The FCC has posted the Net Neutrality rules. You can read the background, discussion, rules, and ordering clauses here.
FCC Report and Order 12/21/10: Net Neutrality.
Saturday, December 25, 2010
Thursday, December 23, 2010
The venue changes regarding wireless carriers and Net Neutrality.
Now that the FCC is finished with the Net Neutrality docket for now, it's time to move the case for Internet radio and its potential on mobile devices that use the Internet, whether it be a smartphone, a laptop, a netbook, or a standalone device, etc., to the Federal Trade Commission. I just posted this to another blog, as comments, but felt they were good enough to repeat here on my own blog about the subject of Internet radio.
The next thing Internet radio needs to do is to start feeding the info about problems with wireless carriers to the Federal Trade Communications. In trying to explain the seriousness of the issue to the FCC today, they simply blew me off saying they could not regulate what wireless companies did.
So I called the FTC, who seems to be more amenable to working with us on matters of Internet radio and some of the matters not settled by the FCC in the matter of net neutrality and wireless carriers.
.
Simply give them a call with your issue, they’ll take an abstract of your complaint, then give you a case number. Follow up right away with a snail mail letter to the address they give you giving them the details. Include the case number give you over the phone within the letter you write. Be as detailed as possible with your specific issue or general concern.
Net radio providers need to let them know of the possible loss of listenership, through such methods as bandwidth caps, favoring rival stations and applications, etc.
Listeners also need to complain about bandwidth caps and the high and outright in some cases exhorbitant prices being charged for very little bandwidth. Should you notice favoring of one app or service over another that is also good cause to file complaints with the FTC.
For any Internet radio service to grow and flourish, the wireless companies must be brought to the realization they could kill off the golden goose before it even hatches. If they continue with capping how much bandwidth users can use, and favor one app or station over another, they are going to need to be held accountable for what they do.
So please complain to the FTC with at the start a general complaint, the more they hear from the Internet radio community on these and other Net Neutrality issues, the sooner they will act. Their website with the phone number to call, it’s toll-free, is at http://www.ftc.gov/ and the ‘Contact Us’ link is at the bottom of the main page.
The next thing Internet radio needs to do is to start feeding the info about problems with wireless carriers to the Federal Trade Communications. In trying to explain the seriousness of the issue to the FCC today, they simply blew me off saying they could not regulate what wireless companies did.
So I called the FTC, who seems to be more amenable to working with us on matters of Internet radio and some of the matters not settled by the FCC in the matter of net neutrality and wireless carriers.
.
Simply give them a call with your issue, they’ll take an abstract of your complaint, then give you a case number. Follow up right away with a snail mail letter to the address they give you giving them the details. Include the case number give you over the phone within the letter you write. Be as detailed as possible with your specific issue or general concern.
Net radio providers need to let them know of the possible loss of listenership, through such methods as bandwidth caps, favoring rival stations and applications, etc.
Listeners also need to complain about bandwidth caps and the high and outright in some cases exhorbitant prices being charged for very little bandwidth. Should you notice favoring of one app or service over another that is also good cause to file complaints with the FTC.
For any Internet radio service to grow and flourish, the wireless companies must be brought to the realization they could kill off the golden goose before it even hatches. If they continue with capping how much bandwidth users can use, and favor one app or station over another, they are going to need to be held accountable for what they do.
So please complain to the FTC with at the start a general complaint, the more they hear from the Internet radio community on these and other Net Neutrality issues, the sooner they will act. Their website with the phone number to call, it’s toll-free, is at http://www.ftc.gov/ and the ‘Contact Us’ link is at the bottom of the main page.
Tuesday, December 21, 2010
The FCC passes 'Net Neutrality' regulations, in part aimed at protecting Internet radio
The FCC today passed the long-awaited, and much-needed 'Net Neutrality' regulations. Only the press release is up yet, but even that has drawn so much traffic I'm still not able to access it, but here's the link: You may have to cut and paste this into your browser address bar.
