Board Statistics
Board Statistics
New Members
New Members
| |
Welcome to Net Neutrality Network [nnn]
Welcome to Net Neutrality Network [nnn]
The next step, RIAA wants ISPs to control downloadable content
The next step, RIAA wants ISPs to control downloadable content
| Posted By:
Administrator
@ Aug 21 2010, 05:31 PM |
News Source: PCworld
RIAA: Google Should Include Copyright in Net Neutrality Plan
By: Chloe Albanesius
Several music organizations, including the Recording Industry Association of America, penned a Wednesday letter to Google encouraging the company to include protections against copyright infringement and child pornography in its net neutrality plan.
The groups said they were "deeply interested" in Google's joint policy proposal with Verizon as it relates to protecting copyrighted content.
"The Internet has become a crucial part of the music discovery process and a central platform for commerce," the groups wrote in a letter to Google chief executive Eric Schmidt. "Our ability to invest in and create the next generation of music is grounded on crafting Internet policies and procedures that respect intellectual property."
Any Internet policy must allow ISPs to "take measures to deter unlawful activity such as copyright infringement and child pornography," they wrote.
The Google-Verizon plan would protect the tenets of net neutrality, or an open Internet, on the Web, but would not extend that protection to the wireless industry. Exemptions would also be available to any non-Internet related service a broadband provider might decide to provide in the future.
To go into effect, the plan would have to be adopted by the Federal Communications Commission – which is moving forward with a net neutrality plan that does not exempt wireless – or a member of Congress. So far, four Democratic House members have spoken out against the Google-Verizon deal, and urged the FCC to move forward alone.
At issue is an ISP's right to manage its network. The idea behind net neutrality is that an ISP should have the right to manage that network as long as it does not discriminate against particular applications. It can slow down the network at peak times to ease congestion, but cannot favor one service over another and block a site like BitTorrent.
When the debate about net neutrality and network management first started, many ISPs argued that network management was necessary in order to protect networks from harmful elements like viruses, infringing material, and child pornography. Naturally, a group like the RIAA is going to want ISPs to be able to police their own networks and crack down on illegal or questionable content.
A lot of that pirated content can be found on BitTorrent, for example. Comcast was accused of blocking BitTorrent in 2007, a controversy that kicked off this whole net neutrality debate. Under net neutrality rules, that would not be allowed. A company would have the right to manage its network, but that management must not be "unreasonable," and the ISP must be transparent about its policies.
"The current legal and regulatory regime is not working for America's creators," the groups concluded. "Our businesses are being undermined, as are the dreams and careers of songwriters, artists, musicians, studio technicians, and other professionals. That's why we look forward to working with you, other stakeholders, the FCC and the Congress to make the distinction between lawful and unlawful relevant in the marketplace so that the Internet fulfills its promise for consumers, subscribers, providers, creators and business."
The other groups that signed the letter included: the American Association of Independent Music; the American Federation of Musicians; the American Federation of Television and Radio Artists; the American Society of Composers, Authors & Publishers; Broadcast Music, Inc.; the California Songwriters Association; the Music Managers Forum; the National Music Publishers Association; the Nashville Songwriters Association International; SESAC; SoundExchange; and The Recording Academy.
Verizon, meanwhile, published a blog post Thursday morning criticizing a USA Today op-ed about its net neutrality plan with Google.
The editorial said the Google-Verizon plan would "disrupt the long-standing principle that everyone — users and content providers alike — is treated equally on the Web." It would also "freeze the traditional landline Internet at current capacity levels," the paper wrote. The wireless exemption, meanwhile, might require app developers to work "under the wings of one of the incumbent powers molding and controlling the wireless Internet."
In a rebuttal, Verizon's public policy spokesman David Fish wrote that USA Today ignored elements that benefit consumers and the Internet.
"The non-discrimination provision and presumption against any prioritization is stronger than what the FCC could obtain through its threatened imposition of old-world telecom regulations on broadband networks," Fish wrote.
"The Google-Verizon proposal does not 'freeze the traditional landline Internet'; it takes steps to prevent that," he concluded. "And the charge that we would 'limit users' to content and applications of carriers' choosing is ridiculous."
All this, meanwhile, comes ahead of reports that lobbyists have resumed talks about net neutrality – without Google or the FCC. The Wall Street Journal reports that the Information Technology Industry Council is heading up talks on the issue with companies like Cisco and Microsoft at the table.
|
|
Comments: 0 ::
View Comments
|
|
Net Neutrality gets a new Ally.
