Darknet

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).

Lessig won't run for congressional seat

First, the buildup to a possibly congressional candidacy by author and Stanford Prof. Lawrence Lessig, who was a key figure in my book Darknet.

Now today comes word that Lessig has decided not to run, and tells us why. (See video above.)

But the Change Congress movement goes on. I hope it achieves extraordinary results in the months ahead.

Cross-posted to Socialmedia.biz.

Support Lessig for Congress

Stanford professor Lawrence Lessig is weighing a run for Congress in California's 12th Congressional district.

Now that would be a fresh face in Washington.

To date, more then $35,000 from 450-plus contributions have been pledged toward his candidacy.

I believe the filing deadline is this Monday, and if you haven't contributed, here's your chance to do so before Monday:

http://www.actblue.com/page/lessig

Markey's Net Neutrality bill

mcjoan at the Daily Kos today: Markey's Net Neutrality bill.

It makes explicit that Federal policy is to keep the internet open, and it mandates that the FCC go out and hold hearings outside of DC on whether Federal policy is preserving the openness of the internet, followed by a report.

It has limited to no enforcement provisions, and it doesn't really have a lot of teeth.  It's nowhere near as strong as Markey's amendment last cycle, or the Snowe-Dorgan bill introduced earlier this year in the Senate.  So why is the SavetheInternet coalition excited ...?

Net neutrality guru to speak

San Francisco Chronicle: Net neutrality guru and Columbia law Professor Timothy Wu speaks in San Francisco. For more: Netneutrality2008.org.

Add your photo to the Wall

On Tuesday the FCC is poised to relax cross-ownership rules that, until now, have prevented newspapers from owning a broadcast television or radio station in the same city, leading to an even greater consolidation of Big Media at the expense of the public interest. Sign the petition and add your image to the Stop Big Media Wall.

FCC plan would relax ownership limits

A laissez-faire libertarian approach sometimes is the best way to move forward. But certainly not in the mediasphere, where concentrated ownership has choked off a multiplicity of voices out there that are already no longer heard.

Or, to put it a bit plainer, what a jackass idea.

NY Times: The head of the Federal Communications Commission has circulated an ambitious plan to relax the decades-old media ownership rules, including repealing a rule that forbids a company to own both a newspaper and a television or radio station in the same city.

Comcast blocks some Internet traffic

Associated Press:  Comcast blocks some Internet traffic.

Comcast Corp. actively interferes with attempts by some of its high-speed Internet subscribers to share files online, a move that runs counter to the tradition of treating all types of Net traffic equally.

The interference, which The Associated Press confirmed through nationwide tests, is the most drastic example yet of data discrimination by a U.S. Internet service provider. It involves company computers masquerading as those of its users. ...

Verizon's reversal on pro-choice messages

DailyKos: Verizon Reverses On Pro-Choice Messages.

"This is right at the heart of the problem," said Susan Crawford, a visiting professor at the University of Michigan law school, referring to the treatment of text messages. "The fact that wireless companies can choose to discriminate is very troubling." ...

"No company should be allowed to censor the message we want to send to people who have asked us to send it to them," Ms. Keenan said. "Regardless of people’s political views, Verizon customers should decide what action to take on their phones. Why does Verizon get to make that choice for them?"

House passes overhaul of patent law

Associated Press: House passes overhaul of patent law.

Let's hope this much-needed reform receives quick attention in the Senate.

Justice Dept. opposes net neutrality

PC Magazine: Justice Dept. opposes net neutrality.

If the Justice Dept. opposes it, you have to figure it'll benefit the public.

TechCrunch: Justice Department Says ISPs Are Like The Post Office

Google's proposal to FCC

San Jose Mercury News: Google's plan for airwaves.

Google, along with a coalition of public interest groups and technology entrepreneurs, wants the FCC to require that this 22-megahertz block of spectrum be "open" so that any handheld device or any software application can run on it. They also want to require the winner of the spectrum to resell it on a wholesale basis, and to allow third parties to connect to the network.

