Net Neutrality - This Is Serious

Woke up this mornin', had those hijacked e-mail blues..

I appreciate the concern of those who e-mailed, texted, or called me to let me know.

I'm pretty sure that I've resolved the issue that had everyone in my address book being told I was in Spain and needed money to get home. The e-mail address associated with this blog was not the one affected.

I'm continuing to mull over the increasing attention that the concept of Net Neutrality is receiving in the mainstream media of late.

The most recent developments seem to have more to do with the attempts by some of the wireless phone companies, at least one (Verizon) in cahoots with Google, to marginalize efforts to assure that, to quote Columbia University professor Tim Wu, the Internet remains "a maximally useful public information network (that) aspires to treat all content, sites, and platforms equally".

There are all kinds of pundits and professional experts expanding on the policy statement issued by Google last week, one week after the New York Times reported that they would. I don't have time to analyze it in detail, at least not for free. My concerns come from these fundamental bullet points that Google led things off with:

1. Users should choose what content, applications, or devices they use, since openness has been central to the explosive innovation that has made the Internet a transformative medium.

2. America must continue to encourage both investment and innovation to support the underlying broadband infrastructure; it is imperative for our global competitiveness.

The subtle differences in language that many might gloss over on the first reading - but are central to the argument - were the first things that I noticed about these statements. Note how "users should choose" instead of "users must be able to choose".

This is likely a tilt of the cap to Apple, which decides for its users what applications they can use with devices like the iPhone, by restricting those applications to only those which are approved and can be obtained from Apple itself.

The second bullet point basically says to me that broadband services, via fiber and commercial wireless, will not grow unless investment capital is attracted. Apparently, the wireless companies don't think this can happen unless they have the ability to create different tiers of information flow, thus compromising neutrality, as an incentive to attract that capital investment.

Hypothetically, this could mean that websites that include embedded advertising for Coca-Cola products will receive priority handling over those with Pepsi ads, because Coke has paid your wireless provider for the privilege. The same could be said for all manner of perceived 'competitive' content - including sites from non-profits or political campaigns.

I'm not a technocrat, so I'll just cut to the chase:

• Information on the Internet must be allowed to flow without encumbrances like the above.
• Access to information from websites like this little blog must be able to travel through the Internet at the same speed as the Drudge Report or the Huffington Post.
• The Internet cannot be allowed to become a bastion of privilege for those who desire to impact and/or control the flow of information, and have the means to accomplish those ends.

The Tea Party movement has come out against Net Neutrality in a letter signed jointly by several Tea Party organizations across the country. They apparently view the issue through a glass that sees potential evil in all government regulation:



This has been debated almost incessantly since the story broke last Friday, but some of the more interesting observations came from the reporting and comments in The Hill:

The free-speech argument holds that, by interfering with how phone and cable companies deliver Internet traffic, the government would be thwarting the free-speech rights of providers such as AT&T, Verizon and Comcast.

So, it's government efforts in assuring that Internet isn't interfered with that these corporations see as interfering with putting forth whatever message they choose.

I think I will say to them what I used to say to dispatchers; your job is done much better when you act as a conduit, and not as a filter.

The Save The Internet Coalition has been on the forefront of this debate for several years. The latest news from this group, and a link to their website, will be at the top of the sidebar of this blog for the foreseeable future.

Those interested in how freely information flows through the Internet, and how much sway others will hold in how you access and deliver information through this tremendously powerful resource, should review the website information and consider adding your name to those who are alarmed at the developments of the past week.

I will pay particular attention to how this proposed "legislative framework" snakes its way through the halls of Congress and the FCC. I'm not happy with Google's actions here. Suffice to say that if they continue to push this course of action I may see the need to relocate this blog from the Google-owned site that hosts it.

Have a good week ahead.

Nothing Neutral about Net Neutrality

I've been writing about the subject of Net Neutrality for as long as I've been writing this blog - 4 years and change.

The new FCC Rules adopted last week have been picked apart and panned by groups on both sides of the issue and on the political spectrum. If you believe the sound bites, it's almost as if nobody likes the new rules.

