The difference between telling and showing

This post is a text book example of how not to write a post for a public affairs blog. Americans are bombarded with the world is going to end rhetoric. In order to be credible you need to show rather than tell.

In the case of net neutrality, you need to explain example by example what the practical consequences would be if the point-to-point architecture of the Internet were to be compromised. You need to cite specific examples of Internet Service Providers limiting access to demonstrate that this is a serious issue. Most of the time Save the Internet does this. This post fell short of their previous standard.

The net neutrality debate reconsidered

I spent the morning at the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation at their symposium, Designed for Change: End-to-End Arguments, Internet Innovation, and the Net Neutrality Debate.

The presenters discussed net neutrality from different perspectives, but they all, to one degree or another, characterized net neutrality advocates as religious and even according to one of the speakers in the dark ages.

All the speakers characterized insistence on net neutrality as a threat to the sort of innovation necessary to manage the ever increasing traffic loads on the Internet.

The ITIF is engaged in a high risk strategy. If they succeed in characterizing advocates as hysterical and anti-science, they can marginalize them and control the terms of debate. If they can succeed in goading advocates of net neutrality, or even a significant number into extravagant flaming they will score a great victory in their effort to marginalize them.

On the other hand, this strategy could backfire. It wouldn’t be so difficult for advocates of net neutrality to characterized the ITIF as engaging in ad hominem rhetoric and failing to address their concerns about equal access. There was a certain amount of anti-government rhetoric, nothing over-the-top, but plenty of unsubstantiated allegations of how the FCC might stifle innovation if they insist on net neutrality. By engaging in the rhetoric of insult they have precluded any sincere dialog with advocates of net neutrality.

There is a new player in this debate. Let’s see how they handle themselves.

Edit -
Rob Pegoraro: The Internet has grown and prospered because of a principle built into its core design -- it's open to your imagination -- and that principle is worth defending.

The future of the Internet

I wonder if the Web 2.0 entrepreneurs and the venture capitalists who back them understand how much their business model is dependent upon a neutral web and how easily it could slip away from us.

Preach it brother Livingston

Net Neutrality Still An Issue

I am truly worried that the whole Web 2.0 does not get how dependent their business model is on net neutrality, or that they take it for granted.

Customer relations in the age of social media

Wayan asks if RCN is blocking Revver:

Revver works fine on my neighbour’s Verizon-provided Internet and other ISPs around DC. Its only RCN accounts that seem to be unable to access Revver.

His attempts to contact RCN for an explanation were unsuccessful.

There is no more important aspect of public relations than good customer service. When we think of pubic relations we think of getting good press and maybe corporate sponsored charity. We don’t think of answering the phone and solving a customer’s problem, but that is what defines a company’s reputation.

Customer service is not a career fast track. Maybe that is part of the problem. Maybe if company’s promoted from within, and promoted from those who deal directly with customers, they would have better customer service.

Mischaracterizing the debate on net neutrality

Telecoms sector braces for Democratic change

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A Democratic sweep in Tuesday's U.S. elections may clear the way for changes to Internet policy sought by Google Inc GOOG.O that would bar Internet providers from discriminating against some Web content.

The "net neutrality" issue pits Internet service providers (ISPs) like Comcast Corp (CMCSA.O: Quote, Profile, Research, Stock Buzz) and AT&T (T.N: Quote, Profile, Research, Stock Buzz) against content companies like Google and Microsoft Corp (MSFT.O: Quote, Profile, Research, Stock Buzz).

"Probably the thing that scares the industry the most about a Democratic administration is regulating the Internet," Dan Hesse, chief executive of Sprint Nextel (S.N: Quote, Profile, Research, Stock Buzz), said in a speech in Washington on October 24.

First of all this is not a debate about the merits of Internet regulation, it is a debate about who is going to regulate the Internet, a cabal of Internet Service Providers or the people's government. Secondly, this is not a debate between content providers and Internet Service Providers; this is a debate between Internet service providers and everybody else.

The Wall Street crisis and its lessons for net neutrality

Art Brodsky

The laws regulating the telecommunications world and those regulating the financial world have a joint history. The Communications Act of 1934 wasn’t passed in a vacuum. It was part of a new generation of laws that passed after the Depression, including the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. A law was passed in 1935 giving the Federal government the power to regulate interstate electricity, which updated a 1920 law governing water power much as the Communications Act updated the Federal Radio Act of 1927.

The Communications Act, as with the laws of the same era, was passed with the intent of protecting the public from the abuses of private industry. The basic tenets of non-discrimination were written into that law. If regulators do their jobs, everyone wins – the industry makes money and provides services, and consumers aren’t harmed. If regulators don’t do their jobs, and/or if a compliant Congress passes laws allowing for an industry to run wild by taking away federal regulation, then it’s a different story. That’s what happened in financial services and in telecommunications the last few years, and now we’re suffering the results.

We’re seeing that last scenario play out now on Wall Street, as firms acted unwisely with no government oversight, and the public ends up losing, whether from the taxpayer perspective, the loss of jobs, or the dumping into the toilet of retirement plans based on the stock market.

I am very concerned that the whole Web 2.0 crowd and the entire tech community are way too complacent about net neutrality. It is true that articles about net neutrality are regularly featured on Slashdot's front page and tech publications have done some great reporting on this, but I think too many people take the point-to-point architecture of the Web for granted and don't realize the entire basis of their business model could be destroyed.

