Blog @ MoreWhat.com

CAGW Disputes Sen. Dorgan’s Remarks on Net Neutrality

WASHINGTON, April 27 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — Citizens Against
Government Waste (CAGW) today challenged Sen. Byron Dorgan’s (D-N.D.)
comments on the issue of net neutrality and warned against enacting any
type of legislation that would hurt growth and the free market on the
Internet.
Sen. Dorgan held a conference call with reporters on April 26, the
occasion of pro-net neutrality group SavetheInternet.com’s one year
anniversary. Sen. Dorgan said, “The Internet became a robust engine of
economic development by enabling anyone with a good idea to connect to
consumers and compete on a level playing field. The marketplace picked
winners and losers, not some central gatekeeper. That freedom — the very
core of what makes the Internet what it is today — must be preserved.”
“If net neutrality is enacted, Congress itself will become the
gatekeeper by imposing restrictive and unnecessary controls. Any attempt to
regulate the Internet would create an unneeded layer of government
bureaucracy on a technology that has thrived precisely because regulations
have been absent,” said CAGW President Tom Schatz.
In January, Sen. Dorgan reintroduced the misnamed Internet Freedom
Preservation Act (S. 215) in the Senate. Net neutrality would mandate that
Internet service providers carry every single piece of content and every
service available, regardless of cost or need. Content providers have
expressed concern that the ISPs would either block content or create
different tiers of online services. Such differential pricing occurs in
virtually all forms of commerce, such as charging more for faster delivery
of packages by UPS or Federal Express. Should net neutrality become law and
traffic on the Internet continue to skyrocket, the delivery of important
content, such as medical information, will receive the same treatment as
spam.
Editorial voices on op-ed pages as diverse as those of the New York
Times and Wall Street Journal have criticized net neutrality as a false
issue. Last June, the Washington Post editorialized, “The weakest aspect of
the neutrality case is that the dangers it alleges are speculative. It
seems unlikely that broadband providers will degrade Web services that
people want and far more likely that they will use non-neutrality to charge
for upgrading services that depend on fast and reliable delivery, such as
streaming high-definition video or relaying data from heart monitors.”
“Net neutrality is nothing but a solution looking for a problem. This
kind of aggressive law-making would violate the principles of both the free
market and common sense. Stepping in now could adversely affect taxpayers
and consumers by stifling the development of the high-speed Internet
services America needs to keep its economy growing and nation competitive,”
concluded Schatz.
Citizens Against Government Waste is a nonpartisan, nonprofit
organization dedicated to eliminating waste, fraud, abuse, and
mismanagement in government.

SOURCE Citizens Against Government Waste

Internet Freedom Coalition Responds to Moveon.org’s Resurrected ‘Net Neutrality’ Agenda

WASHINGTON, April 26 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — Jason Wright, co-founder of the Internet Freedom Coalition, today released the following statement in response to Moveon.org and their “Save The Internet” 1st anniversary conference call with reporters:

“The inappropriately named ‘Save the Internet’ coalition is back at it, celebrating their first year of existence - a year that only has served to threaten innovation. Today’s call with reporters was more of the same. Their goal is to cripple innovation and saddle the world’s freest market - the Internet - with government regulation. Why has this group failed to get their agenda passed? Because they have dreamt up the perfect regulation in search of a complaint. They offer a solution to what is only a hypothetical problem.

“Look at their track record. They lost the federal fight to install network neutrality in 2006. Backers of net neutrality legislation in Maryland this year reversed their support and voted the bill down. The bill in California was pulled over public outcry against this onerous, unproductive call for fixing a problem that doesn’t exist.

“Consumers are winning. Access to broadband in America continues to grow as competition in the marketplace has driven prices down, making high speed broadband more affordable to a cross section of America. The number of applications utilizing these information networks has thrived: online education, telemedicine and shopping from the comfort of your own home - to name only a few. All without government meddling or intervention. If Moveon.org succeeds in regulating the Internet, it will have the effect of creating real problems - like freezing innovation in time - while ’solving’ a non-existent one.”

