• “Cox ensures the highest quality online experience for all our customers by using reasonable network management practices, which are explained in our user policies,” the company said in a statement. “Cox allows the use of file-sharing and peer-to-peer services for uploads and downloads, and we allow access to all legal content, but we must manage the traffic impact of peer-to-peer services, as most ISPs do for the benefit of the customer.”

• A new bill on neutrality and broadband policy was introduced yesterday by Representatives John Conyers and Zoe Lofgren.

    

  The Internet Freedom and Nondiscrimination Act of 2008, as it is called, is intended to "promote competition, to facilitate trade, and to ensure competitive and non-discriminatory access to the Internet," as quoted by Arstechnica.

    

  The main focus is on providing an equal access for all users and the decision to act on it was taken after numerous allegations surfaced about many major internet service providers who were slowing the internet connections for some of their consumers without any legitimate explanations.

• In an effort to prevent Inter­net service providers (ISPs) from blocking or favoring certain con­tent on consumers' computers, Rep. John Conyers, a Democrat from Michigan, has introduced The Internet Freedom and Non­discrimination Act of 2008. The bill was co-sponsored by Demo­crat Zoe Lofgren of California.

  • If passed, the net neutrality bill would allow consumers equal access to all content, applications and services online — including search engines and banner ads. ISPs would still be able to manage traffic, but not discriminate against competitors. Providers would also be required to interconnect with competing ISPs “on a reasonable and nondiscriminatory basis.”
    
    “The Internet was designed without centralized control, with­out gatekeepers for content and services,” Rep. Conyers said in a statement. “Many of the innova­tions and products we use every day, such as search engines, music download services and online video, likely would never have developed in a restricted environ­ment,” he added.

• New Bill Makes Network Neutrality an Antitrust Issue
• Rep. John Conyers, chairman of the U.S. House of Representatives Judiciary Committee, has introduced Congress's second network neutrality bill of the year.
• Conyers' bill treats network neutrality as an antitrust issue, which means those who don't observe it would be subject to lawsuits for violating antitrust law. Lawsuits can take a long time to carry out, but their consequences — including large financial penalties — can be highly persuasive. From the viewpoint of neutrality proponents, a big advantage of the antitrust approach is that anyone can file suit, according to a spokesman for the Open Internet Coalition. That eliminates the need to prevail upon the government to take action.

  • Conyers will hold public hearings in support of his bill, which will generate some press coverage. Still, any technical issue of this sort would have trouble competing for attention in what promises to be an intense election campaign.

  • Markey's earlier bill, by contrast, focuses on traditional regulatory methods. It defines broadband-Internet services as communication services under the 1934 Telecommunications Act and would force the Federal Communications Commission to impose common-carrier rules on providers. This approach would provide results that are less drastic than antitrust action but can happen more quickly.
• Comcast's Role 

  • That's where Comcast comes in. It made headlines and sparked outrage when it first secretly blocked traffic from BitTorrent Inc.'s P2P (peer-to-peer) service — and then both denied and justified having done so. Its actions almost single-handedly revived interest in the issue, which had previously been fading from public view.
    
    Since then, however, Comcast has been quiet. It wisely didn't show up to defend itself at an FCC hearing on the subject at Stanford University, and it had earlier made a deal with BitTorrent that got it off the front pages. It even announced that it would work with P2P software provider Pando Networks Inc. to create a "P2P Bill of Rights and Responsibilities." In short, it hasn't been helping the network neutrality side at all.

2 more annotations...

• From the beginning, the Internet has served as a neutral playing field where anyone can set up a presence and, free from commercial interference, use various types of Web content  — text, graphics, audio and video — to attract visitors and even run a profitable business. Over the past several years, this equitable stance has led to the concept of network neutrality, which embodies the principle that ISPs cannot discriminate against Web sites or services based on their source, ownership or destination.
• companies that provide Web access would like to use their gatekeeper status to influence different kinds of content providers, giving preferential treatment to some services while discriminating against others. Recent statements by several ISPs regarding their views and plans for Internet services have ignited a firestorm within the Internet community, pitting the service providers against many Internet-based organizations, businesses and users who prefer the status quo.

