RIAA: We Support Net Neutrality, Just As Long As It Includes The Ability For ISPs To Block File Sharing

from the so-that's-how-it-works? dept

Because I know how much you've all been wanting to know what a bunch of dying record labels and their chief lobbyist thinks about net neutrality, the RIAA's president Cary Sherman put out a statement saying that they're happy with the new rules because the FCC's Julius Genachowski has said it's okay for ISPs to ignore all those rules as long as they're going after "illegal conduct" online -- which of course the RIAA assumes must mean file sharing.

33 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Retired Telco PR Exec Who Sent XYZ Corp. Letter To FCC Insists He Wrote It

from the uh-huh... dept

We've already written about how a former PR exec from what became AT&T has been outed as the guy who sent a letter to the FCC where he forgot to take out the boilerplate XYZ Organization that was almost certainly left there by the AT&T lobbyists who wrote the letter for him. However, one of our commenters noted that MediaPost spoke to the guy, Bob Sells, who insists that he wrote the letter with the XYZ part included:

Sells, a 77-year-old retired public relations executive in Little Rock, tells MediaPost that he often writes letters with placeholders and fills in the correct text later, but overlooked the reference to XYZ in this case.

Really? I'm really trying to give this guy the benefit of the doubt, but I can't come up with a single explanation for why he would write "XYZ Organization" when writing a letter himself from a group of people he supposedly represents. If you're the one writing the letter, on behalf of your supposed organization, why would you include "XYZ Organization"?

11 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Guy Who Signed 'XYZ Corp.' Astroturf Letter... Worked As Telco PR Person For Nearly 3 Decades?

from the funny-how-that-works... dept

So, remember last week when we wrote about how anti-net neutrality lobbyists from AT&T had crafted astroturf letters for various "special interest groups" to sign -- but someone forgot to remove the boilerplate "XYZ Organization" in the first paragraph? We also noted that there was little evidence that the group -- the Arkansas Retired Seniors -- actually existed. However, Matt Cutts did a bit of digging and found that the name of the guy who signed the letter -- Bob Sells -- appears to have worked in PR for Southwestern Bell for 28 years (there appears to be only one Bob Sells or Robert Sells in Little Rock). Southwestern Bell, of course, became better known as SBC. SBC, of course, became AT&T after it bought the old AT&T and took on its name. So, if you're an AT&T lobbyist and you want to convince the FCC that "seniors" are against net neutrality -- and you don't want it to appear to come from AT&T employees -- who better to go to than an ex-employee? Still, next time you get a former employee to shill for you, remember to replace the bogus XYZ Organization you left for him in the text of the letter you sent him.

13 Comments | Leave a Comment..

AT&T Asks Employees To Hide AT&T Affiliation While Protesting Net Neutrality Laws

from the disclosure? dept

We've been having some discussions lately about the FTC's new guidelines for "disclosure," and some of our regular critics have been gleefully insisting that the reason I don't like those rules is because I don't disclose stuff, and I'm scared the FTC is going to crack down on the site. I find this pretty funny, because I am a huge believer in the importance of disclosing stuff, and on the rare occasion we've been in a situation where disclosure was necessary, we have no problem disclosing, even to the point that it's almost silly. Almost nothing in those rules impacts us directly. My real complaint with the rules is that the FTC rules aren't needed and raise serious First Amendment issues. First, most blogs and other social media efforts are conversational, not publishing, and a whole different set of social cues matter there. Second, anyone stupid enough not to disclose their affiliations on certain things is going to face pretty serious backlash when it comes out (as it certainly will).

Take, for example, the backlash today on the news that AT&T's chief lobbyist sent out an email to all AT&T employees urging them to protest any new net neutrality laws and hide their AT&T affiliation as they do so. AT&T has confirmed the email, which has numerous factual errors (and remember, I actually agree that net neutrality laws don't make sense). But, more importantly, the mainstream media is now calling AT&T out for this outrageous effort to have employees pretend they're not employees in protesting these rules.

Transparency on conflicts makes a lot of sense. It's something that people should do because it makes you more trustworthy -- not because the FTC threatens to fine you. The problem with the FTC rules is that it creates a weird chilling effect and threat of action on things where the rules aren't at all clear. As AT&T is learning today, trying to hide that kind of thing just creates a lot of backlash. It makes AT&T appear like it doesn't have a strong legitimate case, and needs to resort to underhanded techniques to make its argument.

Oh, and to make the FTC and our critics happy: Full Disclosure: I use AT&T DSL at home, and while I pay for it, a few years back there was a long outage, and AT&T agreed to give me a credit of $35 off my next bill. I also know some people who work at AT&T. My wife uses an iPhone, which I assume must run on AT&T's network, but it's provided by her employer (oh, crap, do I need to disclose who that is too?), and so we never see the bill -- so maybe the FTC thinks it's provided for free? I once sat on a panel with a representative from AT&T, and while I disagreed with him on most things policy-wise, I thought he was a nice guy, and at times I've talked to him about why AT&T should be more involved in online conversations (like this one!). Anything else?

