BitTorrent
One of the most dangerous aspects of SOPA is that its expansiveness means that it starts to interfere with all sorts of other areas of law.
Post to Twitter
It says something about the messed up world of telecom today that the “Connect America Fund” the FCC will vote on tomorrow has become the “what the heck are we going to do about IP-based interconnection” proceeding. In particular, the rather high-profile spat between AT&T and Comcast (and other cable companies) over access charges illustrates exactly the kind of cosmic cluster#@$! we predicted would happen if the FCC failed to classify broadband as a Title II telecom service.
Earlier today, word spread that Google, presumably bowing to pressure from Hollywood and the recording industry, had begun blocking certain "piracy-related terms" from its autocomplete search feature. As it turns out, the terms in question are "BitTorrent," "Rapidshare" and "Megaupload". There are plenty of reasons why this is a terrible idea but for brevity's sake, I will limit myself to three:
When the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals called into question the FCC's ability to protect broadband users earlier this month, the ongoing debate about the legal classification of broadband services took on a new urgency. While we've argued that the Commission should waste no time in reclassifying broadband as a "telecommunications" (Title II) service, others have suggested that no action from the Commission is necessary, seeing how Comcast's blocking of BitTorrent was an isolated act that no other ISP is likely to emulate. As if on cue, cable provider RCN has provided us with a timely reminder that Comcast isn't the only ISP that has stood accused of blocking its users' traffic. In a proposed settlement for a suit brought against the ISP for throttling its users' peer-to-peer traffic, RCN is not only not held accountable for its actions, it's also not prohibited from using similar network management techniques in the future. As this series of events demonstrates, if we're going to rely on the ISPs to self-regulate, we might as well kiss the open Internet goodbye.
Public Knowledge Appalled at RCN Throttling Case
The following statement is attributed to Gigi B. Sohn, president and co-founder of Public Knowledge:
“We learned today that another Internet Service Provider, this time RCN, was throttling its customers Internet traffic. This is yet another example showing why the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) needs to be given the authority over Internet access service. As of now, there is no Federal cop on the beat to protect consumers. Not every consumer will take a case to court, and not every cable company would be willing to settle what could be prolonged litigation. The Commission’s regulatory authority needs to be reinstated as quickly as possible.”
A copy of the lawsuit settlement is here.
Ever since the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Comcast in the Comcast/BitTorrent case this morning, the tech policy blogosphere has been scrambling to unpack the court's decision and figure out what it means for the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), ISPs, public interest groups and various other stakeholders.
But what about the rest of us?
Who will protect the Internet user whose connection is blocked, filtered or throttled? Who will stop ISPs from blocking services that compete with their own offerings (VoIP or Internet video services, for example) or from instituting separate pricing tiers for those who wish to use their connection for gaming or video streaming? Who will ensure that tomorrow's innovative web service can reach users without being blocked or degraded? The answer to these questions might surprise you: no one.
For those of us who believe that the Internet should remain an open, democratic and non-discriminatory platform, with few exceptions, the last two years have brought a steady stream of bad news from Down Under. First, there were rumblings that Australia was seeking to implement a "three strikes" policy toward those accused of online filesharing. Next, New Zealand came close to instituting its own three strikes mandate, though thanks to the efforts of activists, that deeply-flawed law was struck down at the last minute. Finally, after a number of previous, failed attempts, the Australian government announced that it plans to mandate the use of real-time filtering technologies on public ISPs sometime during the next year.
Just when it seemed like no one in the Australian and New Zealand governments appreciated the damaging effects of such policies, an Australian federal court judge has ruled that the ISP iiNet is not responsible for the actions of its subscribers. In the landmark ruling (full text here), which will likely have ramifications in the U.S. and elsewhere, the judge rebuffs Hollywood's attempt to require iiNet to act as a copyright cop, dealing a blow to three strikes in the process. Let's take a closer look.
On the eve of the FCC's upcoming Network Neutrality rulemaking, Canada has now settled its definition of "reasonable network management" and set rules for traffic throttling. Amazingly, the rules the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) settled on for "reasonable network management" look a lot like the standard our own FCC settled on in the Comcast/BitTorrent Order, but even stronger on the notice and transparency side. Hopefully, the FCC is paying attention here as it considers its own rulemaking on the definition of "reasonable network management."
You can read the CRTC press release here and the detailed order here.
Sometimes, the Network Neutrality debate makes me feel like a grumpy old policy wonk. Well, I suppose I am a grumpy old policy wonk, but its rather unfair of the folks in the NN debate to make me feel that way -- especially when they know better.
The most recent reminder of my age and wisdom/oncoming decrepitude is the rather silly argument that we are somehow "rushing" into network neutrality -- because nearly ten years of study and debate cannot possibly be enough to justify this being the first major policy initiative for the Genachowski FCC.
Yes, it was 9 years ago last month when the FCC launched its first inquiry asking how to classify "high speed access to the Internet over cable and other facilities.
Time Warner and Comcast have announced a new pilot program for their TV Anywhere initiative. The 5,000 customers in the pilot will get access to cable programming content not otherwise available online -- as long as they prove they subscribe to a subscription video service -- or "MVPD" -- like cable or FIOS. (MVPD stands for "multichannel video programming distributor" and means anything that sells you a whole bunch of cable channels.
preservesthe openness of the Internet and the public's access to knowledge, promotes creativity through balanced copyright, and upholds and protects the rights of consumers to use innovative technology lawfully.
Stay Connected, Join our Mailing List