I wrote to three Alaska representatives today regarding the Internet Freedom Preservation Act of 2009 (H.R. 3458). I encourage everyone to read the bill [easy read] and write to your representatives in Congress to uphold the recent guidelines established by the FCC. You can easily do this by going to savetheinternet.com and signing the petition, which will automatically get sent to your representatives. Feel free to check out the FAQ for more information. Do the right thing.

Senator John McCain has been speaking out against the Internet Freedom Preservation Act of 2009 and has introduced his own “Internet Freedom Act,” just to confuse people of course. And nevermind that several of Mr. McCain’s top fund-raisers lobby for the telecommunications industry, which regularly does business before the Senate Commerce Committee, where Mr. McCain is a senior member and once served as chairman.

I am quite disappointed that our elected members of congress can be so easily bought by lobbyists representing companies like AT&T, Verizon, Comcast and Time Warner Cable.

Oh yeah, and then there’s the whole:

AT&T’s top lobbyist Jim Cicconi sent a memo to managers urging them to encourage their families and friends “to join the voices telling the FCC not to regulate the Internet.”

thing served up by CNET’s Maggy Reardon. Jesus.

Please now refer back to the title of this post.

Maggie Reardon has posted an article which will certainly make mobile phone lovers want to beat AT&T, Verizon and Comcast like a “narc” at a biker rally. FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski wants to add two additional rules to the ongoing net neutrality push:

The first would prevent Internet access providers from discriminating against particular Internet content or applications, while allowing for reasonable network management. The second principle would ensure that Internet access providers are transparent about the network management practices they implement.

Sounds reasonable to me, but I’m not a major wireless service provider.

‘AT&T has long supported the principle of an open Internet and has conducted its business accordingly,’ Jim Cicconi, AT&T’s senior vice president of external and legislative affairs, said in a statement.

Mmm-K, so are the two rules listed above not conducive to an open Internet?

Again, from the article:

“We are concerned, however, that the FCC appears ready to extend the entire array of Net neutrality requirements to what is perhaps the most competitive consumer market in America: wireless services,” he said.

Awww. Poor wittle Cicconi doesn’t wanna pway nice wit da big, bad FCC.

‘If consumers had a wide choice of broadband service providers, preserving an open Internet might not be such a critical issue,’ Vint Cerf, Google’s chief Internet evangelist, wrote in a blog post he published Monday.

Bingo.

This post has been categorized in television, standards, and politics. Seriously, run screaming. So, unless you live in a tree or have been trapped under something heavy for the past…oh, 3 years and change, the digital-TV (DTV) transition has been set for February 17 June 12 is now optional on or after February 17 but mandatory before June 12. Nope, that’s not confusing at all. Scarier still, I actually agreed with Republicans on this one.

So Congress approved the delay of the digital-TV transition and now it sits on Obama’s desk, who is likely to sign it. But don’t fret! There’s still time to convince him otherwise (feedback form). I wonder just how many “This is b*llsh*t!” comments it will take for President O to change his mind. I’m thinking a lot. My comment? “This is b*llsh*t.” I didn’t feel an exclamation point was justified.

My wife and I do not subscribe to a cable TV service; we just don’t feel like paying a shedload of money for 137 channels when only 5 actually have programs worth watching. So, we do the whole Mac Mini/connect to LCD/Hulu/Netflix Streaming/YouTube thang and only pay for an Internet connection. And don’t think I haven’t called up my cable company’s marketing department and demanded à la carte channel selection from my cable service…because I have.

Why the delay? What say you, oh noble Democrats? Americans are confused! We’re not ready! From the NYT article:

One viewer complained she was only getting five channels—but she had neglected to connect the antenna. Another visually impaired consumer couldn’t figure out how to connect the box. A third didn’t know which of the “thingies” to use to connect the cables.

Some unlucky folks, who actually know what to do with their “thingies,” are SOL because we also ran out of flippin’ coupons…oh the humanity! This is TV, m’kay, not air. How many will actually be affected? According to Snider’s Ars Technica article:

As of December 2008, approximately 6 percent of U.S. residences, including vacation residences, exclusively rely on such analog reception.

Six percent? That’s it? So, all this money is being spent so that the 6% can continue to watch reruns of the Andy Griffith Show and Mash on their 17-year old boob-tubes? I honestly think the people who haven’t made the switch to DTV yet simply can’t lift their old TVs. Don’t worry about all of the money that will be lost; never mind the bastard electronics stores milking everyone’s confusion like the proverbial cow with rabbit-ears. It comes down to this: make the switch and end it. The delay will cause more harm than good. Why build up the PR for this thing for 3 years and then, weeks before the big date…”eh, let’s blow this thing off until the Spring. The weather is better in June, so maybe then we’ll get better reception.”

Read more:

Updated: 18-Feb, 2009

Bookmark and Share