Net Neutrality gets a new Ally.
| Posted By:
Administrator
@ Aug 20 2010, 11:10 PM |
News Source: Zeropaid
US Net Neutrality Supporters Get New Ally – Democrats
The network neutrality debate has been getting very heated in the US. A Verizon-Google agreement drew heavy criticism from proponents of network neutrality. Now, it seems, that four Democrats from the US government is stepping in and disagreeing with the Google-Verizon pact.
The network neutrality debate quieted down for a while, but it seems to be roaring back in to the headlines as of late in the US. That all changed when Verizon and Google announced an agreement that some say was a compromise between the two sides.
The press release starts off with this that sounds like it’s siding with proponents of network neutrality:
In providing broadband Internet access service, a provider
would be prohibited from engaging in undue discrimination against any lawful Internet content, application, or service in a manner that causes meaningful harm to competition or to users. Prioritization of Internet traffic would be presumed inconsistent with the non-discrimination standard, but the presumption could be rebutted.
Things then seemingly took a turn later on down in the press release that sided with those opposed to network neutrality:
Additional Online Services: A provider that offers a broadband Internet access service
complying with the above principles could offer any other additional or differentiated services. Such other services would have to be distinguishable in scope and purpose from broadband Internet access service, but could make use of or access Internet content, applications or services and could include traffic prioritization. The FCC would publish an annual report on the effect of these additional services, and immediately report if it finds at any time that these services threaten the meaningful availability of broadband Internet access services or have been devised or promoted in a manner designed to evade these consumer protections.
It was a distinction between a public internet and additional online services that sparked huge criticism from proponents of network neutrality.
“The companies seem to want to divide the Internet yet further—not just between wired and wireless,” said John Bergmayer of Public Knowledge, “but between “the public Internet” and “additional online services.” Thus, “third party paid prioritization” is allowed—a particular online service might pay Verizon so that its services and content reach customers sooner. According to the proposal, these “additional online services” may “make use of or access Internet content, applications or services and could include traffic prioritization.” According to Ivan Seidenberg of Verizon, these can even include entertainment content—he gave examples including a local opera house paying so that its operas are given prioritization, and 3D video.”
Protesters also showed up at the Googleplex to voice their anger at the news that Google is caving.
A blogger from CNET responded to the news by calling some supporters of network neutrality “zealots” and offering the following opinion:
What Free Press and Public Knowledge don’t seem to realize is that AT&T and Verizon already offer differentiated services today with enhanced quality of service to business customers. Verizon’s Fios TV and AT&T’s U-verse TV services are also examples of managed Internet services that are delivered to consumers. And the last time I checked, no one, other than their cable competitors, has complained about AT&T and Verizon offering competition in the TV market.
The truth is that if Verizon and AT&T wanted to cannibalize their broadband business with premium broadband services, they’d already be doing it. But they aren’t, because there hasn’t been a market for it.
At the very least though, Comcast is trying to cannibalize their network and has been trying for years.
Things were starting to not look good for supporters of network neutrality, but a new development saw support for network neutrality supporters from high places – the US government. Edward Markey (D-Mass.), Anna Eshoo (D-Calif.), Jay Inslee (D-Wash.) and Mike Doyle (D-Pa.) penned a joint letter expressing concern with what is happening between Google and Verizon.
The letter writes, “The recent proposal by Google and Verizon of an industry-centered net neutrality policy framework reinforces the need for resolution of the current open proceedings at the Commission to ensure the maintenance of an open Internet. Rather than expansion upon a proposal by two large communications companies with a vested financial interest in the outcome, formal FCC action is needed. The public interest is served by a free and open Internet that continues to be an indispensable platform for innovation, investment, entrepreneurship, and free speech.”
They said that the FCC should be guided by the following principles for broadband proceedings:
1. The FCC must have oversight authority for broadband access services.
2. Paid prioritization would close the open Internet.
3. Wired and wireless services should have a common regulatory framework and rules.
4. Broad “managed services” exceptions would swallow open Internet rules.
One thing is for sure, if the network neutrality debate in the US wasn’t interesting before, it sure is now.
Have a tip? Want to contact the author? You can do so by sending a PM via the forums or via e-mail at drew@zeropaid.com.
|
|
Comments: 0 ::
View Comments
|
|
Rep. Alan Grayson speaks out!