Using metadata to expose astroturf

Wanted: Writers for D.C. tech lobby group, secrecy mandatory

A CNET News article published in June reported that the name of an LMG employee, Alexandra Esser, appeared in the metadata of the letter ostensibly written by the corn growers and other grassroots groups. LMG Vice President Gil Meneses told us at the time that Esser "merely PDF'd a copy before distributing it" to reporters.

This is a great argument for using text instead of attachments. That or you could do real public relations and build an actual coalition of groups that actually share your client's point of view.

The days of turning a blind eye to astroturf are at an end.

Senate hearing on Net Neutality

The Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation is having a hearing on the Future of the Internet. I am following the proceedings on Twitter.

Edit -
CNet reports on the morning's proceedings. EWeek says that FCC Chair Martin accused Comcast of widespread throttling. IP Democracy has a similar account. Save the Internet focuses on the testimony of representatives of the Writers Guild. Technology Liberation Front dismisses the Writers Guild representatives as celebrities.

Coin operated experts

Lawrence Lessig coins a brilliant phrase in talking about the coin operated experts which are so plentiful in our nation's capitol during his testimony to the FCC on the subject of net neutrality.

Clue to Lessig: e2e may be a cute logo for end-to-end, but take it from a professional communicator, it is just one more buzzword that confuses the public, and confusion is what the opponents of net neutrality are counting on.

The Washington Post and Arts Technica report on the day's proceedings. Strangely Silicon Valley Watcher is silent, as is Tech Crunch.

Blowing smoke on net neutrality

Baltimore Business Journal

"Why should I have to pay a special higher premium toll for something that's basically essential to my business?" said Miller, now president of the D.C.-based Career College Association.

But that's already happening on the Internet, argued Bill McComas, a technology lawyer at Baltimore firm Shapiro Sher Guinot & Sandler. Companies commonly pay for what is known as search-engine optimization -- in which that fee allows their Web site to become a more popular result in a Web search.

What McComas is referring to is search engine optimization, which is entirely separate from net neutrality. Search engine optimization has to do with designing your website in such a way as to make it accessible to search engine spiders. Net neutrality has to do with with Internet Service Providers treating all web traffic the same. The best way to take something away from the public is to convince the public it is already gone. By conflating net neutrality with search engine optimization, McComas clearly hopes to confuse the public. The question is, can he get away with it?

Small business and the neutral net

The Baltimore Business Journal reports on the fight over net neutrality. The interesting thing about this article is that it makes clear the importance of the neutral net for Web 2.0 companies and small business generally. Your humble servant is quoted.

Treating the customer like a criminal suspect

ATT ready to filter our Internet for us

Here’s a worrisome report on ATT’s willingness to inspect packets, filter out what it thinks are copyright violations, and limit peer-to-peer interactions.

Because war with customers work so well.

Anti-net neutrality fear mongering in progress

Arts Technica has a fabulous take down of Brett Swanson’s Wall Street Journal article alleging that the Internet is facing a coming “exaflood” unless we get rid of this pesky net neutrality. Swanson is a scholar at the Discovery Institute.

This is just one of many articles we will see alleging all manner of ills unless we let the telecoms have their way in charging us more for the same service.

It is important that small businesses understand the stakes in this. Do you want to pay more for Internet service just so your customers are able to access your website with the same ease of your much larger competitor? Because those are the stakes in this fight. And it is not just a Washington fight, what the telecoms were unable to win at the national level they will try to gain at the local level unless they are stopped. So it is critical that small businesses stay active and continue to monitor developments.

Command and Control 2.0

On the ride back from Geoff Livingston’s fabulous book party, I started reading Now is Gone. While I have only read a few chapters, I can tell already that it is yummy and of great value to the newbie and experienced alike. It is a little daunting to think that I compete with this gentleman.

Yet as I read it, I could not suppress the feeling that those of us who embrace social media have become too complacent. We keep saying the old command and control system is dead and was never that great to begin with. We say that too many elite PR pros do not get social media. I am beginning to think they get it only too well.

For those of us who embrace social media, all of our ideas are based on the assumption of net neutrality, a continuation of the present system of open and equal access. We take for granted that anyone with Internet access can visit any site. There is no guarantee that this will continue to be the case.

Anyone who has seen Who Killed the Electric Car understands how an oligarchy of special interests can kill a great product. There is no going back for public relations, anymore than killing the electric car saved American auto manufacturers. But that won’t stop the telecommunications giants and the Command and Control coalition from trying.

The chief beneficiaries on the neutral net, small businesses, academics, research institutions, Web 2.0 start ups and their venture capitalist investors, do not recognize the threat. If the neutral net is to be saved, those who are now complacent will have to mobilize.

Save the Internet Blog

Network Neutrality Squad

The fight for Net Neutrality

IP Democracy informs us that the FCC has released a densely written report on Net Neutrality. When a federal agency releases a lengthy and densely written report, that is usually a sign they are hoping no one will read it. Therefore, we would be well advised to read this report with close attention that we may discover whatever it is they did not want us to discover.

Clearly opponents of Net Neutrality are feeling the heat. John Kneuer, the assistant secretary for communications and information, completely lost it and lashed out at proponents of Net Neutrality at Supernova 2007.

Small companies are the one of the main beneficiaries or Net Neutrality. Small companies, especially Web 2.0 companies, are usually a-political and don’t have significant public affairs efforts. This is not a time to be silent and we must all hope they will understand the necessity of defending their interests.

Save the Internet

NewsCorp, MySpace, YouTube, redux

MySpace Shakes Up Social Media: Hot Site Unveils Piracy-Blocking Technology—Which Turns Up the Heat on YouTube

Fox' MySpace Violates Net Neutrality

Lesson for Murdoch: Keep the Bloggers Happy