New Ideas : OpenInternet.gov

Broadcasters don't own spectrum, don't pay them to let go of it.

Tue, 16 Mar 2010 21:31:31 PDT

Broadcasters do not own spectrum and MUST not be paid to relinquish spectrum which is public property that is only leased to them.

Trying to buy broadcaster acquiescence is not an acceptable approach. They’ve been complicit in the kind of parasitic commercial speech that has led to the social uselessness of many of our institutions and industries. They’ve been the core of a sponsor/ad/lobby system that denies the public representation. We need new systems that eliminate this model so it would be the wrong to give money that would help the same culture to transition to new mediums.

We should be able to get subscriptions to global content and communication ad free- getting away from ad driven systems is crucial. Allowing or encouraging advertising sets up censorship, whereas enforcing strong neutrality rightly undermines sponsorship. Help us remove the filter. Instead of giving broadcasters money to cooperate use a theory like eminent domain and remove them from the spectrum, make them pay for the process of removing them. Make an example of broadcasters. It’s not poisoning the well, ROI present or future form private investors shouldn’t be the prime concern but rather political speech and getting beyond social uselessness.

Comments (0)The Open Internet & the Freedom of Speech

100 mbits? that's IT? come on guys.

Tue, 16 Mar 2010 20:05:12 PDT

Vote On Idea

How disappointing to see the FCC set such a low low low goal for our internet speeds in 10 years.

even today, we could already have TERABIT per user speeds using a truly optical network.

we already have much of the fiber necessary.

I'm just sad that they have set the bar so very low. so low, indeed, that the 100mbit speed is already something many other countries have TODAY... and to hope to have that in TEN YEARS? seriously? come on guys. think BIGGER... we should IMMEDIATELY do at least the GIGABIT UP/DOWN that Google wants to offer, and move rapidly faster from there.

Where is the challenge to good old American Ingenuity? When JFK Set a goal of landing on the moon and safely returning by 1969, we had to invent whole entire new technologies, that never existed before that. We had to figure out how to get a computer that was the size of a minivan down to under the size of a basketball. We got the microprocessor out of that by the way.

When George Whitesides set out to get medical diagnostic test costs down from hundreds or thousands of dollars per test, to pennies per hundred tests, he invented whole new technologies. See his video at http://www.ted.com/talks/george_whitesides_a_lab_the_size_of_a_postage_stamp.html He calls his system "zero cost diagnostics."

When we try to deploy a multi-terabit national internet, we will have to invent some new technologies, and we will love doing it, too.

But we cannot count on the phone and cable companies to bring us there. they never wanted this network in the first place. they dragged their feet for years. they didn't like people even using modems in the 90's, but the internet was practically forced upon them. if you expect them to put their own lucrative content businesses in jeopardy just so individuals can have more freedom to communicate, i have a bridge to sell you in Brooklyn.

We cannot ever get faster if we allow the phone and cable companies to keep using their proprietary protocols because those protocols limit end users on what devices they connect to the network. how are we ever going to have speed innovation, if we are locked into using cable boxes designed 15 years ago, which are "just fine" for the monopolistic giants?

Comments (1)Workshop--Innovation, Investment, and the Open Internet, speed, investment, future

Deeply Disappointed

Mon, 15 Mar 2010 14:39:37 PDT

Vote On Idea

I read on CNN the basics of the new FCC Internet plan, and was deeply disappointed. We need to move beyond the pothole patching. The last mile is still an issue, your hoping systems will have a 1 gig network card, and hope they can get to the library.

The problem with Internet access is.
1. Too Expensive.
2. The Last mile is not the answer, cellular and broadband wi-fi is the answer.
3. Too narrowly focused in areas, when it needs a broader retooling approach.
4. Too many issues with net neutrality, invalid and obsolete copyright law and lack of innovation among the major players.
5. Lack of real phone portability

The fact is the last mile wiring wise is not going to be solved.

What needs to happen, is a collective retooling of the current cellular carriers to ONE standard, ONE platform and allow any and all devices that are FCC compatible to come into the network for a reasonable fee, with very lenient caps on data space.

