according to some senior
industry figures.
Both regulator Ofcom and BT have
expressed doubts about whether the time is ripe for rolling out what
would be expensive fibre optic networks.
"We need significant evidence that
such a network is required and I don't think it exists yet," said Peter
Philips, Ofcom's head of strategy.
Network firms have also
questioned if a faster net would make economic sense.
"The question is how to make money
and I'm not sure the answer is good," said Justin Paul, a development
manager at telecoms equipment firm Alcatel-Lucent.
|
Broadband speeds around the
world
|
There is also uncertainty over
whether people would be willing to pay more for faster broadband.
Super-fast broadband capable of
delivering speeds of up to 100Mbps (megabits per second) has worked
their way up the political agenda in recent months.
Competitiveness minister Stephen
Timms recently hosted a summit on the issue, while MPs recently held an
eForum to debate the need for next-generation networks and regulator
Ofcom has launched its own consultation.
Fibre networks capable of speeds of
up to 100Mbps are already commonplace in Japan and South Korea and are
starting to be rolled out in countries such as the US, France and
Germany.
|
"We are not facing large
numbers of people today who are constrained by their bandwidth"
|
The Broadband Stakeholder Group (BSG)
kick-started the debate in the spring of this year with a major report
looking at how and why Britain would need next-generation broadband
network.
BSG chief executive Antony Walker
said it was not yet time to panic.
"There is lots of competition and
innovation in the broadband market and [it is not clear that] current
bandwidth is a problem. We don't need to make any rash moves but the
time is ripe for some collective thinking," he said.
|
"You can shoot someone so much
quicker at 50 megabits"
|
Regulator Ofcom is also heavily
involved in the debate and is aware that for any company to commit to a
multi-billion pound investment in a new network it would require some
assurances from the government that it would be able to recoup its
money.
While acknowledging that a fibre
network "could be one of the most fundamental changes to our
communications infrastructure in decades," Peter Philips, head of
strategy and market development at Ofcom, is not entirely convinced
that it is ready to come out of the starting blocks just yet.
"We need significant evidence that
such a network is required and I don't think it exists yet," he said.
"We have to ask ourselves what would
be the disadvantage if your investment comes later than others. We
would be able to learn from the experiences in other countries," he
added.
Commercial incentive
Most industry watchers are aware that
the obvious candidate for any network upgrade is the custodian of the
current ADSL broadband network, BT.
|
What will deliver
next-generation broadband?
|
BT is planning to up the speeds of
ADSL, with a new technology offering speeds of up to 24Mbps and The
roll-out of so-called ADSL2+ will begin early next year and by 2011 all
of BT telephone exchanges will have been upgraded.
It is also considering the business
case of rolling out VDSL - a technology that offer fibre as far as the
street cabinets. This would offer speeds of up to 50Mbps.
As far as fibre to the home goes -
the real gold standard in the network world - BT has only committed to
offering this technology (which offers speeds of up to 100Mbps) on new
housing estates, such as Ebsfleet in Kent which will eventually serve
thousands of homes.
"No-one would be more delighted if a
commercial incentive emerged that enabled us to fibre the nation," said
Peter McCarthy-Ward, BT's director of equivalence.
But he is not yet sure the demand is
there.
"We are not facing large numbers of
people today who are constrained by their bandwidth," he said.
Any commitment to a fibre network
would need to be backed by reassurances from Ofcom that it would be
able to recoup its investment, he said.
It may sometimes seem like Britain's
best kept secret, but there is already a next-generation network
serving just over half the population.
Virgin has pledged to upgrade its
cable network - which reaches 52% of the population - to 50Mbps speeds
by the end of 2008.
Speaking at a recent broadband
conference, Virgin Media's chief technology officer Howard Watson
admitted that an upgrade of cable would not "be on the same scale as
what BT would have to do, but neither is it a trivial amount of money",
But, he said, the investment was
crucial to Virgin's strategy going forward.
"We are shifting our position to one
driven by broadband and increasing speed," he said.
Triallists at the pilot sites in
Ashford, Dover and Folkestone are very happy with the service
especially the ability it gives them to do fast downloads and access
high-definition TV content, said Mr Watson.
"And gamers love it. You can shoot
someone so much quicker at 50 megabits," he said.
|
Wireless systems going on parkway
Greenwich
TIME
By
Hoa Nguyen,
Staff Writer
Published
November 21 2007
Cellular
phone
service along the Merritt Parkway in Greenwich is on the cusp of being
improved, twice.
Verizon
Wireless is nearly finished erecting two telecommunications towers at
the Round Hill Community Church, while ExteNet, an Illinois company,
recently cleared a regulatory hurdle to construct Connecticut's first
cellular system for the Merritt Parkway between Westport and Greenwich.
Although
each
project has a different coverage area, they overlap in Greenwich.
Verizon's
project, which weathered opposition from a vocal group of backcountry
Greenwich residents who did not want two tall towers in their
neighborhood, is expected to be running by early next year. ExteNet's
system faced minimal neighborhood opposition but much scrutiny from
wireless providers and a group that generally opposes changes to the
historic Merritt Parkway.
Despite
some
initial issues, the proposal, which relies on small antenna equipment
strung from utility wires on or near the parkway to relay signals,
received Siting Council approval earlier this month.
"It's
a
landmark decision," said Bridgeport lawyer Julie Kohler, who
represented ExteNet. "It's certainly the first case of its kind in
Connecticut."
Despite
some
overlap between the two projects, wireless providers and siting council
officials said each has its own strengths.
ExteNet's
proposal only addresses gaps along the Merritt Parkway, while Verizon's
towers at the backcountry church will boost cellular coverage in the
surrounding area, including the Greenwich stretch of the parkway.
Verizon
expects
to lease space on its towers to other wireless providers. Although some
providers interested only in improving service to the Merritt Parkway
may look just to ExteNet, Richard Enright, director of engineering for
Verizon Wireless in New England, discounted that option, saying the
towers give providers the ability to serve a wider customer base in
Greenwich. Verizon has said it will not use ExteNet's system.
It's
unclear
when ExteNet expects to begin building the antenna system and which
wireless providers have signed on. Kohler said she was not authorized
to speak on that topic.
Derek
Phelps,
executive director of the siting council, said ExteNet's system, also
known as a DAS system, has the additional advantage of keeping
telecommunications monopolies from being built on the side of the
Merritt Parkway in the future.
"Clearly
the
council hopes that the deployment of this DAS facility may work to
diminish what would otherwise be the proliferation of towers close to
the parkway," he said.
But
not
everyone believes ExteNet will be a good addition to the parkway. Peter
Malkin, Greenwich chairman of the Merritt Parkway Conservancy, a
nonprofit that lobbies to preserve the historic character of the
parkway, said he is concerned because the ExteNet system will lead to
the construction of more utility poles and stringing of more wires on
or near the roadway.
"We
think this
is something that will damage the historic nature of the parkway and
should be discouraged," he said.
NYTIMES:
Op-Ed Contributor
The Daily Show
By KEVIN J. MARTIN, Washington
November
13, 2007
IN many towns and cities, the newspaper is an endangered species. At
least 300 daily papers have stopped publishing over the past 30 years.
Those newspapers that have survived are struggling financially.
Newspaper circulation has declined steadily for more than 10 years.
Average daily circulation is down 2.6 percent in the last six months
alone.
Newspapers have also been hurt by significant cuts in advertising
revenue, which accounts for at least 75 percent of their revenue. Their
share of the advertising market has fallen every year for the past
decade, while online advertising has increased greatly.
At the heart of all of these facts and figures is the undeniable
reality that the media marketplace has changed considerably over the
last three decades. In 1975, cable television served fewer than 15
percent of television households. Satellite TV did not exist. Today, by
contrast, fewer than 15 percent of homes do not subscribe to cable or
satellite television. And the Internet as we know it today did not even
exist in 1975. Now, nearly one-third of all Americans regularly receive
news through the Internet.
If we don’t act to improve the health of the newspaper industry, we
will see newspapers wither and die. Without newspapers, we would be
less informed about our communities and have fewer outlets for the
expression of independent thinking and a diversity of viewpoints. The
challenge is to restore the viability of newspapers while preserving
the core values of a diversity of voices and a commitment to localism
in the media marketplace.
Eighteen months ago, the Federal Communications Commission began a
review, ordered by Congress and the courts, of its media ownership
rules. After six public hearings, 10 economic studies and hundreds of
thousands of comments, the commission should move forward. The
commission should modify only one of the four rules under review — the
one that bars ownership of both a newspaper and a broadcast TV or radio
station in a single market. And the rule should be modified only for
the largest markets.
A company that owns a newspaper in one of the 20 largest cities in the
country should be permitted to purchase a broadcast TV or radio station
in the same market. But a newspaper should be prohibited from buying
one of the top four TV stations in its community. In addition, each
part of the combined entity would need to maintain its editorial
independence.
Beyond giving newspapers in large markets the chance to buy one local
TV or radio station, no other ownership rule would be altered. Other
companies would not be allowed to own any more radio or television
stations, either in a single market or nationally, than they already
do.
This relatively minor loosening of the ban on cross-ownership of
newspapers and TV stations in markets where there are many voices and
sufficient competition to allow for new entrants would help strike a
balance between ensuring the quality of local news while guarding
against too much concentration.
The cross-ownership rule is the only media ownership rule that has
never been modified since its inception in the mid-1970s. For the last
decade, F.C.C. chairmen — Democrats and Republicans alike — have said
this rule needs to be revised.
The ban on newspapers owning a broadcast station in their local markets
may end up hurting the quality of news and the commitment of news
organizations to their local communities. Newspapers in financial
difficulty often have little choice but to scale back news gathering to
cut costs. Allowing cross-ownership may help to forestall the erosion
in local news coverage by enabling companies that own both newspapers
and broadcast stations to share some costs.
Since 2003, when the courts told the commission to change its media
ownership rules, the news media industry has operated in a climate of
uncertainty. Many newspapers and broadcast stations are operating under
waivers of the ban on cross-ownership. The F.C.C. needs to address
these issues in a coherent and consistent fashion rather than
considering them case by case, making policy by waiver.
I confess that in my public role, I feel that the press is not on my
side. But it is for this very reason that I believe this controversial
step is worth taking. In their role as watchdog and informer of the
citizenry, newspapers are crucial to our democracy.
A colleague on the commission, Michael Copps, for whom I have the
utmost respect, has argued that our very democracy is at stake in the
decisions we make regarding media ownership. I do not disagree. But if
we believe that newspaper journalism plays a unique role in the
functioning of our democracy, then we cannot turn a blind eye to the
financial condition in which these companies find themselves.
Kevin J. Martin is the chairman of
the Federal Communications Commission.
Blumenthal's TV Change
DAY
editorial
Published
on
10/26/2007
It
is great
that Attorney General Richard Blumenthal has seen
the light and moderated his anti-competition position when it comes to
new television service technologies, but he does not go far enough.
A
new state law
that took effect Oct. 1 appeared to settle the matter.
It provided a format for new emerging technologies — such as AT&T's
U-verse and Verizon's FiOS — to compete with cable-TV franchises. The
consumer-friendly legislation would let competition determine prices
and drive service.
But
when
AT&T applied for a certificate to offer U-verse service
under the new law, Mr. Blumenthal and the Office of Consumer Counsel
opposed it. Citing a federal court decision, they argued these new
technologies should be regulated under the old monopolistic cable-TV
regulations, including forcing them to commit to providing service to
entire franchise areas.
Unfortunately,
the state Department of Public Utility Control bought
their argument and, ignoring the new law, told AT&T it had to apply
for a cable-TV franchise. AT&T argued the old regulatory model made
no sense in this new age of communication. If necessary, AT&T said
it would take the $336 million it planned to invest in a Connecticut
U-verse system to other states that welcomed competition. Such a move
would also mean the loss of thousands of jobs.
Consumers
have
reacted with outrage. They want TV service options.
