Latest on Net Neutrality

Published on September 29, 2010 in Internet Neutrality and Mass Communication Law. 0 Comments

Ars Technica posts about the latest news in Net Neutrality (Waxman’s net neutrality compromise: solution or last gasp?). What’s interesting here is that they’re (finally?) calling it what proponents have been essentially asking for — classifying ISPs as “common carriers.”

We asked the FCC whether the agency’s latest net neutrality proposal, which would subject ISPs to some common carrier provisions, is still in the game.”All options remain on the table,” came the official reply. The problem is that “the table” is starting to shrink when it comes to open Internet enforcement—something along the lines of a small TV dinner tray, if that. And whatever entrees still sit upon on its surface at this point won’t be taken up at the FCC’s next Open Commission meeting, scheduled for Thursday October 14.

What the heck is a common carrier?  Wikipedia isn’t much help in describing it, but this site does much better (especially the parts about “discrimination” and “interconnection”).

I think when put in this way, it’s easier to understand why Net Neutrality isn’t an attempt to “regulate the Internet.”

Tim Wu on why Net Neutrality is unbelievably important

Published on September 26, 2010 in Internet Neutrality and Mass Communication Law. 0 Comments

Engadget recently interviewed Columbia professor, Tim Wu on the subject of Internet Neutrality. He mentioned a few things that may have been alluded to before, but perhaps with a more insightful turn of the phrase.

Once you have the right to block [access], you have the right to block speech. This is a country that cares about free speech, and people should be should be suspicious of gatekeepers getting in the way of what they want to get to.

This was, I think the issue that originally united people from across the spectrum, and has been an aspect that has been downplayed lately. The point that Tim is perhaps trying to make here is that, while the government is constitutionally obligated to protect free speech, telecommunications corporations are not. To ensure that we can read, see, and say what we want on the Internet, we need Neutrality.

There’s an effort to replace the norms of this thing [heartily pounds his iMac computer]: the openness, the original ideas of the original computer generation people, to give the power to the people — to replace it with the norms of the telephone company.

Those that don’t know their telecommunications history might not be aware of how vigorously the industry fought against their customers’ being able to hook unapproved devices onto their network. Had that battle not taken place, modems would have been provided by the telephone company and online access would never have been as cheap as it was in the dial-up days. Anyone who has tried to (legally!) unlock a cell phone knows that this battle is still very much taking place.

[Don't] get carried away with the convenience [of these devices] and forget that you’re dealing with issues of speech, of innovation, and the right to tinker — things that we’ve taken for granted in the computer world. …
We are tool using animals. These are our tools… We need the rights to these things — they’re our ‘swords.’

I’m so glad that Tim brought up our right to tinker, and explained the rationale in such a clear way. Geeks like to use tools, and we don’t like being told how to use them. Efforts to minimize these efforts are met with fierce resistance because the curiosity that drives our tool use and tinkering is the very fuel that has driven innovation.

Bill would give Justice Department power to shutter piracy sites worldwide

Published on September 20, 2010 in Copyright and Mass Communication Law. 0 Comments

Ars Technica reports about a bill that was introduced today:

If passed, the Justice Department could ask a federal court to for an injunction that would order a domain registrar or registry to stop resolving an infringing site’s domain name, so that visitors to PirateBay.org, for example, would get a 404 error.

The idea of an “infringing site” may be a legally tricky one.  While it may host some material that infringes someone’s copyright, it also likely hosts a great deal of original information.  This original stuff counts as speech, and as such receives a high deal of protection under the First Amendment.  I don’t think this kind of “prior restraint” would ever withstand judicial review.

From the bill:

an Internet site is ‘dedicated to infringing activities’ if such site:
primarily designed, has no demonstrable, commercially significant purpose or use other than, or is marketed by its operator, or by a person acting in concert with the operator, to offer—
‘‘(i) goods or services in violation of title 17, United States Code [a.k.a. copyright], or enable or facilitate a violation of title 17, United States Code, including by offering or providing access to, without the authorization of the copyright owner or otherwise by operation of law, copies of, or public performance or display of, works protected by title 17

As suspected, the “primarily designed” language is potentially difficult to nail down. The infamous Pirate Bay even includes links and information about copyright which I believe may legitimately be considered political speech (especially given that they have a party, as well as the Bay).

More from the bill:

On application of the Attorney General following the commencement of an action pursuant to subsection (c), the court may issue a temporary restraining order, a preliminary injunction, or an injunction against the domain name used by an Internet site dedicated to infringing activities to cease and desist from undertaking any infringing activity in violation of this section

The bill goes on to state that the Attorney General could order the domain registrar to “suspend operation” and “lock” offending domestic domains, and that ISPs shall “take reasonable steps that will prevent a domain name from resolving to that domain name’s Internet protocol address” for foreign domains.

I find this an incredibly dangerous proposal for free speech and online communication.

Grassroots organizing against Facebook TOS?

Published on September 19, 2010 in Mass Communication Law, Media / Sociology and Technology. 0 Comments

Facebook is running into some trouble over their handling of post settings for some anti-corporate leaning grassroots groups.

As the number of Facebook members signed up for the “Boycott Target Until They Cease Funding Anti-Gay Politics” page neared 78,000 in recent days, Facebook personnel locked down portions of the page — banning new discussion threads, preventing members from posting videos and standard Web links to other sites and barring the page’s administrator from sending updates to those who signed up for the boycott. (via Activists upset with Facebook – Josh Gerstein – POLITICO.com)

As Facebook has built up their network, they’ve become the defacto place for sharing information and informally organizing into groups of similar interests. I wonder, if the telephone company could get away with taking similar advantage of their network-effect-built userbase, and censored political speech. The answer, of course, is that they could not, due to the regulations governing the industry.

While actions like this bring critical folks like me ever closer to quitting Facebook, the thought of so many lost connections is what keeps us from doing it. It’s as though one must choose between their principals and their social network — and that’s a position I believe no one should be placed in.

As face-to-face meeting places have become privatized (think public square vs. malls and coffee shops), being able to connect freely online is becoming increasingly vital to social life.  We shouldn’t let these spaces similarly fall into private hands, where we are subject to one entity’s terms of service.

This is why projects like Diaspora and StatusNet are so important.

I didn’t quit Facebook over this, but I did donate to the EFF.  It was far, far overdue.

Edit: Here is a good post from Ars about a similar issue with ISP TOS agreements.

They will discriminate

Published on September 17, 2010 in Internet Neutrality and Mass Communication Law. 0 Comments

Ars Technica posts an excellent examples of network discrimination, and claims these are one of many (RCN P2P settlement: ISP can throttle away starting November 1).

Many of those involved in the debate over network neutrality appear to believe that ISPs simply don’t engage in widespread traffic discrimination, and that the only possible example net neutrality supporters can dredge up involve Comcast and Madison River. …

In fact, numerous class action lawsuits over traffic management have been filed against American ISPs over the last several years.

Class action suits fly a bit more under the radar than debates in the FCC, so it’s important that this piece of the story get some recognition.