US Senate committee approves Internet close-down bill by vocal acclaim. Well, saves the fuss of a vote, doesn't it?

Leave it to a bunch of Brits to point out how we continue to circumvent our democratic system.  TelecomTV, along with many other publications, reported that the Senate has passed a bill that will allow the president to shut down the Internet in the United States for up to 120 days without any Congressional approval.  The passage of this bill occurred with no mention in the mainstream media, which is not surprising since they still view the Internet as a threat to their arcane business models.  The bill was passed with a simple voice vote despite protests from many civil libertarian groups and the fact that the majority of the public is against giving the president this level of control without any checks.  Once again it just proves that the current Administration and Congress are not in office to represent the American people and what is best for the economy.  I find it hypocritical that Joe Lieberman and Hillary Clinton publically denounce China for having that same control over the Internet that they are pushing through Congress.  Let’s hope that we can persuade the House not to pass their version of the bill.

Technorati Tags: net neutrality,EFF,politics,president,telecom

Is The Court of Appeals Decision in Comcast v. FCC Good for Net Neutrality?

Much was written this week about the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia’s decision against the FCC fining Comcast for blocking BitTorrent traffic in 2008.  Most of those articles missed the point of the decision and declared that the FCC cannot regulate the Internet.  This decision said one thing, and one thing only:  the FCC overstepped its enforcement authority in telling Comcast how they can manage their network.  It did not vindicate Comcast in blocking BitTorrent traffic nor say that the FCC cannot create regulations and enforce them on Internet services.  It just set a limit on where the FCC’s enforcement ends based on their past actions.  Specifically the court stated that the FCC did not have ancillary authority to regulate Comcast's network management practices.¹  It is expected that the FCC will appeal the case to the Supreme Court.²

On the surface it may appear that Comcast and other Internet Service Providers (ISP) are winners and the public is a loser.  That interpretation is not entirely accurate when you take a longer-term perspective.  The backlash from the decision may be worse than the decision itself.  The court itself made it a point to support the necessity of a free-and-open Internet as noted from this statement by the FCC:

"The court in no way disagreed with the importance of preserving a free and open Internet, nor did it close the door to other methods for achieving this important end," said FCC spokeswoman Jen Howard.³

The court’s decision prompted an immediate backlash from the press, consumer groups, and lawmakers for Congress to take action to remedy the situation.  That remedy could range from having Internet service reclassified as a telecommunications service which gives the FCC the necessary authority or a law defining “net neutrality” and other aspects to regulate the Internet.  All of them come with consequences that could restrict innovation and unfettered use of the Internet.

The FCC itself thwarted its own ability to regulate Internet services when it classified them as the less regulated Title I services.  I believe that this was the most appropriate action for them to take because it limited their authority to regulate.  If it would have kept them at a Title II service, then they would have been within their jurisdiction to regulate Comcast’s and other ISP’s traffic management techniques.  This action would have stifled innovation and the delivery of new services because the service providers would have opted for more restrictive services and information providers like Google would have had to fight it out at the FCC and courts.  If the FCC attempts to reclassify Internet access as a Title II service expect to see this type of behavior.

The alternative is to get Congress involved and have them legislate the definition of net neutrality and expand the FCC’s powers even more.  Although this may be what the EFF and other consumer advocates want, the most likely scenario is that the resulting legislation is something that nobody wants, and even could be contradictory to the principles of net neutrality.  Almost every Congressman does not understand the nuances of the issues that distinguish an application/site/service from data transmission.  I have written at length on my belief of net neutrality and the FCC has come out with a higher level statement that does not contradict my principles. 

I clearly believe that this issue should stay under the jurisdiction of the FCC and that the FCC needs to clearly define the rules of net neutrality with the hands-off approach that made the Internet what it is today.  The Congress does not have the expertise nor is it the proper forum for industry, regulators, and consumers to come together to define how to keep innovation and commerce flowing on the Internet.  The FCC needs to go through the proper rulemaking procedure so it can enforce these principles.  Service providers need the ability to manage traffic on their network to ensure a quality experience for all customers and consumers need the ability to access any lawful service over these networks equally whether they are provided by the network provider or a third-party.  The best way to achieve this balance is to have true competition in the access network.  Regulation is a last resort when there is no competition and apparently I am not alone in my opinion. 

My next article will discuss how Google is doing more to stimulate competition than  the National Broadband Plan.

Technorati Tags: bittorrent,broadband,Comcast (CMCSA),EFF,FCC,Internet,net neutrality,Sandvine,Google

The War on Piracy

Tonight's program of the Silicon Flatiron Partners pitted the RIAA against the EFF.