Apparently Mr. Blumenthal realized he was on the wrong side of this
issue. In a letter to AT&T Tuesday, he said he would be happy to
support a stay of the DPUC decision while the courts decide whether to
apply the old law or new law to U-verse.
While
the
change of heart may help Mr. Blumenthal politically (he may
run for governor in 2010), a stay wouldn't do much for AT&T or
consumers. The company is not likely to sign up new customers and build
out its system when an adverse court ruling could force it to unplug
them.
The
better
course of action would be for the DPUC to reverse its
decision and let the new law take effect immediately. Meanwhile, a
hearing is set for today at which AT&T will ask state Superior
Court Judge Robert F. McWeeny to force the DPUC to abide by the new
competition-friendly law. The legislature's intent to encourage
competition is clear. The Day urges Judge McWeeny to act swiftly and
order that the law be implemented.
Comcast blocks some Internet traffic
By PETER
SVENSSON, AP Technology Writer
October 19, 2007
NEW YORK -
Comcast Corp. actively interferes with attempts by some of its
high-speed Internet subscribers to share files online, a move that runs
counter to the tradition of treating all types of Net traffic equally.
The
interference, which The Associated Press confirmed through nationwide
tests, is the most drastic example yet of data discrimination by a U.S.
Internet service provider. It involves company computers masquerading
as those of its users.
If widely
applied by other ISPs, the technology Comcast is using would be a
crippling blow to the BitTorrent, eDonkey and Gnutella file-sharing
networks. While these are mainly known as sources of copyright music,
software and movies, BitTorrent in particular is emerging as a
legitimate tool for quickly disseminating legal content.
The principle
of equal treatment of traffic, called "Net Neutrality" by proponents,
is not enshrined in law but supported by some regulations. Most of the
debate around the issue has centered on tentative plans, now postponed,
by large Internet carriers to offer preferential treatment of traffic
from certain content providers for a fee.
Comcast's
interference, on the other hand, appears to be an aggressive way of
managing its network to keep file-sharing traffic from swallowing too
much bandwidth and affecting the Internet speeds of other subscribers.
Comcast, the
nation's largest cable TV operator and No. 2 Internet provider, would
not specifically address the practice, but spokesman Charlie Douglas
confirmed that it uses sophisticated methods to keep Net connections
running smoothly.
"Comcast does
not block access to any applications, including BitTorrent," he said.
Douglas would
not specify what the company means by "access" — Comcast subscribers
can download BitTorrent files without hindrance. Only uploads of
complete files are blocked or delayed by the company, as indicated by
AP tests.
But with
"peer-to-peer" technology, users exchange files with each other, and
one person's upload is another's download. That means Comcast's
blocking of certain uploads has repercussions in the global network of
file sharers.
Comcast's
technology kicks in, though not consistently, when one BitTorrent user
attempts to share a complete file with another user.
Each PC gets a
message invisible to the user that looks like it comes from the other
computer, telling it to stop communicating. But neither message
originated from the other computer — it comes from Comcast. If it were
a telephone conversation, it would be like the operator breaking into
the conversation, telling each talker in the voice of the other:
"Sorry, I have to hang up. Good bye."
Matthew Elvey,
a Comcast subscriber in the San Francisco area who has noticed
BitTorrent uploads being stifled, acknowledged that the company has the
right to manage its network, but disapproves of the method, saying it
appears to be deceptive.
"There's the
wrong way of going about that and the right way," said Elvey, who is a
computer consultant.
Comcast's
interference affects all types of content, meaning that, for instance,
an independent movie producer who wanted to distribute his work using
BitTorrent and his Comcast connection could find that difficult or
impossible — as would someone pirating music.
Internet
service providers have long complained about the vast amounts of
traffic generated by a small number of subscribers who are avid users
of file-sharing programs. Peer-to-peer applications account for between
50 percent and 90 percent of overall Internet traffic, according to a
survey this year by ipoque GmbH, a German vendor of traffic-management
equipment.
"We have a
responsibility to manage our network to ensure all our customers have
the best broadband experience possible," Douglas said. "This means we
use the latest technologies to manage our network to provide a quality
experience for all Comcast subscribers."
The practice of
managing the flow of Internet data is known as "traffic shaping," and
is already widespread among Internet service providers. It usually
involves slowing down some forms of traffic, like file-sharing, while
giving others priority. Other ISPs have attempted to block some
file-sharing application by so-called "port filtering," but that method
is easily circumvented and now largely ineffective.
Comcast's
approach to traffic shaping is different because of the drastic effect
it has on one type of traffic — in some cases blocking it rather than
slowing it down — and the method used, which is difficult to circumvent
and involves the company falsifying network traffic.
The "Net
Neutrality" debate erupted in 2005, when AT&T Inc. suggested it
would like to charge some Web companies more for preferential treatment
of their traffic. Consumer advocates and Web heavyweights like Google
Inc. and Amazon Inc. cried foul, saying it's a bedrock principle of the
Internet that all traffic be treated equally.
To get its
acquisition of BellSouth Corp. approved by the Federal Communications
Commission, AT&T agreed in late 2006 not to implement such plans or
prioritize traffic based on its origin for two and a half years.
However, it did not make any commitments not to prioritize traffic
based on its type, which is what Comcast is doing.
The FCC's
stance on traffic shaping is not clear. A 2005 policy statement says
that "consumers are entitled to run applications and services of their
choice," but that principle is "subject to reasonable network
management." Spokeswoman Mary Diamond would not elaborate.
Free Press, a
Washington-based public interest group that advocates Net Neutrality,
opposes the kind of filtering applied by Comcast.
"We don't
believe that any Internet provider should be able to discriminate,
block or impair their consumers ability to send or receive legal
content over the Internet," said Free Press spokeswoman Jen Howard.
Paul "Tony"
Watson, a network security engineer at Google Inc. who has previously
studied ways hackers could disrupt Internet traffic in manner similar
to the method Comcast is using, said the cable company was probably
acting within its legal rights.
"It's their
network and they can do what they want," said Watson. "My concern is
the precedent. In the past, when people got an ISP connection, they
were getting a connection to the Internet. The only determination was
price and bandwidth. Now they're going to have to make much more
complicated decisions such as price, bandwidth, and what services I can
get over the Internet."
Several
companies have sprung up that rely on peer-to-peer technology,
including BitTorrent Inc., founded by the creator of the BitTorrent
software (which exists in several versions freely distributed by
different groups and companies).
Ashwin Navin,
the company's president and co-founder, confirmed that it has noticed
interference from Comcast, in addition to some Canadian Internet
service providers.
"They're using
sophisticated technology to degrade service, which probably costs them
a lot of money. It would be better to see them use that money to
improve service," Navin said, noting that BitTorrent and other
peer-to-peer applications are a major reason consumers sign up for
broadband.
BitTorrent Inc.
announced Oct. 9 that it was teaming up with online video companies to
use its technology to distribute legal content.
Other companies
that rely on peer-to-peer technology, and could be affected if Comcast
decides to expand the range of applications it filters, include
Internet TV service Joost, eBay Inc.'s Skype video-conferencing program
and movie download appliance Vudu. There is no sign that Comcast is
hampering those services.
Comcast
subscriber Robb Topolski, a former software quality engineer at Intel
Corp., started noticing the interference when trying to upload with
file-sharing programs Gnutella and eDonkey early this year.
In August,
Topolski began to see reports on Internet forum DSLreports.com from
other Comcast users with the same problem. He now believes that his
home town of Hillsboro, Ore., was a test market for the technology that
was later widely applied in other Comcast service areas.
Topolski agrees
that Comcast has a right to manage its network and slow down traffic
that affects other subscribers, but disapproves of their method.
"By Comcast not
acknowledging that they do this at all, there's no way to report any
problems with it," Topolski said.
Phone
TV Conflict Blurry; Officials
Try To Defend Choice By Denying it
By
MARK
PETERS | Courant Staff Writer
October
21,
2007
TV
viewers
might find it difficult to choose a side in the fight over
cable competition in Connecticut. Should they choose the side of
government officials who say they are representing consumers by
encouraging TV-service competition as long as everyone in the state can
benefit?
That
position
effectively eliminated a choice between AT&T's new
U-verse service and cable TV for as many as 150,000 consumers last week
in areas where U-verse was going to become available. Regulators told
AT&T it had to stop expanding U-verse and apply for a
franchise. Or should consumers take AT&T's side? Starting 10
months ago, the telephone giant began giving some consumers a
competitive option to the decades-old monopoly of local cable TV
franchises. U-verse delivers television programming over telephone
lines.
But
AT&T is
beholden first and foremost to shareholders, which is
part of the reason the company doesn't want to be required to offer TV
service to every home in its franchise area.
The
legal,
technical and business arguments about the new service can
be perplexing for consumers. The confusion was evident last Thursday as
union workers for AT&T rallied in downtown Hartford to support
their employer's position in the battle. A few commuters waiting nearby
for their evening bus were trying to figure out what the protesters
were shouting about.
"I
thought the
phone company only had Internet, and obviously, phone
service," said Sharon Griffin-Joseph, watching for both the rally and
her bus.
But
inside the
telecommunications industry, the fight is fierce over
how new types of TV service should be regulated.
The
issue in
Connecticut revolves primarily around what's known as a
universal service requirement. That regulation would require AT&T
to provide TV service to all customers in its franchise area, which
could be the whole state.
For
years, the
state has been divided into cable franchise areas, and
each cable company is required to offer service throughout its
franchise area. AT&T has said that if it is forced to adhere
to the universal service requirement, it will drop its more than 7,000
U-verse customers in the state and proceed with the service
elsewhere. Attorney General Richard Blumenthal, government
regulators and cable companies say universal service must be a
requirement, or all consumers won't get the lower rates and other
benefits expected to come with more competition.
At
stake is an
additional option for consumers who have endured years
of rising rates for cable TV and the only other available choice,
satellite TV. The Federal Communications Commission, in a study
of prices for TV service, found that cable rates rose nationally by 93
percent between 1995 and 2005. In areas where effective competition
exists, prices charged by cable companies were 17 percent lower, the
same study found.
For
now, unless
they have the benefit of clairvoyance, Connecticut
consumers will simply have to decide which side offers the most
persuasive argument about what might happen in the future. In the
most recent skirmish last week, AT&T lost a crucial battle before
the state Department of Public Utility Control. The DPUC ruled Monday
that AT&T had to stop signing up new U-verse customers until it
followed the same franchise rules as cable companies, including the
universal service requirement.
Thomas
W.
Hazlett, a professor of law and economics at George Mason
University and former chief economist of the FCC, said the DPUC's
decision won't help consumers. He said challengers to cable won't
come into markets if they're required to meet the universal service
requirement. And, he asked, why would the government want to stand in
the way of increased competition and lower prices for at least some
consumers?
"You
can't get
100 percent," Hazlett said. "If you can't, get 10
percent or 20 percent."
AT&T
points
out that universal service requirements weren't imposed
on cable companies when they began offering telephone service to
compete with AT&T's predecessor companies, SBC Communications and
Southern New England Telecommunications Corp. Also, the state has
seen this situation before. In the mid-1990s, SNET introduced its
Personal Vision product to compete with cable companies, but shut it
down in part because of what AT&T now says was a universal service
requirement.
But
Blumenthal
and other consumer advocates have a different view.
Competition
won't benefit everyone and won't last unless AT&T - or
others - have to serve all customers, said Blumenthal and William
Vallee, a lawyer with the state Office of Consumer Counsel, which
represents cable ratepayers. They said the fear is that
competition will develop only in those areas where AT&T finds it
profitable to offer service. That would leave rural areas and,
possibly, the poorest section of cities with no competitive choices,
Blumenthal said.
He
said that
without statewide competition, areas without competitive
choices would see prices increase more rapidly while customer service
declines. The attorney general also predicted that after a period
of years, AT&T could become a new monopoly because of the advantage
it would have of being able to pick and choose customers. It ultimately
would replace cable TV and re-create the problem that competition is
supposed to fix.