"Everyone benefits from this," said Craig Mathias, founder of Farpoint, a wireless research group. "The idea is literally an Internet in the sky that will be open to any authorized user."

The FCC could set the rules sometime this month. ...

Google is on the public's side here.

Reuters: Google to Bid For U.S. Airwaves if Condition Added

NY Times: Google Pushes for Rules to Aid Wireless Plans.

Webcasters, labels in talks

San Jose Mercury News: Tomorrow "is no longer D-Day," as Webcasters and the music labels continue talks to come to compromise on the outrageous fee hikes due to go into effect tomorrow, retroactive for 18 months.

The problem with patents

In this week's Newsweek, Steve Levy looks at the problem with patents. (He and I were the only reporters in the hallway when he interviewed Howard Berman last week.): Changes in Patents May Be Pending. 'Patent trolls' come out of the woodwork after companies have spent billions on a product.

Net neutrality in Ninja speak

From Amber MacArthur at Amber Mac: Net neutrality in Ninja speak. Excerpt:

If you've been following recent news about Canadian government docs suggesting that the Tories are not nervous about ISPs interfering with the net, you're probably all over promoting net neutrality to save the Internet.

If you don't know what net neutrality is all about, you're not alone.  Here are some links to send around to bring you 'n yours up to speed about how major telcos want to be gatekeepers of web content and why it's a terrible idea (please feel free to post more links in comments):

A basic video overview in Ninja-speak (also above)
An intermediate video overview from Save the Internet
PBS special on net neutrality
What the Internet's founding father has to say
Michael Geist on Canada's Net Neutrality Debate

Cross-posted to Social Media.

Tighter federal oversight urged of telecom firms' Net access

Associated Press: Tighter federal oversight urged of telecom firms' Net access.

Consumer advocates Tuesday said federal regulators need to increase oversight of telephone and cable companies that offer Internet access to ensure they aren't discriminating against certain providers of video and other Web content.

Gigi B. Sohn, president of Public Knowledge, a non-profit group that focuses on communications law, said the Federal Trade Commission should also require more disclosure from telephone and cable companies about the Internet access speeds they promise to deliver to consumers.

Sohn spoke on the first of a two-day workshop convened by the FTC to discuss ``network neutrality'' issues. The phrase is shorthand for the concept that all online traffic should be treated equally by Internet service providers. ...

 

Beyond Net neutrality lies Internet freedom

Ben Scott at TomPaine.com via FreePress.net: Beyond Net Neutrality Lies Internet Freedom.

AT&T scores a victory in net neutrality agreement

Dan Gillmor has an opinion piece in the San Francisco Examiner: Contrary to opinion, AT&T’s BellSouth deal isn’t net-neutral.

Copps unveils new American media contract

FreePress.net: FCC Commissioner Michael J. Copps tonight challenged thousands gathered at the National Conference for Media Reform to enact a new “American Media Contract,” calling for citizens to stand up and "get rid of the bad old rules that got us into this mess in the first place."

Congress to take up Net’s future

NY Times: Congress to Take Up Net’s Future, with Net neutrality legislation.

AT&T agrees to keep the Net neutral -- for now

Techdirt: AT&T Agrees To Keep The Net Neutral For 30 Months To Get BellSouth.

Dems to the Net: Go to hell

Lessig blog: Dems to the Net: Go to hell. I agree with Prof. Lessig that Howard Berman is "among the most extreme of the IP warriors." It's unfortunate that a more forward-looking Democrat won't be heading up intellectual property issues in the next Congress.

Save the Internet!

Here's a good video the lays out the basics of net neutrality -- and its importance in the next Congress.

New copyright rules OK six exemptions

San Jose Mercury News:

New copyright rules OK six exemptions

Cell phone owners will be allowed to break software locks on their handsets to use them with competing carriers under new copyright rules announced Wednesday.

Other copyright exemptions approved by the Library of Congress will let film professors copy snippets from DVDs for educational compilations and let blind people use special software to read copy-protected electronic books.