ABOUT IFC:

The Internet Freedom Coalition is a group of more than 30 like-minded free-market, limited government non-profit associations, individuals and think-tanks including: Americans for Prosperity, Americans for Tax Reform, Black America’s Political Action Committee, Catholic Citizenship, Center for Freedom and Prosperity, Center for Individual Freedom, Citizen Outreach, Commonwealth Foundation for Public Policy Alternatives, Competitive Enterprise Institute, Cornerstone Policy Research, Council for Citizens Against Government Waste, Ethan Allen Institute, Frontiers of Freedom, Grassroot Institute of Hawaii, Illinois Policy Institute, Independent Women’s Forum, Institute for Liberty, Iowa Association of Scholars, Kansas Taxpayers Network, Media Freedom Project, National Taxpayers Union, Ohio Taxpayers Association & OTA Foundation, Public Interest Institute, Reason Foundation, RightMarch.com, TechPolicyWatch.com, The Maine Heritage Policy Center, Tennessee Center for Policy Research

CAGW Tells Congress to Keep Their Hands off the Internet

WASHINGTON, April 24 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — Citizens Against
Government Waste (CAGW) today urged Congress to say no to a national
broadband policy and government intrusion of the Internet. After the
release of a world-wide broadband usage report, Senate and House Committees
held hearings today to examine the need for further government involvement
in broadband service in light of other countries’ policies.
“The Internet has thrived in America precisely because it has been free
from government interference. The implementation of burdensome regulations,
wasteful subsidies, and complicated tax breaks that other countries are
imposing will only stifle growth and innovation,” said CAGW President Tom
Schatz. “Competition and the free market must be allowed to continue to
work.”
The Organization for Economic Co-Operation & Development (OECD)
Broadband Statistics to December 2006 report was released on April 23.
While finding that the U.S. has the most total broadband subscribers of the
30 studied countries, it ranked the United States 15th in
broadband-deployment penetration. The survey does not disclose how it
obtained its numbers and does not take into account population density or
supply and demand.
The Rural Utilities Service (RUS) is an example of an ineffective
government program charged with increasing broadband access. Besides the
more than $30 million in broadband loans that have gone into default, the
program has lost its focus on serving rural America. The RUS has been
subsidizing private companies to provide broadband in suburban
neighborhoods that would have received service anyway. Instead of allowing
the free market to work, efficient private sector forces are crowded out by
government subsidies.
According to a September 2005 audit by the USDA Inspector General (IG),
“RUS has not exclusively served those rural communities most requiring
Federal assistance to obtain access to broadband technologies. Because RUS’
definition of ‘rural area’ is too broad to distinguish usefully between
suburban and rural communities, the agency has issued over $103.4 million
in grants and loans (nearly 12 percent of $895 million in total program
funds) to communities near metropolitan areas.” The IG report noted “one of
the more highly publicized cases, [where] RUS issued loans to a company
providing broadband access to affluent suburban communities a few miles
outside of Houston, Texas.”
“Instead of increasing government control, Congress should remove
barriers to the further flourishing of Internet usage and access by
rejecting net neutrality, continuing the Internet tax ban, and protecting
intellectual property,” concluded Schatz.
Citizens Against Government Waste is a nonpartisan, nonprofit
organization dedicated to eliminating waste, fraud, abuse, and
mismanagement in government.

SOURCE Citizens Against Government Waste

Universal Service for the 21st Century Act (Introduced in Senate)

S 711 IS 110th CONGRESS 1st Session

S. 711

To amend the Communications Act of 1934 to expand the contribution base for universal service, establish a separate account within the universal service fund to support the deployment of broadband service in unserved areas of the United States, and for other purposes.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

February 28, 2007

Mr. SMITH (for himself, Mr. DORGAN, and Mr. PRYOR) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation

A BILL

To amend the Communications Act of 1934 to expand the contribution base for universal service, establish a separate account within the universal service fund to support the deployment of broadband service in unserved areas of the United States, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Universal Service for the 21st Century Act’.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

The Congress finds the following:

(1) The preservation and advancement of universal service is a fundamental goal of the Communications Act of 1934 and the Telecommunications Act of 1996.

(2) Access throughout the Nation to high-quality and advanced telecommunications and information services is essential to secure the many benefits of our modern society.

(3) As the Internet becomes a critical element of any economic and social growth, universal service should shift from sustaining voice grade infrastructure promoting the development of efficient and advanced networks that can sustain advanced communications services.

(4) The current structure established by the Federal Communications Commission has placed the burden of universal service support on only a limited class of carriers, causing inequities in the system, incentives to avoid contribution, and a threat to the long term sustainability of the universal service fund.

(5) Current fund contributors are paying an increasing portion of their interstate and international service revenue into the universal service fund.

