Network Neutrality, Policy Blog

You may remember that in March 2006, when the FCC had only four commissioners, a Verizon petition to have all common-carriage-type requirements lifted from its relationships with businesses was “deemed granted” by the Commission’s silence — split 2-2, the Commission said nothing by the deadline for action on that petition. This non-action was part of a steady, incremental removal of rules from highspeed access in the U.S. that is still going on.

There were a couple of news items recently that relate to this subject. First, the D.C. Circuit today heard argument on a challenge to the notion that “deemed granted” could be the end of the story. According to Blair Levin and his team (sorry, no link), the panel seemed skeptical that silence meant denial of the petition. But the judges also weren’t sure how to review a record of silence, and may send the thing back to the Commission for something a little noisier.

Also, AT&T’s petition for “forbearance” from common carriage obligations for many of its business relationships (excusing AT&T from having to state what its fees will be for internet access services provided to businesses, and avoiding rate of return regulation generally for these relationships), was largely granted by the Commission last week. This forbearance applies to most of the services AT&T offers to businesses, including its very-high-capacity “OCn” (optical carrier lines, involving thousands of voice grade equivalents) fiber-optic interoffice transport connections, packetized broadband, Frame Relay services, ATM services, LAN services, Ethernet-based services, video transmission services, and wave-based services, but not traditional DS1 and DS3 special-access circuits.

Read more

stdClass Object ( [nid] => 1219 [type] => blog [language] => [uid] => 1611 [status] => 1 [created] => 1192556241 [changed] => 1192556241 [comment] => 1 [promote] => 1 [moderate] => 0 [sticky] => 0 [tnid] => 0 [translate] => 0 [vid] => 1313 [revision_uid] => 1 [title] => Interfaces [teaser] =>

You may remember that in March 2006, when the FCC had only four commissioners, a Verizon petition to have all common-carriage-type requirements lifted from its relationships with businesses was “deemed granted” by the Commission’s silence — split 2-2, the Commission said nothing by the deadline for action on that petition. This non-action was part of a steady, incremental removal of rules from highspeed access in the U.S. that is still going on.

There were a couple of news items recently that relate to this subject. First, the D.C. Circuit today heard argument on a challenge to the notion that “deemed granted” could be the end of the story. According to Blair Levin and his team (sorry, no link), the panel seemed skeptical that silence meant denial of the petition. But the judges also weren’t sure how to review a record of silence, and may send the thing back to the Commission for something a little noisier.

Also, AT&T’s petition for “forbearance” from common carriage obligations for many of its business relationships (excusing AT&T from having to state what its fees will be for internet access services provided to businesses, and avoiding rate of return regulation generally for these relationships), was largely granted by the Commission last week. This forbearance applies to most of the services AT&T offers to businesses, including its very-high-capacity “OCn” (optical carrier lines, involving thousands of voice grade equivalents) fiber-optic interoffice transport connections, packetized broadband, Frame Relay services, ATM services, LAN services, Ethernet-based services, video transmission services, and wave-based services, but not traditional DS1 and DS3 special-access circuits.

You may remember that in March 2006, when the FCC had only four commissioners, a Verizon petition to have all common-carriage-type requirements lifted from its relationships with businesses was “deemed granted” by the Commission’s silence — split 2-2, the Commission said nothing by the deadline for action on that petition. This non-action was part of a steady, incremental removal of rules from highspeed access in the U.S. that is still going on.

There were a couple of news items recently that relate to this subject. First, the D.C. Circuit today heard argument on a challenge to the notion that “deemed granted” could be the end of the story. According to Blair Levin and his team (sorry, no link), the panel seemed skeptical that silence meant denial of the petition. But the judges also weren’t sure how to review a record of silence, and may send the thing back to the Commission for something a little noisier.