All told, Librarian of Congress James H. Billington approved six exemptions, including one that lets researchers test CD copy-protection technologies for security flaws or vulnerabilities.

Net neutrality: why it matters

Doug Kaye has this over at Blogarithms: Net Neutrality - why it matters.

Tony Greenberg, CEO of Ramp^Rate has posted an excellent analysis of what will happen if we lose net neutrality. As Tony writes, it’s not at all about audio and video, but rather a knife-in-the-heart for independent VOiP and interactive entertainment. This is a big one, folks. Get involved. Write your representatives.

The Internet of the future?

I don't care for these kind of didactic videos, but there you go. From savetheinternet.com, a YouTube video on net neutrality.

Support EFF

In a few weeks, the Electronic Frontier Foundation will once again play a key leadership role in the Election Protection Coalition, where it will deploy a team of more than 40 lawyers across the country to document and respond to problems with electronic voting machines on Election Day. In 2004, EFF attorneys helped people assert their rights to vote on paper ballots and filed lawsuits when machines prohibited people from exercising one of their most basic democratic rights--the right to vote.

Over the past year, member contributions have helped EFF:

• Sue AT&T for violating the privacy rights of its customers by collaborating with the NSA's secret spying programs

• Hold Sony BMG accountable for infecting music fans' computers with flawed, privacy-invasive copy protection software

• Protect innovation and beat back legislation that would cripple your digital media devices, like TiVos and iPods

• Stand up for your rights in global forums like the World Intellectual Property Organization

But the fight is far from over, and the EFF is looking for financial donations, so they can continue the fight to protect our rights. Please join!

Kennedy supports Net Neutrality

YouTube video: Sen. Ted Kennedy supports Net Neutrality.

Steven Levy on a free Internet

Steve Levy in Newsweek: Celebrating a Web That's Free—For Now. Fearing an assault on the egalitarian principle that helped make the Web what it is.

[Susan] Crawford and [Craig] Newmark—along with almost all the early people who helped get the Web underway—are concerned about its future. Specifically, they feel threatened by a looming assault on the egalitarian principle that has helped make the Web what it is—the principle of "Net neutrality."

It's a snoozeworthy term, but a useful one. Neutrality describes the way the Internet works now. All the digital bits that move on the Net, whether they are podcasts, SEC filings or articles in NEWSWEEK, are treated the same, with no fear or favor. This allows a level playing field that promotes innovation, as the humblest start-up or the most modest nonprofit organization can be assured that its content gets the same access to an audience as anyone else's does.

But recently the big telcos and cable companies that basically hold a duopoly on Internet service in a given area indicated they'd like a new scheme. They would charge big companies like Google and Yahoo big fees to guarantee that their content got to customers at higher speeds. In other words, there'd be an elite toll road alongside a free but crowded interstate. This loss of neutrality is what upsets the Net community. Google might be able to afford to pay extra, but what about craigslist, which serves millions of people on minimal revenues? Nonprofits and government couldn't come up with the dough to get their content treated favorably. And an innovative start-up like YouTube would never have gotten its audience if its video clips ran in slow motion compared with those of its competitors.

Though some lawmakers are interested in writing legislation to preserve Net neutrality, in the Senate the effort failed. A key opponent is Ted Stevens (Republican of Alaska), who heads the Commerce Committee. "[Legislating] Net neutrality is unnecessary government regulation," says Stevens via e-mail, "and is an attempt to shift the high cost of innovations from large companies to everyday Americans who log onto the Web." Stevens's committee is touting a survey that claims that consumers don't care about neutrality—but the respondents to the survey weren't told what neutrality meant, or that it is the current standard. Nor were they asked to consider what would happen if nonprofits, activists, start-ups and citizen journalists lost their audiences because they were stuck in a digital traffic jam—while the big guys paid their way out of it by fattening the wallets of companies like Verizon, which funded the survey.

Tom Evslin on net neutrality

Phil Leigh of Inside Digital Media has a 39-minute audio interview with Tom Evslin, a tech industry CEO who has become a leading proponent of net neutrality.

