Category: Internet Neutrality

Verizon temporarily blocks some 4chan sites | InSecurity Complex – CNET News

Here’s a story which at first blush appears to be a blockage of (an often offensive) website. More information reveals that that there may have been a legitimate attack.  This is a fine like that Verizon appears to have navigated well.  Verizon’s statement:

Recently, Verizon Wireless security and external experts detected attacks from an IP address associated with the 4Chan family of web sites that was disruptive to our customers and our network. To protect both, we eliminated connectivity to the IP address. At no time was 4Chan itself blocked. Ongoing network security team monitoring has now determined there is no longer an immediate threat. Connectivity to those sites is being restored later today.

via Verizon temporarily blocks some 4chan sites | InSecurity Complex – CNET News.

Alternative Internet Voices Shuttered

Two important alternative voices on the Internet, Wikileaks and P2P.net, have both announced that they need to temporarily shut their doors.  With server costs in the tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars, one can assume that advertising and donations didn’t quite bring in enough to keep things running.

This is an important reminder that speech online is not free–especially if you have something interesting or important to say. I’d argue that, these are perfect arguments for Internet Neutrality. If providers were allowed to shift to a scheme where they can charge sites like this extra for access, one can only imagine how many other ideas might be chilled.

Who knew that, in an age of thinking about how we might fund newspapers, we might also need to think about how alternative voices are funded online as well.

Color of Internet Neutrality

An FCC commissioner has challenged minority groups to think differently about how a non-neutral Internet might impact their communication strategies.

“The reality is that minority content is almost impossible to get distributed through traditional channels,” Clyburn noted. But with an initial investment of $526, Moore put his video network online. “Had the costs of access been much greater, however—say if he had to buy his way into priority status on one or more networks—Rowdy Orbit may never have seen the light of day,” Clyburn added.

Then she lobbed this concern into the crowd. “To my surprise, most of the filings submitted and public statements issued by some of the leading groups representing people of color on this matter have been silent on this make-or-break issue,” Clyburn confided. “There has been almost no discussion of how important—how essential—it is for traditionally underrepresented groups to maintain the low barriers to entry that our current open Internet provides.”

I think this point of network access costs for less well-to-do media outlets (and individuals) has been occasionally lost in the fray.  I’m particularly glad to see it come up in this exact context.

Also of interest, the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication is formally supporting Net Neutrality. As a member, I’m glad to see them going out on a limb like this.

FCC jurisdiction over the Internet

Ars gives an excellent rundown of recent proceedings which may hold grave implications for FCC jurisdiction over the Internet. Essentially Comcast is arguing that the FCC took charge of the Net through a policy statement. If you’re interested in the issues, I would recommend reading the article in full (note there are 2 pages), but here are a few highlights:

For the next ten minutes the judges and Comcast talked cases and precedents. Then [Justice] Randolph cut to the chase. “In looking this over I found a good many situations in which Congress has instructed the FCC to study the Internet,” he opined, “and taxation of transit sales transactions on the Internet, and this, and that, and the other thing. But what I don’t find is any congressional directive to the FCC to regulate the Internet.” It wasn’t hard for [Comcast attorney] Walker to summon a response to this observation. “That’s right,” she declared.

[After arguing that a Congressional order to the FCC to bear the responsibility for rolling out broadband access…] By the end of the discussion [FCC attorney] Schlick was bargaining with the judges. “If I’m going to lose I would like to lose more narrowly,” he confided. “But above all, we want guidance from this Court so that when we do this rule-making, if we decide rules are appropriate we’d like to know what we need to do to establish jurisdiction.”

What’s next if DC Court says FCC has no power over ISPs (Ars Technica)