Also, AT&T’s petition for “forbearance” from common carriage obligations for many of its business relationships (excusing AT&T from having to state what its fees will be for internet access services provided to businesses, and avoiding rate of return regulation generally for these relationships), was largely granted by the Commission last week. This forbearance applies to most of the services AT&T offers to businesses, including its very-high-capacity “OCn” (optical carrier lines, involving thousands of voice grade equivalents) fiber-optic interoffice transport connections, packetized broadband, Frame Relay services, ATM services, LAN services, Ethernet-based services, video transmission services, and wave-based services, but not traditional DS1 and DS3 special-access circuits.

[#title] => [#description] => [#printed] => 1 ) [#title] => [#description] => [#children] =>

You may remember that in March 2006, when the FCC had only four commissioners, a Verizon petition to have all common-carriage-type requirements lifted from its relationships with businesses was “deemed granted” by the Commission’s silence — split 2-2, the Commission said nothing by the deadline for action on that petition. This non-action was part of a steady, incremental removal of rules from highspeed access in the U.S. that is still going on.

There were a couple of news items recently that relate to this subject. First, the D.C. Circuit today heard argument on a challenge to the notion that “deemed granted” could be the end of the story. According to Blair Levin and his team (sorry, no link), the panel seemed skeptical that silence meant denial of the petition. But the judges also weren’t sure how to review a record of silence, and may send the thing back to the Commission for something a little noisier.

Also, AT&T’s petition for “forbearance” from common carriage obligations for many of its business relationships (excusing AT&T from having to state what its fees will be for internet access services provided to businesses, and avoiding rate of return regulation generally for these relationships), was largely granted by the Commission last week. This forbearance applies to most of the services AT&T offers to businesses, including its very-high-capacity “OCn” (optical carrier lines, involving thousands of voice grade equivalents) fiber-optic interoffice transport connections, packetized broadband, Frame Relay services, ATM services, LAN services, Ethernet-based services, video transmission services, and wave-based services, but not traditional DS1 and DS3 special-access circuits.

[#printed] => 1 ) [links] => Array ( [node_read_more] => Array ( [title] => Read more [href] => node/1219 [attributes] => Array ( [title] => Read the rest of Interfaces. ) ) ) )

The Google-Moveon-Collins Flap, Or "The Other Shoe Drops and It Fits Quite Nicely."

By Harold Feld | October 12, 2007

Follow @haroldfeld

As Fox News and the rest of the conservative media/blog machine have happily crowed unto the skies, Google Ads dropped a set of ads from Senator Susan Collins (R-Me) critical of Moveon.org Collins is rnning for reelection, and apparently Moveon has now become the favorite bloody shirt to rouse the otherwise dispirited base. Apparently, Google informed Collins that because her ad used the trademark of someone else (here, Moveon.org, because these days everyone trademarks everything out of sheer self-defense), which Google bans under its advertising policy.

Read more

stdClass Object ( [nid] => 1215 [type] => blog [language] => [uid] => 1540 [status] => 1 [created] => 1192225265 [changed] => 1192393188 [comment] => 1 [promote] => 1 [moderate] => 0 [sticky] => 0 [tnid] => 0 [translate] => 0 [vid] => 1308 [revision_uid] => 1540 [title] => The Google-Moveon-Collins Flap, Or "The Other Shoe Drops and It Fits Quite Nicely." [teaser] =>

As Fox News and the rest of the conservative media/blog machine have happily crowed unto the skies, Google Ads dropped a set of ads from Senator Susan Collins (R-Me) critical of Moveon.org Collins is rnning for reelection, and apparently Moveon has now become the favorite bloody shirt to rouse the otherwise dispirited base. Apparently, Google informed Collins that because her ad used the trademark of someone else (here, Moveon.org, because these days everyone trademarks everything out of sheer self-defense), which Google bans under its advertising policy.

As Fox News and the rest of the conservative media/blog machine have happily crowed unto the skies, Google Ads dropped a set of ads from Senator Susan Collins (R-Me) critical of Moveon.org Collins is rnning for reelection, and apparently Moveon has now become the favorite bloody shirt to rouse the otherwise dispirited base. Apparently, Google informed Collins that because her ad used the trademark of someone else (here, Moveon.org, because these days everyone trademarks everything out of sheer self-defense), which Google bans under its advertising policy.