21 Comments | Leave a Comment..

AT&T's Ridiculous Argument Against Google Voice

from the break-it-down dept

We've been covering the ridiculous attempt by AT&T to sic the FCC on Google for deciding to block certain calls via Google Voice. AT&T is being misleading and incredibly disingenuous. While there are some issues with Google's decision to block certain calls, the issue there has nothing to do with net neutrality -- as AT&T aims to tweak Google for supporting net neutrality -- and everything to do with bad regulations -- which AT&T is just as against as Google is.

But the latest letter/PR play from AT&T sinks to ridiculous lows -- and it's a shame that no reporter I've seen so far calls AT&T on any of the crazy claims. While there's some fun in mocking the use of nuns (who are apparently also blocked), AT&T's "slippery slope" argument isn't just questionable, it's wrong:

Indeed, if the Commission cannot stop Google from blocking disfavored telephone calls as Google contends, then how could the Commission ever stop Google from also blocking disfavored websites from appearing in the results of its search engine; or prohibit Google from blocking access to applications that compete with its own email, text messaging, cloud computing and other services; or otherwise prevent Google from abusing the gatekeeper control it wields over the Internet?

But... uh... that's the thing. The FCC cannot stop Google from also blocking disfavored websites from appearing in its results. That's because Google has every right to determine what sites appear in its index and which don't -- and the courts have said exactly that in the past. Google's rankings and site index are Google's own opinion, and there's no legal right for Google to include anyone if it chooses not to. Google knows this. The FCC knows this. AT&T certainly knows this -- so why is it pretending that this is some big issue?

Then there's the claim about Google "blocking access to applications that compete with its own email, text messaging, cloud computing and other services." Except... Google physically cannot block such things, because Google is not the pipe. If I want to go to another email service provider, I just type that URL into my address bar, and Google isn't a party to that at all. The only one who could block such a thing is (oops) my ISP: AT&T. So why even make this argument? It's totally nonsensical.

Obviously, AT&T is having fun poking at Google over this particular issue, but, honestly it should at least limit its complaints to things that actually make sense.

42 Comments | Leave a Comment..

AT&T, Google Spat Over Google Voice Blocked Calls Is Important... But Totally Misses The Point

from the distracting,-but-important dept

Well, well, well. It looks like AT&T's latest line of anti-Google attack is to accuse the company of being hypocritical on net neutrality by not living up to the same principles when it comes to its Google Voice product. The issue is that, apparently, Google Voice is now blocking calls to free conference services like FreeConference.com. This is identical to the problem I discussed a few weeks ago when I noticed that the MagicJack VoIP service blocked calls to those same services. Oddly, at the time, I got around the MagicJack block... by using Google Voice. So if it's now blocking those calls, I haven't yet seen it, but there are numerous complaints. And, just like I said at the time with MagicJack, I think that the FCC has been pretty clear in the past that this is not legal. If you're offering a phone service of this nature, you need to connect it with the phone calls customers are making.

So, I have to admit that I find Google's response to be disingenuous. It basically tries to shrug off the problem by saying Google doesn't have to follow such rules on connecting phone calls because it's a "web-based" offering. First, making such a claim just makes Google look like it's ducking the issue. Second, Google has done a dreadful job letting Google Voice users know that such calls are totally blocked by its service.

However (and this is important), the actual issue here is not net neutrality. The real issue is ridiculous regulatory setups in certain rural areas, that force unnaturally high connection fees on telcos to rural telcos, creating a massive arbitrage opportunity that the Free Conference call offerings making good (and profitable) use of in offering their services. Basically, every inbound call to these telcos requires massive per minute fees from the connecting service provider to the rural telco. It's so expensive that as long as the rural telco can offer a service (such as conference calls) at a cheaper rate, they make money on every inbound call -- but it's all due to outdated regulations that "protect" those telcos. Google mentions this in its response, but it should be the headline, not buried in the details: the issue with net neutrality is the telcos trying to double charge for the use of their network. The issue with these calls is a dumb regulatory setup that forces telephone service providers to pay insanely high rates to a small group of small telcos for any inbound calls.

So, yes, I agree that it's bad that Google (and MagicJack) blocks these calls -- and I believe it may in fact go against some previous statements by the FCC concerning phone services. But... it's not a net neutrality issue where they're doing so to squeeze extra money out of customers by holding part of the access for ransom. Instead, it's the result of bad and outdated local state regulations concerning connection fees that really need to be overturned.