This is one reason that I think they will work out. Nothing really scientific about it, really - just a feeling that if the professional activists on both leading edges of an issue are pissed off about it, then the rules likely have something for everyone in the middle.

What I'm really not thrilled about is how the issue has been portrayed in the media - at least the local print kind. Gary Harmon of the Daily Sentinel, whose news writing since losing his opinion column looks more and more like he's auditioning for a job at Fox News, penned a one-sided (and paywalled) portrayal of the issue.

Gary did what we lovingly expect him to do - he spoke to local Internet Service Providers and national trade organizations representing them in order to provide reporting about the entire issue. Aside from one short paragraph and a sidebar from the Associated Press that explained what exactly the FCC approved, the story was told exclusively from the perspective that net neutrality is bad for business.

Mr. Harmon would have done a better job for his paper's readership had he balanced the local business concerns with the opinion of local user communities about the rights of Internet users to access to content unfettered by corporate preferences, sweetheart deals, or junior high-level spats over competing services that share the same Internet "pipe".

Craig Hall of the Grand Valley Business Times spoke to the concerns of his core audience quite well in a recent issue. I would prefer it if the Sentinel left the business opinion disguised as news reporting to Mr. Hall and his able staff. The type of reporting put forth by Mr. Harmon, which often is just thinly-veiled opinion, is one reason that I will not subscribe to the Sentinel. More about that later.

I think that I'm finished with the subject until the new regulations are fleshed out in the appropriate venue, and the effects of their implementation or challenge are plainly available for all to see.

Have a great weekend and New Year ahead.

The Future of the Internet, At Stake Now

I was gone the bulk of this past week, in Longmont attending the annual conference of the Colorado chapters of the two largest trade organizations representing the interests of public safety communications and 9-1-1 providers, APCO and NENA. I'm still trying to digest all of the information that I received from peers and vendors regarding emerging trends, and how to prepare for some of those trends that are literally already upon us.

I'm referring to the use of devices for communication that rely on packet switching using an Internet Protocol instead of circuit switching through the Public Switched Telephone Network.
You are likely familiar with some of these features of communication devices, aside from the Internet itself; e-mail and text messaging, streaming audio and video, and the biggest challenge to emergency call routing since the cell phone, Voice over Internet Protocol, or VoIP.

My preference in a perfect world would be to prohibit the marketing of these devices until they could demonstrate their ability to route 9-1-1 calls correctly. Unfortunately, it appears that 9-1-1 is a minor issue when rolling out some of these new telecommunications technologies, that is until something tragic occurs and the FCC gets involved.

Progress is being made, as witnessed by the conference's emphasis on Next Generation 9-1-1, an initiative that hopefully will bring to all 9-1-1 centers the ability to receive things like text messages, pictures from wireless phones, and streaming video from the locations of emergency calls. The path to this capability is likely to be a long and arduous one, and will have to follow along with challenges to the integrity of the Internet itself.

This past week the FCC delayed a vote on approving the merger of two large telecommunications companies, AT&T and BellSouth, due in part to concerns about the merger's effects on Net Neutrality, or the concept that Internet Service Providers must route all data in a neutral fashion, irrespective of the destination of the data. A brief video overview of the concepts involved is available here.

Without Net Neutrality, the average Internet experience could start looking like this.

The detrimental effects of a non-neutral Internet on the myriad sources of Internet content, including packets of information that may be destined for a 9-1-1 answering point, is too much for me to stomach. The FCC has established a comment period until October 24 on the AT&T / BellSouth merger, and I'm sure that in a few days sites such as Save The Internet and Free Press will have links to forms that will automatically post to the FCC's Electronic Comment Filing System. If you have a minute, make your thoughts on the subject known to those in a position to steer information access in this country for years to come.

Those who would make the Internet a world of tiered services, frought with limited access for those with a limited ability to pay, or preferential data routing or outright restriction of "non-preferred" content, are seeking to commoditize information just like a physical resource such as coal or natural gas.