[#title] => [#description] => [#printed] => 1 ) [#title] => [#description] => [#children] =>

As Fox News and the rest of the conservative media/blog machine have happily crowed unto the skies, Google Ads dropped a set of ads from Senator Susan Collins (R-Me) critical of Moveon.org Collins is rnning for reelection, and apparently Moveon has now become the favorite bloody shirt to rouse the otherwise dispirited base. Apparently, Google informed Collins that because her ad used the trademark of someone else (here, Moveon.org, because these days everyone trademarks everything out of sheer self-defense), which Google bans under its advertising policy.

[#printed] => 1 ) [links] => Array ( [node_read_more] => Array ( [title] => Read more [href] => node/1215 [attributes] => Array ( [title] => Read the rest of The Google-Moveon-Collins Flap, Or "The Other Shoe Drops and It Fits Quite Nicely.". ) ) ) )

Open Internet Coalition Asks For Hearings on Anti-Consumer Behavior

By Art Brodsky | October 03, 2007

Follow @artbrodsky

The Open Internet Coalition, of which PK is a proud member, today asked leading senators and members of Congress to take a closer look at some of the anti-consumer behavior recently exhibited by Verizon, AT&T and Comcast.

The litany of behavior is familiar -- the blocking of NARAL's text-messaging program, the censoring of Pearl Jam, the cutting off of customers.

All of that comes at a time when the telephone and cable industries have some heavy-duty requests pending on Capitol Hill and at the FCC. They want the Internet tax moratorium extended, as a way of keeping their rates down. They want protection from lawsuits for their spying activities. They want the last regulations requiring them to share lines in major markets eliminated.

Shouldn't we get something in return? We think so. Here's the letter:

        October 3, 2007

The Honorable John D. Dingell, Jr. Chairman, House Committee on Energy and Commerce 2125 Rayburn House Office Building Washington, DC 20515

Read more

stdClass Object ( [nid] => 1206 [type] => blog [language] => [uid] => 4 [status] => 1 [created] => 1191438959 [changed] => 1191438959 [comment] => 1 [promote] => 1 [moderate] => 0 [sticky] => 0 [tnid] => 0 [translate] => 0 [vid] => 1296 [revision_uid] => 4 [title] => Open Internet Coalition Asks For Hearings on Anti-Consumer Behavior [teaser] =>

The Open Internet Coalition, of which PK is a proud member, today asked leading senators and members of Congress to take a closer look at some of the anti-consumer behavior recently exhibited by Verizon, AT&T and Comcast.

The litany of behavior is familiar -- the blocking of NARAL's text-messaging program, the censoring of Pearl Jam, the cutting off of customers.

All of that comes at a time when the telephone and cable industries have some heavy-duty requests pending on Capitol Hill and at the FCC. They want the Internet tax moratorium extended, as a way of keeping their rates down. They want protection from lawsuits for their spying activities. They want the last regulations requiring them to share lines in major markets eliminated.

Shouldn't we get something in return? We think so. Here's the letter:

        October 3, 2007

The Honorable John D. Dingell, Jr. Chairman, House Committee on Energy and Commerce 2125 Rayburn House Office Building Washington, DC 20515

The Open Internet Coalition, of which PK is a proud member, today asked leading senators and members of Congress to take a closer look at some of the anti-consumer behavior recently exhibited by Verizon, AT&T and Comcast.

The litany of behavior is familiar -- the blocking of NARAL's text-messaging program, the censoring of Pearl Jam, the cutting off of customers.

All of that comes at a time when the telephone and cable industries have some heavy-duty requests pending on Capitol Hill and at the FCC. They want the Internet tax moratorium extended, as a way of keeping their rates down. They want protection from lawsuits for their spying activities. They want the last regulations requiring them to share lines in major markets eliminated.