40 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Dear WSJ: Will You Pay Google's Bandwidth Bill?

from the please,-let-us-know dept

And here we go again... The whole "network neutrality" discussion really burst onto the scene in 2005, when (then) SBC CEO Ed Whitacre made claims that Google was somehow "free riding" on SBC's (now AT&T's) network. Of course, that made no sense. Everyone pays for their own bandwidth. The only way that would make sense is if the bandwidth you paid for only brought you to the internet backbone, but never to an end point. Yet, that seemed to be exactly what Whitacre was claiming. You see, the bandwidth you pay for is only supposed to get you onto the internet. To actually reach a site, in this logic, the site owners then should have to pay to let you reach from the internet to their site (never mind that they already pay bandwidth themselves... in this logic, that's only the bandwidth from themselves out to the network, but not from the network for you to reach the site).

This, of course, makes no sense at all. And yet, PR people and telco lobbyists know that it makes for a good soundbite. Mike McCurry, a former Clinton aide who went on to run a telco lobbying group (and now runs an entertainment industry lobbying group) declared in 2006 that Google was getting such a free ride that they "never have to pay a dime no matter how much bandwidth they use." In response, I challenged McCurry and his organization (Hands Off The Internet) to pay Google's bandwidth bill. While the group clearly read (but did not understand) Techdirt, they never responded to the challenge (shocker), and Google had to go on paying its own bill -- though, McCurry assures us that it's not even a dime.

We had thought that such ridiculous reasoning had finally been taken away from the debate, but with the FCC back to pushing for net neutrality, we're seeing the argument pop up again. Holman W. Jenkins Jr., a WSJ editor has an editorial making the same bogus free rider arguments yet again, and accusing Google of wanting "internet socialism." Karl Bode, over at Broadband Reports provides a rather epic response (this is just a snippet -- read the whole thing):

It doesn't matter how many times you point out that companies like Google pay millions of dollars for bandwidth and their own infrastructure, the paid talking heads who work for Verizon and AT&T simply keep repeating the same myth. Telling these individuals that AOL users paid phone companies billions in tolls and long-distance fees will get you nowhere. By demonizing Google and repeating nonsense, Jenkins and AT&T can distract marginally unintelligent lawmakers, journalists and the public from the real issues. Unfortunately, they're right.

Yes, companies like Google are not saints. Yes, Google is solely interested in dominating the advertising industry. Yes, companies like Google can and possibly will turn into anti-competitive tyrants over time who violate user privacy and do everything in their power to obliterate competitors. However, the network neutrality debate was not started by Google. It was started by a very confused Ed Whitacre.

Network neutrality has always been about phone and cable companies trying to maintain power in the face of Internet evolution. If network neutrality confuses you (and it pretty clearly confuses Mr. Jenkins), at least understand one thing: network neutrality has always been about phone and cable companies trying to maintain power in the face of Internet evolution. You can't blame phone company executives for being terrified. They should be.

The evolution of the Internet is strangling decades old cash cows, herded across analog fields by monopoly dinosaurs who've been pampered by Uncle Sam for generations. As voice becomes simply data, charging nine dollars for services like caller ID or call waiting (both of which costs pennies to provide) becomes untenable. Suddenly, programs like Google Voice allow users to send free SMS messages, eroding hugely profitable SMS revenue. AT&T and Verizon, protected from competition for so long, are coming face to face with reality for the first time in generations.

With voice, video and other services all just bits, broadband has made cable and phone company empires as service providers irrelevant, whether they know it yet or not. That leaves them with one purpose: running a network. And while the baby bells make a perfectly healthy fortune simply selling flat-rate bandwidth in this new paradigm, investor pressure and the need for quarter over quarter stock improvement makes simply being incredibly profitable not good enough.

I have to admire one trick, however. Jenkins did flip one of the common stories. Usually the anti-net neutrality stories focus on the massive rise in internet growth and the threat of some non-existent "exaflood." Jenkins admits that's bogus: "Broadband growth is leveling out in the U.S." But... rather than note how telcos have been using the exaflood story to push for the right to break net neutrality, he pretends that this also is a reason to break net neutrality, because it means that broadband providers have to compete to steal customers from each other, and can't risk pissing off customers by blocking sites. Of course, that only works if there's real competition. And, in most markets, people have at most 2 providers. If both of them break net neutrality... then what?

While some will now insist that I support the legislation being proposed, let me make it clear that I do not. I am worried about the long term impact here. But, I do believe that the principles of network neutrality should be preserved, even as I worry about how the government might do it. And I am most certainly not convinced by the ridiculous arguments put forth about such "free riding." So, let's make the same offer to the WSJ that we made to Mike McCurry all those years ago. If you honestly believe that Google is "free riding" thanks to net neutrality, will you agree to pay Google's bandwidth bill? How about you exchange yours for theirs and make it a fair trade? Since they're doing so much free riding... it's cheap, right?