(6) Any fund contribution system should be equitable, nondiscriminatory and competitively neutral, and the funding mechanism must be sufficient to ensure affordable communications services for all.

SEC. 3. UNIVERSAL SERVICE FUND CONTRIBUTION REQUIREMENTS.

(a) Inclusion of Intrastate Revenues- Section 254(d) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 254(d)) is amended–

(1) by striking `Every’ and inserting `Notwithstanding section 2(b) of this Act, a’;

(2) by striking `interstate’ each place it appears; and

(3) by adding at the end `Nothing in this subsection precludes a State from adopting rules or regulations to preserve and advance universal service within that State as permitted by section 2(b) and subsections (b) and (f) of this section.’.

(b) Universal Service Proceeding-

(1) PROCEEDING- The Federal Communications Commission shall initiate a proceeding, or take action pursuant to any proceeding on universal service existing on the date of enactment of this Act, to establish a permanent mechanism to support universal service, that will preserve and enhance the long term financial stability of universal service, and will promote the public interest.

(2) CRITERIA- In establishing such a permanent mechanism, the Commission may include collection methodologies such as total telecommunications revenues, the assignment of telephone numbers and any successor identifier, connections (which could include carriers with a retail connection to a customer), and any combination thereof if the methodology–

(A) promotes competitive neutrality among providers and technologies;

(B) to the greatest extent possible ensures that all communications services that are capable of supporting 2-way voice communications be included in the assessable base for universal service support;

(C) takes into account the impact on low volume users, and proportionately assesses high volume users, through a capacity analysis or some other means; and

(D) ensures that a carrier is not required to contribute more than once for the same transaction, activity, or service.

(3) EXCLUDED PROVIDERS- If a provider of communications services that are capable of supporting 2-way voice communications would not contribute under the methodology established by the Commission, the Commission shall require such a provider to contribute to universal service under an equitable alternative methodology if exclusion of the provider from the contribution base would jeopardize the preservation, enhancement, and long term sustainability of universal service.

(4) DEADLINE- The Commission shall complete the proceeding and issue a final rule not more than 6 months after the date of enactment of this Act.

SEC. 4. INTERCARRIER COMPENSATION.

(a) Jurisdiction- Notwithstanding section 2(b) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 152(b)), the Federal Communications Commission shall have exclusive jurisdiction to establish rates for inter-carrier compensation payments and shall establish rules providing a comprehensive, unified system of inter-carrier compensation, including compensation for the origination and termination of intrastate telecommunications traffic.

(b) Criteria- In establishing these rules, and in conjunction with its action in its universal service proceeding under section 3, the Commission, in consultation with the Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service, shall–

(1) ensure that the costs associated with the provision of interstate and intrastate telecommunications services are fully recoverable;

(2) examine whether sufficient requirements exist to ensure traffic contains necessary identifiers for the purposes of inter-carrier compensation; and

(3) to the greatest extent possible, minimize opportunities for arbitrage.

(c) Sufficient Support- The Commission should, to the greatest extent possible, ensure that as a result of its universal service and inter-carrier compensation proceedings, the aggregate amount of universal service support and inter-carrier compensation provided to local exchange carriers with fewer than 2 percent of the Nation’s subscriber lines will be sufficient to meet the just and reasonable costs of such local exchange carriers.

(d) Negotiated Agreements- Nothing in this section precludes carriers from negotiating their own inter-carrier compensation agreements.

(e) Deadline- The Commission shall complete the pending Intercarrier Compensation proceeding in Docket No. 01-92 and issue a final rule not more than 6 months after the date of enactment of this Act.

SEC. 5. ESTABLISHMENT OF BROADBAND ACCOUNT WITHIN UNIVERSAL SERVICE FUND.

Part I of title II of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 201 et seq.) is amended by inserting after section 254 the following:

`SEC. 254A. BROADBAND FOR UNSERVED AREAS ACCOUNT.

`(a) Account Established-

`(1) IN GENERAL- There shall be, within the universal service fund established pursuant to section 254, a separate account to be known as the `Broadband for Unserved Areas Account’.

`(2) PURPOSE- The purpose of the account is to provide financial assistance for the deployment of broadband communications services to unserved areas throughout the United States.