  • The nation's largest ISPs, including AT&T, Time Warner, Verizon, Cox Communications Inc. and Comcast, are the strongest network-neutrality opponents. Yet these firms steadfastly deny that they are trying to hijack the Internet, as some as their critics claim.
• This battle has now reached the halls of the U.S. government, and it is increasingly likely that the current impasse will not be resolved without some federal involvement.

• The Case Against Network Neutrality

  The nation's largest ISPs, including AT&T, Time Warner, Verizon, Cox Communications Inc. and Comcast, are the strongest network-neutrality opponents. Yet these firms steadfastly deny that they are trying to hijack the Internet, as some as their critics claim.
• The ISPs insist that their primary interest is simply to ensure better and more reliable service by prioritizing content to meet their customers' needs. They also state that their actions are essential to comprehensive Internet security; they must prevent outlaw services from taking advantage of customers through illegal Net activities, such as phishing sites and intellectual-property-robbing peer-to-peer file-sharing services. Many neutrality opponents also believe they should be able to charge Web-site operators, especially high-bandwidth services like video streamers, for the right to use the ISP's portion of the network, which feeds content directly to customers.
• Neutrality opponents assert that any government measures directed at promoting a so-called "even playing field" would unnecessarily meddle with Net activities and, in effect, place the government in charge of critical aspects of the Web's design and operation. Such interference, opponents claim, would stifle Internet growth, hinder the roll out of broadband access and tilt the market toward businesses that use the most bandwidth yet pay the least for network costs within a neutral environment.
• The Case for Network Neutrality
• Supporters of network neutrality include the businesses that have the most to gain from a neutral Internet — companies such as Amazon.com, Google, Yahoo! Inc., Microsoft and Facebook. Also backing the cause are the editorial boards of several major newspapers, including The New York Times, Los Angeles Times, San Francisco Chronicle and San Jose Mercury News. Organizations such as the American Library Association, Gun Owners of America, Christian Coalition of America and Consumers Union, as well as Internet pioneer Vint Cerf, are also carrying the "free Internet" banner.

  • Network-neutrality proponents claim that rather than protecting their customers' interests, ISPs are trying to squash competition in order to benefit their own Internet services, including email, IP telephony, search technology, news and information content aggregation, classified advertising, and social networking. They argue that by attempting to monopolize both access and content, such firms are essentially "double-dipping."
    
    According to network-neutrality advocates, the loss of a free and open Internet would lead to less innovation, since individuals and small startups buckle under new service and cost restrictions imposed by ISPs. The biggest losers in this situation will be consumers, who will inevitably face fewer service choices and higher fees, argue neutrality supporters. The national business and financial climate will also suffer, they allege, as Internet innovation and growth slows.
• The best chance of such action will likely come from the passage or defeat of the Internet Freedom Preservation Act 2008 (HR 5353), a new bipartisan bill.
  
  Introduced on Feb. 12, 2008 by Reps. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) and Chip Pickering (R-Miss.), HR 5353 would insert the network-neutrality concept into the Communications Act, the law that governs U.S. telecommunications services.

  • The measure would also require the FCC (Federal Communications Commission) to hold no less than eight "broadband summits" to collect public input on policies to "promote openness, competition, innovation, and affordable, ubiquitous broadband service for all individuals in the United States."

7 more annotations...

• March 27, 2008
    By Andy Patrizio: More stories by this author:
   

    

   

   <!--content_start-->      

  After months of accusations, denials and foot stomping on the part of users, cable giant Comcast and the peer-to-peer file sharing company BitTorrent have reached an agreement that supports file exchanges on the Comcast broadband network.     

  The issue surfaced last summer when Comcast subscribers began to notice a degradation in their BitTorrent uploads. Further investigations by individuals were later confirmed by the Associated Press: Comcast was sending out signals to disrupt the uploads of BitTorrent transfers.     

  The controversy expanded as Lotus Notes users realized they were also being throttled back, and other Internet service providers (ISPs) admitted that they too throttled excessive traffic use. The FCC even held hearings, and Comcast became the whipping boy among net neutrality advocates.     

  Behind the scenes, the two companies worked out the issues facing them, resulting in today's announcement. Instead of picking on specific applications, Comcast will focus on which users are being particular bandwidth hogs during peak usage hours.

•      

  Now we have a chance to manage against illegal content on the Web.