17 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Clearwire Supports Net Neutrality? Does No One Remember Its History?

from the that's-funny... dept

How quickly people forget. With the FCC's announcement about support for net neutrality legislation the PR and lobbying machines of the major telco and cable providers have cranked up, putting out all sorts of fear mongering letters and reports about the damage such a law will do. There was one interesting exception. Some noticed that wireless broadband provider Clearwire appeared to support the FCC's position (though, I'd argue that the statement's wording is a bit vague). While the article at Moconews suggests this "isn't surprising," I'm wondering how everyone seems to have forgotten that Clearwire, in the past, was one of the most aggressive broadband providers to support a non neutral network. A few years back, it was blocking VoIP and streaming media and proudly promised to block any type of traffic or application it didn't like. It also tried to get VoIP providers to get "certified" before promising they could work on Clearwire's network. Of course, plenty can change in a few years, but it's quite noteworthy that Clearwire may have changed its tune on net neutrality entirely.

7 Comments | Leave a Comment..

FCC: We Want Net Neutrality

from the yes,-but... dept

As was rumored last week, FCC boss, Julius Genachowski, gave a speech where he pushes to have the FCC's "principles of network openness" codified into law. Basically, he's come out in support of a net neutrality law, giving the FCC the power to regulate the issue. In the speech, he suggests that the four principles that were already put forth by former FCC chair Michael Powell get two additions, and have all six codified as law. The first four are:

• Freedom to Access Content. First, consumers should have access to their choice of legal content
• Freedom to Use Applications. Second, consumers should be able to run applications of their choice.
• Freedom to Attach Personal Devices. Third, consumers should be permitted to attach any devices they choose to the connection in their homes.
• Freedom to Obtain Service Plan Information. Fourth, consumers should receive meaningful information regarding their service plans.

To that, Genachowski adds the following two:

• The fifth principle is one of non-discrimination -- stating that broadband providers cannot discriminate against particular Internet content or applications.
• The sixth principle is a transparency principle -- stating that providers of broadband Internet access must be transparent about their network management practices.

I have to admit that the sixth principle sounds a lot like the fourth, and the whole thing remains pretty vague. The more interesting bit is the plan to include wireless technologies in what's covered here, something the FCC hasn't paid nearly as much attention to in the past.

While I believe that the basic concept of a neutral internet is very important to keeping the internet as a platform for innovation, I have to admit that I'm quite nervous about any attempt to put it into the law. First, many are noting that the telcos will undoubtedly heavily lobby the process to make sure that the final legislation has plenty of loopholes and quid pro quo aspects in it. As Broadband Reports notes:

While anyone and everyone will participate, you can expect lobbyists for AT&T, Comcast and Verizon to continue to get the best seats. Be mindful that lobbyists will likely work very hard to make these principles as weak as possible so they can only be used in the most egregious instances of foul play. This is a perfect opportunity for telecom lobbyists to pre-empt tougher federal laws, that not coincidentally picked up steam in Congress last week.

Also be aware that when lobbyists see discussions of "transparency," their immediate thought is that it's a perfect opportunity to push harder for low usage caps and high per-byte overages. Mega-carriers believe that as long as they're facing expectations of honesty when it comes to network management, they might as well use the opportunity to their advantage in almost vindictive fashion. Expect the industry's continued dream of shifting from flat-rate pricing to metered billing to play a starring role as the rules get hashed out.

Not surprisingly, the broadband providers rushed out prepared statements that all start off with "applause" for Genachowski, followed by something rather different than applause... each positioning reasons for why putting such principles into law is a bad, bad idea. In other words, expect a big fight and any law to be greatly watered down.

My biggest fear, honestly, isn't in what happens with this particular law, but what happens down the road. I believe that Genachowski really is committed to reasonable internet principles. But once we've given the FCC a mandate to regulate how the internet works, then those laws can and will be updated and changed. What if the next FCC chair is a former telco exec -- certainly not outside the realm of possibility. Opening up that door is likely to result in some very bad legislation down the road.

27 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Will Comcast's Own Words Kill Its Lawsuit Against The FCC?

from the seems-pretty-damning dept

Last year, when the FCC was busy slapping Comcast's wrist for its traffic shaping policies, Comcast pointed out that it wasn't clear the FCC had the authority to do so. I tend to agree, actually. It's not at all clear that the FCC really has a mandate to tell private network operators what they can do with their network -- though, if that argument gets anywhere, it seems likely that a net neutrality-friendly Congress will quickly adjust and add it to the FCC's mandate. However, what was odd was that Comcast waited over a year before finally going to court over this issue. To be honest, I can't see what Comcast "wins" here, even if it wins the case. Congress would likely change the FCC's mandate. Separately, the FTC actually might have a stronger case here, as the real problem wasn't necessarily the traffic shaping, but Comcast's refusal to tell users about it, effectively providing false advertising to customers. That's an FTC issue.

