Chrystalline

Mom says I should make a T-shirt that says “My life is weird, but at least it’s not boring.” I’ve got some similar ones, but not that exact line. Thing is, the last few years, my life has been quite boring. I hated it. Now things are getting really strange, and I’m not quite sure what to make of it. Apparently God has decided I’m ready for it, but conversations with Him are always a little odd, not least because I keep trying to convince myself I’m only making it up.

Read the rest of this entry »

Originally published at Chrystalline. You can comment here or there.

(not the TV show - that’s Andy Griffith in the Twilight Zone, and I never cared for either of those shows)

Mom was ordering something or other from Amazon last week, scheduled it to arrive Saturday, and it did, and she called me in to the living room when she opened the box. She held out a book and told me when she was ordering, she noticed this book, and thought of me.

Read the rest of this entry »

Originally published at Chrystalline. You can comment here or there.

But the panel narrowly rejected attempts by some lawmakers to strengthen safeguards on Internet service, which had pitted high-speed Internet, or broadband, providers such as AT&T against Internet companies like Google Inc.


In a room packed with lobbyists representing companies and consumer groups, debate raged over whether broadband providers can charge more to carry unaffiliated content or to guarantee service quality, an issue called Net neutrality.


The bill included provisions aimed at preserving consumers' ability to surf anywhere on the public Internet and use any Internet-related application, software or service, similar to a bill that passed the House of Representatives.


Maine Republican Sen. Olympia Snowe and Sen. Byron Dorgan, a North Dakota Democrat, tried to add further protections by barring discrimination of content or service based on origin, destination or ownership, but it failed to get a majority vote. The final tally was 11 to 11.


"That means for the first time we are going to have a two-tiered Internet," said Snowe, who bucked her party. "Broadband operators will be able to pick winners and losers, they will be able to choose the Web sites of their choice."


Other Republicans countered that further protections were not needed because there were no complaints about consumers being denied access to services or content. Adding rules would hobble competition, innovation and deployment, they said.


"We haven't seen anything yet that indicates there is discrimination," said Ted Stevens, chairman of the committee and an Alaska Republican. "If this amendment is adopted, this bill will never come out of conference (with the House)."


The bill would not prevent cable and telephone companies tacking on an extra charge for content that requires more Internet bandwidth than others, such as movie downloads.


The panel also approved a permanent ban on taxing Internet access and handily rejected an amendment to encourage cable providers to offer consumers the ability to pay only for the cable television channels they want, known as a la carte.

Well, I am neither a registrar nor a mindless sheep, and I also think this is a bad idea. For starters, how in the world did anyone think it was a good idea to settle lawsuits against Verisign by giving them control over a significant chunk of domain registry? It was getting to be too much work to keep mending the fences, so we put the fox in charge of the henhouse? With (how many? It's not easy to find a number here) actionable instances of misbehavior on Verisign's record, rewarding them in this way is counter-productive at best.

Competition is crucial to the success of business. When a company achieves monopoly, assuming Anti-Trust laws don't break it up, it stagnates. The monopoly assumes it can do whatever it wants, with the result that, if people are able to leave, they will. Companies that have no choice will remain with .com, but the majority of internet denizens are a feisty bunch, and are most likely to leave the .com extension in droves. Frankly, I don't want to have to give up my four .com domains, but the idea of being trapped in this way is extremely distasteful to me.

Regarding the increased charges, only a dreamer would believe that Verisign will not find a way to pass on increased costs. It's a basic fact of business - the cost of business is passed on to the middlemen and then to the consumers. This stated restriction only means they won't be able to call it what it is.

I understand needing to have a central organization to manage the registration of domains, but it was my understanding that ICANN was that organization. If it is not up to the challenge, perhaps a more democratized method should be found. I would be much more in favor of an internet congress than this proposal.

I wanted to call your attention to the recently revised .com registry agreement and proposed settlement between ICANN and VeriSign, and to express my disapproval of it. I am neither a registrar nor a mindless sheep, and I think this is a very bad idea. For starters, how in the world did anyone think it was a good idea to settle lawsuits against VeriSign by giving them control over a significant chunk of domain registry? It was getting to be too much work to keep mending the fences, so we put the fox in charge of the henhouse? With actionable instances of misbehavior on VeriSign's record, rewarding them in this way is counter-productive at best.

This pending agreement is anticompetitive and bad for consumers and the Internet community as a whole. The proposed agreement provides VeriSign with the ability to increase prices by 7% annually in four of the next six years without cost justification. Furthermore, under the new agreement, VeriSign's monopoly would run in perpetuity as the agreement would automatically renew without the opportunity for competitive bidding. This is an outrage. VeriSign and ICANN should not be allowed to establish a perpetual monopoly without Congressional oversight and the opportunity for input from the Internet community. What angers me even more is how this has been done relatively quietly. I have a hard time accepting that this has been through more than one stage before I even heard about it.

Competition is crucial to the success of business. When a company achieves monopoly, assuming Anti-Trust laws don't break it up, it stagnates. The monopoly assumes it can do whatever it wants, with the result that, if people are able to leave, they will. Companies that have no choice will remain with .com, but the majority of Internet denizens are a feisty bunch, and are most likely to leave the .com extension in droves. Frankly, I don't want to have to give up my four .com domains, but the idea of being trapped in this way is extremely distasteful to me.

The proposed agreement harms the Internet community by allowing unjustified price increases when fees for .com domain names should be decreasing, not increasing. Even VeriSign last year agreed to drop fees by more than 40% for .net domain names to win an extension of that registry agreement. There is no reason VeriSign shouldn't be implementing the same type of price decreases for .com names, as well.

Regarding the "donation" from VeriSign - only a dreamer would believe that VeriSign will not find a way to pass on increased costs. It's a basic fact of business that the cost of business is passed on to the middlemen and then to the consumers. The stated restriction that they are not permitted to pass on certain charges only means they won't be able to call it what it is.

I understand needing to have a central organization to manage the registration of domains, but it was my understanding that ICANN was that organization. If it is not up to the challenge, perhaps a more democratized method should be found. I would be much more in favor of an Internet congress than this proposal.

As your constituent, I would sincerely appreciate if you would look into this agreement and ensure that VeriSign and ICANN are not allowed to go forward with it in its current form. If the ICANN Board approves this anticompetitve agreement, the next step is for the NTIA to approve. I urge you to also bring our concerns to the attention of the NTIA.

Sincerely,
Chrystalline Lauryl