P2P

I just got back from a Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee hearing on the future of the Internet. Much was said on both sides of the panelist table, so I’ll just take a moment to hit some highlights: competition and innovation, media consolidation and content, and FCC authority. One disclaimer: this summary represents (of course) how I interpreted the statements at the hearing. Where I can, I’ve included timestamps into the video; if you want more detail, watch the hearing direct from the Senate’s web site. Also, check out our press release.

Yesterday, the FCC took a field trip to the campus of Stanford University in Palo Alto, California. There it heard from two panels of experts and policy shapers on the issue of network management and more broadly net neutrality. If you didn’t see it, or listen to the FCC’s stream of it, thankfully, it’s been video recorded and put on the web…

Panel I: Network Management and Consumer Expectations

Professor Lessig presented one of his illustrative keynotes at the start, and apparently he recorded the live audio and dubbed it to the video later:

Comcast and Pando, a company working on a more efficient method of distributing peer-to-peer content, announced today they will work on a “bill of rights” for P2P users and Internet Service Providers. The following is a statement from Gigi B. Sohn, president and co-founder of Public Knowledge:

OK. Hopefully you all realized that S. 4108, the APRIL Act of 2008, was a joke. After all, there were a few excesses in there that would indicate how ludicrous the bill is.

Comcast has sent a letter to FCC Chairman Kevin Martin clarifying last week’s announcement that they were in discussions with BitTorrent, Inc. about how to improve Comcast’s network management. In short: Comcast has “admitted” nothing, they do not “block” applications or “discriminate,” and the old system they say they will be replacing is still completely legitimate. It seems that Comcast thinks that the FCC needs to keep on investigating the petition as much as we do.

The Wall Street Journal is reporting that Comcast and BitTorrent, Inc. are now working together to “collaborate on ways to run BitTorrent’s technology more smoothly on Comcast’s broadband network, and allow Comcast to transport video files more effectively over its own network.” While we applaud application developers and network operators getting together to figure out how to improve the efficiency of the Internet, this changes nothing about the issues raised in the petitions on network management; the FCC must still act quickly to ensure that its four principles for broadband service have real meaning and that consumers are protected.

Last month, Public Knowledge submitted comments to the European Commission in response to this communication on online creative content. The Commission was asking for input about a variety of topics, including making DRM interoperable, creating licenses that would work across national boundaries within the EU, and how to deal with online piracy.

PK’s comments focused on just two of the 11 separate questions put for the by the Commission, about potential enforcement mechanisms against online infringement. Those questions were:

10) Do you consider the Memorandum of Understanding, recently adopted in France, as an example to followed?

11) Do you consider that applying filtering measures would be an effective way to prevent online copyright infringements?

“Share your music—lose your identity.” It could be the rallying cry of a hipper-than-thou music fan who only likes bands “before they were cool.” But no, it’s the title of an op-ed by Representative Howard Coble (R-NC), Ranking Member of the House IP Subcommittee. In it, he links copyright infringement with the risk of identity theft.

Specifically, he cites the example of Gregory Kopiloff, who pled guilty to committing identity theft with personal information he scrounged off of the computers of LimeWire users.

Coble then proceeds with his commentary, implicitly equating this security risk with both copyright infringement and p2p software generally. This is a real mistake, and a real cause for concern if that’s the attitude policymakers take when approaching online copyright enforcement.

Sam Gustin at Portfolio.com has posted an article about how, at the FCC’s open hearing on the future of the Internet, Comcast paid people to arrive early and hold spots for Comcast employees. Unfortunately, a fair number of those employees never actually showed up, leaving some uninterested people sleeping in the first row of the hearing while dozens of interested citizens were stuck outside.

The Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) Monday hearing in Cambridge, Mass., will be a reality check about how control of the Internet can be accomplished, by whom, and what the consequences will be.

Commissioners will have the chance to question, in public, representatives of businesses that could be affected by Comcast’s throttling of BitTorrent and to make Comcast defend itself in the face of live criticism from those who know the Internet best. Comcast and the FCC will have to tell David Reed, who originated the “end to end” architecture idea for the Internet why it’s better to have Comcast and other network operators take control, rather than users and content suppliers. BitTorrent will note how the technology is going mainstream, used by such respectable customers as NASA.

Here’s the agenda:

11:45 a.m. Technology Demonstration – Gilles BianRosa, Chief Executive Officer, Vuze, Inc.

12:00 p.m. Panel Discussion 1: Policy Perspectives