...more recent posts
"Right now the typical cable operator uses one analog channel (6 MHz – usually channel 80) for Internet service. That’s ONE PERCENT of the total bandwidth on an analog cable network. Give up a shopping channel and Internet bandwidth could be instantly doubled."
Is that true? Is any of this true?
In South Africa, carrier pigeon faster than broadband
gmail down?
"Perlman says OnLive [net-based game platform]’s combination of compression algorithms, distributed data centers and deals with Internet carriers to minimize transmission delays typically pushes the latency figure as low as 25 to 35 milliseconds, and no more than 80 in the worst case."
"deals with internet carriers"--isn't that what every media provider wants and doesn't it violate net neutrality? Curious to hear any thoughts on this.
forever amazon
Adobe To Move Flash Into Digital TVs
if only i had an identity to manage.
Introduction to Cliqset from Cliqset on Vimeo.
17-year-old claims responsibility for Twitter worm
whats your general impression of this article?
Yikes: Time Warner moves forward with tiered bandwidth pricing. I actually don't mind paying by the bit if they would charge anywhere close to market bandwidth prices. But $1 per GB when you go over your (very limited) cap? Are they serious? And the cap on the biggest tier is 40 GB per month?
Of course, if there is no price collusion, this means that the telecos should be able to wipe them out of the game with DSL. But we'll see how that works. Depending on AT&T to save us seems like a risky bet.
Julius Genachowski to head the FCC. Apparently this is a good thing, although I don't know much about him. From the article:
Genachowski was a Harvard classmate of Obama's and previously worked for Democratic Sen. Chuck Schumer. He's currently a co-founder of LaunchBox Digital and Rock Creek Ventures, and held executive posts including general counsel at IAC/InterActiveCorp, which owns a list of Web properties including Ask.com, Match.com, Gifts.com, Reference.com, Evite, Citysearch, and Excite. IAC is a member of a coalition that supports more Net neutrality regulations and which also includes Amazon, eBay, and Google.That last part sounds good.
Yochai Benkler (short version: good guy) on broadband funding in the stimulus package. I'm not hopeful about anything financial these days, but it's nice to see some optimism.
"Democrats sneak Net neutrality rules into 'stimulus' bill". Haven't had time to read through this so I don't know if it's true or what the bill looks like. But could be interesting.
Any thoughts on whether Google's practice of edge caching (storing content such as YouTube videos on servers close to people's homes for faster loads, etc, as I understand it) violates an open, neutral Net?
"Dark web space' hides net nasties
--a great headline if nothing else
Flash on iPhone? -- a computer that doesn't support Flash is a flawed computer.
From Slashdot:
"The Obama-Biden transition team on Friday named two long-time net neutrality advocates to head up its Federal Communications Commission Review team. Susan Crawford, a professor at the University of Michigan Law School, member of the board of directors of ICANN, and OneWebDay founder, as well as Kevin Werbach, former FCC staffer, organizer of the annual Supernova technology conference, and a Wharton professor, will lead the Obama-Biden transition team's review of the FCC. 'Both are highly-regarded outside-the-Beltway experts in telecom policy, and they've both been pretty harsh critics of the Bush administration's telecom policies in the past year.' The choice of the duo strongly signals an entirely different approach to the incumbent-friendly telecom policy-making that's characterized most of the past eight-years at the FCC."I'm happy with these picks of course, even though I've always been cautious about net neutrality legislation. Not because I don't want a neutral network, but because of the oversized role big business plays in crafting such legislation. I've had this long Cato Institute study queued up for the past week but haven't been able to get through more than the introduction: "The Durable Internet: Preserving Network Neutrality without Regulation." It seems to get at the major point behind my nervousness:
New regulations inevitably come with unintended consequences. Indeed, today's network neutrality debate is strikingly similar to the debate that produced the first modern regulatory agency, the Interstate Commerce Commission. Unfortunately, rather than protecting consumers from the railroads, the ICC protected the railroads from competition by erecting new barriers to entry in the surface transportation marketplace. Other 20th-century regulatory agencies also limited competition in the industries they regulated. Like these older regulatory regimes, network neutrality regulations are likely not to achieve their intended aims. Given the need for more competition in the broadband marketplace, policymakers should be especially wary of enacting regulations that could become a barrier to entry for new broadband firms.Still, I'm less nervous about legislation in an Obama admin then I would have been under Bush! And beyond that specific legal question it's just nice to see some people being picked who actually know what they are talking about.