Initiatives such as the One Laptop Per Child project, combined with the efforts to preserve net neutrality, are important steps toward the development of the Information Commons, and dovetails with yesterday's awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize to Bangladeshi economist and banker Mohammed Yunus for the successful concept of "micro-credit", which has helped to enable thousands of poor people take the first steps out of poverty.

These efforts, whether in an impoverished country or the richest nation in the world (at least in terms of material wealth), are indicative of a vision of Christian living that I would like to subscribe to. While this is admittedly difficult for the best of us on a daily basis, and we may find ourselves perhaps disagreeing on how best to live up to Jesus' parable as told in the Gospel of Matthew, the effort itself, and the reward at the end, will prove more satisfying than anything material we may hold onto in our present lives.

May this week bring you an opportunity to share the wealth that is yourself with someone less fortunate.

Redux and Revelation

Several topics that I've written about recently have had new information that clarifies or embellishes the topic pop up in the media and elsewhere, so I thought I would begin by revisiting a few of them.

School Safety

The Daily Sentinel's package of articles in this past Sunday's edition went a long way toward addressing what I believe Denny Herzog meant when he wrote about taking a "critical look" at the issue and reporting on it. What was surprising to me was the continued reticence of District 51 administration on the subject in general. While the focus of these articles was admittedly on School Resource Officers, the District's contribution from its' chief public spokesman to all of the articles published amounted to one sentence.

I would think that Mr. Kirtland would have more to say, and maybe he did that didn't make the articles. Either that or perhaps for him this topic is like the Klingon proverb about revenge; a dish best served cold. Still, I think it would paint a better picture for the District if its' Public Information Officer was proactive and at the forefront of any media coverage of the schools, rather than the principal of Palisade High School, which from one of the articles is what it seemed like.

The new "PRIDE" program at GJHS that was mentioned gave me a chuckle, as I first heard about it from my son, who added that "pride is one of the seven deadly sins". We're raising a nation of cynics and comedians.

In any event, school safety and security will be a continuing topic for discussion and media attention, irrespective of attempts to control or ignore the message being delivered. I also appreciated Bob Silbernagel's editorial on open records, with his personal experience in dealing with schools as an example of some of the difficulties encountered by many in our community and elsewhere.

So long as public schools remain an arm of government and accountable to the people, part of their focus needs to be on transparency and candor, especially when it pertains to safety and emergency planning. Like I've said before, as a parent I expect nothing less when it comes to risks involving my child and the environment where he spends most of his waking hours 9 months out of the year, and that includes extracurricular activities like football games.

The schools must also acknowledge that it will be an increasingly difficult balancing act between educating children and working to assure both their safety and that of the community at large, but it is one that they cannot ignore. Time for them to plan on ponying up for safety-related staffing and training in the future.

Vigliotti gone?

In a related item, it appears that Jonathan Vigliotti's tenure at KJCT has come to an end, less than two weeks after his investigative report on school security, which according to some corners should have been followed by a mea culpa. Mr. Vigliotti's bio has been removed from the station's website, and a Colorado Springs-based media message board has posts to the effect that he was offered a job in Milwaukee (a big market jump) after the news director there saw his school piece. Having been to Milwaukee recently, I think that he will be a busy person. Best of luck to him.

Net Neutrality

An item in the online edition of the Orange and Black caught my attention. This week on PBS, Bill Moyers will tackle the issue of threats to the future of the Internet as part of his Moyers on America series. It will air here on Wednesday night at 8:00 PM on Rocky Mountain PBS. Here is a preview:




The series is also promoting a citizen's class program that involves community discussion groups talking about the series and the issues it raises, and the Mesa County Public Library District is participating with sessions the next three Monday evenings. More details here.

KKCO Closed Captioning

Thanks to KKCO for fixing its' closed captioning technology, but as always there is more work to do. A lot of the interview SOTs are not captioned at all, and some of the stories have such a delay between the story and the captions that all meaningful context has been removed. I hope that they will take their responsibilities in this regard seriously, perhaps as much as to work on getting real-time closed captioning implemented. This would admittedly be pricey, but they won't have to worry about synching with the video, all of the ad-libs will be captioned, and they will be performing a needed service for which many hearing-impaired residents of our community will be grateful.

