Darknet

Don't turn service providers into speech police

In today's San Jose Mercury News, Larry Magid has an interesting take on this issue: Painful as slander may be, don't turn service providers into speech police. Excerpt:

When Congress voted for the Communications Decency Act of 1996, most members thought it was just about pornography, says U.S. Rep. Zoe Lofgren. But one section of CDA had much broader implications, the San Jose Democrat told the Internet Education Foundation's second annual State of the Net Conference at Santa Clara University last week.

The CDA, which would have prevented the posting of material deemed "harmful to minors" was mostly struck down by the Supreme Court on First Amendment grounds. But the court let stand Section 230, which immunizes Internet service providers from being held liable for what their members post by stating that "no provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider."

The section was designed to protect service providers — at the time mostly dial-up services like AOL and Prodigy — from prosecution under CDA for distributing content posted by their members. It's analogous to holding phone companies harmless for obscene phone calls made by their customers or shielding the post office from liability for illicit material sent through the mail.

But Section 230 has also been used to protect social-networking companies and other Web sites with user-generated content whose business plans weren't even on the drawing board when the law was written back in the mid-'90s. ...

Thanks to Section 230, Craigslist won its case against the Chicago Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights over housing ads that included such terms as "no minorities" and "no children." Even though such ads in some cases violate the Fair Housing Act, the judge ruled that Craigslist "is not the author of the ads and could not be treated as the 'speaker.'"

JuicyCampus.com also can rely on Section 230 to protect itself against lawsuits and prosecutions stemming from the potentially libelous statements that are all too common on this gossip site, according to Michael Fertik, CEO and co-founder of ReputationDefender. ...

FCC vote sets precedent on unfettered Web usage

NY Times: F.C.C. Vote Sets Precedent on Unfettered Web Usage.

Kevin Martin’s Open Network Manifesto

An open, unfettered Internet has gotten a boost from an unlikely source: Republican FCC chair Kevin Martin.

NY Times: Kevin Martin’s Open Network Manifesto.

Excerpt:

Set-top boxes used with cable TV, [Martin] said, should be seen the same way as cellphones. Consumers need to be able to use any set-top box to access any sort of content.

This is important, he said, because of the rise of video programming on the Internet.

“Consumers can’t take content from the Internet and easily watch it on their televisions,” he said. He blamed cable companies from preventing set-top box makers, like TiVo, from being able to offer devices that can combine Internet video with cable offerings like on-demand movies.

“The cable operators won’t license a device that integrates Internet video content with their content,” he said. “I’m saying that’s wrong, and I am trying to get the other commissioners to address it.” ...

An imminent victory for ‘Net Neutrality’ advocates

NY Times: An Imminent Victory for ‘Net Neutrality’ Advocates.

When Comcast admitted last fall that it was blocking — or slowing down, as the company preferred to call it — certain file transfers by customers, a lot of people complained that the company was unfairly discriminating against heavy Internet users.

Now it seems that the Federal Communications Commission is poised to agree.

The Associated Press reported late Thursday that the F.C.C.’s chairman, Kevin J. Martin, has concluded that Comcast improperly blocked some file transfers. Mr. Martin told the A.P. he would recommend that the commission punish Comcast, and order it to stop the blocking, tell the commission how and how often it blocked file transfers and disclose to consumers its future plans for managing its network.

Such an action would be the first time that regulators have slapped an Internet provider for violating F.C.C. open-access rules. Those rules are designed to prevent providers from favoring some services over others — for example, by accelerating the transfer of video from their own movie service or slowing down transfers from competitors.

That will surely please “net neutrality” advocates like Free Press, which brought the original complaint. The group issued a statement Thursday night saying: “The F.C.C. now appears ready to take action on behalf of consumers. This is an historic test for whether the law will protect the open Internet. If the commission decisively rules against Comcast, it will be a remarkable victory for organized people over organized money.” ...

Heavy Internet users targeted

Washington Post: Heavy Internet Users Targeted.

Cable service operators Comcast and Time Warner Cable said yesterday that they would begin testing new approaches that would slow Internet access for heavy users and charge more to those who want additional speed.

The tests come as the Federal Communications Commission wraps up an investigation on complaints that Comcast blocked certain users from sharing video, music and other files. The complaints fueled a larger debate, with hearings in Congress and by the FCC, on how much control Internet service providers should have over the flow of data.