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303746.pdf
Various reports about the regulations themselves I've seen, indicate that any ISP will not be able to divert your request for one content provider, such as Netflix, in favor of their preferred web content provider. This effectively addresses the Level 3 complaint regarding Comcast earlier this month, which I mentioned only days ago.
The regulations will also prohibit the blocking of the use of VOIP apps like Skype, etc.
Those regulations will protect Internet radio because broadcasting is protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. They will do this by allowing everyone access to the audio content of their choice, whether it be music, talk, etc. The Constituion also protects 'freedom of association', and the regulations will protect that by allowing you to do business online with any lawful business of your choice, without interference by another business, in this case the website or radio station of your choice, without restraint of trade by the other party, that other party being the ISP.
Jobs will be created, contrary to those that say that Net Neutrality will destroy jobs, because businesses will be free to start up on the Internet without fear of interference from trusts like big ISPs, etc. Net Neutrality supports all existing antitrust laws and rulings.
Yet after all is said and done today, this is only the start. There are still issues with exclusive content on wireless providers, and while this settles the Skype rulemaking of a couple years back as well, there are still dangers out there that will need to be addressed regarding a free and open Internet, especially with the wireless phone industry provided Internet services. Consumer advocates want that to be addressesd as well.
But it's a start with today's rulings, and a very positive start too.
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303746.pdf
Various reports about the regulations themselves I've seen, indicate that any ISP will not be able to divert your request for one content provider, such as Netflix, in favor of their preferred web content provider. This effectively addresses the Level 3 complaint regarding Comcast earlier this month, which I mentioned only days ago.
The regulations will also prohibit the blocking of the use of VOIP apps like Skype, etc.
Those regulations will protect Internet radio because broadcasting is protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. They will do this by allowing everyone access to the audio content of their choice, whether it be music, talk, etc. The Constituion also protects 'freedom of association', and the regulations will protect that by allowing you to do business online with any lawful business of your choice, without interference by another business, in this case the website or radio station of your choice, without restraint of trade by the other party, that other party being the ISP.
Jobs will be created, contrary to those that say that Net Neutrality will destroy jobs, because businesses will be free to start up on the Internet without fear of interference from trusts like big ISPs, etc. Net Neutrality supports all existing antitrust laws and rulings.
Yet after all is said and done today, this is only the start. There are still issues with exclusive content on wireless providers, and while this settles the Skype rulemaking of a couple years back as well, there are still dangers out there that will need to be addressed regarding a free and open Internet, especially with the wireless phone industry provided Internet services. Consumer advocates want that to be addressesd as well.
But it's a start with today's rulings, and a very positive start too.
Monday, December 20, 2010
In-car Internet radio may go more mainstream in 2011.
Reports are surfacing via Twice.com, Radio and Internet Newsletter, and others that manufacturers are set to unveil inexpensive head units that will support Internet radio through mainly smartphones in 2011, and do it much mroe cheaply than before, putting mobile Internet radio within the reach of many more people.
One report I've seen puts the cost of a head unit, which is what you buy, down to as little as $179. That is not all that much more than the average car stereo that you would buy at Walmart, or most seen at Best Buy.
They will also start to support more smartphones too, not just the iPhone, some will support Android devices right off, Android is now the most widely available smartphone operating system, more handsets and devices are out there combined than iPhoes.
The only real problem left to allowing Internet radio in the car or handheld to go more mainstream, is the onerous bandwidth caps that severely limit how much Internet radio one can listen to each month, and the exhorbitant costs some providers are charging, as once the bandwidth caps are lifted, and we go back to the unlimited plans everyone had until this year for the most part on AT&T and Verizon, and bring the costs down to about $30 to $40 a month, and also eventually have, in addition to smartphones, 'Internet radio-only' devices as well, then Internet radio in the car will really and finally be allowed to take off, and the adventure in great radio listening ca begin.
One report I've seen puts the cost of a head unit, which is what you buy, down to as little as $179. That is not all that much more than the average car stereo that you would buy at Walmart, or most seen at Best Buy.
They will also start to support more smartphones too, not just the iPhone, some will support Android devices right off, Android is now the most widely available smartphone operating system, more handsets and devices are out there combined than iPhoes.