   

  Indeed, the recent announcement made by Comcast  (nasdaq:  CMCSA -    news  -    people  ) and BitTorrent that they will work together to find a market-based solution to the network management challenges posed by the huge bandwidth demands of peer-to-peer file sharing is positive on two fronts.
   
   First, as FCC Commissioner Robert McDowell pointed out in his response to the announcement, it clearly demonstrates that the market is truly the best vehicle for finding solutions to problems in a rapidly changing digital environment.
   
   Second, the announcement--let's hope--further demonstrates that an intrusive government "network neutrality" regime is not necessary, and this provides a more promising future for protecting intellectual property online. Wait a minute, how did we get onto intellectual property (IP)?
   
   We can start with the encouraging statements from FCC Chairman Kevin Martin and Commissioner Deborah Taylor Tate who both noted the importance of protecting intellectual property rights in their responses to the Comcast-BitTorrent announcement.

  • This is important because, in the debate over net neutrality, the issue of who gets to do what with the network they built has been the main point of contention, while stopping the flow of illegal content online (including pirated content) has played a somewhat secondary role. But, it is just as big a deal.
    
    Here's why: A government-mandated net neutrality regime (instead of the sensible FCC Policy Guidelines laid out in 2005) actually puts at risk two forms of property rights. It would obviously prohibit the actual owners of a network from exercising effective management of their physical property, but it could also limit their ability to put in place solutions or approaches that can reduce the theft of equally valuable intellectual property flowing over their networks. And finding effective approaches to protecting IP online will have a huge positive impact on some of the most dynamic and innovative industries in our economy. A study by the Institute for Policy Innovation found that music piracy alone costs the U.S. economy $12.5 billion a year.

• Yesterday, the FCC held a second hearing in its investigation of Comcast's use of forged RST packets to interfere with BitTorrent and other P2P applications. Free Press has a page linking to written testimony, statements, and audio and video recordings from the Stanford hearing.

   

  At the previous hearing at Harvard Law School, Comcast attracted criticism for filling the auditorium with paid attendees. This time around, the telcos declined to participate at all. They sent proxies in their place: a conservative think tank called the Phoenix Center, freelance tech pundit George Ou, and one ISP: Lariat.net of Wyoming. It's a pity that ISPs aren't willing to participate in public debate about their own practices.

• April 21, 2008
    By Kenneth Corbin: More stories by this author:
   

    

   

   <!--content_start-->

  WASHINGTON D.C – Lawmakers are slated to hold a hearing Tuesday to examine some of the major issues that lie in the nebulous crossroads of technology and government.  

  With the ambitious title "The Future of the Internet," the hearing before the full Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, will consider the broad themes of "developing applications, consumer expectations and network operation."  

  While an official list of witnesses has not been released yet, the likely participants indicate that the hearing will focus heavily on the issue of Internet neutrality, a hot-button policy debate that the Federal Communications Commission has been considering with its own series of hearings. The most recent FCC hearing was last Thursday at Stanford University.  

  The debate over Net neutrality turns on whether the government needs to legislate or regulate policies over how Internet service providers manage their networks. Many Web companies and public interest groups are concerned that allowing ISPs to manage traffic free from government oversight could lead down a slippery slope where network operators will give preferential treatment to their own services, or those that make side deals with the providers for faster delivery. Industry groups have countered that government oversight would only stifle broadband deployment, and that self-regulation has allowed the Internet to flourish.

• May 8, 2008
    By Kenneth Corbin: More stories by this author:
   

    

   

   <!--content_start-->

  Two House Democrats today introduced another bill that would prohibit Internet service providers (ISPs) from slowing or degrading the delivery of some content over their networks.   

  The issue is known as Net neutrality, and supporters of legislation charge that it is essential to preserving innovation and openness that have enabled the Web to flourish. ISPs and other critics argue that there is scant evidence that unreasonable network management occurs, and that government regulation would impose an undue burden on their business that could impede investment in broadband networks.   

  The Internet Freedom and Nondiscrimination Act, introduced by Reps. John Conyers (D-Mich.) and Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.), seeks to block ISPs from discriminating against certain network traffic on antitrust grounds.   

  "Americans have come to expect the Internet to be open to everyone," Conyers said in a statement. "If we allow companies with monopoly or duopoly power to control how the Internet operates, network providers could have the power to choose what content is available."

  • Last month, a Senate committee held a hearing to consider a similar bill, which was introduced last January.
    