`(b) Implementation-

`(1) IN GENERAL- The Commission shall by rule establish–

`(A) guidelines for determining which areas may be considered to be unserved areas for purposes of this section;

`(B) criteria for determining which facilities-based providers of broadband communications service, and which projects, are eligible for support from the account;

`(C) procedural guidelines for awarding assistance from the account on a merit-based and competitive basis;

`(D) guidelines for application procedures, accounting and reporting requirements, and other appropriate fiscal controls for assistance made available from the account; and

`(E) a procedure for making funds in the account available among the several States on an equitable basis.

`(2) STUDY AND ANNUAL REPORTS ON UNSERVED AREAS-

`(A) IN GENERAL- Within 6 months after the date of enactment of the Universal Service for the 21st Century Act, the Commission shall conduct a study to determine which areas of the United States may be considered to be `unserved areas’ for purposes of this section. For purposes of the study and for purposes of the guidelines to be established under subsection (a)(1), the availability of broadband communications services by satellite in an area shall not preclude designation of that area as unserved if the Commission determines that subscribership to the service in that area is de minimis.

`(B) ANNUAL UPDATES- The Commission shall update the study annually.

`(C) REPORT- The Commission shall transmit a report to the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation and the House of Representatives Committee on Energy and Commerce setting forth the findings and conclusions of the Commission for the study and each update under this paragraph and making recommendations for an increase or decrease, if necessary, in the amounts credited to the account under this section.

`(3) STATE INVOLVEMENT- The Commission may delegate the distribution of funding under this section to States subject to Commission guidelines and approval by the Commission.

`(c) Limitations-

`(1) ANNUAL AMOUNT- Amounts obligated or expended under subsection (c) for any fiscal year may not exceed $500,000,000.

`(2) USE OF FUNDS- To the extent that amounts in the account are not obligated or expended for financial assistance under this section, they shall be used to support universal service under section 254.

`(3) SUPPORT LIMITED TO FACILITIES-BASED SINGLE PROVIDER PER UNSERVED AREA- Assistance under this section may be provided only to–

`(A) facilities-based providers of broadband communications service; and

`(B) 1 facility-based provider of broadband communications service in any unserved area.

`(d) Application With Sections 214, 254, and 410-

`(1) SECTION 214(e)- Section 214(e) shall not apply to the Broadband for Unserved Areas Account.

`(2) SECTION 254- Section 254 shall be applied to the Broadband for Unserved Areas Account–

`(A) by disregarding–

`(i) subsections (a) and (e) thereof; and

`(ii) any other provision thereof determined by the Commission to be inappropriate or inapplicable to implementation of this section; and

`(B) by reconciling, to the maximum extent feasible and in accordance with guidelines prescribed by the Commission, the implementation of this section with the provisions of subsections (h) and (l) thereof.

`(3) SECTION 410- Section 410 shall not apply to the Broadband for Unserved Areas Account.

`(e) Definitions- In this section:

`(1) BROADBAND-

`(A) IN GENERAL- The term `broadband’ shall be defined by the Commission in accordance with the requirements of this paragraph.

`(B) REVISION OF INITIAL DEFINITION- Within 30 days after the date of enactment of the Universal Service for the 21st Century Act, the Commission shall revise its definition of broadband to require a data rate–

`(i) greater than the 200 kilobits per second standard established in its Section 706 Report (14 FCC Rec. 2406); and

`(ii) consistent with data rates for broadband communications services generally available to the public on the date of enactment of that Act.

`(C) ANNUAL REVIEW OF DEFINITION- The Commission shall review its definition of broadband no less frequently than once each year and revise that definition as appropriate.

`(2) BROADBAND COMMUNICATIONS SERVICE DEFINED- The term `broadband communications service’ means a high-speed communications capability that enables users to originate and receive high-quality voice, data, graphics, and video communications using any technology.’.

SEC. 6. IMPLEMENTATION OF SECTION 254A.

The Federal Communications Commission shall complete a proceeding and issue a final rule to implement section 254A of the Communications Act of 1934 not more than 6 months after the date of enactment of this Act.