Maine senator defends Net

LA Times via San Jose Merc: Maine senator defends Net. Snowe battling telecom firms to prevent tools for Web sites.

Snowe has emerged as a key leader in a legislative battle over toll lanes on the Internet.

Bucking her party leadership, she has championed the push by Google, Yahoo, Microsoft and other Internet giants to prohibit phone and cable TV companies from charging Web sites for faster delivery of their data. The issue, known as network neutrality, threatens to kill a wide-ranging telecommunications bill that Senate leaders hope to pass this fall.

Gains for net neutrality

SavetheInternet.com: Supporters of Internet freedom took to the pavement in 25 cities nationwide on Wednesday and Thursday, delivering thousands of SavetheInternet.com petitions to their senators and urging them to oppose attempts by big phone and cable companies to eliminate Net Neutrality. Meantime, four senators -- Schumer, Harkin, Jeffords and Dayton -- came out this week in suppor of net neutrality.

Jon Stewart on Net neutrality

Jon Stewart on The Daily Show on network neutrality.

Senator Ted Stevens vs. The Ninja - Net neutrality mashup

John Aprigliano of the Diabeticfeed podcast has mashed up the instrumental version of Derek Miller's "Tell Me About Gnomedex Theme," Senator Ted Stevens' infamous "the Internet is a series of tubes" rant, and Ask a Ninja's similarly cogent explanation of the topic. Check out the mp3. And Digg it.

Committee vote on Net neutrality Wednesday

mcjoan at the Daily Kos: Committee to Vote on Net Neutrality.

Group offers compromise on net neutrality

San Jose Mercury News: Group offers net regulation compromise. Private services that don't afect other Internet traffic endorsed by the Center for Democracy and Technology.

House rejects net neutrality bill

The San Jose Merc publishes an op-ed piece with a contrarian view of the net neutrality debate.

Meanwhile, bad news in Congress (as always), with the House yesterday voting down Rep. Ed Markey's net neutrality bill, 269-152.

Meantime, at PublicKnowledge, Art Brodsky assesses the latest on Capitol Hill, and guest blogger Jonathan Taplin sees a new net neutrality opening.

Interviewed on NPR's 'ATC'

I'm briefly interviewed on today's All Things Considered from NPR. It should be online after 7:30 pm EST.

The old cliche "politics makes strange bedfellows" is proving itself true: The liberal advocacy group Moveon.org is fighting on the same side as the Christian Coalition. That may be the most headline-catching part of an issue with a notably dull name: Network Neutrality.

Advocates on both sides of the issue say the neutrality bill pending in Congress will have far-reaching implications for all Internet users.

That's an understatement. I give a perspective on how a dual-tier Internet would adversely impact video-intensive nonprofits like Ourmedia and the Internet Archive.

Art Brodsky of PublicKnowledge.org adds this update:

Last night, the Rules Committee met and determined which amendments would go to the House floor. There are eight. You can read them here.

For our purposes, the big one is No. 7, the Markey etc. amendment which establishes a real Net Neutrality policy.

FAQ on Net Neutrality

Prof. Susan Crawford offers a FAQ on Net Neutrality.

Why the Web's democratic ethic may be about to end

Important essay in Sunday's New York Times by Adam Cohen on the subject of net neutrality, so I'll post it here.

Editorial Observer: Why the Democratic Ethic of the World Wide Web May Be About to End.

The World Wide Web is the most democratic mass medium there has ever been. Freedom of the press, as the saying goes, belongs only to those who own one. Radio and television are controlled by those rich enough to buy a broadcast license. But anyone with an Internet-connected computer can reach out to a potential audience of billions.

This democratic Web did not just happen. Sir Tim Berners-Lee, the British computer scientist who invented the Web in 1989, envisioned a platform on which everyone in the world could communicate on an equal basis. But his vision is being threatened by telecommunications and cable companies, and other Internet service providers, that want to impose a new system of fees that could create a hierarchy of Web sites. Major corporate sites would be able to pay the new fees, while little-guy sites could be shut out.