Rep. Alan Grayson speaks out!
| Posted By:
Administrator
@ Aug 20 2010, 11:00 PM |
Source: Huffington Post
"[Barry] Diller asserted that the Google-Verizon proposal "doesn't preserve 'net neutrality,' full stop, or anything like it." Asked if other media executives were staying quiet because they stand to gain from a less open Internet, he said simply, "Yes."" New York Times, August 12, 2010
The Verizon-Google Net Neutrality Proposal begins by stating that "Google and Verizon have been working together to find ways to preserve the open Internet." Well, that's nice. Imagine what they would have come up with if they had been trying to kill off the open Internet.
Actually, you don't have to imagine it. Because that's what this is. An effort to kill off the open Internet.
Much of the coverage of the Verizon-Google Proposal has focused on only one of the proposal's many problems: the fact that the proposal allows wireless broadband carriers -- like, say, Verizon, for instance -- to discriminate in handling Internet traffic in any manner they choose. They can charge content providers, they can block content providers, and they can slow down content providers, just as they please. That sure doesn't sound "neutral."
We've already seen examples of political censorship over mobile networks. In 2007, Verizon refused to run a pro-choice text message from advocacy group NARAL, due to its supposedly 'unsavory' nature. Yes, this happened; yes, this kind of censorship would be continue to be legal under the Google-Verizon deal; and yes, Google, this is evil.
But the Verizon-Google Proposal allows almost as much latitude to other internet carriers, like cable and DSL carriers. Under the heading "Network Management," all carriers can "engage in reasonable network management," which "includes any technically sound practice" (which means what?). And it specifically includes the power to "prioritize general classes or types of Internet traffic, based on latency." The term "latency" means delays in downloading, from carrying video files and such. So if you want video, and YouTube won't pay Verizon to provide it, then Verizon can "prioritize" other traffic. And then your two-minute video will take two hours to see. And let's say you want to start a new website that offers video -- good luck getting through to Verizon's customer service department, to have Verizon place it in the right 'tier' of Verizon's internet service. In my experience, customer service requests have extraordinarily high "latency."
Furthermore, under the heading "Non-Discrimination Requirement" (that sounds promising!), wireline carriers cannot engage in "undue discrimination." "Undue discrimination!" What, exactly, is "due" discrimination? And even then, the presumption of non-discrimination "could be rebutted."
And if a carrier somehow manages to run afoul of these absurdly loose standards, the FCC doesn't even have the power to act, unless someone actually finds out about the discrimination, complains about it, and can prove it. And even then, the Verizon-Google Proposal limits the penalty to $2 million.
Do you happen to know what Verizon's revenue is every 10 minutes? It's . . . $2 million. That's right. The maximum fine is equal to what Verizon takes in every 10 minutes.
Do we laugh? Or do we cry?
This would give Verizon -- and every other large internet carrier -- the equivalent of a cheap "put" option on every company with an internet-based product or service. For a mere $2 million, Verizon could secretly block (or just mess with) the internet content of a billion-dollar company, destroying its market value overnight. And, perhaps, sending those customers to Verizon's rival product or service.
Now, I really would like to believe that the FCC can deliver on guaranteeing net neutrality. But remember, this 'proposal' came after months of secret, closed-door meetings with the FCC, spurred by Chairman Julius Genachowski, that sought an industry- brokered deal along the lines of the Verizon-Google Proposal. And when the proposal was issued, net neutrality's longtime ally, Commissioner Michael Copps, responded as follows: "Some will claim this announcement moves the discussion forward. That's one of its many problems."
When I see our most stalwart friend on the commission coming out against a deal shepherded by the Chairman, it doesn't inspire confidence that the FCC can hold the line against telecom and cable companies, when those companies have something else in mind.
Google's market capitalization is $150 billion. Verizon's is $85 billion. They don't care about our wellbeing. Never have, never will. Even if one of them tells us it won't "be evil."
It's time for the FCC to step up. It's time for Congress to step up. It's time for all of us to step up. We need for the law to protect the internet: No discrimination in pricing or in service. No self-regulation by corporate titans. And no blessing of corrupt deals at the FCC.
And we need all citizens to engage, to be vigilant. Remember, no one in Big Business has an interest in keeping this medium open to all of us. The only interest that wants to keep the internet open and free, for you and me, is you and me.
So if you care about a free and open internet, uncensored by Big Business, then look toward the horizon. A storm is brewing. There's a hard rain coming.
Follow Rep. Alan Grayson on Twitter: www.twitter.com/alangrayson
|
|
Comments: 0 ::
View Comments
|
|
15 Facts about Net Neutrality
15 Facts about Net Neutrality
Net Neutrality may slip away while the FCC stalls.
