April 2006

Despite a growing chorus arguing
against allowing giant telecommunications companies from creating tiered
pricing services, a Republican defeat of a Democratic amendment in the
House of Representatives made a “net neutrality” law less likely. Legislation
for “net neutrality” is still in the wind over at the Senate via Maine’s
Republican Senator Olympia Snowe and North Dakota’s Democratic Senator
Byron Dorgan [Google].

(If I understand correctly) “Net neutrality” [Google–News]
means that LISNews.com ideally gets the same quality of service over the
internet from the telecoms as Microsoft.com. But the telecommunication
companies would like to be able to charge more if website operators want
better service. The tradeoff is that while Microsoft could afford it, LISNews and other small websites probably wouldn’t be able to. The concern is that while big media players
would get the fast lane, the telecom’s would stick LISNews in the slow
lane (or bumped off the information highway altogether).

For consumers, this could mean the telecommunications companies could
arbitrarily limit the speed with which different websites are accessed,
or possibly even deny access to legal sites. While telecoms have protested
they wouldn’t do that, there isn’t any law saying they can’t and the giant
telecoms AT&T, Verizon, and Comcast have apparently been lobbying hard
against such a “net neutrality” law (which suggests that small websites
_may legally_ end up in a slow lane, or bumped, unless they pay more).

Microsoft, however, has lobbied _for_ “net neutrality”. They aren’t
alone, supporters for “net neutrality” include the ALA,
eBay, Yahoo, and from InformationWeek:
the “AARP, Consumers Union, Consumer Federation of America, Free Press,
the U.S. Public Interest Research Group, MoveOn.org, Gun Owners of America,
MySpace.com and Vint Cerf” as well as “Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer, Google
CEO Eric Schmidt, Intel President and CEO Paul Otellini and IAC/InternActiveCorp.
Chairman and CEO,” amongst
others. Read more at: SavetheInternet.com
/ F.A.Q. See also:
CNET,
FT.com,
LAtimes,
MSNBC.

Despite a growing chorus arguing
against allowing giant telecommunications companies from creating tiered
pricing services, a Republican defeat of a Democratic amendment in the
House of Representatives made a “net neutrality” law less likely. Legislation
for “net neutrality” is still in the wind over at the Senate via Maine’s
Republican Senator Olympia Snowe and North Dakota’s Democratic Senator
Byron Dorgan [Google].

(If I understand correctly) “Net neutrality” [Google–News]
means that LISNews.com ideally gets the same quality of service over the
internet from the telecoms as Microsoft.com. But the telecommunication
companies would like to be able to charge more if website operators want
better service. The tradeoff is that while Microsoft could afford it, LISNews and other small websites probably wouldn’t be able to. The concern is that while big media players
would get the fast lane, the telecom’s would stick LISNews in the slow
lane (or bumped off the information highway altogether).

For consumers, this could mean the telecommunications companies could
arbitrarily limit the speed with which different websites are accessed,
or possibly even deny access to legal sites. While telecoms have protested
they wouldn’t do that, there isn’t any law saying they can’t and the giant
telecoms AT&T, Verizon, and Comcast have apparently been lobbying hard
against such a “net neutrality” law (which suggests that small websites
_may legally_ end up in a slow lane, or bumped, unless they pay more).

Microsoft, however, has lobbied _for_ “net neutrality”. They aren’t
alone, supporters for “net neutrality” include the ALA,
eBay, Yahoo, and from InformationWeek:
the “AARP, Consumers Union, Consumer Federation of America, Free Press,
the U.S. Public Interest Research Group, MoveOn.org, Gun Owners of America,
MySpace.com and Vint Cerf” as well as “Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer, Google
CEO Eric Schmidt, Intel President and CEO Paul Otellini and IAC/InternActiveCorp.
Chairman and CEO,” amongst
others. Read more at: SavetheInternet.com
/ F.A.Q. See also:
CNET,
FT.com,
LAtimes,
MSNBC.

Cites & Insights 6:7, May 2006 is now available.

The 22-page issue (PDF as always, but each section is available as an HTML separate from the home page) includes:

• Perspective: Books, Blogs & Style – Comments (my own and others’) about the relationship of books and blogs (and “blooks”!).
• Following Up and Feedback
• Trends, Quick Takes & Good Stuff – Five trends, two quicker takes, and two article commentaries.
• Bibs & Blather – Tweaking the sections, C&I and YBP Academia , two resources you need to be aware of, and a tentative plan for the next four issues.
• Library Access to Scholarship – Almost half the issue, but it’s been six months…
• Perspective: You Just Can’t Comprehend – Maybe off-topic. Maybe not.

Anonymous Patron writes “Waterstone’s has compiled a list of 30 ‘lost’ masterpieces by asking writers and booksellers to name the book they believe most deserves a much wider audience. Some are titles whose star has simply waned. Others are books that never won the attention they deserved to begin with. But most are by authors who are either no longerhousehold names, or never were.”

Anonymous Patron writes “”We are outraged,” said the mother, Robin Wirthlin, to the local Article 8 Alliance, a resistance group that now urges other parents to help ban the book in classrooms. “This is a highly charged social issue. Why are they introducing it in the second grade? And we cannot present our family’s point of view to our children if they don’t tell us what they’re saying to them.”

“We couldn’t run a public school system if every parent who feels some topic is objectionable to them for moral or religious reasons decides their child should be removed,” Superintendent Paul Ash said to the Boston Globe.
“Lexington is committed to teaching children about the world they live in, and in Massachusetts same-sex marriage is legal.””

“Absolutely everything is changing,” says Katherine Hadley, Minneapolis Public Library director. Take a look at what this article in the Christian Science Monitor calls the library of the future…opening day is May 20.

Anonymous Patron writes “Officials from archives in nine Southeastern states and New Jersey met Wednesday at The Georgia Archives to brainstorm ways to improve their emergency plan

critical modern documents such as birth and death certificates and car titles.
The archivists hope to have a plan in place at their agencies by August, and that it can serve as a national model.”

Anonymous Patron writes “An Article From The San Antonio Express-News takes a look at a different kind of library than we usually read about @ LISNews, the home library.
 
“They’re small, they’re personal, they’re inviting,” says interior designer Toni McAllister of San Antonio. “It’s interesting to me that as big as these homes get, it’s the smaller spaces that people are drawn to. They like the cozy, smaller rooms. They feel more intimate.”

A library, especially, gives a quick snapshot of the family, she says. Size up the selection of reading material, the photographs and memorabilia and you get insight into the people who use the space.”

Anonymous Patron writes “Ebay, Amazon, newspapers, publishers, telecoms, porn, other search engines, human rights groups and the justice department are all out to get Google, according to this Business Week article.

They say by plunging into new markets with seeming abandon, Google is creating a lot of enemies whose survival may depend on making sure it doesn’t succeed in them all. This phalanx of foes could make life more difficult for the search phenom.”

cogscilibrarian writes “The Hampden, Mass. public library will reopen a year after it closed, according to the Springfield Republican. Residents voted Monday night for funding in the budget to reopen both the library and the senior center. The library had asked for a budget of approximately $119,000 and was awarded $70,000.”

jbz writes “Here’s PC magazine’s review of an internet filter, currently being marketed to parents, that claims to evaluate and block inappropriate websites based on scans of actual content, not listing on a blacklist.