But a much bigger problem for Comcast may be the fact that the company has had no problem actively promoting the FCC's supposed "mandate" over them when it suits them. In a separate lawsuit over the very same traffic shaping, Comcast tried to get out of the lawsuit by claiming it was an issue covered by the FCC:

This issue "i.e., the reasonableness of a broadband provider's network management practices" has, however, been firmly placed within the jurisdiction of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC"), an administrative agency whose authority to regulate internet broadband access companies' services is well-established.

You have to imagine that this quote from Comcast will be prominently displayed by the FCC in response to Comcast's latest action.

15 Comments | Leave a Comment..

AT&T Blocks 4chan Over DDoS... But May Not Like What Happens Next...

from the that-would-not-be-a-good-thing... dept

A few folks have submitted the news that, apparently, AT&T is blocking access to a certain subdomain of 4chan. I just checked on my own AT&T DSL account and it's true that I can't get there (I can get there if I don't go via AT&T). That doesn't mean that AT&T definitely is blocking it, but there are reports that folks at AT&T have admitted that it's true. If you don't know what 4chan is, the 4chan Wikipedia page is probably the best way to understand it. Even if the site is controversial for some, it does seem quite extreme for AT&T to do an outright block, without any official warning or immediate explanation. Outright blocking of websites, without recourse and without a clear explanation of why, is extremely questionable and the sort of "net neutrality" violation that the FCC would likely come down hard against. If it's true that there's a block, perhaps AT&T is assuming that no one serious (such as the FCC) would come to the defense of 4chan, but that might be a mistake (in part because AT&T probably won't like what happens when 4chan decides to come to its own defense). Hopefully this will be explained away as a mistake. So far, the best explanation I've seen is (via 4chan) the claim that the subdomain was involved in some sort of DDoS attack, but you would think that, if that were the case, AT&T would have just made that clear from the beginning. Not coming out with a clear and concise explanation just looks bad, and seems to be stirring up 4chan folks to make a statement -- something AT&T almost certainly does not want. AT&T may be able to tap your phones, but getting on the wrong side of 4chan seems like a bad, bad idea.

Update: As expected, AT&T has confirmed (as we believed) that this was over a DDoS attack:

Beginning Friday, an AT&T customer was impacted by a denial-of-service attack stemming from IP addresses connected to img.4chan.org. To prevent this attack from disrupting service for the impacted AT&T customer, and to prevent the attack from spreading to impact our other customers, AT&T temporarily blocked access to the IP addresses in question for our customers. This action was in no way related to the content at img.4chan.org; our focus was on protecting our customers from malicious traffic.

Overnight Sunday, after we determined the denial-of-service threat no longer existed, AT&T removed the block on the IP addresses in question. We will continue to monitor for denial-of-service activity and any malicious traffic to protect our customers.

That said, I still think AT&T failed here, in that they did not make this clear from the outset. If they had stated upfront what the situation was, in conjunction with the temporary block, they would have been much better off. But by silently blocking, they kicked off a firestorm that had to have been expected by anyone aware of 4chan.

39 Comments | Leave a Comment..

If AT&T Mobile Broadband Banned TV Streaming, Why Does It Allow MLB Streaming?

from the net-neutrality? dept

Earlier this year, we covered AT&T's back and forth over its terms of service, concerning whether or not services like SlingMedia's place shifting (streaming from your TV to a phone or laptop) was allowed. Some had noticed that AT&T's terms of service appeared to forbid it -- but then AT&T said it was a mistake and took it out, only to change its position a little later, and reinsert the language. Because of that, Sling had to disable its own player from working when an iPhone is connected via the 3G cellular network, rather than a WiFi connection.

Yet, recently, Major League Baseball's digital arm, MLB.com announced that it was going to start streaming video of games to its iPhone app, even on 3G connections -- and AT&T seemed fine with it. However, this differential treatment is leading to charges of favoritism and discrimination, even bringing out the dreaded charges that "net neutrality has been broken." The specific question is why AT&T gets to choose which streaming video apps are allowed, and which are not. If your regular ISP told you that you could watch Hulu, but not YouTube, there would be quite an outrage.

AT&T's response is disingenuous, at best, claiming:

AT&T said the MLB app streams video from MLB's website, while SlingPlayer streams from the TV set-top box Slingbox. AT&T also said the company is only trying to ensure all users on its network get the best possible service.

"We're certainly not crippling any apps," an AT&T spokesman said. "This is an issue of fairness.... While we would like to support all video services across our network, the reality is that wireless networks simply lack the capacity to support customers streaming hours of cable, satellite or IPTV video programming to individual users."