"The
government
will be giving its stamp of approval to essentially a
different form of monopolistic power," Blumenthal said.
The
two sides
are due in court this week as AT&T challenges the
DPUC's most recent decision.
DPUC: AT&T
needs a franchise
By:Harlan
Levy, Journal Inquirer
10/16/2007
State
regulators on Monday ruled that AT&T must immediately...AT&T
must also stop building new facilities to transmit U-verse and must
apply for a franchise before Dec. 31. Otherwise, AT&T will be
operating illegally, the state Department of Public Utility Control
stated. Current service may continue.
The move
throws a big wrench in AT&T's plans to expand its 10-month-old
service without a franchise wherever it wants to in Connecticut.
AT&T had argued that the system is legal based on a two-week-old
law that allows legal video services providers that aren't franchised
cable systems to operate here with only a certificate. The new law does
not mandate that certificate holders serve all communities in the
state, nor does it require building public access studios when the
video provider enters a cable system's franchise area.
Since December, AT&T has garnered 7,000 U-verse subscribers in 40
Connecticut cities and towns, including Manchester and Windsor Locks,
without a franchise. The move began after the DPUC ruled last year that
U-verse was not cable television due to its Internet delivery
technology and therefore needed no franchise.
However, in July and then on Oct. 2 a New Haven federal judge ruled
that the technology was irrelevant and that under the federal
Communications Act, U-verse offered the same service as cable and
therefore needed a franchise.
In Monday's order, the DPUC seconded the motion, acknowledged that
federal law preempted its original decision, and denied AT&T's
certificate application because "AT&T is not an eligible entity.
AT&T is an unfranchised cable company illegally providing cable
service in Connecticut. AT&T is therefore not a lawfully operating
video service provider nor is it a franchised cable company seeking to
provide competitive service outside its franchise area. Instead,
AT&T is a third category - a cable company that is unlawfully
operating without a franchise."
What's more, the DPUC stated, "The General Assembly could not have
intended, nor would equity permit, AT&T to profit from its unlawful
activity."
AT&T responded that it would file an emergency action today in
state Superior Court to appeal the DPUC ruling.
"In making this ruling, the DPUC ignored both the spirit and the letter
of a brand-new consumer-friendly law and is protecting the cable
monopoly," AT&T State President said Ramona Carlow said. "Consumers
should be outraged that just as more than 150,000 local households in
more than 40 Connecticut cities and towns gained the ability to choose
a video provider other than their local cable monopoly, the DPUC and
attorney general have acted to protect cable monopolies by eliminating
competition."
AT&T has halted all hiring and new capital investment in
Connecticut, Carlow said in a statement. If the ruling stands, AT&T
said, it will also eliminate more than 300 new jobs, not hire or
eliminate 1,000 other jobs in Connecticut, "redirect to other states a
significant portion of the $336 million AT&T had planned to invest
in video service in Connecticut over the next three years," and
disconnect the current 7,000 Connecticut subscribers.
The DPUC's decision was "fabulous," responded William Vallee, principal
attorney for the state consumer counsel, who challenged AT&T's
application. "They got the law just right."
All cable services providers operating in Connecticut, including
AT&T, "must abide by the law in order for there to be a level
playing field," Vallee said. "Up to now, the department's original
decision and the new statute have only served to skew and imbalance the
cable services market, thereby failing to provide the competitive
pressures needed to reduce prices, improve service quality, make
programming flexible and responsive to consumer need, and promote
technological innovation."
AT&T only wanted to serve "the golden banana," Vallee said, "going
down the 91 corridor, turning right at New Haven and across the coast
to Greenwich. AT&T has no intention of serving areas where they do
not believe profits will be high enough to suit their business plan.
This decision will change all of that to the better."
That's not so, AT&T spokesman Seth Bloom countered today. ""In less
than a year we've expanded to over 40 communities in the state from the
urban areas to other communities," Bloom said. "We are committed to
targeting all kinds of communities in the state and have already shown
that."
Local Cable
Company Reaches Deal To Keep Channel 8
DAY
By Jenna Cho
Published on 10/8/2007
MetroCast
cable customers are still going to get to watch their favorite UConn
teams.
On Sunday, officials from LIN TV and WTNH Channel 8 announced that
MetroCast Communications has reached an agreement with LIN TV to
continue to broadcast WTNH and two other channels.
Jon Hitchcock, vice president and general manager of Channel 8 and
MyTV9 Channel 59, announced the agreement in a short e-mail Sunday
afternoon and said he hoped to release further details of the agreement
today. Courtney Gurtin, a spokeswoman for LIN TV, also confirmed the
agreement. Service was scheduled to be discontinued at midnight Sunday
if the parties could not reach agreement.
Last month, MetroCast announced that the cost to keep WTNH, MyTV9
(WCTX, channel 59) and WPRI (channel 12 in Providence) — which were
being negotiated with the stations' parent company, LIN TV — would be
too great for cable customers who purchase basic service.
Channel 8 in particular is popular for its broadcasts of University of
Connecticut basketball and football games, local news and weather and
ABC programming. MyTV9 broadcasts Yankees games at least once a week
during baseball season. WTNH set up a Web site, at
http://iwantwtnhtv.com, urging MetroCast to keep the channels.
MetroCast serves the towns of Waterford, East Lyme, New London,
Montville, Griswold, Killingly, Plainfield, Putnam and Sterling.
John Dee, general manager of MetroCast in Waterford, could not be
reached to comment Sunday afternoon.
NPU Planning
Fiber-Optic Future For Norwich; City government, local business would
benefit from high-speed service
DAY
By Claire Bessette
Published on 10/5/2007
Norwich — Imagine a fire call to the city central dispatch for a remote
location within the city limits.
As the dispatcher calls the volunteer department, a computer prints a
picture and exact directions and sends them electronically to the
responding station or even to a portable computer in the firetruck as
it speeds out of the station bay.
That would be one way a municipal fiber-optic network could help city
agencies and the general public, said John Bilda, general manager of
Norwich Public Utilities.
NPU went out to bid Wednesday on installing a fiber-optic
telecommunications system in the city that would connect all schools
and municipal and public-utilities facilities, including automated
sewer pump stations, hydropower units and electrical transformers.
The 32-mile, $2.4 million network would snake through the city in two
main loops, with several spurs from the main loop lines to connect more
remote systems.
The network, Bilda said, would send data 600 times faster than current
speeds along privately owned data lines, and do it more reliably.
Mayor Benjamin Lathrop called officials of the city-owned utility
“visionaries,” dating back 104 years to when the city took over by
eminent domain a private electric and gas company and converted it to a
public utility.
“They were visionaries then, with the (public water) reservoirs and
all,” Lathrop said, “and by exploring what they did all those years ago
to move their city forward. It's impressive. Our utility has done
wonders.”
Immediate plans would have the fiber-optic network serving only Norwich
government entities — adding in agencies such as the Uncas Health
District, Three Rivers Community College and Norwich Free Academy — and
would provide internal communication only within Norwich borders.
A teacher in a Norwich school could draw a line on a computer and have
it automatically appear simultaneously on so-called smart boards in
every school in the city. But all the sites would still use AT&T
for telephone service and 99 Main — the city's Internet provider — for
access to “the outside world,” Bilda said.
NPU plans to create wireless hot spots in key locations, such as
downtown, that would be available to the public, Bilda said.
Expanding the network to local businesses and residents could follow.
NPU plans to apply to the state Department of Public Utility Control
for permission to offer service, according to the resolution approved
by the City Council Monday.
Bilda couldn't say when that might occur, but he said the cable to make
it possible could be in place by next summer. The rest could depend on
the DPUC licensing process and the city's desire to open it up to the
community.
NPU is a pioneer in municipal fiber-optics installation in the state,
but not the first, Bilda said. About five years ago, the town of
Manchester helped write the law that now allows NPU to move forward.
DPUC spokeswoman Beryl Lyons said no other city-owned utility has
applied for a state license to offer fiber-optic broadband to the
general public. Only the few municipally owned utilities that own their
own utility poles would be able to tackle the project, she said.
Groton Public Utilities launched its own for-profit cable television
company, Thames Valley Communications, three years ago. The cable
television and computer broadband company now has 7,000 customers in
Groton city and town, and the Groton portion of Mystic and Gales Ferry,
said Carl Andersen, marketing director.
Andersen said it has taken longer than expected to get permission to
build on poles outside the Groton Public Utilities service area.
NPU owns all its utility poles and many underground utility conduits in
the Norwich Business Park.
NPU has no plans to start a cable television company or become an
Internet provider or telephone company. Rather, Bilda said, the network
would allow NPU and other city entities to greatly consolidate
telephone service, buying one telephone-trunk service line from
AT&T and using its own fiber-optic network to hook up to numerous
telephones and computers.
One of the utilities' aims is to save on its telephone bills. “We're
doing this to stay in business,” Bilda said.
The city plans to continue to use 99 Main as its Internet provider, but
city computers would be able to communicate with one another much
faster and at higher capacities.
If the fiber-optic service is expanded to local businesses and the
public, Bilda said, NPU would not make it a for-profit venture. Ten
percent of the gross revenues would be turned over to the city, a deal
that dates back to the founding of the public utility.
If Norwich wants to venture into cable television or telephone service,
the City Council would have to authorize the move. Bilda said the
initiative would have to come from NPU constituents.
“We want to do whatever the community wants us to do,” Bilda said.
“This provides the backbone for any of these services to happen.”
At least two downtown business owners are counting the days when
fiber-optic broadband data transmission service might be available.
Mike Sullivan, owner of 99 Main, said his company has been the city's
Internet provider for 11 years. He said the connection would enable him
to offer high-speed fiber-optic Internet connections to local small
businesses that can't afford the high-speed T-1 lines that are now the
standard for high-speed connections.
Fiber optics would far surpass T-1 capacities, Sullivan said. The
smallest fiber cable can transmit data at a rate of 155 megabytes per
second, while a T-1 line sends at one megabyte per second. Slower DSL
lines are still the standard for home and small business use, he said.
Brian Kobylarz, owner of Tele-Cine Productions, served on the initial
focus group NPU established several years ago when utility officials
first started looking into expanding to cable television and
fiber-optic broadband services.
Kobylarz said any business with electronic data needs would benefit. He
produces high-definition videos and films for industrial, business and
government entities.
Fiber optics would give him quicker, better quality transmissions of
video clips to production studios “miles or hundreds of miles away.”
Kobylarz, who also chairs the Downtown Neighborhood Revitalization Zone
Committee, envisions the fiber-optic network attracting high-tech
businesses to the downtown.
“Major corporations have realized the benefits of this technology for
many years now,” Kobylarz said. “The business model says this is the
right thing to do. What we are doing in Norwich is the first step. It
will be a better step when it begins to open up to the business
community. That will spur economic activity and will attract new and
better businesses to the area.”
Vaunted WiMax's
messy side: the spectrum grab
By John Letzing, MarketWatch
Last Update: 10:31 AM ET Sep 29, 2007
SAN FRANCISCO (MarketWatch) -- In its drive to roll out a new,
cutting-edge wireless technology, Sprint Nextel Corp. has taken on
Burke County Middle School and a cast of equally unlikely opponents in
a nasty spat over the use of airwaves.
Sprint announced in July that they will team up to cover 100 million
people with WiMax networks by 2008. Sprint is placing a risky bet
on the largely unproven technology to revive a wireless business that
has lost ground to those of rivals Verizon and AT&T, analysts say.
Upstart Clearwire, meanwhile, hopes WiMax can one day help the company
become a major telecom player.
But laying the groundwork for WiMax has involved a messy endeavor to
gather up access to necessary airwaves. Much of the spectrum is owned
by non-profits and schools, such as those in Burke County, Ga. Many
have held it for years, without assigning much value to it. Wrangling
over rights to this spectrum has pitted Sprint against a number of the
schools and non-profits, while underlining a rift with Clearwire, an
important partner in dispatching WiMax in its early stages.