Net Neutrality may slip away while the FCC stalls.
| Posted By:
Administrator
@ Aug 18 2010, 11:05 AM |
News Source: SFgate
Imagine an Internet where consumers paid a low price for basic service and more for add-ons such as 3-D video.
Or imagine if Comcast Corp., now seeking approval to acquire General Electric Co.'s NBC Universal, let its customers download Universal movies at superfast speeds, while relegating the latest Harry Potter film from rival Time Warner Inc. to the slow lane.
Open-Internet advocates say such cable television-like tiered services and virtual toll booths would violate "net neutrality," the concept that all information coursing across the Web is equal.
Like it or not, net neutrality may soon be ending. No one senses this more acutely than Julius Genachowski. Since a federal court ruling in April gutted his power to regulate Internet service providers, the Federal Communications Commission chairman has struggled to regain authority over carriers such as AT&T Inc., Verizon Communications Inc., and Comcast by proposing new rules and holding closed-door talks with industry players.
His predicament deepened on Aug. 9 when the chief executive officers of Google Inc. and Verizon, Eric Schmidt and Ivan G. Seidenberg, suggested that the industry embrace net neutrality - up to a point. They would exempt from open-access rules wireless networks and any "managed services" delivered over wires, such as health care monitoring, special entertainment events and gambling.
The CEOs offered as an example an opera performance streamed in 3-D over the Web. Verizon would be paid a premium to send the program to opera buffs more quickly and at higher quality.
Now, with Congress unable to agree on whether to stop companies from carving up the Internet, Genachowski is left with few choices. He wants to uphold President Obama's campaign pledge to protect the open Web, even as the industry gets set to impose restrictions.
Google-Verizon deal
The Google-Verizon plan hit like "a tidal wave" because Mountain View's Google had been "a very strong supporter of net neutrality," Darrell West, vice-president of governance studies at the Brookings Institution in Washington, told Bloomberg Television.
Google seems to be laying the groundwork for tiered pricing, and "the Internet is going to become more like other parts of the economy," West said.
The proposal is in keeping with Google's longtime advocacy of an open Internet, Schmidt said in an interview.
"We're trying to show some leadership," he said. "I have no objection to other people trying to show some leadership, too, but something's got to happen."
Verizon's willingness to agree to clear net-neutrality rules for its wired business was "pleasantly surprising," Schmidt said. "They're serious."
The exemption for managed services merely recognizes what Verizon already offers through its paid FiOS broadband service providing TV, phone and Internet.
Groups reject deal
Public-interest organizations rejected the deal. Joel Kelsey, political adviser for Washington-based consumer advocacy group Free Press, said the pact "would give companies like Verizon, Comcast, and AT&T the right to decide which content will move fast and which should be slowed down."
Others criticized Google for what they called its abandonment of the open Web.
"Google has taken a big step back in people's eyes," said Craig Moffett, an analyst with New York- based Sanford C. Bernstein & Co. "The company that's supposed to not be evil is suddenly being characterized by the net-neutrality crowd as the arch-villain."
The FCC had tried to strike its own accord in talks with the industry that began in June. Unable to reach a consensus, Genachowski ended the discussions Aug. 6.
"Any deal that doesn't preserve the freedom and openness of the Internet for consumers and entrepreneurs will be unacceptable," he said. He declined to comment on the Google-Verizon deal, spokeswoman Jen Howard said in an e-mail.
Potential lawsuits
The chairman, an Obama appointee who leads a 3-2 Democratic majority, could argue that rules written for telephone service provide the authority he needs to require that Internet providers treat traffic equally. If he tries to apply the phone rules to broadband, carriers and congressional Republicans would protest. Cable and phone companies say phone-style rules could lead to rate regulation, and they say that prospect would delay investments to upgrade the Internet.
If Genachowski goes that route, "he's going to be sued," said Rep. Cliff Stearns of Florida, the top Republican on the House subcommittee on communications, technology, and the Internet. "We're not going to get innovation if the government steps in."
Genachowski declines to say when he might put phone-style rules to a vote by the FCC. "He needs to act swiftly," said Gigi Sohn, president of Public Knowledge, a Washington-based group that favors net neutrality. "The more he delays, the more he gives the opposition time."
This article appeared on page D - 1 of the San Francisco Chronicle
Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?...y#ixzz0wxUGaELJ
|
|
Comments: 0 ::
View Comments
|
|
| |
Poll
Poll
Latest Posts
Latest Posts
Top Forums
Top Forums
Site Search
Site Search
|
Net Neutrality Needs your help! > Unreal Portal