While this -- once again -- highlights the point that mobile cellular services are nowhere near legitimate competitors for real broadband services, note that the AT&T person never actually answers the question. The fact that Sling streams from a settop box and MLB streams from MLB's website is functionally meaningless to the iPhone. To the iPhone user it's the same thing. It doesn't care where the server is placed -- it's just receiving a video stream. So AT&T is not being honest or upfront about this at all. If the network is a problem, then it shouldn't allow video at all. Picking and choosing who gets to run video certainly smacks of discrimination and favoritism -- exactly the sort of thing the FCC claims is not allowed.

39 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Do We Need A Technology Bill Of Rights? Or Just More Common Sense?

from the one-or-the-other... dept

A bunch of folks have sent in a proposal by Paul Venezia at Infoworld, suggesting a special "Technology Bill of Rights." While I actually tend to agree with a lot of what he talks about preserving in this Bill of Rights (online anonymity, net neutrality -- especially if there's no competition, and a right to make copies of content you bought, software used for public policy needs to have its source available, etc.) I don't see how it helps to necessarily have it set as a special "Bill of Rights" (not that anyone is seriously considering it). Instead, many of these issues seem like ones that we should strive for through good competition in the market, not enforce by any sort of law.

13 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Are Industry Best Practices Enough To Protect Net Neutrality?

from the no-sticks-anymore,-just-carrots dept

For the supporters of net neutrality, an Obama White House, Genachowski FCC and Democratic Congress seemed to be the magic combination to ensure an open, non-discriminatory Internet. However, one of the key proponents, Representative Boucher, has recently suggested that he is switching tactics, "scrapping the idea of pursuing legislation mandating an openly accessible Internet in favor of negotiations with stakeholders aimed at reaching a comprehensive accord." An agreement upon industry best practices could, in theory, be a good way to protect net neutrality, but there are causes for concern.

As Techdirt contributor Tim Lee pointed out in his paper on net neutrality, the unintended consequences of legislation may be costly and inefficient. So, voluntary agreements could create a flexible, realistic approach to protecting an important principle. Something similar happened with the Global Network Initiative that brought together Google, Microsoft and Yahoo!, along with academics and human rights organizations, to agree to a set of principles and enforcement mechanisms to protect and promote free expression and privacy around the globe. But the motivating factor of this agreement was the threat of legislation following very humiliating Congressional hearings on American Internet companies' dealings in China. By creating a voluntary set of best practices, the Global Network Initiative sidestepped the unintended consequences of poorly drafted legislation. The ISPs could do similarly, but by publicly stating his change of tactics, Boucher may have removed the motivating factor.

Another key to any agreement would be competition in the ISP marketplace. In Norway, where they recently created a similar agreement between ISPs and consumer protection agencies to mandate non-discrimination of networks and endpoints, the ISPs are in a competitive sector. Because ISPs there recognize the competitive advantage of staying neutral, there is a force pushing them in that direction. In the United States, the driving force was largely the threat of legislation, and hopefully that is still there as Boucher guides the ISPs towards his comprehensive accord.

Kevin Donovan is an expert at the Insight Community. To get insight and analysis from Kevin Donovan and other experts on challenges your company faces, click here.

35 Comments | Leave a Comment..

No, ESPN Still Isn't Breaking Imagined 'Reverse Net Neutrality' Concept

from the once-more-with-feeling dept

Back in 2006, some people noticed that the ESPN360 online video service was only available to subscribers of certain ISPs, leading it to be charged with violating "reverse net neutrality" principles for -- gasp -- deciding the business model under which it wanted to sell its content. ESPN was taking a very cable-channel-like approach: instead of selling access to individual users, it sold access to ISPs, who then offered it to their subscribers, much like cable operators offer its channel to their users. The idea that ESPN was violating some sort of net-neutrality ideal was way off-base then, and it still is today, even though somebody at Wired just noticed what ESPN's doing.

So, once again, it bears repeating: a content company using the business model of its choice doesn't violate net neutrality, nor this invented concept of "reverse net neutrality." Whether ESPN's business model will be successful is another discussion; but selling access to ISPs instead of individuals really is no different than ISPs offering their customers the use of various ISP-specific portals, or offering them free anti-virus software. Does it violate net neutrality somehow that, say, Verizon FIOS subscribers can't use AT&T U-Verse webmail? The ESPN360 scenario really is no different: it's content or a service that the ISP has licensed and is offering to its subscribers in hopes of gaining some competitive advantage over its rivals.