 

Banning Internet Radio

The puppets of the RIAA are at it again! Senators Feinstein (D-CA) and Graham (R-SC) introduced S.2644, called the PERFORM Act, aimed at preventing satellite radio providers from offering subscribers devices capable of recording content off the air. Not only will this bill eliminate a great feature of satellite radio, but buried in the bill is a provision that would require any provider of streaming content to implement DRM.

Pandora, Shoutcast, Live365, and many radio stations rely on MP3 streaming to legally transmit their broadcasts under the Copyright Act. They obtain a statutory license, administered by SoundExchange, to broadcast their programming with whatever format they like. The current law provides adequate protection against recording by requiring broadcasters to use DRM only if the format includes DRM.

The PERFORM Act would require webcasters to use DRM to restrict the recording of webcasts even if you use the statutory license effectively killing MP3 streaming. Webcasters would have to use more expensive streaming technologies effectively killing Internet radio and the other innovations that have come along with it.

Let your senators know that you are one of 50 million listeners that enjoy Internet radio, and that the current laws are effective in protecting copyright holders. The EFF has a great article on the topic and form letter that you can send to your senators (Link to EFF) . Take a few moments to send them a letter protesting this bill.

Technorati tags: RIAA, EFF, interenet radio, streaming, MP3

Save the Internet : Fighting for Internet Freedom

Save the Internet is a well meaning web organization intended to create a level playing field for all sites on the Internet.  Too bad that its efforts are misguided by spreading fear, uncertainty, and doubt (FUD). They state that the access providers want to increase charges for access to Google, Yahoo! and other content providers and restrict free speech.  They want the government to regulate the Internet by forcing Internet access providers to treat all traffic equally.  In principle this effort sounds great, but in practice they will actually achieve the opposite amounting to a win for AT&T, Verizon, Comcast, and other incumbent Internet access providers.

First of all, the government has not proven to be an effective regulator of anything.  Name one thing that they have efficiently managed.  Congress, the Executive and Judicial branches barely even know what the Internet is all about.  So how can we expect them to properly regulate what they don't understand?

Second, the Net Neutrality legislation currently proposed will actually set up the same walled garden that it is trying to prevent.  The legislation will force all packets for Internet access to be treated equally.  That means that AT&T's VoIP service receives the same priority as Vonage's VoIP service.  So far so good, but it also means that those packets are the same as a Bittorrent transfer.  Not so good for any provider of time sensitive traffic whether AT&T, Google, or Vonage.

AT&T can easily avoid having their time sensitive VoIP packets delayed by not running them over their high-speed Internet service.  They can use bandwidth outside the service just as they do their video traffic.  By not running their VoIP traffic over their Internet access, they can offer a better quality experience than Vonage or other VoBB providers.  Vonage and other competing content effectively are now in the slow lane while AT&T and the other access providers have a fast lane.  Isn't this what Net Neutrality was trying to prevent?

Why do you think that AT&T was so quick to agree to the provision in their merger with BellSouth?  They know that the rule will now legally allow them to give preference to their own services.  So goes the law of unintended consequences.  So well meaning organizations like the EFF and Save the Internet are actually hurting equal access instead of helping it.  The Internet needs a hands-off approach with more competition for access which will ensure Net Neutrality better than the FCC ever could.

Technorati tags: AT&T (T), net neutrality, EFF, Save the Internet (savetheinternet.com)

Source: Save the Internet : Fighting for Internet Freedom

UN Treaty to Stifle Free Speech

Cory Doctorow published an article Saturday on Boing Boing about a treaty that the UN's World Intellectual Property Organization is drafting that threatens the fledgling podcasting industry. It aims to give broadcasters more rights to control works that they do not own. The treaty also creates a new tier of copyright confusion for podcasters. The result of this treaty will be for countries to enact the provisions into law, and podcasters will have less rights to use non-infringing material in their podcasts than they do now. Innovation will be stifled and the only beneficiaries will be the traditional media and large Internet companies like Yahoo!, Google, and Microsoft that can afford to license and pay for the content.

The EFF has prepared an open letter rejecting the webcasting right. This treaty smacks of intervention by old school broadcasters trying to protect their business models. The WIPO is suppose to protect intellectual property creators, not provide shields for big business. Find out more about the open letter to be submitted to the next WIPO treaty committee meeting on Monday. If you are a podcaster or organization supporting podcasting, there is a link for you to sign the letter.