The Pacific Technology Alliance claims to be a "grassroots" organization representing consumer interests.

From time to time, Stop the Cap! readers send us news tips based on things they find in their local newspaper or online.  Shaffa in Seattle sent us a link to a letter to the editor in the Seattle Times which seemed to be right up our alley.  The writer, Tom Gurr, executive director of something called the Pacific Technology Alliance, wrote the newspaper advocating the redefining of broadband as “a necessary, transformative element to modern life.”  Gurr advocates widespread deployment of broadband service to all Americans.  So far so good.

We cannot overstate the economic impact, to both the individual and the nation, of building out broadband infrastructure and making it available and accessible to all. But not all Americans have access to broadband, and not all Americans who have access are able to use broadband. Price or concerns about privacy and data security are barriers for some. For these individuals and communities, the degree of “openness” or “neutrality” of the network is irrelevant.

America can universally reap the rewards of broadband through its infrastructure deployment, removal of barriers to adoption and investment in more efficient and cost-effective smart networks needed for tomorrow’s dynamic and ever-evolving applications and content.

Whoops… what was that part about “openness” or “neutrality” of the network being “irrelevant?”

As Stop the Cap! readers already know, Net Neutrality issues can go hand in hand with availability and price, and I have yet to meet anyone who hasn’t pondered how private their information is kept (particularly their credit card numbers used online) and how secure their computers are from external attack from viruses and spyware.

In communities with little competition, speed can fall behind more competitive cities nearby.  Prices are almost always lower when providers do battle to secure and keep customers.  Interfering with a consumer’s broadband service to maximize revenue or protect existing business models is a risky proposition if your biggest competitor doesn’t.  Customers will flee across town to “the other guy” for service.

It seemed odd to advocate for widespread broadband deployment while taking time out to swipe at Net Neutrality.  The closing line of the letter seemed slightly vague as well, so it was time to bring out The Google and figure out where this organization is coming from.

… Continue Reading

We are still tracking down some nuisance bugs, and have had a report of at least one browser crash when trying to visit our site.

The bug we are currently aware of, particularly for those running Mac OS 10.5 and Safari 4 is:

Error #2044: Unhandled IOErrorEvent:. text=Error #2124: Loaded file is an unknown type.

We *think* that is related to one of the video players (the one that shows a blank screen before starting a video).

If you are experiencing that error, let me know if you can clear it and still access video, or if it completely disrupts your visits here.

Any other error reports should include:

• Your operating system (XP, Vista, OS10, etc.)
• Your browser & version
• If the error occurs only in one browser, some, or all browsers.
• If you are disabling Macromedia Flash (if you know)
• The exact error message you see, if you see one.
• If there is a specific action you take which routinely causes the error problem.

Because some errors might impact your ability to use our contact form, you can e-mail me directly at:  bugswat (-at-) phillipdampier.com or reply as a comment here.

You should replace the (-at-) with @ like you would with any e-mail address ([email protected]).   I use this format to keep those spam e-mail address harvesters from picking up my e-mail address and blitzing me.

When we are confident the bug(s) are gone, this message will disappear.

Thanks for your help.

iAWFUL (which stands for Internet Advocates Watchlist for Ugly Laws) launched this week, calling attention to the “most reckless and misguided laws” impacting the Internet.

The site, a project of NetChoice, a Washington, DC eCommerce advocacy group, particularly opposes what they feel are “misguided” regulatory approaches to online problems by well meaning lawmakers, often on the state level. NetChoice claims to be a coalition of trade associations, eCommerce businesses, and online consumers, “all of whom share the goal of promoting convenience, choice and commerce on the Net.”

The inaugural list of the worst contains several state tax initiatives targeting Internet commerce, rules forcing websites to spend more time and effort enforcing their abuse of service policies, and an effort to regulate online ticket sales.  NetChoice also challenges efforts by lawmakers to incorporate certain standards, such as security and encryption, into law.

Presumably, the weight given to determining which are the “worst” laws is determined in part by the group’s members:

1-800-Contacts
America Online/Time Warner
American Vintners Association
Association for Competitive Technology
eBay
Electronic Retailing Association
IAC
Internet Alliance
NewsCorp
Oracle
Overstock.com
VeriSign
Yahoo!
The Wine Institute

One of the intended purposes of the iAWFUL list is to draft consumers into the fight against the targeted legislation.  While most of the inaugural list’s targets are anti-consumer, NetChoice doesn’t answer exclusively to those consumers.  They answer to the members who belong to the organization.  Often, the interests of consumers and business do merge, but not always.

Knee-jerk, overly prescriptive laws can destroy whole business models or stifle innovative new forms of communication before they have a chance to emerge. Too many laws are proposed without considering unintended harm they may cause to thousands of Internet companies and millions of Internet users.

NetChoice is dedicated to fighting these attacks on core Internet principles.

Destroying business models may not always be anti-consumer.  On our own issue of Internet Overcharging, could legislation designed to put an end to it be seen as a friend or foe to NetChoice?  A business model alone may be worthy of fighting to protect, but as Stop the Cap! readers understand, that isn’t always true.  Legislators are not the only ones capable of engaging in overreaching antics.  Some of NetChoice’s member companies have done that themselves.

Care must also be given to determine the exact definitions of “stifling” and “core Internet principles.”  The former may be a matter of perspective, the latter is not defined at all.