Decades ago, the Federal Communications Commission allocated to schools
and non-profits much of the 2.5 gigahertz spectrum ideal for WiMax.
Classified as "EBS," it can't be owned directly by businesses. The
North American Catholic Educational Programming Foundation, for
example, can use it to broadcast programming such as "Prayer Talk" and
"Gift and Mystery."
Others, like the Burke County schools near Augusta, Ga., didn't even
realize they had it until Sprint came calling. General counsel for
Burke County Public Schools, James Hyder, said Sprint made an
unexpected offer early last year to lease one of the schools' two
spectrum licenses.
"We woke up one day and saw we had these," Hyder said. After a call to
a former superintendent to clear up what it was exactly Sprint was
after, the schools agreed, Hyder said.
Seeing dollar signs
The relationship took an odd turn late last year, however, when
the Burke County schools applied to the FCC to renew a second, expired
spectrum license. Around 40 other organizations, ranging from Heartland
Community College to Connecticut Public Broadcasting, had also applied
for the renewal of expired EBS licenses which, thanks largely to WiMax,
have dramatically increased in value.
The FCC granted those requests in January, inviting a flood of hundreds
of subsequent late renewal requests. Sprint has called the development
a mushrooming threat to its network plans. It filed a petition for the
commission to reconsider the late renewals in February.
"These former licensees seek to hijack ... valuable spectrum," Sprint
said in its petition, adding that the FCC "should not be mislead into
granting new authorizations."
Clearwire, meanwhile, has sided with the schools and non-profits. The
FCC hasn't yet issued a decision on the matter.
The EBS spectrum in question was long seen as having little value
beyond broadcasting TV signals in one direction. That's changed as
companies like Sprint and Clearwire have announced plans to use it for
beaming data and voice communication among computers and phones on
WiMax networks, and as the FCC has issued rules making it easier to
lease for commercial purposes.
"These educational groups who didn't really care ... whether they had
these [licenses] or not are now seeing dollar signs," said Tim Sanders,
an analyst with research firm Maravedis Inc.
Indeed, some groups have seen handsome windfalls, thanks to the
spectrum's increased value. But the grab for airwaves has also resulted
in a series of lawsuits and a surplus of acrimony.
Pandora's box
WiMax can blast radio signals far more broadly than WiFi, thus
requiring less network equipment to cover large areas, and some believe
it also has certain technical advantages over cellular phone
technology.
But the FCC's decision to grant renewals of expired EBS licenses could
mar Sprint's WiMax rollout by cutting holes in carefully-planned
network coverage areas, the company says. Sprint would either have to
negotiate new deals for the reinstated licenses, or see them fall to
competitors. A number of educational groups with EBS
licenses have also joined Sprint in complaining about the renewals,
which they say threaten to impinge on existing coverage areas.
"You think you have a three-bedroom house, and then all of a sudden
someone comes and says, 'hey, half the house is mine'," said Sprint
spokesman Scott Sloat. "This has opened a whole Pandora's box."
So far, at least 188 expired EBS license renewal applications have now
been filed with the FCC, Sloat said.
In a filing with the FCC posted Friday, Sprint, Clearwire and a number
of license holders put forth a proposed settlement, under which
late-renewed licenses would have slightly altered coverage areas.
The impetus for the schools' and non-profits' late renewals, Maravedis'
Sanders said, is often "someone approaching them and saying, 'we'll
lease your spectrum if you can get your license back'."
"I can't speak to their motivation other than to say spectrum is a
valuable asset, and people aware of that may see that as an opportunity
for a land grab," Sloat said.
Hyder, the Burke County schools' general counsel, said the decision to
renew their second spectrum license and seek a suitor was an easy one.
"It's the difference between getting nothing today, and something
tomorrow," Hyder said, adding that whatever the schools are offered to
lease the spectrum "doesn't have to be too significant" for a deal to
make sense.
ACLU Blog
Thursday, September 27, 2007
Verizon
Reverses Course on Abortion Text-Messaging
If
you
want to see what the Internet will look like in a few years without net
neutrality, you need look no further than this week's stories about
Verizon Wireless' attempts to censor messages on its text-message
network. Today the telecommunications giant reversed a decision it made
last week to reject NARAL Pro-Choice America's request to make a
text-message advocacy campaign available on Verizon networks. The
program would allow people to sign up for text messages with NARAL by
sending a five digit "short code." These types of programs have become
very popular with activist groups and political candidates.
Earlier,
Verizon told NARAL it does not accept programs from any group “that
seeks to promote an agenda or distribute content that, in its
discretion, may be seen as controversial or unsavory to any of our
users.” Never mind that you have to sign up for the program so you
don't get unsolicited messages. If Verizon says your program is
controversial or unsavory, you can always go elsewhere.
The
problem
with that philosophy is that "going elsewhere" is becoming less of an
option. As companies gobble other companies to become giant behemoths,
competition becomes scarce. The same kind of discrimination against
content is happening in the Internet broadband world — in which Verizon
is a major player — where there is even less competition, and where the
threat of this kind of censorship has even broader implications.
Verizon
and
AT&T, among others, are spending millions of dollars lobbying
Congress for the right to discriminate against content on the Internet
it deems controversial, unsavory, or even just contrary to its own
business interests. Net neutrality would protect your right to see and
hear what you wish on the Internet without your service provider acting
as a censor. According to the Verizon and AT&T lobbyists, net
neutrality would stifle innovation. Translation: it would mean we
couldn't force you to see only what we want you to see.
So
now that
Verizon's changed its mind and will allow NARAL's campaign to move
forward, does this mean we don’t need to worry? No. Verizon changed its
mind this time, but it can change it again at any time. Only a federal
policy of nondiscrimination in content will guarantee this doesn’t
happen again.
If
the Internet
is to truly be a powerful force for freedom of expression, we cannot
allow big business OR government to choose the content. Today, it’s
Verizon shutting out NARAL. Who will it be tomorrow?
Posted
by
Marvin Johnson, Legislative Counsel in Free Speech, Privacy &
Technology at 12:40 PM | Comments (0) | Trackback
REPORT
FROM LWV OF WESTON webmaster...
Media Study Commitee watches entire U.S.
Senate Small Business and Entrepreneurship Committee public hearing on
Universal Broadband:
U.S. SENATE
SMALL BUSINESS & ENTREPRENEURSHIP COMMITTEE
Public Hearing (invited
speakers) on Universal Broadband
FULL STATEMENTS BY SPEAKERS TO BE POSTED
ON-LINE
September 26, 2007,
10am
to @12noon (on-line)
NOTES: This Committee (Chair.
Kerry, Ranking Member Snowe) conducted a “public hearing” that made CT
and our C.G.A.
look not so bad!
“Access
For Small Business”
was the title for the hearing, and the Committee was seeking word on
three
things--1)affordability, 2)speed and 3)penetration.
Chair. Kerry noted that the Internet was not
a luxury and according to whichever report you looked at, America
seems to be falling behind the rest of the world.
National Broadband Strategy: a
first panel
of Michael Copps and fellow Commissioner Edelstein of the FCC discussed
the
fact that at hearings around the country it has become clear that small
business is having a problem competing against larger companies because
of the
failure to complete President Bush’s vision stated in 2004 of Universal
Broadband by 2007. It was suggested that
this Committee might do well to invite the other three FCC
Commissioners in for
a similar Public Hearing.
Data needed:
Without adequate data
about
the three items noted above on a national scale it is impossible to say
exactly
where the underserved sectors of the economy or actual pockets of no
service
are located.
Examples
from Massachusetts and
rural areas, such as the State of Kentucky
(“Connect Kentucky”),
were discussed by the Committee in the second
panel. How to “build out” and reach
rural America
might be a big part of revitatizing small business
(examples from Kentucky).
Infrastructure in that effort was 80% State - 20%
private.
Other Universal Broadband supporting
arguments:
- Similarities to the
original Telecommunications Act of 1934 were drawn.
- A national policy
addressing disparities of availibility of DSL (using telephone lines)
needed.
- It was suggested
that this begin with schools and hospitals.
- Importance of
getting the word out about informing grass roots (generating
awareness); need for computers in the home - “No Child Left Off-Line”
FCC
chair promotes post-digital TV rule
By
JOHN
DUNBAR, Associated Press Writer
Tue Sep 11, 5:42 AM ET
WASHINGTON - Here's the pitch from the cable TV industry: One way or
another, all subscribers will still be able to tune in their favorite
shows when broadcasters shift to digital-only transmission in 2009.
Seeking more than a promise, Federal Communications Commission Chairman
Kevin Martin wants commissioners to require cable companies to provide
that service.
"Unless the commission acts, some cable customers may actually be
harmed by the transition and lose the ability to view some of these
channels," Martin told The Associated Press on Monday.
The FCC, which is scheduled to meet Tuesday, has been split over such a
proposal in the past but may be moving toward a compromise.
The greatest impact of the digital conversion will be on viewers of
non-digital televisions who receive their signals over the air.
Beginning Feb. 18, 2009, they will be forced to buy a special converter
box, subsidized by the government, to receive their channels.
The impact of the shift on the nation's cable subscribers is less
certain.
Today, cable television system operators receive broadcast feeds in
analog and digital format. Come Feb. 18, 2009, broadcasters must stop
supplying the analog signal. That creates a problem for the cable
industry's 32 million analog subscribers.
Cable operators can either convert the digital signal to analog at the
point where their cable signal originates, or they can supply customers
with a "down converter" device that will change digital signals to
analog at the TV set.
This is essentially what the FCC wants to force the industry to do,
under Martin's proposed rules.
Last week, the National Cable and Telecommunications Association
launched a $200 million advertising campaign to assure customers that
the shift won't affect them. "Every TV set you have that's hooked up to
cable will work just fine," happy customers intone in a TV spot.
What the commercials do not say is how the industry is going to manage
the transition, something that concerns Gene Kimmelman, federal affairs
chief for Consumers Union. "It is astounding that they're telling their
customers 'don't worry, we're taking care of you' without telling them
at what price."
NCTA spokesman Brian Dietz said analog consumers will not be charged
more when the transition occurs. Nor will they be forced to sign up for
a more expensive digital service.
The NCTA has committed to doing what the FCC is asking, but is
resisting the mandate, a position Kimmelman calls "disingenuous."
The NCTA says what the FCC is doing violates the industry's
constitutional rights.
"We've said we will voluntarily take care of our customers, which is
different than a government mandate," Dietz said.
Dietz said a government-ordered transition would deny the thousands of
cable system operators the flexibility they need in managing the
transition.
Kimmelman credited the industry with launching the ad campaign, but
said the government should assume an oversight role.
"I think there are some sticks that can be placed over their heads to
try to ensure that they don't take advantage of their customers," he
said.
SEPT.
6, 2007 - MARKEY REACTS TO JUSTICE DEPT STAND AGAINST NET NEUTRALITY
September
07
2007 press release
WASHINGTON,
D.C. – Representative Edward J. Markey (D-MA), Chairman of the House
Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet, released the
following statement in reaction to the Department of Justice’s comments
to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) on network neutrality
proposals:
“The
Bush
administration’s decision to oppose Internet Freedom flies in the face
of the open nature of the Internet, which has fostered unprecedented
innovation and economic growth. Network neutrality safeguards would
preserve the open architecture of the Internet and prevent companies
from downgrading and discriminating against competitive Internet
services and applications,” said Rep. Markey.
“The
Justice
Department’s position is consistent with the Bush administration’s
failed approach to national broadband policy. American consumers and
entrepreneurs deserve better.”
Wireless is beefed up in downtown
By
FRANK
MacEACHERN, fmaceachern@thestamfordtimes.com
September
6,
2007
STAMFORD
—Three
small parks in the city's downtown are more than just
places to relax on a warm day, they're also areas where people can
connect to the Internet via free Wi-Fi service.
City
officials
hope it's just the start of a "wireless corridor"
running from the downtown to the transportation center, said Michael
Pensiero, Stamford's director of technology management services.