KKCO is the number one newscast in this market area, so I'm guessing that many viewers who would benefit from real-time captioning are watching. If so, contact the station and tell them how you feel.
__________________________________________________________________

Canyon View Vineyard Church has started a seven-week series of sermons on the Book of Revelation. As someone who hasn't navigated the Bible as well as he should, my impression of Revelation was all that stuff about the end of the world, but the beginning of this book is basically advice to the seven primary Christian churches in various cities. These words of advice comprise the seven lessons the church is focusing on in this sermon series.

The apostle John received this revelation while imprisoned on the island of Patmos. With tongue in cheek and after a first blush through the book, I got the distinct impression that these first seven admonitions were received by John before he found the wild island mushrooms.

I've got a lot to learn about many things, and this series so far has been engaging and challenging. Paul Watson has done an excellent job teaching these first two lessons. One of the most significant things that Paul had to say about the first lesson, which revolved around the part of Revelation directed to the Ephesians, was this:

We lose focus when we start to think that we are in control.

I'm looking forward to the rest. You can listen and read about the first sermon here, or better yet come on out, especially if you haven't been there before.

May you find the grace this week to see beyond those things you think you can control, and begin (or continue) to understand who is really in charge.

Your Inalienable Right to Watch Football

I'm in Pittsburgh through the end of the week, visiting my mother.

The article in yesterday's Sentinel regarding the Broncos game on Thanksgiving was interesting, but judging from the comments attached to the article and information available elsewhere, this article seemed to raise more questions than answers.

This is a big deal with football fans in the Grand Junction area. In following the 'growth' of our little media market over the years, the availability of Broncos games in any form has been kindling for the fire of controversy over the loss of a full-time Denver station over cable and translators in the GJ and Montrose areas.

Back in the late 90's, the loss of KUSA Channel 9 in favor of local startup KKCO deprived viewers of pre-season games and ancillary programming related to the Broncos, generating media coverage and a public outcry that eventually got all the players talking, including AT&T Cable, now Bresnan Communications. Eventually an arrangement was reached to air the pre-season games, but that arrangement has been sporadic as the network for Broncos games changed, and the NFL itself broadened the scope of its' own cable channel.

This year is the first that NFL Network will be airing games independent of an over-the-air broadcast network, or a basic cable channel like ESPN. In the Grand Junction area, NFL Network is only available on the Digital Cable 'tier' of Bresnan's service, which in and of itself is controversial because only a fraction of local subscribers choose to pay extra for this service.

What people have taken for granted, that being access to a Broncos game on TV without having to pay a premium of some sort or subscribe to a special service, is now threatened.
Welcome to the future of information and entertainment, especially if Net Neutrality becomes a thing of the past, and municipal cable franchises are also swept aside.

In another interesting story, Broadcasting and Cable also reported yesterday that NFL Network is suing Comcast Cable for assigning their programming to a digital tier instead of the more widely-viewed basic or expanded basic service. The network is demanding a pretty high per-subscriber fee from the cable company for its' programming, and like other cable operators in the Northeast there is an ongoing battle between them and popular networks such as Fox News and ESPN to keep fees down.

The comments in the Sentinel article have information regarding local phone numbers for Bresnan that will circumvent the call center in Billings. From a consumer vantage point with the above information in hand, it seems that Bresnan does have a lot of free space right now in the basic and expanded basic channel lineup, especially after shifting Starz and Encore to the digital tier, to accommodate the NFL Network if consumer demand requires it.

Channels 2, 14, 47, 48, and 62 are currently vacant, showing the same local information slides. While one of those channels will likely be another PEG (Public, Educational, Government access) channel (like Mesa County's Channel 12) whenever the city gets around to asking for it, one wonders what is up Bresnan's sleeve for the rest of them.

Now is probably a good time to ask questions, make suggestions, and insist on a response that is beneficial to local TV consumers. As for me, I'll be watching the Steelers this weekend. Now if only they played a little better...

Take care.