ledeagenda.com

From WSJ:

The Federal Communications Commission on Thursday approved a much-anticipated open Internet proposal despite concerns of commission Republicans and big cable and phone companies that the rules aren’t necessary.

Supporters of the proposal, including Internet giants like Google Inc., say the rules are needed to ensure entrepreneurs’ Web products aren’t hampered by providers that supply the on-ramps to the Internet.

The proposed FCC rules would prevent Internet companies such as Verizon Communications Inc., Comcast Corp. and AT&T Inc. from selectively blocking or slowing certain Web content and would require providers to disclose how they manage their networks.

The FCC now will seek public comment, with the goal of finalizing the proposal sometime next year. The rules almost certainly will be challenged in court.

AT&T, Verizon, and Comcast worry that the new rules apply only to service providers like them and not Internet firms like Google and Amazon.com Inc.

Advocates like Google say broader rules would amount to unprecedented regulation of the now free Internet.

The rules are tailored toward ISPs. They say Internet access providers can’t deprive users of competition “among network providers, application providers, service providers, and content providers.”

FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski said the draft rules are designed to protect consumers’ right to access lawful content, applications, and services. “Government should not be in the business of running or regulating the Internet,” he said.

A long dormant-issue is re-kindled. 

From the WSJ:

The head of the Federal Communications Commission will propose new rules to prevent Internet providers from selectively blocking or slowing Web traffic, a move that could set off a battle with phone and cable companies that don’t want the government telling them how to run their networks.

In a speech Monday, FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski will lay out his rationale for new rules that would require all Internet providers to use “reasonable” network-management practices in dealing with Internet traffic, according to people familiar with the proposal. The rules would also be extended to include wireless arms of giants like AT&T Inc. and Verizon Communications Inc. as well as cable providers like Comcast Corp.

Currently, some wireless Internet providers prevent consumers from using some bandwidth-heavy Internet applications, like video file-sharing services, because of concerns they will slow cellular networks.

The agency will also ask for guidance on how to define “reasonable network management,” since companies currently have little idea how the agency defines the term.

The FCC currently has four so-called net neutrality principles, which call on Internet providers to treat all legal Internet data equally. But it hasn’t adopted formal rules.

A concern I have is that casual users of the internet might not understand what is being referred to as network neutrality,  one of the most essential under-pinning to the entire appeal of the internet. There is a lot of intentional disinformation out there to confuse those new to the debate.

As a practical example, let’s imagine a technological world without the principals of network neutrality. Two competing carries may look the same and even offer comparably similar services, but the application and use is drastically different.

The first carrier, in our hypothetical example, provides only internet services and has no financial interest in any other media or corporate ventures. It allows unregulated access to whatever websites the consumer chooses- they are providing the service- internet access- in exchange for value- a monthly access fee.

The second carrier, on the other hand, is much more representative of many of today’s internet providers- it is owned by a huge media conglomerate. It will incentivize the selection of it’s internet service by offering reduced prices, albeit with the intent to recoup those costs by steering the user’s of its services to other companies within it’s media family.

For a real-life example of how this might play out consider the example of ESPN360. The Disney conglomerate has taken the stance that all internet users must pay for it’s view-on-demand sports coverage. Mind you, not the users that actually want to use the service, but anyone who has a internet connection, regardless of whether or not they intend to use the ESPN360 service. Carriers that refuse spread the costs of carrier subscription will have all users of it’s internet service blocked.

Think of the shopping for the internet like how you shop for your cable services- would you tolerate a ISP that blocked at best, or re-directed you at worst, to their preferred site simply because they had a financial interest in controlling the flow of information? Mind you, you are not buying entertainment channels (MTV, History, A&E, etc…) you are purchasing access to the internet for news, information, access to the servers at work, email… etc.

Do you like reading Lede Agenda? What about the Campaign For Liberty blog? What if your carrier deemed the content objectionable and blocked access? Or what if your carrier decided that your readership of these sites diverts revenue from one of their other (and financially related) websites? You shouldn’t be reading Lede user, how about Huff Po instead? The Campaign For Liberty? Why don’t you just be happy with the good ol’ GOP.com? All of this is possible if network neutrality is not a governing principal of the internet.

The functionality, usability and desirability of the internet would be greatly compromised in a scenario where competing ISP’s could leverage access for what we already consider to be the object of purchase. The free-exchange of idea’s would be limited by corporate alliance and new, innovative idea’s would only serve to enhance the existing power structures, destroying a truly free-market.

For more information and to read more about the FCC plan preserve the internet as we know visit The Save The Internet Coalition at www.savetheinternet.com

There is a massive effort underway right now to consolidate the power and control of the internet through gatekeepers and a strong push to move away from the ownership model of computing to “cloud” monthly-subscription based access.

Consider this: Amazon recently deleted purchased copies of George Orwell’s ‘1984′ from Kindle’s when they connected to the whispernet. You don’t ‘own’ your Kindle books, they are provided to you on license. Much of the programs we use are provided in the same manner- they can be shut-off or deemed as an illegitimate use whenever the ‘license’ terms are violated.

Kindle deleted ‘1984′ over a license snafu. Will Microsoft soon be forced to do the same with Microsoft Word?  It’s unlikely, but should license discussions between Microsoft and I4i ever break down it could be one of many possible options for Microsoft. This would leave vast majority of the worldwide audience without a usable word-processing program on their PC’s.

