Tag: Net Neutrality

As the Comcast/BitTorrent Complaint appears to wind down to its final conclusion, the critical questions revolve around whether the FCC has authority to resolve the complaint at all. Comcast argues that the FCC never gave any warning it would “enforce the policy statement,” that it has no basis for doing so anyway, and that even if the FCC had any authority, it would need to have a rulemaking to make rules first before it could resolve any complaints. At the same time, in a last ditch effort to avoid what looks like a total win for Free Press and the other parties to the complaint, Comcast has quietly floated the idea of a settlement decree. As bait for a settlement, Comcast holds out the risk of going to court and having the D.C. Circuit — famed for its open hostility to FCC ancillary jurisdiction and industry regulation generally — find that the FCC has no authority whatsoever to regulate broadband practices.

The carefully evasive behavior of NebuAd CEO Robert Dykes bugs me. He tends to remind me of that one uncle at the reunion who acts too strangely to be allowed alone with the children. That said, if the ISPs will sell everything we do online to any creep on the street, why can’t Bob Dykes be that creep?

It was Charter Communication’s suggestion that it might sell the data to Dykes that creeped out enough people to get Congressional attention. Fortunately, Charter “pressed ‘Pause’” when asked to.

While NebuAd and Charter became the public piñatas, the ISPs that betrayed (and many probably are still betraying) their customers have escaped scrutiny so far.

George Ou, the former Technical Director of ZDNet, has found a new job where he continues to lead the technology sector by publishing innovative thoughts and ideas – sometimes not necessarily his own.

Over the next couple of days, thousands of online activists will gather in Austin for the Netroots Nation conference. This is the former Yearly Kos meeting, an extension of the Daily Kos progressive blog.

There are scheduled caucuses for Open Left Readers and Geeks and Texans and Moms, and sessions on how to use social networking tools in campaigns. There are panels on how the Internet could be used for transparency in government, how the Internet has affected campaigns and lobbying, to discussions of science, space and food policy. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) will be there, as will Rep. Donna Edwards (D-MD) and retired Gen. Wesley Clark.

All of the speeches and 99.99% of the panels and discussions will be about how to the Internet is being used, and should be used. There’s nothing wrong with that. It’s fabulous that activists want to make the most out of the online medium.

Internet Service Providers (ISPs) have been quick to blame problems with service quality on so-called “bandwidth hogs.” According to AT&T, the top 5% of their Digital Subscriber Line (DSL) subscribers use 46% of the consumed bandwidth, and the top 1% of subscribers use 21%. But it is unclear what these figures mean, and if congestion problems could even be caused by those who use the network the most. These figures would seem to be describing the bandwidth consumption totals at the end of some designated time period (day, week, month). If this is the case, then 5% of subscribers using 46% of bandwidth consumed is not necessarily cause for alarm.

Excessive bandwidth usage is only a problem when it degrades the quality of service for other users of the network.

Whats New:

• Public Knowledge and Free Press Shine A Light on Behavioral Advertising
• PK Conditions Included in FCC’s XM-Sirius Merger Draft Order
• OECD Ministerial: Protecting the Internet is a Public Policy Priority
• G8 Endorses Secretive Trade Agreement
• Notable Press Mentions: June-July 2008

Background: Press reports indicate FCC Chairman Kevin Martin is recommending that Comcast be punished for violating Commission policy statements to preserve an open Internet.

The following statement is attributed to Gigi B. Sohn, president and co-founder of Public Knowledge:

“We are pleased that Chairman Martin has decided to enforce the Commission’s policies preserving the rights of Internet users. Comcast’s conduct in throttling Internet traffic was deplorable when it was discovered, and remains deplorable today.

More than 40 years ago, the FCC was worried about telephone companies using their power over communications to control the then-nascent (and competitive) data processing marketplace. The Bell System at that point was already banned from providing services that weren’t common carriage communications services (or “incidental to” those communications services).

In Computer 1, the Commission tried to distinguish the use of computers for processing information from the use of computers as part of communications, with the goal of not allowing the Bell System into the data processing business.

While the full United States Senate on Wednesday (July 9) takes up the subject of wiretapping by the government, the Senate Commerce Committee will take up the subject of wiretapping by private industry. It’s a tossup which one is more scary.

The Senate votes July 9 on the bill to grant the Executive Branch almost unlimited authority to wiretap private citizens without any judicial oversight. The Commerce Committee will hear testimony from Robert Dykes, the chairman of NebuAd, a controversial company recently in the news because his group came up with a novel way of getting detailed information about Internet users. NebuAd wasn’t satisfied to get information only from a customer’s use of one Web site. Instead, they want to see everything that a Web surfer does online.

Here’s Dykes pitching his company at a conference in New York earlier this year:

For months, Comcast spokespeople have been deny, deny, denying that the FCC has the power to do anything about Comcast’s throttling of BitTorrent traffic. Now, in papers filed as part of a class action lawsuit against Comcast, Comcast has gone the opposite direction, asserting that because “these issues are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the FCC, and because the FCC is actively investigating them,” the judge should put the suit on hold until the FCC renders a decision. The court has agreed, staying the case until the FCC acts.