    Today's bill was introduced in the Judiciary Committee, which Conyers chairs. Conyers had brought a similar version of the bill before the previous Congress, but it never received a floor vote.

  • The Conyers bill is the second piece of Net neutrality legislation to appear in the House this year. In February, Rep. Ed Markey, a Massachusetts Democrat, introduced a bill that would write into law the Net neutrality principles advanced by Federal Communications Communication in 2005, and charge the agency with holding a series of summits to consider the issue.
    
    The House Energy and Commerce Committee's subcommittee on telecommunications and the Internet held the first hearing on Markey's bill earlier this week.

• 
   When you talk about the Internet with an author who is more familiar with pre-Internet thinking about business models for creators, you get a very familiar story. They believe that Internet service providers (ISPs) are making money “on the backs” of authors. They claim these ISPs would have no value without the works of the authors they represent, and they believe that they deserve to get a (large?) cut of the revenues from ISPs.

   

  On the other hand, some “ISPs” have stated that they believe that the content industry is delivering content on the backs of the network providers, and believe that the network providers should have the right to charge higher rates for delivering this content. Those creators who don’t have the money to pay the distribution networks the premium rates will be put onto the “slow lane” of the Internet, with these content creators ending up with smaller and smaller audiences. This forms the core of what is often called the “Net Neutrality” debate.

   

  Each of the content industry and content delivery industry believe that they have the more valuable product/service and that the other industry is unfairly benefiting and should be charged a premium. Each of them consider themselves the supplier and the other industry the customer.

   
• The more the phone and cable companies are allowed to impose their policies onto the entire networks, like what Bell Canada is trying with their (likely illegal) throttling of the regulated data Gateway Access Service (GAS) that competitors must use, the less true ISPs are able to exist.
• The content industry and creator groups who think the networks owe them money believe that imposing collective licensing (copyright levies) onto ISPs is the right solution. This subset of the creative industry are in competition with creators who are using alternative methods of production, distribution and funding.
• Not surprisingly it is the battles between the pre-Internet content and network companies that are seeking policies against each other, while the Internet-era content and network companies are far more cooperative towards each other. Internet-era content and network companies don’t believe that the other is making money off their backs, and recognize that both benefit from the existence and growth of each other.
• Some components of the content industry are very blatant in their misguided lobbying. The Recording Industry Association of America’s chief has publicly come out against Net Neutrality this week in a US House of Representatives subcommittee hearing. They are lobbying for the Internet to become a “dumb terminal, smart network” style of communications network where the smart networks can filter content.

3 more annotations...

• Internet Freedom Preservation Act of 2008

    

  To establish broadband policy and direct the Federal Communications Commission to conduct a proceeding and public broadband summits to assess competition, consumer protection, and consumer choice issues relating to broadband Internet access services, and for other purposes.

         <!-- // stats-->   <!-- cached: bill_49142_header // Thu May 08 08:33:00 -0500 2008 --> 
   
   

  • Other Bill Titles

   
  • Official: To establish broadband policy and direct the Federal Communications Commission to conduct a proceeding and public broadband summits to assess competition, consumer protection, and consumer choice issues relating to broadband Internet access services, and for other purposes. as introduced.
  • Short: Internet Freedom Preservation Act of 2008 as introduced.
  • Popular: Internet Freedom Preservation Act of 2008 as .
   
   
     

• There are four key stakeholders in the Internet content delivery chain, not just two as the Journal suggests. There are content originators, content distribution technology vendors, ISPs, and content consumers. For peer-to-peer video or any other content to flow well to consumers, the interests of all four stakeholders - not just distribution technology vendors and ISPs - must be aligned.

  • The Comcast/BitTorrent kerfuffle erupted because Comcast quite understandably viewed the BitTorrent content distribution technology as pesky, and quietly applied a network pesticide to it. Because stakeholder interests were misaligned, the ISP link in the delivery chain broke, denying consumers access to requested content. Comcast failed to foresee that when it pushed too hard with an agenda misaligned with others in the chain, the system broke and everybody lost - including Comcast. Regardless of whose side we take and how high our emotions run, we should remember that we are all in this together, and the best course is to work things out responsibly.
    