The only real problem left to allowing Internet radio in the car or handheld to go more mainstream, is the onerous bandwidth caps that severely limit how much Internet radio one can listen to each month, and the exhorbitant costs some providers are charging, as once the bandwidth caps are lifted, and we go back to the unlimited plans everyone had until this year for the most part on AT&T and Verizon, and bring the costs down to about $30 to $40 a month, and also eventually have, in addition to smartphones, 'Internet radio-only' devices as well, then Internet radio in the car will really and finally be allowed to take off, and the adventure in great radio listening ca begin.
Saturday, December 18, 2010
Senator Hutchison's amendment a threat to Internet radio.
The FCC is considering and will release rules on Tuesday, December 21, about net neutrality, which will protect all Internet users, including those who provide and use Internet radio, from being blocked by Internet service providers, or web radio operators from being charged fees on the recipient's end, they already pay for the bandwidth on the website host end.
But Senator Kay Baily Hutchison (R-Texas), is threatening Internet radio and all other lawful uses by attaching an amendment which would bar the FCC from enforcing Net Neutrality, and that is a serious threat to major Internet radio services such as Pandora, Slacker, Last.fm, mog.com, etc. It could even drive them, and many other major Internet sites such as Google, Yahoo, MSN, etc., offline or severely reduce their efforts to provide a legally and lawfully protected service.
Net Neutrality would not protect botnets, spammers, terrorists, child pornographers, etc., and that includes any illegal activity, ISPs would be free to block those types of content, but all other commony accessed content and usage of the Internet would be protected.
Go to Senator Hutchison's site, at senate.gov/~hutchison and click on 'Contact Me' on the left, and fill out the email form. 'Texas' will be a default state but you can change that to reflect your actual state of residence. Let her know you strongly disapprove of her attempt to keep the FCC from excercising its constitutional mandate and that any attempt to ban enforcement of Net Neutrality would essentially force the FCC into violating their oaths of office, to uphold, protect, and defend the Constitution, as amended by the First Amendment.
In fact, many political sites could be adversely affected, come to think of it.
Without allowing Net Neutrality, we could see a huge loss in jobs, throwing us into a depression, and that could be worse than the already existing recession caused by the housing matter, which by the way started in Las Vegas, and that was never widely reported. The 'dot-com' bubble of 1999-2001 was starting a recession which was exascerbated by the 9/11 attacks, we would have had a recession anyway, but now the high-tech/Internet industry is far larger than then, and many areas with high-tech jobs such as in her own state, near places like Round Rock, could see heavy job losses.
And many small companies may be unable to be online at all, causing huge losses in customers, etc., and they could be brought under not to mention large ones too.
I don't have the bill name or number, but that can be found in the other news reports that are out there, just the mention of her attempt to ban the FCC from enforcing Net Neutrality will help get the message across.
And keep you being able to listen to net radio, and do all the other good things you can do on the net as well. Is that worth preserving? It is.
UPDATE: This was just discovered to be in the Omnibus spending bill that Harry Reid, D-Nevada, the Senate Majority Leader, pulled from consideration by this congress. We still need to write not just our own Senator and House members, because Senator Hutchison or others may try to sneak this in again. It may appear as part of another bill under a new bill number once Congress reconvenes in January. As it was, the Omnibus bill was 2,500 pages long, Republicans were going to ask for a full reading of the bill, which given the size would take the reading clerks more than 48 hours straight to read it all.
And how many people would see the amendment in time toact to scuttle it?
But Senator Kay Baily Hutchison (R-Texas), is threatening Internet radio and all other lawful uses by attaching an amendment which would bar the FCC from enforcing Net Neutrality, and that is a serious threat to major Internet radio services such as Pandora, Slacker, Last.fm, mog.com, etc. It could even drive them, and many other major Internet sites such as Google, Yahoo, MSN, etc., offline or severely reduce their efforts to provide a legally and lawfully protected service.