I like the Google fiber plan, but again I think running fiber to individual homes is not a good solution. Perhaps to each town, and then connect cell towers to that connection. Then connect based on Quality of Service, reliability etc. No need for TVA.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/TECH/03/15/fcc.broadband.plan/index.html

Comments (3)Reasonable Network Management

Standardize on Wi-Fi

Mon, 15 Mar 2010 12:12:06 PDT

Vote On Idea

I have been reading with great interest on the study and plan of deployment for the National Broadband plan as directed by Congress. I believe that is a important and critical step in order for our country to move in so many areas in terms of technology and in quality of service to citizens, as well as provide economic enablers. Having resided in rural, suburban areas, I feel the unique focus and the challenges that citizens face in terms of providing service. As well as being a volunteer firefighter, I see the critical need for a robust radio system that could be used on top of this proposed system for first responders.

After a gut check analysis, I believe the cheapest and best role is to force a reshaping of the cellular carriers. Their pricing is exorbitant, their service is sub par and the restrictions is simply not valid. I believe in establishing a set of standards that could at some point push for the FCC's goals, and without as much cost as has been originally projected (12 to 25 billion). The fact is I believe the cell carriers focus too much on closing their network, instead of improving and giving consumers choice. Spending more time on going for exclusive devices instead of improving the network. Therefore I propose the following.

1. Mandate a National standard and priority to require the next generation of cellular connectivity to Wi-Max using 802.11n speeds and quality. I have heard great things about this new standard from Academic institutions such as Duke University which was rolling this technology out while still in research mode.

2. Enable the ability for cell carriers to work off a national standard of devices, using the Wi-Max standard.

3. In areas under served by cell access, obtain more towers, by allowing for use of state and local governments to use this system for connectivity to their systems, using SSL and VPN technology.

Establish the priority of making voice "just another app" and get more of the priority for using VOIP technology. Develop a system where each person is assigned a phone number (much like social security) and allow for that number to follow any service they use. (I am trying to use Voxox a interesting tool that puts Skype and GoogleVoice to shame, but can't use it effectively because the number assigned is in California, I am in Georgia. Of course the number can be private, and hidden for privacy and other reasons.

I believe that wire and fiber is required for offices and CO's, but I think we really need to move away from having to deal with the "Last Mile" debate running fiber and wire to each residence is costly, impractical and obsolete.

For the record, I am not in favor of a "TVA like" agency or for the Federal government to get into the broadband business. I believe instead in a "attitude adjustment" is necessary. This would enable current carriers an appropriate incentive to do the right thing, expand service and reduce cost. Of course if the standards are not acceptable to them (the carriers) then change is necessary. For example there are folks that have bought phones in Europe and send to the states with Wi-Fi capability because the cell carriers are very reluctant to provide that service. Though for economic reasons or overall view that data service is too costly unable or unwilling to buy phones with the extra cost. Including the prepaid phones, as you may have a spare phone, but cannot use it which has wi-fi due to prepaid carriers scare of their revenue stream.

I am fully in favor of a free market approach, but when there are different standards, burdensome regulations and overly expensive service, then the FCC should be able to reshuffle the deck without killing the companies outright.

Comments (0)The Open Internet & Innovation, wi-fi, public safety, cellular

"neutralality" doublespeak for "We control so you can live"

Sat, 13 Mar 2010 18:20:13 PST

-2

Vote On Idea

Novel idea if the government could unbind the administrators hands with royalties for placement, open distribution of office space for demarks/postmarks of hubs.
This is need before any of the untopian playland of the net you prose there Toi

With the Government gone we can go back where the Net started. As an academic tool for masters of there trade to teach the apprentice and welcome journeymen at cost only to those wishing a world where profiteering isn't the main goal. But giving back to a community as what? Large as the WHOLE WORLD?

Think on it. Wake up. Rage against government. Tribalism worked for thousand of years. Why do we give power over to those we know nothing about? With cash or a vote?

Do not live in fear. This world needs power in the individual not a world government dictating and saving our proverbial buts every time we get in a little trouble. Health Care & Industry included.

Time to wake up. Rage against the machine. Then find a philosophy at least resembling a toy soldier or Dr Steel.