Perhaps iAWFUL will be a consistently positive asset for consumers and will not incorporate laws designed to protect consumers from anti-competitive behavior and Internet Overcharging onto their top 10 list.  Time will tell.  But consumers should always be wary about Internet organizations that claim to represent consumer interests, but rely on industry money to keep the lights on.  Some of those groups, particularly those in Washington, turn out to be astroturf organizations that claim to represent ordinary citizens, but really front for commercial interests, which often have a different agenda.

Michael Lynton, Chairman and CEO of Sony Pictures Entertainment who was the subject of our last HissyFitWatch, has decided damage control was the order of the day after being caught making remarks suggesting the Internet had never come to any good and was filled with pirates and freeloaders.  A recap:

“I’m a guy who doesn’t see anything good having come from the Internet, period.”

The Internet has “created this notion that anyone can have whatever they want at any given time. It’s as if the stores on Madison Avenue were open 24 hours a day. They feel entitled. They say, ‘Give it to me now,’ and if you don’t give it to them for free, they’ll steal it.”

Just brought to our attention, Lynton decided he’d better clarify those remarks, because the blog world had already spent a week burning him in effigy for making them.  So off to The Huffington Post he went to pen his long-form explanation on May 26th.

In March, an unfinished copy of 20th Century Fox’s film X-Men Origins: Wolverine was stolen from a film lab and uploaded to the Internet, more than a month before its theatrical release. The studio investigated the crime, and efforts were made to limit its availability online. Still, it was illegally downloaded more than four million times.

That kind of wide scale theft was very much on my mind when I was on a panel the other day which opened with a question about the impact of the Internet on the entertainment business, and I responded, “I’m a guy who sees nothing good having come from the Internet. Period.”

But, I actually welcome the Sturm und Drang I’ve stirred, because it gives me an opportunity to make a larger point (one which I also made during that panel discussion, though it was not nearly as viral as the sentence above). And my point is this: the major content businesses of the world and the most talented creators of that content — music, newspapers, movies and books — have all been seriously harmed by the Internet.

Some of that damage has been caused by changing business models (the FTC just announced an inquiry into the impact of new media on the newspaper industry). But the primary culprit is piracy. The Internet has brought people with no regard for the intellectual property of others together with a technology that allows them to easily steal that property and sell or give it away to everyone, with little fear of being caught or prosecuted.

He could have said this at the Whine & Cheese breakfast in Syracuse and it would have provoked the same reaction his original comments had.  Not much to see here beyond another big corporate Hollywood studio executive pleading poverty and ruin because one of the industry’s own employees made off with a film print to score big bucks and eventually the copy drifted into Pirate Bay.  Nobody need call CSI to determine the cause of injury in this case.  Even the most casual observer can see most of these wounds are self-inflicted.

… Continue Reading

The Federal Communications Commission is accepting comments from citizens until July 8, 2009 as they craft a national broadband plan.  Free Press’ Save the Internet campaign has made sending our comments a lot easier for you and I.  They’ve created an online form that directly interfaces with the FCC’s formal comment submission system.  They have pre-filled a sample message to send to the Commission for consideration, but I strongly recommend you write one of your own.  Net Neutrality is a critically important issue for Stop the Cap!, but there is room to also share your thoughts on usage caps, metered pricing, competition and oversight — all of the issues we focus on regularly here.

They are already hearing from special interests and lobbyists attempting to influence the Commission into creating a broadband policy that caters to the whims of commercial interests.  It is paramount that the Internet first and foremost serve the interests of the people.

For the first time in a long time, every citizen can have a voice heard by anyone who wants to listen.  The impact and importance of that voice is judged on the merit of the message, not on how much money, power or influence that person has to present it.  Net Neutrality rules enforced as part of a national broadband policy protects your voice, your ideas, and your participation in our democracy.  Some commercial interests seek a net where their voices can travel faster, their partners get preferential treatment, and everyone else risks being throttled, capped, metered, or impeded.

Gordon F. Snyder, Director of the National Center for Information and Communications Technologies

Without Net Neutrality protections, the Internet may find itself resembling broadcasting in this country, where a few powerful interests control the medium, the message, and the content.  No company should be making these choices for you, either through speed throttling or imposing limits or meters on those products and services that aren’t owned, controlled, or partnered with that provider.  Your ISP should not have the right to impose a broadband strategy that is designed to protect the business model of another product or service they happen to offer, such is the case with online video.

Tell the FCC you don’t want to settle for a national broadband policy that doesn’t make America #1.  That means:

• The fastest possible speeds, not rationed “fast enough for most people to check e-mail and web pages broadband.”
• An end to policies that allow providers to artificially limit consumption through throttles, usage caps, and forced metered pricing at enormous markups.
• Protections against manipulating broadband policies to protect providers’ other business interests, such as streaming online video competing with traditional cable television business models.
• Policies that encourage competition among providers, even if it means establishing “common carrier” status to permit competitor access to wired infrastructure under fair terms.
• A policy that recognizes the rapid development of broadband technology and expects providers to grow with the times to accommodate new platforms, technologies, and applications.
• A policy that embraces municipal, public, and/or non-profit organizations that wish to establish advanced networks as they see fit, without having to face lawsuits and delay tactics from commercial interests.
• Recognition that there cannot be two broadband platforms in this country – one slow lane for rural and under-competitive markets and one fast lane for urban areas.  Equal access.  Equal speeds.  Fair pricing.

Gordon F. Snyder, Director of the National Center for Information and Communications Technologies, provides additional insight in his blog, and should be considered when writing your suggestions to the FCC:

… Continue Reading