Shouldn't we get something in return? We think so. Here's the letter:

        October 3, 2007

The Honorable John D. Dingell, Jr. Chairman, House Committee on Energy and Commerce 2125 Rayburn House Office Building Washington, DC 20515

[#title] => [#description] => [#printed] => 1 ) [#title] => [#description] => [#children] =>

The Open Internet Coalition, of which PK is a proud member, today asked leading senators and members of Congress to take a closer look at some of the anti-consumer behavior recently exhibited by Verizon, AT&T and Comcast.

The litany of behavior is familiar -- the blocking of NARAL's text-messaging program, the censoring of Pearl Jam, the cutting off of customers.

All of that comes at a time when the telephone and cable industries have some heavy-duty requests pending on Capitol Hill and at the FCC. They want the Internet tax moratorium extended, as a way of keeping their rates down. They want protection from lawsuits for their spying activities. They want the last regulations requiring them to share lines in major markets eliminated.

Shouldn't we get something in return? We think so. Here's the letter:

        October 3, 2007

The Honorable John D. Dingell, Jr. Chairman, House Committee on Energy and Commerce 2125 Rayburn House Office Building Washington, DC 20515

[#printed] => 1 ) [links] => Array ( [node_read_more] => Array ( [title] => Read more [href] => node/1206 [attributes] => Array ( [title] => Read the rest of Open Internet Coalition Asks For Hearings on Anti-Consumer Behavior. ) ) ) )

A Phone Company's Discretion Isn't Enough

By Art Brodsky | September 27, 2007

Follow @artbrodsky

Once upon a time, the law governed what telephone companies could and couldn't do to affect the content of telephone calls sent over the network. The answer, basically, was nothing. The Communications Act provided that it would be "unlawful" for carriers to "subject any particular person, class of persons, or locality to any undue or unreasonable prejudice or disadvantage."

Over time, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has whittled away the protections consumers had from the discrimination the law was supposed to prevent by changing the definitions of the types of calls or uses to which the law applies. Now, Internet traffic is excluded. Cellphone traffic excluded. Text messaging excluded. Any service offered over Digital Subscriber Line, fiber lines or cable were moved out from under the law that allowed consumers to be secure that they could use their telephones, or other devices, in any legal way they chose.

Read more

stdClass Object ( [nid] => 1202 [type] => blog [language] => [uid] => 4 [status] => 1 [created] => 1190925254 [changed] => 1190930238 [comment] => 1 [promote] => 1 [moderate] => 0 [sticky] => 0 [tnid] => 0 [translate] => 0 [vid] => 1284 [revision_uid] => 4 [title] => A Phone Company's Discretion Isn't Enough [teaser] =>

Once upon a time, the law governed what telephone companies could and couldn't do to affect the content of telephone calls sent over the network. The answer, basically, was nothing. The Communications Act provided that it would be "unlawful" for carriers to "subject any particular person, class of persons, or locality to any undue or unreasonable prejudice or disadvantage."

Over time, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has whittled away the protections consumers had from the discrimination the law was supposed to prevent by changing the definitions of the types of calls or uses to which the law applies. Now, Internet traffic is excluded. Cellphone traffic excluded. Text messaging excluded. Any service offered over Digital Subscriber Line, fiber lines or cable were moved out from under the law that allowed consumers to be secure that they could use their telephones, or other devices, in any legal way they chose.

Once upon a time, the law governed what telephone companies could and couldn't do to affect the content of telephone calls sent over the network. The answer, basically, was nothing. The Communications Act provided that it would be "unlawful" for carriers to "subject any particular person, class of persons, or locality to any undue or unreasonable prejudice or disadvantage."

Over time, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has whittled away the protections consumers had from the discrimination the law was supposed to prevent by changing the definitions of the types of calls or uses to which the law applies. Now, Internet traffic is excluded. Cellphone traffic excluded. Text messaging excluded. Any service offered over Digital Subscriber Line, fiber lines or cable were moved out from under the law that allowed consumers to be secure that they could use their telephones, or other devices, in any legal way they chose.