Sir Tim, who keeps a low profile, has begun speaking out in favor of "net neutrality," rules requiring that all Web sites remain equal on the Web. Corporations that stand to make billions if they can push tiered pricing through have put together a slick lobbying and marketing campaign. But Sir Tim and other supporters of net neutrality are inspiring growing support from Internet users across the political spectrum who are demanding that Congress preserve the Web in its current form.

The Web, which Sir Tim invented as a scientist at CERN, the European nuclear physics institute, is often confused with the Internet. But like e-mail, the Web runs over the system of interconnected computer networks known as the Internet. Sir Tim created the Web in a decentralized way that allowed anyone with a computer to connect to it and begin receiving and sending information.

That open architecture is what has allowed for the extraordinary growth of Internet commerce and communication. Pierre Omidyar, a small-time programmer working out of his home office, was able to set up an online auction site that anyone in the world could reach — which became eBay. The blogging phenomenon is possible because individuals can create Web sites with the World Wide Web prefix, www, that can be seen by anyone with Internet access.

Last year, the chief executive of what is now AT&T sent shock waves through cyberspace when he asked why Web sites should be able to "use my pipes free." Internet service providers would like to be able to charge Web sites for access to their customers. Web sites that could not pay the new fees would be accessible at a slower speed, or perhaps not be accessible at all.

A tiered Internet poses a threat at many levels. Service providers could, for example, shut out Web sites whose politics they dislike. Even if they did not discriminate on the basis of content, access fees would automatically marginalize smaller, poorer Web sites.

Consider online video, which depends on the availability of higher-speed connections. Internet users can now watch channels, like BBC World, that are not available on their own cable systems, and they have access to video blogs and Web sites like YouTube.com, where people upload videos of their own creation. Under tiered pricing, Internet users might be able to get videos only from major corporate channels.

Sir Tim expects that there are great Internet innovations yet to come, many involving video. He believes people at the scene of an accident — or a political protest — will one day be able to take pictures with their cellphones that could be pieced together to create a three-dimensional image of what happened. That sort of innovation could be blocked by fees for the high-speed connections required to relay video images.

The companies fighting net neutrality have been waging a misleading campaign, with the slogan "hands off the Internet," that tries to look like a grass-roots effort to protect the Internet in its current form. What they actually favor is stopping the government from protecting the Internet, so they can get their own hands on it.

But the other side of the debate has some large corporate backers, too, like Google and Microsoft, which could be hit by access fees since they depend on the Internet service providers to put their sites on the Web. It also has support from political groups of all persuasions. The president of the Christian Coalition, which is allied with Moveon.org on this issue, recently asked, "What if a cable company with a pro-choice board of directors decides that it doesn't like a pro-life organization using its high-speed network to encourage pro-life activities?"

Forces favoring a no-fee Web have been gaining strength. One group, Savetheinternet.com, says it has collected more than 700,000 signatures on a petition. Last week, a bipartisan bill favoring net neutrality, sponsored by James Sensenbrenner, Republican of Wisconsin, and John Conyers Jr., Democrat of Michigan, won a surprisingly lopsided vote in the House Judiciary Committee.

Sir Tim argues that service providers may be hurting themselves by pushing for tiered pricing. The Internet's extraordinary growth has been fueled by the limitless vistas the Web offers surfers, bloggers and downloaders. Customers who are used to the robust, democratic Web may not pay for one that is restricted to wealthy corporate content providers.

"That's not what we call Internet at all," says Sir Tim. "That's what we call cable TV."

Forces gather to oppose net neutrality

San Jose Merc: Superhighway toll booths have an ally. A front-page story about Cisco Systems and other networking companies that stand to profit immensely if Congress fails to enact net neutrality.

Net neutrality: House ignores people's will

Kos: What happened today in a House committee on Net neutrality.

NPR on Net neutrality

NPR has a piece on the new episode of "All Things Considered" on Net neutrality: Internet Debate: Preserving User Parity.