ESPN is being accused of "effectively [giving] the middle finger to net neutrality," but really, it's the total opposite. The concern with net neutrality is that content providers would have to pay ISPs so that ISP customers could access their content. What's happening here is that ESPN's convinced ISPs to pony up so that their subscribers can access its content. The ISPs are enabling access to content they've paid for, not blocking access to content from providers who won't pay. That's a tacit admission on the part of the ISPs that their networks are only as valuable as the content they can access. By enabling access to more content, they've enhanced the value of their networks. Imagine if Google took this approach and went to ISPs demanding payment, instead of the other way around. ISPs would very quickly figure out that impeding their customers' access to content -- the entire crux of the net neutrality argument -- will kill them in the marketplace. ESPN's gotten its ISP customers to admit that ensuring users can access as much content as possible enhances the value of their networks, and if anything, that affirms the principles of network neutrality.

Carlo Longino is an expert at the Insight Community. To get insight and analysis from Carlo Longino and other experts on challenges your company faces, click here.

41 Comments | Leave a Comment..

UK Government Report Says Net Neutrality Threatens Innovation

from the fighting-for-you dept

As Mike pointed out, the British government's recent "Digital Britain" report is a mishmash of hedges and wishy-washiness that seems to have been carefully crafted to avoid taking much of a stand on anything. But in addition to its musing on file-sharing, it's worth looking at its recommendations on network neutrality, too. The report says the government should do nothing to prevent ISPs from charging content providers for "traffic prioritization" -- basically letting them charge certain providers a fee in exchange for guaranteed service levels. It also says that traffic shaping and other blocking and network management policies should be a-okay. The reasoning is that ISPs have to be allowed to do these things with their networks in order to "promote investment" and not stifle innovation.

It's hard to see this, as well as the recommendations that ISPs should be copyright cops, as little more than attempts to prop up incumbent (and often ailing) businesses. It's hard to fathom why ISPs should be forced to do record labels' detective work, why they should be on the front lines of protecting the labels' failing business model. And the claim that letting ISPs levy fees to discriminate among different providers' traffic will promote investment, and not allowing them to do so will stifle innovation seems pretty ludicrous. In fact, it's completely wrong: allowing ISPs to charge content providers for service levels will stifle investment and innovation -- established, big players will pay the fees -- not to offer wonderful new services -- but in an attempt to hold down competition. It's not hard to see things get to the point where startups and small companies with new, innovative services will have trouble getting a foothold without making big payments to ISPs. How does any of this benefit the British taxpaying public at large?

Carlo Longino is an expert at the Insight Community. To get insight and analysis from Carlo Longino and other experts on challenges your company faces, click here.

13 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Cox Gets Aggressive With Traffic Shaping

from the taunting-the-fcc dept

In a move that's basically baiting the FCC and Congress to see if they will act, Cox has announced that it's going to experiment with rather aggressive traffic shaping, granting priority to bits that it feels have a great priority. Why Cox gets to describe what gets a priority and what doesn't seems pretty questionable. Cox is also the company that implemented a three strikes policy on file sharing without telling anyone.

To be honest, this seems like a really tone deaf move by Cox -- and I'd imagine that plenty of telcos and cable companies are pissed off about Cox calling extra attention to the topic right now. There's been plenty of talk of new net neutrality regulations in Congress, and with Cox putting the issue so squarely on the table, it's as if they're begging for such regulations (or at least to be slapped down by the FCC). You would think they would at least wait until it wasn't an issue getting so much attention before drawing extra scrutiny and daring regulators to act.

28 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Have The Big Internet Companies Turned Their Back On Net Neutrality?

from the that's-what-you-get dept

In general, I side pretty strongly with Tim Lee's recent net neutrality paper suggesting that we shouldn't rush into net neutrality legislation that is likely to have unintended consequences -- but at the same time, we shouldn't downplay the importance of a neutral end-to-end internet. One of the key points of his paper was that the net neutrality battle, as portrayed in the press, was quite misleading. It has never really been about "internet companies" vs. "telcos." And, this point becomes especially important for consumers who value neutrality, who mostly lined up behind the big internet companies on the assumption they would fight hard to protect net neutrality.

However, as the Wall Street Journal is noting, it seems like many of those big internet companies that were strong supporters of net neutrality are now moving away from that position, and some may be going in completely the opposite direction. In fact, the article highlights (without any named sources... so...) that Google has been busy negotiating preferential traffic deals with various internet providers, such that it would get to place its own servers on their premises to give users a faster route to Google's servers. Google's only comment was to deny that this would violate net neutrality concepts, though some might disagree. On the whole, I'd have to agree that this doesn't appear to violate network neutrality rules, as it's more like Google setting up its own private Akamai-like CDN, and, as we've explained before, a CDN does not violate neutrality.