Net Neutrality would not protect botnets, spammers, terrorists, child pornographers, etc., and that includes any illegal activity, ISPs would be free to block those types of content, but all other commony accessed content and usage of the Internet would be protected.
Go to Senator Hutchison's site, at senate.gov/~hutchison and click on 'Contact Me' on the left, and fill out the email form. 'Texas' will be a default state but you can change that to reflect your actual state of residence. Let her know you strongly disapprove of her attempt to keep the FCC from excercising its constitutional mandate and that any attempt to ban enforcement of Net Neutrality would essentially force the FCC into violating their oaths of office, to uphold, protect, and defend the Constitution, as amended by the First Amendment.
In fact, many political sites could be adversely affected, come to think of it.
Without allowing Net Neutrality, we could see a huge loss in jobs, throwing us into a depression, and that could be worse than the already existing recession caused by the housing matter, which by the way started in Las Vegas, and that was never widely reported. The 'dot-com' bubble of 1999-2001 was starting a recession which was exascerbated by the 9/11 attacks, we would have had a recession anyway, but now the high-tech/Internet industry is far larger than then, and many areas with high-tech jobs such as in her own state, near places like Round Rock, could see heavy job losses.
And many small companies may be unable to be online at all, causing huge losses in customers, etc., and they could be brought under not to mention large ones too.
I don't have the bill name or number, but that can be found in the other news reports that are out there, just the mention of her attempt to ban the FCC from enforcing Net Neutrality will help get the message across.
And keep you being able to listen to net radio, and do all the other good things you can do on the net as well. Is that worth preserving? It is.
UPDATE: This was just discovered to be in the Omnibus spending bill that Harry Reid, D-Nevada, the Senate Majority Leader, pulled from consideration by this congress. We still need to write not just our own Senator and House members, because Senator Hutchison or others may try to sneak this in again. It may appear as part of another bill under a new bill number once Congress reconvenes in January. As it was, the Omnibus bill was 2,500 pages long, Republicans were going to ask for a full reading of the bill, which given the size would take the reading clerks more than 48 hours straight to read it all.
And how many people would see the amendment in time toact to scuttle it?
Monday, December 6, 2010
Comcast demand for fees to pass through content could bring down web audio, vidoeo services
News is breaking this morning via blogs like Radio Survivor and the Radio and Internet Newsletter (RAIN) that Comcast has allegedly demanded fees of providers of video content to pass that content on to its Internet customers.
The chief accuser is supposedly Level 3 Communications, who provides the bandwidth and pass-through services for Netflix, which has grown wildly in the last year or two, so much so that it is now on a large number of consumer devices such as game consoles, DVD players, and even TVs. It will be on Google TV and other Internet TV interfaces that are either out there or that have yet to be invented. It can be accessed via desktop computers as well.
Another big video provider this could affect is Youtube. Youtube serves up two billion videos a day to US users according to a statement at a conference aired on C-SPAN about how social media is helping in emergency situations, such as the Haiti earthquake.
This even has implications for Pandora and other audio services, even though they take up less bandwidth than most video providers do. It could bring down many web video and audio services were this permitted to stand.
The FCC will take up Net Neutrality, and put the Internet under Section 706 of the Communications Act of 1934, but since this was so late in the process I could not get this news into the comments, but in talking with the FCC about the story, I was able to get an email address and sent the link to it to them. This may tip the matter in favor of Net Neutrality, it is controversial, but never should have been.
All this began when a consumer filed comments in November 2007 about Comcat sending false 'download failed' messages. If clicked on, it caused the download to stop. The matter was Bittorrent files, some of which are legit as companies like Disney, etc., use that format to send files down to the user, who decodes them with another piece of software to be used on the device he intended it for. It is considered more efficient than some other methods, and possibly lossless as well.
So everyone needs to stand up to Comcast or any other provider who attempts to throttle what they can see or not see. Charging fees of content providers who already have to pay fees to be online and send stuff out anyway is discriminatory under Federal laws anyway, and would put the economy at risk. It could trigger another dot-com bust, which was one of the contributing factors to the 1999-2002 recession, even before the 9/11 attacks, the 9/11 attacks only aggravated the situation further.