    To work things out we need a clearinghouse for technical information about how Internet traffic is generated, transported and consumed - so all stakeholders can foresee economic effects, and consumers can identify options that best meet their needs. A labyrinth of secret, bilateral deals is not the market elixir the Wall Street Journal suggests. Only transparency will enable markets to work and Internet content delivery chains to remain intact.

•       April 22, 2008 10:50 AM PDT   

    

      

  Net neutrality battle returns to the U.S. Senate

      

      Posted by Anne Broache                         | 41 comments          

       

   

   WASHINGTON--Net neutrality has returned to Capitol Hill. 

     <!-- photo -->  

    

    <!-- end photo -->   

   The saga of Comcast's throttling of BitTorrent file-sharing traffic--and intense interest from the Federal Communications Commission, including a hearing at Stanford University last week--has appended the topic onto at least some politicians' to-do list. 

    

   At a Senate Commerce Committee hearing entitled "The Future of the Internet" on Tuesday, Democratic politicians argued for passage of a law designed to prohibit broadband operators from creating a "fast lane" for certain Internet content and applications. Their stance drew familiar criticism from the cable industry, their Republican counterparts, and FCC Chairman Kevin Martin, who said there's no demonstrated need for new rules, at this point.

• The term "net neutrality" was coined only recently, but advocates argue that the concept existed in the age of the telegraph. In 1860, a US federal law subsidizing a coast-to-coast telegraph line stated that

   

   

   

  ...messages received from any individual, company, or corporation, or from any telegraph lines connecting with this line at either of its termini, shall be impartially transmitted in the order of their reception, excepting that the dispatches of the government shall have priority.

   

   

  —An act to facilitate communication between the Atlantic and Pacific states by electric telegraph, June 16, 1860
• In 2003 Tim Wu published and popularized a proposal for a net neutrality rule, in his paper "Network Neutrality, Broadband Discrimination."^[15] The paper considered Network Neutrality in terms of neutrality between applications, as well as neutrality between data and QOS sensitive traffic, and proposed some legislation to potentially deal with these issues. In early 2005 the FCC enforced network neutrality principles in a documented case of abuse involving Madison River Communications, a small DSL provider that briefly blocked VoIP
• In 2005, the FCC adopted a policy statement stating its adherence to four principles of network neutrality. In November 2005 Edward Whitacre, Jr. then CEO of SBC stated 'there's going to have to be some mechanism for these [Internet upstarts] who use these pipes to pay for the portion they're using', and that 'The Internet can't be free in that sense, because we and the cable companies have made an investment';^[16] sparking a furious debate. SBC spokesman Michael Balmoris said that Whitacre was misinterpreted and his comments only referred to new tiered services.^[17]
• The Internet Freedom and Nondiscrimination Act of 2006 would have made it a violation of the Clayton Antitrust Act for broadband providers to discriminate against any web traffic, refuse to connect to other providers, or block or impair specific (legal) content. It would also have prohibited the use of admission control to determine network traffic priority. The legislation was approved 20-13 by the House Judiciary committee on May 25, 2006 but was never taken up on the House floor and therefore failed to become law. A bill called the Communications Opportunity, Promotion and Enhancement Act of 2006 was introduced in the US House of Representatives, referencing the principles enunciated by the FCC and authorizing fines up to $750,000 for infractions. It was passed 321-101 by the full House of Representatives on June 8, 2006 but failed to become law when its companion measure was filibustered in the Senate.

  • Clayton Act
    
    1914 federal consumer protection legislation that prohibits certain monopolistic practices and other impediments to free market competition, including price discrimination, mergers that may lessen competition, tying agreements and exclusive dealings. The Clayton Act also holds corporate officials personally liable for damages resulting from activities in violation of the Act's rulings. The Clayton Act was designed to be more effective in preventing threats or potential threats to competition than the 1890 sherman antitrust act. The Sherman Act does not come into play until after a violation is committed and has impeded competition. The Clayton Act is enforced by the federal trade commission in conjunction with the Department of Justice.

• On February 25, 2008, Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission Kevin Martin said that he is "ready, willing and able," to prevent broadband internet service providers from irrationally interfering with their subscribers' internet access.^[18]

   

  On March 27, 2008, Comcast and BitTorrent reached an agreement to work together on network traffic^[19]. Comcast will adopt a protocol-neutral stance "as soon as the end of [2008]", and explore ways to "more effectively manage traffic on its network at peak times."

3 more annotations...