"Our
entire
plan is to have a wireless service from Ferguson Library to
the transportation center, to create a wireless corridor," said
Pensiero.
The
service
enables people who have a laptop to work in an area where
they can't plug in to a wall socket in order to access the Internet.
Instead they're able to sit in an area, such as a park, and connect to
the Internet wirelessly.
The
project is
funded by a $15,000 federal grant which was used to
purchase the radio equipment and for service fees, said Pensiero.
Approval for the grant came last fall and the city received the money
approximately two months later.
Last
year the
city offered the service at Columbus Park. This summer
the city added Latham Park on Bedford Street and Veterans Park on
Atlantic Street near Stamford Town Center.
The
city is
working with the state to have the service extended to the
transportation center so commuters would be able to use it while
waiting for a train, said Pensiero.
To
access the
Internet users have to type the 13-digit access code on
Connecticut library cards. Out-of-state residents have to obtain a
library card from Ferguson Library if they wish to connect to the
Internet.
There
haven't
been many users yet, said Pensiero, but he hoped more
will take advantage of it once they get to know about the service.
Once
users know
about free Wi-Fi service they're eager to use it, said
Alice Knapp, director of public services at the Ferguson Library.
The
library
began offering the service three years ago at its main
branch and then expanded it this year to the Harry Bennett and the Weed
& Hollander Memorial branches in Turn of River and Springdale areas
respectively. She estimated about 12-13,000 users have signed on to use
the Wi-Fi service.
For
people who
bring their laptop to the library to work on a project
or assignment the Wi-Fi service is another convenience for them. They
can work and also access reference material at the same time as others
are doing so, said Knapp.
Internet
speed
at the Wi-Fi sites is very good, said Pensiero, although
he cautioned it's affected by how many users are online.
Municipal Wi-Fi faces financial hurdles
By
MICHAEL
LIEDTKE, AP Business Writer
Fri
Aug 31,
2:54 AM ET
SAN
FRANCISCO -
A year ago, it seemed like just about every major U.S.
city was drawing up ambitious plans to build wireless Internet networks
so more people, both rich and poor, could have online access wherever
they wanted. Now, economics is blurring the Utopian vision as city
leaders and the companies proposing to build the Wi-Fi networks haggle
over whether the projects make financial sense.
The
problem
came into sharper focus this week as once-ballyhooed
projects in San Francisco and Chicago unraveled while another
high-profile deal in Houston neared a breaking point.
"Cities
and
companies are rethinking the models that they are
adopting," said Esme Vos, founder of MuniWireless.com, a Web site that
tracks trends in the industry. "It's all about economics and
risk-sharing now."
MuniWireless
estimates Wi-Fi networks have either already been built or
are under consideration in 455 cities and counties across the United
States, up from 122 two years ago.
The
second
thoughts about municipal Wi-Fi revolve around questions
about whether the networks will generate enough revenue to justify the
multimillion-dollar investments to build and maintain them.
EarthLink
Inc.,
an Internet service provider that had been one of the
chief evangelists in the crusade to blanket cities with Wi-Fi, has
decided it can no longer afford to foot the bill by itself as the
Atlanta-based company tries to bounce back from $46 million in losses
during the first half of this year.
"We
will not
devote any new capital to the old municipal Wi-Fi model
that has us taking all the risks," Rolla Huff, EarthLink's chief
executive, told analysts during a Wednesday conference call. "In my
judgment, that model is simply unworkable."
Later
Wednesday, Huff informed San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom that
EarthLink was rescinding a proposal to cover the estimated $14 million
to $17 million cost of building the city's Wi-Fi network.
Had
the San
Francisco system been built, EarthLink planned to charge
about $20 per month for Wi-Fi access that would have been three to four
times faster than a free service subsidized by ads sold by Google Inc.
San Francisco still hopes to find other vendors willing to build a
Wi-Fi network in its city, an effort that Google said it will continue
to support.
"Google
is
committed to promoting alternative platforms for people to
access the Web no matter where they are, and we encourage others to
think creatively about how to address access issues in their own
communities," Google spokesman Andrew Pederson said.
Last
year,
Google completed a free Wi-Fi network in its home town of
Mountain View that the company says attracts about 15,000 users per
month.
EarthLink
had
doubts about whether it could sign up enough San
Francisco subscribers to recover its costs there, based on its
experience so far in other cities, including Philadelphia and New
Orleans, where it has already completed or is still building Wi-Fi
networks.
Houston
was
counting on EarthLink to invest about $50 million to build
a Wi-Fi network there, but those high hopes are now fading. The city
this week notified EarthLink that it will fine the company $5 million
for missing its contractual deadlines. The payment will give EarthLink
more time to consider whether it wants to abandon the Houston project
or find other partners willing to help defray the costs.
Chicago
canceled its $18.5 million Wi-Fi project after concluding it
would require the city to spend too much money to help finance it.
Financial
worries also have jeopardized a $20 million Wi-Fi network in
Milwaukee. The project remains in its testing phase, but the vendor,
Midwest Fiber Networks, has publicly expressed concerns about whether
the network will attract enough customers to recoup the investment.
Vos
and other
industry observers believe the dreams about wireless
Internet access in big cities can still be realized if the some of the
financial burden is shifted from the private sector.
"What
is
happening right now is a black eye (for Wi-Fi), but I don't
think it's a death blow," said Godfrey Chua, who follows wireless
networking issues for the research firm IDC. "We just need to work on
new business models."
Some
cities
already have agreed to help finance Wi-Fi by sharing some
of the upfront costs and guaranteeing subscriptions. Minneapolis, for
instance, has agreed to become the "anchor tenant" on its Wi-Fi network
— a commitment that will cost the city $1.25 million annually.
Houston
had
also agreed to pay EarthLink $500,000 annually to give the
city's workers Wi-Fi access during the first five years of its
contract, but that still might not be enough to keep EarthLink on board.
Newcomer
Chosen for Wi-Fi in 2 Counties
NYTIMES
By
BRUCE LAMBERT
Published:
August 16, 2007
HAUPPAUGE,
N.Y., Aug. 15 — A $150 million plan to make wireless
broadband available across Nassau and Suffolk Counties, covering 750
square miles and nearly three million residents, took a major step
forward on Wednesday when Long Island officials chose a company for the
project.
The
Suffolk
County executive, Steve Levy, who originated the concept,
was joined by the Nassau County executive, Thomas R. Suozzi, in
announcing the selection of e-Path Communications of Tampa, Fla., to
build, own and operate the system.
The
project
would be bigger than any other municipal system in the
country to date, though some systems still being proposed elsewhere
would be comparable or larger.
The
project in
Nassau and Suffolk is considered unusual because it
would cover an area that is entirely suburban and does not have one
central city.
“You
can have
connectivity just about everywhere from the Queens-Nassau
border to Montauk,” Mr. Levy said.
The
Wi-Fi Long
Island system is intended for a wide range of users:
residents, businesses, government agencies, schools, organizations and
tourists.
The
applications include helping students to do homework and enabling
workers out in the field to keep contact with their employers.
“This
will give
Long Island a competitive advantage” in attracting
business, residents and tourists, Mr. Suozzi said.
The
service
would offer varied features for different users and places.
It
would
provide free basic connections for any computer or hand-held
Internet device at numerous “hot spots,” including public beaches,
major parks, ferries and airports.
Limited
home
service would be free for residents below the federal
poverty line, using a device to relay data indoors. That program would
help erase the “digital divide” between the haves and have-nots, Mr.
Levy said.
Other
residents
could subscribe to home service with more capacity, for
things like music and picture downloads, for $25 a month, Mr. Levy
said. An even higher level of service offering streaming video would be
available for $55 a month.
Asked
why they
chose a relative newcomer like e-Path instead of larger
companies, Mr. Levy and Mr. Suozzi said that while the other bidders
wanted the counties to help pay for the system, e-Path offered to raise
the money itself.
“No
taxpayer
dollars will be spent,” Mr. Levy said.
Despite
e-Path’s relative inexperience — it is building a system for
Delray Beach, Fla., and nearing approval to install one in Trenton —
the two county executives said they were impressed with the company’s
two partners. They are the technology giant Cisco and the energy
company KeySpan, whose communications branch is providing a fiber optic
network for the wired portion of the system.
Some
Wi-Fi
systems elsewhere have fallen short in their expected
advertising revenue, and Mr. Levy acknowledged that it remains to be
seen if e-Path’s innovative financial plan will succeed. “Let’s see how
this works,” he said.
The
project
will start later this year with two locations: the Hub area
around the Nassau Coliseum and along Route 110, an office and retail
corridor in Suffolk. The plan calls for completing the rest of the
system in three years.
Craig
J.
Settles, a consultant in Oakland, Calif., and the author of
“Fighting the Good Fight for Municipal Wireless” (Hudson House, 2006),
said that e-Path’s partners appear to provide a solid foundation. But
he cautioned that the real test will be how much revenue is generated.
“If
the network
doesn’t make money,” he said, “then all this talk of
global connectivity is whistling in the wind.”
New Law Could Nullify AT&T
Ruling
By
MARK PETERS | Courant Staff Writer
July
27, 2007
A
federal judge
ruled Thursday that AT&T must follow the same rules
as cable TV companies as the phone giant competes for customers with
its fledgling video service.
The
decision by
Judge Janet Bond Arterton strikes down a year-old
ruling by the state Department of Public Utility Control. The agency
had ruled that AT&T did not have to abide by cable franchise
regulations, including requirements that prevent it from offering its
service only in select markets.
But
it's
possible that the ruling from U.S. District Court in New Haven
will be blunted or even nullified by a recently passed state law that
establishes a new system to regulate cable TV and AT&T's video
service.
AT&T,
the
state's Office of Consumer Counsel and others involved in
the federal suit say they're reviewing the ruling to understand how it
might affect AT&T's U-verse service. The service, which delivers TV
programming over telephone lines, is available in parts of more than 20
Connecticut towns and cities.
Attorney
General Richard Blumenthal said Thursday that the federal
ruling was good news for consumers, but will probably be negated by the
new state law.
"Unfortunately,
a new law guts the very safeguards that the court so
resoundingly affirmed," he said in a statement.
AT&T
said
it's reviewing the decision, but pointed out that the
court case concerns law that has been changed.
The
federal
lawsuit against AT&T and the DPUC was filed last July
by the consumer counsel, which represents cable ratepayers, and the New
England Cable and Telecommunications Association, whose members include
Comcast Corp. and Cox Communications.
The
trade
association and consumer counsel argued that the DPUC was
giving AT&T an unfair advantage as it enters the TV market in
Connecticut. The phone company did not have to meet public access
requirements, provide service to all homes in a franchise area, or go
through the lengthy cable franchise renewal process that examines
customer service.
AT&T
has
argued that the cable companies are only interested in
keeping their monopoly and avoiding competition.
The
cable
association could not be reached for comment Thursday.
Bill
Vallee,
principal attorney for the state's consumer counsel, said
Thursday that Arterton's decision supports his argument that AT&T
should be treated the same as cable companies, even though the
technology is different. He said the ruling could have an effect on
AT&T's plans for other states because it is now more likely to be
treated like a cable provider wherever it goes.
But
the impact
of the suit here is likely to hinge on the new state
law, which legislators saw as a compromise between the cable industry
and AT&T to ensure competition in the industry.
It
was widely
criticized by Blumenthal and Vallee for eroding consumer
protections while continuing to give AT&T certain advantages.
AT&T
Is Cable Operator,
Says Connecticut Court
By
John
Eggerton -- Broadcasting & Cable,
7/26/2007
3:33:00 PM
A
Connecticut
U.S. District Court has ruled that AT&T's Lightspeed
IPTV video service is a cable service subject to local franchising laws.
The
summary
judgment was a victory for the New England Cable &
Telecommunications Association, and the cable industry at large.
It
was a defeat
for the Connecticut Department of Public Utility
Control (DPUC), which had ruled that AT&T's service was an
information service, like other data services.