You all may take this with a grain of salt but remember crazy is not crazy, just a new way of thinking on things. Such is the life of the higher-wise.

Comments (0)The Open Internet & Innovation, network admin, backbone, end use, demark, fiber, bandwidth, smurf, attack, network, educate

Please provide a realistic anti Net Neutrality argument

Thu, 11 Mar 2010 11:35:45 PST

Vote On Idea

I've been on this site for a while and almost all the anti-Net Neutrality arguments seem to make a misleading argument that the Government is trying to censor and inhibit our freedoms on the internet. I would like to hear comments about the current state of the internet. Do you believe the 3 or so current internet providers are proponents to an internet experience that benefits Americans and provides equal and unfettered access to the internet? If so tell me why, I dare you. These anti-Net Neutrality arguments remind me a lot of campaign commercials that place their emphasis on attacking the opposition rather than promote their own grade. Honestly it seems like most of these anti-Net Neutrality comments are coming from Comcast, AT&T and Verizon employees or CEO's trying to skew this debate.

I dare you to argue to me that after I have paid money for the internet another company should be able to manipulate that experience. Solid Net Neutrality laws ensure a level playing field on the internet, please tell me why that is bad.

This is the internet people, it is the only media outlet we have left that we can mostly call free, don't let that get taken away too. The average person cannot start up a television station tomorrow, nor could they start a newspaper or radio station, however on the internet ANY persons blog can compete directly with any company's website regardless of the that company's size. Keep the internet fair.

Comments (1)The Open Internet & the Freedom of Speech

Questions to President Obama

Thu, 11 Mar 2010 06:50:53 PST

Vote On Idea

Mr. President,I am a Chinese student in nanjing, in 2008 , the special year ,I am very glad to know that the U.S. would get their first black president. Your"Yes, we can!"make me very sure that the relationship betweenChina and America will step to a high level,but your behaviour of meeting with the Dalai Lama make me confuse.I'm confusing that whether I can believe in you to make a difference between China and America .And now I still want to support you and wish you to win the president race in 2012.and I want to know your answer about my question. Thank you!

Comments (0)The Open Internet & the Freedom of Speech

We need net neutrality so this kind of garbage doesn't happen.

Sun, 07 Mar 2010 13:47:44 PST

Vote On Idea

Disney Pulls ABC From Cablevision After Deal Fails
By BRIAN STELTER AND BROOKS BARNES

Updated at 4:15 p.m. Sunday
Cablevision and The Walt Disney Company traded barbs Sunday after WABC was removed from the company’s cable television line-ups, a consequence of a failed contract negotiation....

--New York Times, March 7, 2010

---

What the government should do, and nothing more, and nothing less, is just make sure every man/woman/child in this country has free unfettered access to at least a terabit up/down connectivity to every one else.

That speed should be constantly upgraded on a regular basis so that new technologies based on all the increased bandwidth become an everyday occurrence.

We cannot afford to have a system where a fight between some cable provider and some information provider results in this kind of greedy behavior. It wouldn't be possible with high speed inter-connectivity for all because there would be many ways to send and receive information.

It is a matter of national security that we must be able to communicate with each other in an unfettered way with ever increasing speeds, and no opportunity for anybody to attain any kind of position of control like what cablevision has done.

Comments (1)The Open Internet & Innovation, open, speed, access, control, terabit

Overview: Networks and the new Vision

Mon, 01 Mar 2010 11:48:27 PST

Vote On Idea

We Americans are some of the most inovative people when it comes to Tech, but lacking when it comes to acutally using CURRENT tech. Copper, instead of fiber. Servers, sorely lacking in the ability to accept the current load of traffic, still being used waaaaay after their EOL (Read: End of Life). What is needed is a network that is built from the ground up for the future and the backing to do so*. Fiber (or a similarly high bandwidth capcity medium) is sorely needed. Companies are already currently in place to provide the installation and service of the Backbone, but are severly undermaned and underfunded to provide optimum service. End-use providers are branching out into places they should NOT be (case in point, ATT with their "ATT Connect Tech". Computers loaded with their connect software get hit the most from viruses. Coincidence or function for a service call?). Let's give them the support, so they can support *US*! Oversite of these companies would greatly improve quality of service as well as keeping in check the services rendered.