With that in mind let us turn to the top five free/open source everyday use software:

1)     Google Chrome- fast, sleek, and highly customizable. Highly secure. 30% faster that IE7.

2)     Spybot S&D- Cleans those nasty maleware’s, trojans, downloaders and key-loggers.

3)     AVG Anti-Virus FREE- Cleans those unwelcome viruses and worms. Rated very strong.

4)     Paint.NET- Not quite needing Photoshop, but Paint just isn’t doing it for you?  Try this nifty upgrade.

5)     Open Office- Open source wordproccessing, spreadsheets, databases, graphics and more

Ask any business-owner who has been harassed by the Business Software Alliance or any person who has downloaded a game to test it out before legitimately purchasing the game- the license based model is not for everyone. Many of the programs above will serve the same utility that much more expensive versions of the same type of software could provide.

Consider this an exercise of ownership. If the push intensifies to place new computer users in a ‘cloud’ monthly-subscription based model then open-source programs will only gain new followers as we legitimately seek to retain the concept of ownership as it relates to technology. Ask any Kindle user- if the future of technology comes with Big Brother attached, count me out.

From Ars Technica:

The MAAWG conducted 800 interviews by phone and Internet across the US with people who had e-mail addresses not managed by a corporate IT staff. It found that two-thirds of the group said that they were very or somewhat experienced with Internet security, and a majority used filters of some kind in order to avoid spam. Eighty-two percent were aware of bots and botnets, though not many believed they were at risk of being victimized by one.

Slightly less than half (48 percent) said that they have never clicked on a spam e-mail. That’s the good news, but that means the other half have clicked on or responded to spam. But why? The answers will undoubtedly horrify you. A full 12 percent said that they were interested in the product or service being offered—those erection drug and mail order bride ads do reach a certain market, it appears. 

From FauxNews.com:

 It took four years for Google to address the “Google bomb” that was lobbed at former President Bush.

But it took the Internet behemoth only a few days to defuse the same attack on President Obama.

Four years versus a few days … Some Googlers are asking why.

In 2003, President Bush’s detractors successfully gamed the Google search engine by arranging to have countless Web sites link the words “miserable failure” to Bush’s official biography on the White House Web site.

The result was that when someone typed the search term “miserable failure” into the Google search box, Bush’s bio rose to the top of the search results.

And that’s how it stayed until 2007, when Google developed an algorithm to detect what became known as “Google bombs” and re-directed the term “miserable failure” to non-political pages.

Unfortunately for Obama, “miserable failure” reverted back to his bio when he moved into the White House. The new president was also Google-bombed with the phrase “cheerful achievement.”

But this time, Google stepped in quickly, rectifying the situation in a few days, instead of four years.

The difference in time did not go unnoticed.

“You let this go on for the entire Bush administration,” a reader named w3bgrrl wrote on a Google blog. “But since you bought the White House for Obama, you don’t want your candidates harmed … And your claims not withstanding, even liberals know you’re liberal.”

Related: Newsbusters.org: Google Labels Conservative Sites As “Harmful”

From CNET.com:

The so-called stimulus package hands out billions of dollars in grants for broadband and wireless development, primarily in what are called “unserved” and “underserved” areas. The U.S. Department of Commerce is charged with writing checks-with-many-zeros-on-them to eligible recipients, including telecommunications companies, local and state governments, and even construction companies and other businesses that might be interested.

The catch is that the federal largesse comes with Net neutrality strings attached. The Commerce Department must ensure that the recipients “adhere to” the Federal Communications Commission’s 2005 broadband policy statement (PDF)–which the FCC said at the time was advisory and “not enforceable,” and has become the subject of a lawsuit before a federal appeals court in Washington, D.C.

One interpretation of the “adhere to” requirement is that a company like AT&T, Verizon, or Comcast that takes “stimulus” dollars to deploy broadband in, say, Nebraska must abide by these rules nationwide. (It’s rather like the state of Nebraska demanding that a broadband provider filter out porn nationwide in exchange for a lucrative government contract.)

Keep an eye on stories like this one where people are abandoning MSM for the internet in search of real news. Could we possibly be seeing the pre-text for the imposition of government-run-and-controlled Internet 2?

From the Times Online:

While millions of people tap into Google without considering the environment, a typical search generates about 7g of CO2 Boiling a kettle generates about 15g. “Google operates huge data centres around the world that consume a great deal of power,” said Alex Wissner-Gross, a Harvard University physicist whose research on the environmental impact of computing is due out soon. “A Google search has a definite environmental impact.”

Google is secretive about its energy consumption and carbon footprint. It also refuses to divulge the locations of its data centres. However, with more than 200m internet searches estimated globally daily, the electricity consumption and greenhouse gas emissions caused by computers and the internet is provoking concern. A recent report by Gartner, the industry analysts, said the global IT industry generated as much greenhouse gas as the world’s airlines - about 2% of global CO2 emissions. “Data centres are among the most energy-intensive facilities imaginable,” said Evan Mills, a scientist at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in California. Banks of servers storing billions of web pages require power.

They want to shutter the internet because it gives us back the control. That it why they want the Fairness Doctrine for blogs. That is why they want to disproportionately target tech companies for “green taxes”. The reality is that the internet is the last bastion of free speech, if they can force control over it they can accelerate their plans unchecked.

Infowars.com: More Evidence Of A Pentagon War On The Internet, Setting Up Government-Controlled “Internet 2″.