Central
to the
DPUC's conclusion was the way AT&T delivers its
service, which is not to deliver a channel until the subscriber's
set-top box requests it, rather than constantly delivering all the
channels. That, said DPUC, was a level of interaction that made the
service a two-way data exchange, or as DPUC put it "“[AT&T’s]
network is unique in comparison to cable operators such as it entails a
switched, two-way client server IP-based architecture designed to send
each subscriber only the programming the subscriber chooses to view and
entails a high level of subscriber interaction
The
FCC
defines cable service as one-way, though it includes VOD
in that definition, so the DPUC concluded AT&T's service did not
meet that definition.
The
court
saw it differently. Although factual findings by expert
goverment agencies are due judicial deference under the Chevron
doctrine, the court concluded that DPUC's determination that AT&T's
was a two-way system was a legal conclusion-on the appropriate
definition of "cable service"--rather than a factual finding, and a
wrong legal conclusion at that.
AT&T
is a
cable operator, its service is a cable service, and its
network is a cable network, said the court.
The
cable
industry has argued that AT&T's service should be subject
to the same franchise restrictions as their members, but the DPUC had
ruled differently.
(From
"About Town" website)
WiFi or Free Internet Service
in the news:
Click here to read
Connecticut City & Town magazine notes about technology in use in
CT government!
Read the article linked to below about the next generation of WiFi -
known as WIMAX:
http://www.internetnews.com/infra/article.php/3689826
What should be America's national broadband
strategy?
by: Dick Durbin
Sun Jul 22, 2007 at
13:06:58 PM EDT
Today I'm writing to
invite you to participate in an experiment -- an
interactive approach to drafting legislation on one of the most
significant public policy questions today: What should be America's
national broadband strategy?
Starting this
Tuesday, July 24 at 7pm EST on OpenLeft.com, I will be
engaging in a series of four nightly broadband policy discussions with
the online community. During those four nights, I am looking for
the
best and brightest ideas on what Congress should do to promote and
foster broadband.
I will begin each
night's discussion with a conversation about some of
the core principles I think are important, and then I'll ask for you to
contribute your ideas that will help me craft legislation...
The second reason
I'm doing this is because broadband policy is one of
the most important public policy issues today. Frankly, America
does
not have a national broadband strategy, and we are falling
behind.
That means our families don't have access to the best medical
technologies, our students don't have access to the best educational
opportunities, and our entrepreneurs are limited in the markets they
can access.
As we work together
to draft a bill to solve these problems, the three principles I want to
begin with are:
*
Broadband access must be universal and affordable;
*
We need to preserve an online environment for innovation; and
*
We need to ensure that broadband technology enables more voices to be
heard.
As I said at the
outset -- this is not the traditional way legislation
is written in Washington. Some people think that by giving people
other than policy experts and special interest groups a seat at the
table, this process will never work. I believe differently, and I
have
a feeling that this week, we'll prove them wrong.
I look forward to
talking with you about America's national broadband strategy, starting
this Tuesday night.
-- Dick Durbin

July 17,
2007
Senators
Push FCC on Network Neutrality
By Roy
Mark
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) should
expand the focus of its
network neutrality inquiry to include the impact of carrier practices
on
content providers, U.S. Senators Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.) and Olympia
Snowe
(R-Maine) said Monday.
Dorgan and Snowe, who have introduced network
neutrality legislation in the
Senate, also expressed disappointment that the FCC chose to start an
inquiry
instead of propose concrete network neutrality rules.
Following its 2005 decision
approving four network neutrality principles for end users, the FCC in
March
launched
a
Notice of Inquiry to determine if the marketplace behavior of broadband
carriers threatens the historic open nature of the Internet.
"We…believe you should be asking how all Internet
users
are affected rather
than just consumers," Snowe and Dorgan wrote in a letter to FCC
Chairman Kevin
Martin. "With a neutral network, any Internet user can be a producer or
consumer. That is the beauty of a free and open Internet."
Both AT&T and Verizon have floated tentative
plans
to charge content providers
extra fees based on bandwidth consumption. Neither telecom giant has
implemented the idea.
Proponents of network neutrality claim speed tiers
on
the Internet would
amount to discriminatory network traffic management, creating fast and
slow
lanes for content providers based on ability to pay.
"If [the carriers] get their wishes, the Internet
would
become a new world where
those content providers who can afford to pay special fees would have
better
access to consumers," Dorgan and Snowe wrote.
Dorgan and Snowe's bill -- the Internet Freedom
Preservation Act -- would
prohibit broadband carriers from discriminatory practices, such as
pricing in
handling traffic from Internet content, application and service
providers. The
legislation would also require carriers to offer consumers individual
broadband service that is not bundled with television or telephone
service.
The bill is similar to an unsuccessful amendment
introduced in the 109th
Congress by Dorgan and Snowe. The then majority Republicans on the
Senate
Commerce Committee defeated
the
legislation on a narrow vote with Snowe the only Republican voting for
the
amendment.
Other Democrats signing onto the new bill include
John
Kerry of Massachusetts,
California's Barbara Boxer, Tom Harkin of Iowa, Vermont's Patrick
Leahy, New
York's Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama of Illinois.
"Broadband providers are now technologically
capable
and financially
incentivized to exercise considerable control over how, when and even
if
information can be viewed and shared," Dorgan and Snow wrote Monday.
"They've
always had the financial incentives; the technical ability is
relatively new,
as is the FCC's permission to exert such control over content."
Last month, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) said
Congress
should move "very cautiously" on network neutrality laws. The FTC said
it was
unable to find any significant market failure or demonstrated consumer
harm
from conduct by broadband providers.
"Policy makers should be wary of calls for network
neutrality regulation
simply because we do not know what the net effects of potential conduct
by
broadband providers will be on consumers," the FTC report
states.
"Similarly,
we do not know what net effects regulation to proscribe such
conduct would have on consumers."
The report concludes that a "young and evolving"
broadband market will hedge
network discrimination fears, because it is "moving in the direction of
more
-- not less – competition." Cable and telephone companies currently
control
98 percent of the U.S. broadband connections.
This article
appears courtesy of www.internetnews.com.

July
20, 2007
Legislation
Would Force New Broadband Rates
By
Roy Mark
The
Senate
Commerce Committee took the first step yesterday to improve the quality
of broadband data used by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC).
In a vote, the committee unanimously approved legislation to require
the agency to revise its calculations on high-speed connection
penetration rates.
The
FCC
currently measures broadband availability by ZIP code. A single
broadband subscriber in a ZIP counts as the entire ZIP code being
served. Critics of the metric contend the numbers inflate U.S.
broadband penetration rates, particularly in large, rural areas.
The
Broadband
Data Improvement Act (S. 1492) would require broadband providers to
report high-speed connections within nine-digit ZIP code areas. It
would also require the FCC to create a new definition of
"second-generation broadband" to reflect speeds capable of transmitting
full motion, high-definition video.
The
FCC
currently considers 200 kilobits (Kbps) the threshold definition of
high-speed Internet services.
Based
on that
formula, the FCC estimates DSL connections are available to 79 percent
of the country and cable modem connections cover 93 percent of U.S.
households.
In
addition to
deeper FCC data, the bill calls for the Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to develop broadband metrics that may be used to provide
consumers with broadband connection cost and capability information. In
addition, it directs the Census Bureau to include a question in its
American Community Survey that assesses dial-up and broadband
subscribership.
"The
broadband
deployment data currently required by the FCC is woefully inadequate,
leaving policymakers literally in the dark as they try to craft
critical legislation and regulations," the Consumers Union said in a
statement.
Gigi
Sohn,
president and co-founder of public policy advocacy group Public
Knowledge, also praised the legislation.
“In
order to
begin to fashion a new policy, we must have better data," Sohn said in
a statement. "This legislation will go a long way to taking the
important step of giving policymakers accurate information that is
needed if the United States is to raise its standing in the world
rankings for the availability of broadband service."
According
to
the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), the
U.S. currently ranks 15th in the world in broadband deployment. In
2000, the OECD ranked the U.S. fourth with the U.S. falling to 12th in
2006.
Others,
though,
contend the OECD numbers are misleading. Washington-based think tank
The Phoenix Center published numbers this week that claims to show the
U.S. broadband penetration rate is equal to expectations considering
economic and demographic conditions.
Sen.
Ted
Stevens (R-Alaska) voted for the bill but expressed reservations.
"I
worry that
the provisions addressing broadband speeds and smaller geographic areas
in this bill could inadvertently paint a picture of an America without
broadband that is not accurate," he said in a statement.
Stevens
added,
"I am not sure that Congress, rather than the FCC, should be getting
into this level of detail, particularly given technological changes,
such as compression technologies that could make these standards a
moving target."
In
April, the
FCC launched its own inquiry into whether high-speed Internet services
are rolling out in a "reasonable and timely fashion" to Americans.

July
17, 2007
Senators Push FCC on Network Neutrality
By Roy Mark
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) should
expand the focus of its
network neutrality inquiry to include the impact of carrier practices
on
content providers, U.S. Senators Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.) and Olympia
Snowe
(R-Maine) said Monday.
Dorgan and Snowe, who have introduced network
neutrality legislation in the
Senate, also expressed disappointment that the FCC chose to start an
inquiry
instead of propose concrete network neutrality rules.
Following its 2005 decision
approving four network neutrality principles for end users, the FCC in
March
launched
a
Notice of Inquiry to determine if the marketplace behavior of broadband
carriers threatens the historic open nature of the Internet.
"We…believe you should be asking how all Internet users
are affected rather
than just consumers," Snowe and Dorgan wrote in a letter to FCC
Chairman Kevin
Martin. "With a neutral network, any Internet user can be a producer or
consumer. That is the beauty of a free and open Internet."
Both AT&T and Verizon have floated tentative plans
to charge content providers
extra fees based on bandwidth consumption. Neither telecom giant has
implemented the idea.
Proponents of network neutrality claim speed tiers on
the Internet would
amount to discriminatory network traffic management, creating fast and
slow
lanes for content providers based on ability to pay.
"If [the carriers] get their wishes, the Internet would
become a new world where
those content providers who can afford to pay special fees would have
better
access to consumers," Dorgan and Snowe wrote.
Dorgan and Snowe's bill -- the Internet Freedom
Preservation Act -- would
prohibit broadband carriers from discriminatory practices, such as
pricing in
handling traffic from Internet content, application and service
providers. The
legislation would also require carriers to offer consumers individual
broadband service that is not bundled with television or telephone
service.
The bill is similar to an unsuccessful amendment
introduced in the 109th
Congress by Dorgan and Snowe. The then majority Republicans on the
Senate
Commerce Committee defeated
the
legislation on a narrow vote with Snowe the only Republican voting for
the
amendment.
Other Democrats signing onto the new bill include John
Kerry of Massachusetts,
California's Barbara Boxer, Tom Harkin of Iowa, Vermont's Patrick
Leahy, New
York's Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama of Illinois.
"Broadband providers are now technologically capable
and financially
incentivized to exercise considerable control over how, when and even
if
information can be viewed and shared," Dorgan and Snow wrote Monday.
"They've
always had the financial incentives; the technical ability is
relatively new,
as is the FCC's permission to exert such control over content."
Last month, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) said
Congress
should move "very cautiously" on network neutrality laws. The FTC said
it was
unable to find any significant market failure or demonstrated consumer
harm
from conduct by broadband providers.
"Policy makers should be wary of calls for network
neutrality regulation
simply because we do not know what the net effects of potential conduct
by
broadband providers will be on consumers," the FTC report
states.
"Similarly, we do not know what net effects regulation
to proscribe such
conduct would have on consumers."
The report concludes that a "young and evolving"
broadband market will hedge
network discrimination fears, because it is "moving in the direction of
more
-- not less – competition." Cable and telephone companies currently
control
98 percent of the U.S. broadband connections.
This
article appears courtesy of www.internetnews.com.
Duke: iPhone May Be Disrupting Network
Norwich
Bulletin
By
MIKE
BAKER, Associated Press Writer
Jul
19, 7:44 AM
EDT
RALEIGH,
N.C.