Best to discuss this matter with your congressman, we cannot allow the double-charging of content providers for their content, and risk a major economic disaster, by failing to ensure net neutrality among all providers. It could affect everyone adversely in the end, and throw our technological progress back many years if it is not enacted into settled law.
The chief accuser is supposedly Level 3 Communications, who provides the bandwidth and pass-through services for Netflix, which has grown wildly in the last year or two, so much so that it is now on a large number of consumer devices such as game consoles, DVD players, and even TVs. It will be on Google TV and other Internet TV interfaces that are either out there or that have yet to be invented. It can be accessed via desktop computers as well.
Another big video provider this could affect is Youtube. Youtube serves up two billion videos a day to US users according to a statement at a conference aired on C-SPAN about how social media is helping in emergency situations, such as the Haiti earthquake.
This even has implications for Pandora and other audio services, even though they take up less bandwidth than most video providers do. It could bring down many web video and audio services were this permitted to stand.
The FCC will take up Net Neutrality, and put the Internet under Section 706 of the Communications Act of 1934, but since this was so late in the process I could not get this news into the comments, but in talking with the FCC about the story, I was able to get an email address and sent the link to it to them. This may tip the matter in favor of Net Neutrality, it is controversial, but never should have been.
All this began when a consumer filed comments in November 2007 about Comcat sending false 'download failed' messages. If clicked on, it caused the download to stop. The matter was Bittorrent files, some of which are legit as companies like Disney, etc., use that format to send files down to the user, who decodes them with another piece of software to be used on the device he intended it for. It is considered more efficient than some other methods, and possibly lossless as well.
So everyone needs to stand up to Comcast or any other provider who attempts to throttle what they can see or not see. Charging fees of content providers who already have to pay fees to be online and send stuff out anyway is discriminatory under Federal laws anyway, and would put the economy at risk. It could trigger another dot-com bust, which was one of the contributing factors to the 1999-2002 recession, even before the 9/11 attacks, the 9/11 attacks only aggravated the situation further.
Best to discuss this matter with your congressman, we cannot allow the double-charging of content providers for their content, and risk a major economic disaster, by failing to ensure net neutrality among all providers. It could affect everyone adversely in the end, and throw our technological progress back many years if it is not enacted into settled law.
Friday, December 3, 2010
Welcome to Internet Radio News and Reviews
Welcome to the Internet Radio News and Reviews blog. On a regular basis I will be covering news stories, and review various Internet radio happenings and stations and services.
Internet radio is starting to make serious inroads to traditional AM/FM radio, and satellite radio as well. It is thought that it may not impact satellite radio as much, as that will be useful in areas where one cannot get a good wireless signal to your mobile device or car Internet system.
While AM/FM has served us well, ownership consolidation has stifled format innovation, and now in many markets there is little choice in available formats to listen to. Enter Internet radio, and now anyone can put up a station, the FCC process does not apply, and it can be up within days rather than years, I've seen some stations take 20 years to finally be set up, built, and on the air from the time the application is submitted until it finally hits the air. The other matter is less cost, and more coverage area. AM/FM is limited to a specific coverage area the transmitter can hit, further limited by its transmitting power, and even terrain and buidding construction.
So watch for new developments, I'll be posting much more over the months and years to come.
Internet radio is starting to make serious inroads to traditional AM/FM radio, and satellite radio as well. It is thought that it may not impact satellite radio as much, as that will be useful in areas where one cannot get a good wireless signal to your mobile device or car Internet system.
While AM/FM has served us well, ownership consolidation has stifled format innovation, and now in many markets there is little choice in available formats to listen to. Enter Internet radio, and now anyone can put up a station, the FCC process does not apply, and it can be up within days rather than years, I've seen some stations take 20 years to finally be set up, built, and on the air from the time the application is submitted until it finally hits the air. The other matter is less cost, and more coverage area. AM/FM is limited to a specific coverage area the transmitter can hit, further limited by its transmitting power, and even terrain and buidding construction.
So watch for new developments, I'll be posting much more over the months and years to come.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)