So, to be clear, it looks like the WSJ is blowing this totally out of proportion when it comes to the Google/net neutrality angle. But that doesn't mean it doesn't raise other important questions for those who line up behind the big internet companies in the expectation that Google, Amazon, Microsoft and Yahoo will fight various fights for them. The article details how each one of those companies has stepped back from the fight in recent days, and even have been doing deals with telcos that are perhaps on that fuzzy border of a non-neutral internet.

In some ways, this is similar to the point we've been making in some other areas, where people and companies, who used to rely on Google's legal team to fight their battles, now need to realize that Google is no longer the defender of Silicon Valley. While the company used to take the stance that what was good for the internet user overall would be good for Google in the long term, in the last year or so, the company has increasingly made decisions that go against that principle. Instead, it's done a number of deals that allow it to leverage its cash reserves to make life more difficult for others, but allow Google to protect itself.

So, even if Google isn't really backing away from net neutrality right now, given its other actions recently, people need to increasingly realize that Google no longer always views "what's good for internet users is good for Google," and should plan accordingly.

15 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Before We Start Regulating ISPs, Maybe It Would Be Good Idea To Define Them

from the forethought,-ignored dept

Many people are expecting that the debate over net neutrality will kick up again in the new year. The senator behind previous attempts to enact it plans to reintroduce legislation for it, while the incoming presidential administration appears to be much more supportive of the idea than the outgoing one. Before jumping in with both feet, though, let's pause for a second (and read Tim Lee's paper), and take a moment to actually figure out just what constitutes an ISP these days, and who would be bound by any net-neutrality regulations.

An interesting piece at Network World raises the example of Amazon: since it supplies a network connection to Kindle owners, would net-neutrality regulation force it to somehow open up the internet access on the device and allow Kindle owners to connect to other e-book vendors? This is an important point to consider, given how mobile operators are all talking about their plans to "open" their networks and get wireless radios embedded in all sorts of consumer electronics. If, say, Netflix decided to sell a device for accessing its streaming-movie service over mobile networks, and used a similar model to Amazon, in which the wireless service was included, would Netflix be an ISP? Would net-neutrality regulations force it to let users access other movie services? The general trend seems to be that the number of companies that could conceivably be considered ISPs -- especially with some poorly worded legislation -- is set to grow significantly. But net-neutrality regulation could end up stifling business models, innovation and new devices and services if it's not carefully considered. Somehow, though, it's hard to imagine there will be careful consideration in the rush to score political brownie points.

Carlo Longino is an expert at the Insight Community. To get insight and analysis from Carlo Longino and other experts on challenges your company faces, click here.

10 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Is Google Really Using 21x The Bandwidth It Pays For?

from the bad-math dept

Scott Cleland is a "telecom analyst" who, in reality, is actually paid a large sum of money by the telcos to slam Google. He's become sort of a joke in DC circles. In the past, we noted his ridiculously bad math in claiming that Google fleeced taxpayers out of $7 billion, as well as his claims that "open spectrum" is somehow anti-American. His main issue, of course, is trying to dispense bogus arguments for why net neutrality is really a big scam by Google to keep its broadband bills cheap. To give Cleland credit, at least he's not as bad as Mike McCurry, who once claimed that Google doesn't pay a dime for broadband. McCurry, of course, has moved on from spinning for the telcos to spinning for the entertainment industry, so Cleland needed to up his game.

He's now released a "study" claiming that Google uses 21 times as much bandwidth as it pays for. First of all, this is simply incorrect. Cleland doesn't know how much Google actually pays for broadband, so he comes up with a small number, which is wrong for a variety of reasons.

He seems to conflate consumer broadband and Google's broadband. This is based, in part, on the old telco argument that when you buy internet access, you're only buying access to the middle of the internet, and you should have to pay a second time to actually reach any endpoint or other user. So, even though consumers pay for the bandwidth they use to reach Google, Cleland appears to calculate that as being Google's responsibility, ignoring that consumers are paying plenty for the right to reach Google (and the rest of the internet). As Cord Blomquist points out, this is like pointing out that Best Buy should pay for the gas it takes for people to drive to Best Buy. Broadband Reports also does a nice job deconstructing this.

However, even if we ignore all the basic facts and information that Cleland gets wrong, if we grant his premise, his argument still doesn't make any sense. If anything, rather than being an argument in favor of the telcos' position, Clelands report (if true) suggests that telco execs all deserve to be fired. After all, they're the ones who set up the business model and the billing relationship, and if they're undercharging Google by so much, then shouldn't they raise their prices? Of course, there's a good reason why this doesn't happen: because Google is paying fair market value for its bandwidth, and if anyone tried to charge them 21 times more, Google would quickly take its business elsewhere. So, based on this report, either Cleland is dead wrong in his report, or the telcos who funded it are run by morons who don't know how to set pricing correctly. Which one is more likely?

28 Comments | Leave a Comment..