(AP) -- Apple Inc.'s flashy new iPhones may be jamming parts of the
wireless network at Duke University, where technology officials worked
with the company Wednesday to fix problems before classes begin next
month.
Bill
Cannon, a
Duke technology spokesman, said an analysis of traffic found that
iPhones flooded parts of the campus' wireless network with access
requests, freezing parts of the system for 10 minutes at a time.
A
single iPhone
was powerful enough to cause the problem, and there are 100 to 150 of
them registered on the network, Cannon said. Network administrators
have noticed the problem nine times in the past week.
"The
scale of
the problem is very small right now," said Cannon, adding that the
school is working with Apple and Cisco Systems Inc., Duke's network
equipment provider, to pinpoint the problem. "But the more iPhones that
are around, the more they could be knocking on the door for access."
Fall
classes
resume in August at Duke, a private university in Durham.
The
iPhone is
Apple's first foray into the cellular phone business. The Cupertino,
Calif.-based company released the product - which combines a cell
phone, media player and wireless Internet device - at the end of June,
with some consumers lining up outside stores days before the phones
went on sale. The phones retail for $499 to $599.
The
gadget can
access the Internet through AT&T Inc.'s Edge network or through
Wi-Fi. When a Wi-Fi hotspot is unavailable, it automatically switches
to the slower network but continues to check for a Wi-Fi signal.
Ashok
Agrawala,
a computer science professor at the University of Maryland, speculated
that both the phone and Duke's network are to blame for the glitches at
the university. Agrawala said the phones could be struggling to regain
a connection with a wireless access point, possibly when a wireless
hotspot hands off to another.
"When
you set
up a network on the campus, you set up the network to accommodate the
devices you have in use," Agrawala said, noting laptops as the primary
users on college campuses. "Now with the popularity of the iPhones, the
network parameters may not be set right."
But
he added
that the iPhone should be able to properly handle that problem without
flooding the network. Agrawala said he also questions whether an iPhone
is capable of accessing Duke's network 10,000 times a second, as found
by the school's analysis.
Natalie
Kerris,
an Apple spokeswoman, said the company is working with Duke to quickly
resolve the issue but didn't know details or its source.
The
problem has
generated discussion on Internet technology forums, but there have been
no reports of other networks being affected. At Maryland, for example,
officials said they hadn't seen anything like the problems at Duke.
Greg
James,
associate director of data networking at nearby North Carolina State
University, said Wednesday that the school hasn't noticed any issues at
its campus in Raleigh despite the usual monitoring of all wireless
access points.
"We're
keeping
a close eye out to what happens at Duke and what they find," James said.
---
On
the Net:
Apple
Inc.:
http://www.apple.com/
Duke
University: http://www.duke.edu/
Philly offers us a few WiFi lessons; Off to a rocky start and facing
skeptics, system is working out kinks
By ALEXIS GRANT, Copyright 2007 Houston Chronicle
June
18, 2007, 3:11PM
PHILADELPHIA
— In the WiFi world, all eyes are on Philly. Especially ours.
Three weeks ago, the city unveiled the first part of its wireless
network in what's expected to be one of the nation's largest WiFi
projects.
Houston in
particular has reason to watch closely: It's just a few steps behind
Philadelphia, set to begin building next month a similar project on a
much bigger scale. Both Philadelphia and Houston are using
public-private partnership models for WiFi and have contracted with the
same builder company, EarthLink.
Testing by the Houston Chronicle and a private consulting company show
that the first phase of Philadelphia's project works — most of the
time. But while the technology only needs tweaking, the company likely
has a bigger obstacle to overcome: residents' skepticism.
Some residents say they won't subscribe because they found the service
to be unreliable months ago, when EarthLink was still making
significant adjustments. Both EarthLink and a private consulting
company say the service has since improved, but those potential
customers say they don't plan to give it another shot.
"It's pretty useless," said Joanna Bacelli, a 21-year-old Temple
University student who lives off campus and tried unsuccessfully to get
an EarthLink signal in the past. She doubts the service is any better
now.
But in much of the area where the network is up and running, it does
work, at least for outdoor users.
Signal strength varies significantly depending on the user's proximity
to an access node, but online speed tests show the connection speed
averages about 1 Mbps, sometimes a bit slower. That's fast enough for
the average user to surf the Internet, check e-mail and watch videos on
YouTube.
In some areas, however, the signal is weak, particularly when an access
node isn't within sight. At several locations, including two free
hotspots, this reporter's computer couldn't connect to the network even
though the signal appeared to be strong and an access node was clearly
visible.
EarthLink officials said they tried to log on at the site a day later
and had no problems. But they're still tweaking the system, according
to Donald Berryman, president of EarthLink's municipal unit. That's
partly why the company is offering $6.95 monthly subscriptions for the
next six months.
"It's an evolutionary process, just like the beginning of cell phones,"
Berryman said. "Customers may still have issues and we want to fix them
before they're paying the full price."
The real test will be whether customers, who are just now signing up
for the service, are satisfied with the signal they can get inside
their homes and businesses. Indoor users are encouraged to use a
wireless router to strengthen the signal. (EarthLink provides the
device for no extra charge to customers who buy a one-year
subscription.)
The company expects to complete nearly the entire network — covering
the city's 135 square miles — by August, and that's when it'll push
hard for subscribers. Officials hope 12 percent to 15 percent of
households in the coverage area eventually will buy the service. They
won't say how many subscribers have signed up so far, only that they
have exceeded their goals.
Mostly reliable
A review of the EarthLink network by a consulting group called
Novarum Inc. showed the service has improved in the last six months and
now ranks as "one of the better performing metro WiFi networks deployed
so far."
Using a laptop equipped with a standard WiFi card, the same equipment
available to most residential customers, Novarum found the service in
early June to be reliable at 74 percent of the outdoor locations
tested. Back in December, just before EarthLink began its monthlong
trial phase when it offered free service, the group found the network's
first 6-square-mile coverage area reliable at only half the locations
tested. Cell phone networks, by comparison, are usually reliable in
about 85 percent of the coverage area, the group reported.
"Our experience the second time through was that it was much better,"
said Phil Belanger, Novarum's managing director. "So we think they're
making the appropriate investment to improve the network."
Belanger's group noted, however, that while the network's download
speed measured at more than 1 Mbps — which is faster than DSL but
slower than cable — its upload speed was much slower at 275 kilobits
per second.
Not identical
The
Philadelphia project is similar to the one planned in Houston, with
some key differences:
• Houston's
project is expected to span 640 square miles by the time it's completed
at the end of 2009, nearly five times the size of Philadelphia's
planned 135-square-mile network. That means EarthLink is investing
about $50 million in Houston's project compared with $13.5 million in
Philadelphia.
• The city of Houston is contracting directly with EarthLink, while
Philadelphia officials created a third party to spearhead the project,
a nonprofit group called Wireless Philadelphia.
• Houston city government has agreed to pay EarthLink $2.5 million for
the first five years to serve as an anchor tenant, giving the company
incentive to invest in the sprawling city. In Philadelphia, EarthLink
is still negotiating to get the city as a customer.
From a user standpoint, the end result in both cities could look very
similar.
When first-time customers connect to Philadelphia's network, a homepage
pops up that offers links to local maps, weather forecasts, news and
popular attractions such as dining and museums.
So-called occasional-use subscribers can pay EarthLink $3.95 for
one-hour access, $7.95 for one day or $15.95 for three.
Residents also have the option of purchasing monthly subscriptions, and
not only from EarthLink. Because the company is required by contract to
allow other Internet service providers to buy access and resell it
under their name, residents also can buy wireless access from companies
like DirectTV. EarthLink is offering monthly rates of $6.95 for the
first six months and $19.95 per month thereafter.
Similar rates are likely to be offered in Houston, and residents here
also will have the option of buying service from several companies.
When Houston's build-out begins, as early as mid-July, it will start
downtown. City officials haven't released a copy of EarthLink's
build-out plan that shows where it will focus its efforts afterwards,
but it plans to offer service in six zones as each is completed,
Berryman said. Houstonians can expect about a month of free service in
each zone while the company tests and improves the network.
Cities struggle with wireless
Internet
By
ANICK JESDANUN, AP Internet Writer
May 21, 2007
A $3 million plan to blanket Lompoc, Calif., with a wireless Internet
system promised a quantum leap for economic development: The remote
community hit hard by cutbacks at nearby Vandenberg Air Force Base
would join the 21st century with cheap and plentiful high-speed access.
Instead, nearly a year after its launch, Lompoc Net is limping along.
The central California city of 42,000, surrounded by rolling hills,
wineries and flower fields more than 17 miles from the nearest major
highway, has only a few hundred subscribers.
That's far fewer than the 4,000 needed to start repaying loans from the
city's utility coffers, potentially leaving smaller reserves to guard
against electric rate increases.
And Lompoc isn't alone. Across the United States, many cities are
finding their Wi-Fi projects costing more and drawing less interest
than expected, leading to worries that a number will fail, resulting in
millions of dollars in wasted tax dollars or grants when there had been
roads to build and crime to fight.
More than $230 million was spent in the United States last year, and
the industry Web site MuniWireless projects $460 million will be spent
in 2007. Without revenues they had counted on to offset that
spending, elected officials might have to break promises or find money
in already-tight budgets to subsidize the systems for the low-income
families and city workers who depend on the access. Cities might end up
running the systems if companies abandon networks they had built.
The worries come as big cities like Philadelphia and Portland, Ore.,
complete pilots and expand their much-hyped networks.
"They are
the monorails of this decade: the wrong technology, totally
overpromised and completely undelivered," said Anthony Townsend,
research director at the Institute for the Future, a think tank.
Municipal Wi-Fi projects use the same technology behind wireless access
in coffee shops, airports and home networks. Hundreds or thousands of
antennas are installed atop street lamps and other fixtures. Laptops
and other devices have Wi-Fi cards that relay data to the Internet
through those antennas, using open, unregulated broadcast frequencies.
In theory, one could check e-mail and surf the Web from anywhere.
About 175 U.S. cities or regions have citywide or partial systems, and
a similar number plan them, according to Esme Vos, founder of
MuniWireless. Rhode Island has proposed a statewide network,
while one in California would span dozens of Silicon Valley
municipalities. San Francisco, Los Angeles, Chicago and Atlanta also
want one.
Because systems are
just coming online, it's premature to say how many
or which ones will fail under current operating plans, but the early
signs are troubling.
"I will be surprised if the majority of these are successful and they
do not prove to be drains on taxpayers' money," said Michael Balhoff,
former telecom equity analyst with Legg Mason Inc. "The government is
getting into hotly contested services."
Most communities, including Lompoc, paid for their projects. Elsewhere,
private companies agreed to absorb costs for the chance to sell
services or ads. The vendors remain confident despite technical
and other problems. Chuck Haas, MetroFi Inc.'s chief executive, said
Wi-Fi networks are far cheaper to build than cable and DSL, which is
broadband over phone lines.
Demand could grow once more cell phones can make Wi-Fi calls and as
city workers improve productivity by reading electric meters remotely,
for instance. Balhoff, however, believes the successful projects
are most likely to be in remote places that traditional service
providers skip — and fewer and fewer of those areas exist. Cities, he
said, should focus on incentives to draw providers.
In Lompoc's case, officials say construction was delayed about a year
once they realized wireless antennas had to be packed more closely
together. Then the city learned that its stucco homes have a wire mesh
that blocks signals, making Internet service poor or nonexistent
indoors without extra equipment.
But more importantly, just as Lompoc committed to the network, cable
and telephone companies arrived with better equipment and service,
undercutting the city's offerings.
"It seemed like we announced we were going to do this and that and the
next day we got trucks from the providers doing this and that, when
we've been asking for years and nothing ever happened," Lompoc Mayor
Dick DeWees said. D.A. Taylor, who runs a software business from
her home, said Lompoc's Wi-Fi service lacks key features she gets
through DSL.