That is the plan for the Network. Now, for the administering of that Network!

To Disable the 'Net for our protection is folly and not a service, but indeed a DIS-Service to the rest of the World!

Reason?

ALL of the network is entwined at this point and shuting down our part cripples the rest of the world, as most traffic flows through the U.S. . Attacks are occurring all the time, both foreign and domestic and only now that SOME glimmer or awareness is dawning do we draw up defences?

Good! Let us go with that!

But, if you want to protect against terrorist attacks (and believe me, the key here to remember is ATTACKS.. many, MANY attacks) both foreign and domestic, do so at the administration level and deny the denyers. Smarter rulesets (instead of off and on, the ability to do more, IE: if an ICMP echo request is coming in too many number of times in a given timeframe [also known as a "Smurf" attack], a ruleset to limit the banwidth from that IP on that request would kick in) are needed along with better education on how to administer the networks. Working with agencies already in place might be wise also ( www.us-cert.gov ). Not an oversight on the networks themselves, but indeed over the people who administer the networks. Not just backbone; from backbone to distributaion (ie distro) and from distro to demark. Even educate the techs who service and repair the end-users local networks, so that they mey be protected via the hardware in the ROUTER rather than slapping some software to bog down end user's already underpowered PC's. Have network admins licenced at the Network+ level be for a term (as with Ham radio licences), rather than life. This way, the knowlege for current tech is assured to reach the admins. Working closely with currently established testing agencies, such as CompTIA, Microsoft instead of govenmental test would be ideal, as .. well, they are already in place and recognised! Please feel to question/flame freely, as this is a vison from a hardware techs point of viewand is limited to my dealings with backbone providers, end-use providers and end users. I have been in the business for 19 years, but I havn't seen everything

*It took three Presidents to get the Interstate system from idea to funding and moving forward [Http://www.interstate50th.org/introduction.shtml}. Instead of six terms ( From Franklin D. Roosevelt to Dwight D. Eisenhower ), lets get this plan moving in ONE!!! Granted, it is a more daunting task, but remember, this is for the Planet, not just for the U.S. of A.

Comments (1)Workshop--Technical Advisory Process on Broadband Network Management, network admin, backbone, end use, demark, fiber, bandwidth, smurf, attack, network, educate

The reason why this should be passed, and not the ACTA.

Sun, 28 Feb 2010 16:15:28 PST

Vote On Idea

To the people who are saying that this should not happen: Why should we let all the large monopolies that provide internet service block things such as P2P (ahem Comcast), and filter the internet without our consent? If this measure is not passed then our internet will be changing to be like other countries that have filtered everything they find "wrong" out of the internet. Also, it seems as though this site is being censored as well because only the posts that are shouting that "The internet is already free, don't change it." are the only ones that get ranked highly, even though this bill does not mean the internet is being controlled by the government. It means that all traffic going through ISPs must be treated equally, including P2P.

Also, one of the things I have not seen mentioned here is the ACTA. With the ACTA being passed, it is basically letting media companies, such as the RIAA or MPAA prioritize and filter traffic going over the internet as they so choose. This means that there is going to be a three-strikes law that kicks you off of the internet even if the accusations are not proven. If the net neutrality bill passes, this will prevent the ACTA negotiators from requiring that people be kicked off the internet without any proof, therefore leading to more troubles.

This is why the bill should be passed, even if the movie companies (RIAA,MPAA) and the ISPs that want to require "mandatory" internet filtering oppose it. Also, if this post is extremely lowly ranked so as to make it not appear, it is another example of censorship by ACTA supporters and Net Neutrality haters.

The internet is not free, as it is now. It is in a state where any internet-providing company can filter and discriminate traffic as it chooses, and can file DMCA notices against content online that it does not like, regardless of if it infringes or not.

If this is rejected, monopolies that are only looking at how much money they receive from something, not quality, are able to shut down a smaller company by patent trolling them over patents that cover broad ideas that many other companies use and therefore removing competition, so therefore removing innovation.

Comments (0)The Open Internet & the Freedom of Speech, acta is a problem