"The cable companies see a hammer hovering above their heads and are scrambling to find ways to reduce the appearance of wrongdoing," said Ben Scott, head of policy for the public interest group Free Press, which advocates for better oversight of cable operators. He called the plans "Band-Aids" on the bigger problem of network capacity, which he said can be solved only by larger investments in the cable companies' networks. ...

Democracy and the Web

Editorial in Monday's New York Times: Democracy and the Web.

Users of the Internet take for granted their ability to access all Web sites on an equal basis. That could change, however, if Internet service providers started discriminating among content, to make more money or to suppress ideas they do not like. A new “net neutrality” bill has been introduced in the House, which would prohibit this sort of content discrimination. Congress has delayed on this important issue too long and should pass net neutrality legislation now. ...

You can take action in the net neutrality campaign by signing the petition at SavetheInternet.com or MoveOn.org.

Net Neutrality and network control

NY Times: Beware the New New Thing.

Recently, the House Judiciary Committee’s antitrust task force invited me to be the lead witness for its hearing on “net neutrality.” I’ve collaborated with the Future of Music Coalition, and my band, OK Go, has been among the first to find real success on the Internet — our songs and videos have been streamed and downloaded hundreds of millions of times (orders of magnitude above our CD sales) — so the committee thought I’d make a decent spokesman for up-and-coming musicians in this new era of digital pandemonium.

I’m flattered, of course, but it makes you wonder if Nancy Pelosi and John Boehner sit around arguing who was listening to Vampire Weekend first.

If you haven’t been following the debate on net neutrality, you’re not alone. The details of the issue can lead into realms where only tech geeks and policy wonks dare to tread, but at root there’s a pretty simple question: How much control should network operators be allowed to have over the information on their lines? ...

Tech-savvy rally for access to Net

Washington Post via San Jose Merc: Tech-savvy rally for access to Net.

Bearing video cameras, laptops and cell phones, a small army of young activists flooded into a recent federal meeting in protest.

Members of public-interest group Free Press weren't there to support a presidential candidate or decry global warming. The tech-savvy hundreds went to the Federal Communications Commission's hearing at Harvard Law School last month to push new rules for the Internet.

For the first time, Congress and the FCC are debating wide-reaching Web regulations and policies that would determine how much control cable and telecommunications companies would have over the Internet. The issue has given rise to a new political constituency raised on text messaging and social networking and relies on e-mail blasts and online video clips in its advocacy.

Although Free Press has generated buzz for its aggressive and sometimes controversial tactics online, its ringleader in Washington is an unlikely crusader. A soft-spoken 30-year-old doctoral candidate, Ben Scott has become an operator in multibillion-dollar battles involving corporate titans, regulators and consumers debating policies over who controls the media and the Internet.

"There have been policy moments in the past when the market has been shaped by decisions made in Washington - radio in the 1930s, television in the 1950s and cable in the 1980s. That moment is now for the Internet," said Scott, who runs a nine-member office. ...

Net Neutrality: Where do we go from here?

Ethan Strimling wants your input and feedback on Net Neutrality: Where Do We Go From Here?

Tell the FCC to keep speech free

From Public Knowledge today: Tell the FCC to Protect Text Messaging and Keep Speech Free.

This past September, Verizon blocked its customers from receiving NARAL Pro-Choice America action alert text messages—messages that Verizon’s customers asked to receive.

After the New York Times exposed Verizon, the wireless provider backed down, but only after making it clear that Verizon believes it’s entitled to decide who their customers can communicate with and what kinds of speech can reach them. NARAL may have eventually gotten its message out after the Times story, but some companies are still being blocked—companies like Rebtel which offers text-based services to make cheaper long distance and international calls using short codes (5- and 6- digit numbers used for text messages).

Verizon claims to have a new policy that won’t block political speech. Its new internal policy is not public, and Verizon asks us to trust them despite the fact that they can change it whenever they like. Tell the FCC that Verizon’s closed policies are not good enough: text messages and short codes need to be subject to nondiscrimination rules, just like phone calls are.

Explain to the FCC now how you use text messages. Tell them if you subscribe to alerts from causes you believe in, if your organization uses text messages or short codes to reach its supporters, and tell them every other way in which text messaging and freedom of speech on our phone networks are important to you.
We’ve made it easy to file your comments with the FCC. Just select the following link and fill out the comment form:

http://www.publicknowledge.org/fcccomment/protect-text-messaging

You are filing comments in WT Docket No. 08-7, Petition for Declaratory Ruling that Text Messages and Short Codes are Title II Services or are Title I Services Subject to Section 202 non-Discrimination Rules. More information from the FCC on this issue can be found here (PDF).