"It's a really great idea, but they didn't spend a lot of time thinking
who their target market was," Taylor said.
DeWees acknowledged that Lompoc might have to pull the plug if it
cannot boost subscriptions, but he said the city still has an
aggressive marketing push in store. Lompoc recently slashed prices by
$9, to $16 a month, for the main household plan. Just a few years
ago, these municipal wireless projects seemed foolproof.
Politicians got to tout Internet access for city workers and poorer
households — many programs include giveaways for lower-income families.
Some cities bear no upfront costs when a company pays for construction
in exchange for rights to use fixtures like lamp poles.
Vendors like EarthLink Inc. saw a chance to offset declines in dial-up
subscriptions. MetroFi, offering free service, got to join the
burgeoning market for online advertising. Google Inc. also is jumping
in for the ads, partnering with EarthLink in San Francisco, although
the city's Board of Supervisors is resisting their joint
proposal. As projects get deployed, both sides are seeing chinks
in their plans.
Many cities and vendors underestimated the number of wireless antennas
needed. MobilePro Corp.'s Kite Networks wound up tripling the access
points in Tempe, Ariz., adding roughly $1 million, or more than
doubling the costs.
"The industry is really in its infancy, and what works on paper doesn't
work that same way once you get into the real world," said Jerry
Sullivan, Kite's chief executive.
Networks like St. Cloud, Fla., and Portland, meanwhile, shared Lompoc's
difficulties penetrating building walls, requiring indoor users to buy
signal boosters for as much as $150. And when it works, service can be
slower than cable and DSL.
"There's an antenna literally at the curb of my house, but when I've
tried to log on, it cuts in and out," said Landon Dirgo, who runs a
computer repair shop in Lompoc.
One recent sunny afternoon in Portland, few could be found surfing the
Internet from the city's downtown parks. Mari Borden, a student at
Portland State, said she couldn't connect to MetroFi's free network
from several locations, even though her computer could detect a signal
(MetroFi officials say users might need stronger wireless cards to send
back a signal). The vendors insist they have been upfront with
customers about limitations. But MetroFi's Adrian van Haaften said
managing expectations can be challenging.
EarthLink said it has 2,000 customers in four markets — New Orleans;
Milpitas and Anaheim, Calif.; and Philadelphia — paying $22 or less a
month. MetroFi said it had 8,000 free users in Portland in April,
averaging 10 hours online; the city says about 1,000 use the network on
any given day. Although both companies say their numbers are good
given that their networks aren't fully built yet, they also are
realigning expectations.
MetroFi will insist that future contracts commit cities to spend a
specific amount for public safety and other municipal applications.
EarthLink, which recently suspended new bids while it focuses on
existing projects, said it would likely seek minimums, too. Glenn
Fleishman, editor of the Wi-Fi Networking News site, said vendors could
no longer afford to treat projects as testbeds and loss leaders for
winning publicity and new business.
Municipalities, meanwhile, are becoming more cautious. Applying lessons
from other municipalities, Boston plans to raise money upfront from
local groups and businesses and avoid tax dollars or a corporate
partner. Competition and expectations will only increase as DSL
and cable modems get faster. Users today are struggling with
e-mail and the Web over some wireless systems, yet video and online
games will require even more capacity.
"Most people if they are going to do serious work aren't looking to be
sitting in a park," said Eric Rabe, a spokesman for DSL provider
Verizon Communications Inc. "They want to be at a desk where they have
their papers or business records."
Lompoc's backers, though, still claim success, "even if the whole
network were to be written off tomorrow," said Mark McKibben, Lompoc's
former wireless consultant.
"Prices dropped and quality of service went up," he said. "That's the
way a lot of cities look at it. They don't look at business profits and
losses. They see it as a driver for quality of life."
Study
finds 25
countries block Web sites
By
ANICK JESDANUN, AP Internet Writer
Fri May 18, 12:46 AM ET
NEW YORK - At least 25 countries around the world block Web sites for
political, social or other reasons as governments seek to assert
authority over a network meant to be borderless, according to a study
out Friday.
The actual number may be higher, but the OpenNet Initiative had the
time and capabilities to study only 40 countries and the Palestinian
territories. Even so, researchers said they found more censorship than
they had initially expected, a sign that the Internet has matured to
the point that governments are taking notice.
"This is very much the revenge of geography," said Rafal Rohozinski, a
research fellow at the University of Cambridge in England.
China, Iran, Myanmar, Syria, Tunisia and Vietnam had the most extensive
filters for political sites. Iran, Oman, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Tunisia,
the United Arab Emirates and Yemen had the strictest social-filtering
practices, blocking pornography, gambling and gay and lesbian sites.
In some countries, censorship was narrow. South Korea, for instance,
tends to block only information about its neighboring rival, North
Korea.
Yet researchers found no filtering at all in Russia, Israel or the
Palestinian territories despite political conflicts there.
Governments generally had no mechanism for citizens to complain about
any erroneous blocking, with Saudi Arabia, Oman and the United Arab
Emirates being among the exceptions.
The OpenNet Initiative, a collaboration between researchers at
Cambridge, the University of Oxford, Harvard University and the
University of Toronto, has previously published reports detailing
censorship in specific countries. The latest study was its attempt to
compare filtering worldwide.
The study did not attempt to chronicle the effectiveness of the
efforts. Some technical approaches are better than others in blocking
sites, but all can be bypassed with enough technical know-how to use
"proxy" techniques or special software.
The organization said the regions chosen for review should not be
considered comprehensive. It didn't include any countries in North
America or Western Europe on grounds that filtering practices there
have been better known than elsewhere. It also excluded North Korea and
Cuba for fear of risks to collaborators it would need in those
countries.
The group supplied software to volunteers in each of the countries
tested. Web sites checked include those for gambling, pornography and
human-rights abuses.
Jonathan Zittrain, professor of Internet governance and regulation at
Oxford, said filtering appeared to occur most widely in countries where
Internet penetration is higher, possibly explaining the lack of any
censorship efforts in Russia and Egypt.
'Net neutrality'
would be Democrats' pet
By JOHN DUNBAR, Associated Press Writer
October 23, 2006
WASHINGTON -
A Democratic takeover on Capitol Hill would be good news
to those who say the government should prohibit telecommunications
giants from playing favorites with Internet content.
The idea, known as "network neutrality," is about preventing those who
control traffic on the Internet from allowing well-heeled Web sites to
in effect buy their way to the front of the line in a world where data
flow can be as congested as Los Angeles traffic. Proponents say it
should be a bipartisan issue.
But lobbyists for the big companies that control most of the Internet
in the United States are worried that the Democrats might pick up the
seats they need to take over one or both chambers of Congress.
The issue pits those companies — including AT&T Inc. and Comcast
Corp. — against a well-organized grass roots campaign that is joined by
some of the nation's biggest Internet success stories, such as Google
and eBay.
Net neutrality advocates say the "Internet's First Amendment" is at
stake. They argue that if those who run the network are allowed to
discriminate against Web traffic based on which sites pay them the
most, it will strangle the Internet's freewheeling, democratic nature.
Those who provide Internet service call it a simple issue of economics.
Since companies like Google are pumping more and more information
through their networks, those who provide the data pipelines should be
able to charge more to pay to upgrade transmission capacity, they say.
Last year, both the House and Senate worked on bills that would let
telecommunications companies like AT&T and Verizon Communications
Inc. get into the video delivery business and compete with cable
companies, without having to obtain franchise licenses in thousands of
individual communities.
House members, under intense lobbying from the former Bell companies,
were able to pass the legislation while beating back attempts to attach
strong network neutrality provisions.
In the Senate a much more ambitious bill has yet to make it to the
floor, and while there is a chance it may see action during an expected
lame-duck session in November, its prospects are dim.
At the same time, Verizon and AT&T have persuaded state
legislatures to pass relief from franchise rules, making that part of
the push for a federal law a much lower priority.
That means network neutrality proponents will have to find a different
bill to attach language to, or continue efforts to get something passed
independently.
In the House, if the Democrats prevail, neutrality advocates can expect
a much warmer reception than when the Republicans were in control.
The current chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee is Rep.
Joe Barton, a Republican from AT&T's home state of Texas. Barton
has consistently opposed network neutrality, as has Rep. Fred Upton,
R-Mich., who chairs the Internet and Technology subcommittee.
By contrast, Rep. John Dingell, also of Michigan and who would assume
the chairmanship if Democrats take over, has been sympathetic to
network neutrality proponents. And Rep. Ed Markey, D-Mass., who would
take over the Internet and Technology subcommittee, wrote an
unsuccessful network neutrality amendment in the House and has made the
issue a top priority.
Dingell is also expected to live up to his reputation as a tough
overseer of the agencies that answer to his committee, such as the
Federal Communications Commission.
On the Senate side, while a Democratic takeover is less likely, a
Democratic pickup of one or two seats may still be significant.
A network neutrality amendment sponsored by Sens. Olympia Snowe,
R-Maine, and Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., tied by a vote of 11-11 among
members of the Commerce, Science and Communication Committee.
Sen. Daniel Inouye, D-Hawaii, the ranking Democrat who would take over
the committee if the Democrats win control, supports network
neutrality, while current chairman Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, blames the
issue for sinking his broad telecommunications bill.
Regardless of the election's outcome, network neutrality legislation
would still have to be signed by President Bush — something that both
sides acknowledge is unlikely to happen.
THE DEVIL IS IN THE DETAILS: So how do you think the
lobbyist who wrote this bill defined "high speed?" The same way
the writer made sure to link CT the present Federal standards?
http://www.cga.ct.gov/2008/TOB/H/2008HB-05682-R00-HB.htm
New
Position:
LWVCT
Internet/Media Study Concurrence Statement
Approved by the
LWVCT Board 4/1/2008
A
Neutral Internet: "Net Neutrality"
The LWVCT
believes that a free and open Internet is increasingly important to the
protection of individual liberties – freedom of speech, freedom of the
press, and freedom of association – guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution
and by the Connecticut Constitution. The League also believes
that net neutrality protections are essential for political discourse,
dissemination of news, and democratic participation. Therefore,
the League of Women Voters of Connecticut supports the LWVUS position
to protect the open, neutral, nondiscriminatory nature of the
Internet. To further this position, the LWVCT supports efforts by
the State of Connecticut to protect the open, neutral,
nondiscriminatory nature of the Internet.
Universal
High Speed Internet Access for Connecticut
The League of
Women Voters supports making high speed Internet access available to
all Connecticut residents, without charge, through schools, libraries,
and other secure public buildings. High speed affordable Internet
access is an essential service that should be readily available to all
Connecticut residents and businesses. State and local government
policies should support broadband, wireless, and other means of high
speed Internet deployment throughout the state.
Efficient, high
speed access to the Internet for all Connecticut residents-regardless
of geographic location or neighborhood demographics-is a necessity for
assuring equal access to local and state government, for maintaining
openness and transparency in government activities, for communicating
with legislative leaders, for engaging in political discourse, for
competing in the global marketplace, and for assuring that voters
receive the information they need to participate in our democracy.
Community
Access and Public Affairs TV:
Public,
Educational, and Governmental (PEG) TV & the Connecticut Network
(CT-N)
The League of
Women Voters believes that community access television channels – for
public, educational, and governmental programming – must be adequately
protected, promoted, and funded, regardless of the provider of TV/video
services to Connecticut residents. Statewide public affairs
programming, such as provided by The Connecticut Network (CT-N), must
be adequately protected, promoted, and funded by the state legislature
and available to all Connecticut residents, regardless of the provider
of TV/video services. Government should provide opportunities for
citizen participation in decisions regarding community access, or PEG,
TV.
Access to the
public airwaves through modem TV/video communication is essential to
the public interest and to League of Women Voters’ mission and purpose-
to protect civil liberties, to ensure open, transparent government, and
to promote the public’s right to know. To protect the public
interest, high quality PEG transmission and PEG availability on basic
service tiers are essential.