Try as I do, apparently I’m not getting through to you clones. (apologies to Jim Rome). It feels like a one man campaign against the onslaught of mindless acceptance to the path of least resistance. It confirms the proposition that most human beings are incapable of making choices for themselves and if the options available require more than a modicum of effort they will be ignored for the easiest answer. This happens throughout the business world and the sellers of inferior solutions couldn’t be happier. The effect of consumers making poor choices results in companies continuing business as usual as long as the public accepts it as reflected in the news story below.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Microsoft shares gain as earnings surge

MarketWatch
By John Letzing, MarketWatch. SAN FRANCISCO (MarketWatch) — Microsoft Corp. shares jumped more than 3% on Friday, a day after the company posted a 65% surge in fiscal third-quarter profit thanks to sales of new products such as the Vista operating …

The Dems favor net neutrality and the GOP does not. This sounds a little more like traditional stands of party politics. If the internet, and more specifically the blogosphere, continues to exert influence on issues at the current rate, the face of politics may evolve as an entirely new animal. Or it may only reflect a shift in the tools of the trade.

Not unlike big business, politics requires establishing a rigid structure to limit interference from outsiders. Power and influence dictates the agenda and often the outcome. This restricts innovation and impedes the flow of ideas. Innovation is generally the domain of startups and small entities unencumbered by the desire to crush competition. The internet among other things is an environment that fosters innovation. It is possible that the opponents of equal access for all are only interested in protecting their kingdoms. However, some who claim to be in favor of innovation may only support it as a mechanism to regain the power and influence. Distinguishing the two is problematic.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Neutrality On the Net Gets High ‘08 Profile

Bloggers and other Internet activists made their marks in the past two presidential elections chiefly by building networks of political enthusiasts and raising money for candidates. Now, they are pushing aggressively into policymaking — and not just over high-profile issues such as Iraq.

Trackposted to Pirate’s Cove, The Pink Flamingo, Perri Nelson’s Website, basil’s blog, and Pursuing Holiness, Outside the Beltway, High Desert Wanderer, and Conservative Thoughts, Diary of the Mad Pigeon, and Right Voices Blue Star Chronicles, Stuck On Stupid, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Vista system’s full of glitches

Now Toronto, Canada
You can tell by the latest Apple ads featuring Mac personified mocking Mr. PC because Vista’s security systems are more trouble than they’re worth. ..

We would stop posting these unflattering reports on Microsoft and the great and powerful OZ, but we simply cannot HELP ourselves.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Microsoft: Vista follow-up likely in 2009

With Vista just out the door, Microsoft is now drawing up plans to deliver its follow-up client operating system by the end of 2009, according to the executive in charge of building the product’s core components.

If you can’t migrate to a non-Microsoft platform, you’re just not trying hard enough. If people shun Vista in large enough numbers starting now, MS would be discouraged from meeting the new 2009 goal. Then all would be right with the planet.

C. Harris
MoreWhat.com

Cisco Sues Apple for Trademark Infringement

Suit Filed to Protect Cisco’s iPhone® Trademark

SAN JOSE, Calif., January 10, 2007 - Cisco® today announced that it has filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against Apple, Inc., seeking to prevent Apple from infringing upon and deliberately copying and using Cisco’s registered iPhone trademark.

Cisco obtained the iPhone trademark in 2000 after completing the acquisition of Infogear, which previously owned the mark and sold iPhone products for several years. Infogear’s original filing for the trademark dates to March 20, 1996. Linksys, a division of Cisco, has been shipping a new family of iPhone products since early last year. On Dec. 18, Linksys expanded the iPhone® family with additional products.

“Cisco entered into negotiations with Apple in good faith after Apple repeatedly asked permission to use Cisco’s iPhone name,” said Mark Chandler, senior vice president and general counsel, Cisco. “There is no doubt that Apple’s new phone is very exciting, but they should not be using our trademark without our permission.

“Today’s iPhone is not tomorrow’s iPhone. The potential for convergence of the home phone, cell phone, work phone and PC is limitless, which is why it is so important for us to protect our brand,” Chandler concluded.

With its lawsuit, Cisco is seeking injunctive relief to prevent Apple from copying Cisco’s iPhone trademark. For more information on the Cisco iPhone product line, please visit www.linksys.com/iphone.

First, how does Apple not know iPhone is a Cisco trademark. Ok, Apple didn’t think Cisco would notice after all the press coverage Apple got this week and last. Sure. It is somewhat astonishing that there are so many corporate lawsuits over this and similar arguments like patent infringement, etc. Maybe it’s alright to take these chances and pay the litigation expenses since it appears all or most corporations do this. It is probably so pervasive that they simply define it as a cost of doing business and pass the costs, like all others to the consumer. Someday they make this a best practice. Waste money trying to ripoff a competitor and charge the losses to the consumer. There’s an idea.
C. Harris
MoreWhat.com