[#title] => [#description] => [#printed] => 1 ) [#title] => [#description] => [#children] =>

Once upon a time, the law governed what telephone companies could and couldn't do to affect the content of telephone calls sent over the network. The answer, basically, was nothing. The Communications Act provided that it would be "unlawful" for carriers to "subject any particular person, class of persons, or locality to any undue or unreasonable prejudice or disadvantage."

Over time, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has whittled away the protections consumers had from the discrimination the law was supposed to prevent by changing the definitions of the types of calls or uses to which the law applies. Now, Internet traffic is excluded. Cellphone traffic excluded. Text messaging excluded. Any service offered over Digital Subscriber Line, fiber lines or cable were moved out from under the law that allowed consumers to be secure that they could use their telephones, or other devices, in any legal way they chose.

[#printed] => 1 ) [links] => Array ( [node_read_more] => Array ( [title] => Read more [href] => node/1202 [attributes] => Array ( [title] => Read the rest of A Phone Company's Discretion Isn't Enough. ) ) ) )

Bells Want To Use DoubleClick Hearing As Bank Shot On Google

By Art Brodsky | September 25, 2007

Follow @artbrodsky

A Senate Subcommittee will hold a hearing Thursday on Google's proposed $3.1 billion acquisition of DoubleClick, and what the deal would mean for the online advertising industry. This is a complex transaction, with lots of issues of market competition and privacy to be worked out. But one witness isn't coming to the hearing to fret about the ad market or the dangers to consumer privacy. He's only coming to tarnish Google at the behest of other parties. Guess which ones?

This is one of those moments that shows how tactics work here, uncovering the underbelly of powerful forces in play. Call this the Bank Shot. The idea is not to hit a target directly on an issue of interest, but to hit it via a less direct route.

Read more

stdClass Object ( [nid] => 1199 [type] => blog [language] => [uid] => 4 [status] => 1 [created] => 1190736803 [changed] => 1190736803 [comment] => 1 [promote] => 1 [moderate] => 0 [sticky] => 0 [tnid] => 0 [translate] => 0 [vid] => 1279 [revision_uid] => 4 [title] => Bells Want To Use DoubleClick Hearing As Bank Shot On Google [teaser] =>

A Senate Subcommittee will hold a hearing Thursday on Google's proposed $3.1 billion acquisition of DoubleClick, and what the deal would mean for the online advertising industry. This is a complex transaction, with lots of issues of market competition and privacy to be worked out. But one witness isn't coming to the hearing to fret about the ad market or the dangers to consumer privacy. He's only coming to tarnish Google at the behest of other parties. Guess which ones?

This is one of those moments that shows how tactics work here, uncovering the underbelly of powerful forces in play. Call this the Bank Shot. The idea is not to hit a target directly on an issue of interest, but to hit it via a less direct route.

A Senate Subcommittee will hold a hearing Thursday on Google's proposed $3.1 billion acquisition of DoubleClick, and what the deal would mean for the online advertising industry. This is a complex transaction, with lots of issues of market competition and privacy to be worked out. But one witness isn't coming to the hearing to fret about the ad market or the dangers to consumer privacy. He's only coming to tarnish Google at the behest of other parties. Guess which ones?

This is one of those moments that shows how tactics work here, uncovering the underbelly of powerful forces in play. Call this the Bank Shot. The idea is not to hit a target directly on an issue of interest, but to hit it via a less direct route.

[#title] => [#description] => [#printed] => 1 ) [#title] => [#description] => [#children] =>

A Senate Subcommittee will hold a hearing Thursday on Google's proposed $3.1 billion acquisition of DoubleClick, and what the deal would mean for the online advertising industry. This is a complex transaction, with lots of issues of market competition and privacy to be worked out. But one witness isn't coming to the hearing to fret about the ad market or the dangers to consumer privacy. He's only coming to tarnish Google at the behest of other parties. Guess which ones?

This is one of those moments that shows how tactics work here, uncovering the underbelly of powerful forces in play. Call this the Bank Shot. The idea is not to hit a target directly on an issue of interest, but to hit it via a less direct route.

[#printed] => 1 ) [links] => Array ( [node_read_more] => Array ( [title] => Read more [href] => node/1199 [attributes] => Array ( [title] => Read the rest of Bells Want To Use DoubleClick Hearing As Bank Shot On Google. ) ) ) )

Are Network Filters the 80% Solution?

By John Bergmayer | September 21, 2007

Follow @bergmayer

Public Knowledge opposes the uses of network filters as a means to curb widespread copyright infringement on the Internet. These are technologies that analyze network traffic and selectively block it, either if the content being transmitted is determined itself to be infringing, or if the traffic is being sent by a protocol or application pre-determined to be "illegitimate." The first kind of filter looks at your traffic and blocks if it is, for example, Spiderman 3. The second kind of filter looks at your traffic and blocks it if it is, for example, BitTorrent (regardless of whether you're transmitting SpiderMan 3 or Ubuntu ISOs. While we agree that copyright infringement is a problem that needs to be addressed, we've argued that network filtering technologies (such as deep packet inspection) come at too high a cost for too little gain.

Read more

stdClass Object ( [nid] => 1196 [type] => blog [language] => [uid] => 2130 [status] => 1 [created] => 1190394912 [changed] => 1190394912 [comment] => 1 [promote] => 1 [moderate] => 0 [sticky] => 0 [tnid] => 0 [translate] => 0 [vid] => 1276 [revision_uid] => 2130 [title] => Are Network Filters the 80% Solution? [teaser] =>

Public Knowledge opposes the uses of network filters as a means to curb widespread copyright infringement on the Internet. These are technologies that analyze network traffic and selectively block it, either if the content being transmitted is determined itself to be infringing, or if the traffic is being sent by a protocol or application pre-determined to be "illegitimate." The first kind of filter looks at your traffic and blocks if it is, for example, Spiderman 3. The second kind of filter looks at your traffic and blocks it if it is, for example, BitTorrent (regardless of whether you're transmitting SpiderMan 3 or Ubuntu ISOs. While we agree that copyright infringement is a problem that needs to be addressed, we've argued that network filtering technologies (such as deep packet inspection) come at too high a cost for too little gain.

Public Knowledge opposes the uses of network filters as a means to curb widespread copyright infringement on the Internet. These are technologies that analyze network traffic and selectively block it, either if the content being transmitted is determined itself to be infringing, or if the traffic is being sent by a protocol or application pre-determined to be "illegitimate." The first kind of filter looks at your traffic and blocks if it is, for example, Spiderman 3. The second kind of filter looks at your traffic and blocks it if it is, for example, BitTorrent (regardless of whether you're transmitting SpiderMan 3 or Ubuntu ISOs. While we agree that copyright infringement is a problem that needs to be addressed, we've argued that network filtering technologies (such as deep packet inspection) come at too high a cost for too little gain.

[#title] => [#description] => [#printed] => 1 ) [#title] => [#description] => [#children] =>

Public Knowledge opposes the uses of network filters as a means to curb widespread copyright infringement on the Internet. These are technologies that analyze network traffic and selectively block it, either if the content being transmitted is determined itself to be infringing, or if the traffic is being sent by a protocol or application pre-determined to be "illegitimate." The first kind of filter looks at your traffic and blocks if it is, for example, Spiderman 3. The second kind of filter looks at your traffic and blocks it if it is, for example, BitTorrent (regardless of whether you're transmitting SpiderMan 3 or Ubuntu ISOs. While we agree that copyright infringement is a problem that needs to be addressed, we've argued that network filtering technologies (such as deep packet inspection) come at too high a cost for too little gain.

[#printed] => 1 ) [links] => Array ( [node_read_more] => Array ( [title] => Read more [href] => node/1196 [attributes] => Array ( [title] => Read the rest of Are Network Filters the 80% Solution?. ) ) ) )