Keeping politicians' hands off the Net & everything else related to technology
Here’s a good article by Declan McCullagh on New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo’s outrageous vendetta against Usenet. The article is good not only because yours truly is quoted.
I’ve been looking, and haven’t found a single advocate from the left or critic of Comcast’s network management practices that has said a word of support for Comcast on this subject. This is where Internet freedom is really in peril – and nothing?
Facing threats of legal action from New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo, many ISPs have curbed newsgroup access in the name of fighting child porn. Now, it looks like a big fish is holding out: Comcast.
Good for them. While it’s understandable that other ISPs elected to fold under intense pressure from an overzealous AG with a powerful bully pulpit, Comcast is entirely justified in standing its ground.
It’s not the responsibility of network providers to police their servers for potentially illegal files, as the Communications Decency Act makes clear. The only legal obligation of an ISP is to remove illegal content upon gaining knowledge of its existence on their network. But that hasn’t stopped Cuomo from sending a harsh letter to Comcast threatening to pursue “legal remedies to stop child pornography” if the cable giant doesn’t comply with his terms.
Cuomo wants ISPs to go far beyond merely removing illegal content as it’s discovered. The “voluntary agreement” that New York is pushing on ISPs has already resulted in many providers dropping newsgroup access completely, causing millions of subscribers to lose access to Usenet. Even among users who haven’t been completely cut off from newsgroups, the popular alt.* hierarchy has been disabled, making it nearly impossible to acquire anything larger than text files. The worst part is that the “bad guys” are unaffected by the crackdown on child porn—third-party Usenet servers with uncensored newsgroup access are a dime a dozen these days.
A legal battle with Cuomo might not be cheap, but it’d be worth fighting nevertheless. As I pointed out last month, suppressing speech through so-called “voluntary agreements” likely runs afoul of the First Amendment, and ISPs enjoy immunity under the Safe Harbor provisions of the Communications Decency Act.
Like his notorious predecessor, Andrew Cuomo seems bent on building his image as a crime-fighter through meaningless publicity stunts, even if it means extorting legitimate businesses to the detriment of consumers.
Let’s hope Comcast forces Cuomo to put his money where his mouth is—the future of free speech online may hang in the balance.
Broadband Reports ran an opinion piece by Karl last week discussing the rumors that Comcast will soon adopt a 250GB a month maximum with overage fees for excessive consumption.
As the piece points out, implementing overage fees runs the risk of giving FiOS (and, to a lesser extent, U-Verse) an even bigger edge on cable broadband. AT&T and Verizon, because of their last-mile network architectures, are less susceptible to congestion caused by heavy users than C omcast, with its shared cable network. AT&T and Verizon have gotten by without terminating heavy users or even charging them extra.
Yet right after Karl finishes explaining about how overage fees will change the competitive landscape, he starts ranting about the prospect of “investor pressure constantly forcing caps downward and overage fees upward.”
Competitive pressures make this scenario a remote possibility, especially as content portals serving massive files like Apple TV and Xbox Marketplace gain mainstream appeal. If Comcast wants to deflect criticism from other ISPs over bandwidth limits, any cap must be high enough to ensure very few customers even approach it. Arguably, 250GB a month is enough to satiate even power users, at least for a couple more years.
ISPs are competing fiercely to attract subscribers, so providers regularly make hay out of trivial product differences such as the “ugly cabinets” that AT&T sometimes installs when upgrading a neighborhood’s DSL speeds. Imagine the ads Verizon will run if Comcast starts charging customers for heavy use—“With Comcast, you never know when you’ll be hit with an enormous monthly bill if your kids go on a YouTube frenzy or your computer is overtaken by hackers. Here in FiOS land, rest assured there are no extra fees, no matter how much you download.” It’s not hard to see this message resonating with customers, especially those living in households with multiple Web-savvy residents.
PFF has just releasing an updated edition of my booklet on “Parental Controls and Online Child Protection: A Survey of Tools & Methods.” The new version, Version 3.0, includes two new appendixes and updates to each section to reflect new parental control tools and programs developed in the last nine months.
The updated report is timely as it comes on the heels of the recently-announced Internet Safety Technical Task Force, which is being chaired by the Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard Law School. I am privileged to serve as a member of the Task Force, which is evaluating various online safety technologies and strategies and then reporting back to state attorneys general with our findings.
Those issues and much more are covered in the latest edition of my report. The report explores the market for parental control tools, rating schemes, education efforts, and initiatives aimed at promoting online child safety. I believe that the parental controls and content management tools cataloged in the report represent a better, less restrictive alternative to government regulation. As I conclude after evaluating that state of the market: “There has never been a time in our nation’s history when parents have had more tools and methods at their disposal to help them decide what constitutes acceptable media content in their homes and in the lives of their children.”
Version 3.0 of the special report, now over 200 pages, contains over fifty exhibits and numerous updates in all five sections of the book. Major updates have been made to the Internet, social networking, and mobile media sections, reflecting the growing importance of those sectors and issues. A greatly expanded section on video empowerment technologies has also been included. Finally, two appendices have also been added: a comprehensive legislative index cataloging over thirty bills introduced in Congress on these issues (complied with John Morris of Center for Democracy & Technology), and a glossary of 35 relevant terms and cases.
The report is available free-of-charge on the PFF website, as are the previous editions. And I am happy to provide hard copies to those who are interested.
http://documents.scribd.com/ScribdViewer.swf?document_id=2887320&access_key=key-um5xjvf98bfnuu8811v&page=&version=1&auto_size=true
As I mentioned yesterday, James Gattuso and I penned an editorial for National Review this week about the growth of FCC regulation and spending in recent years. In the op-ed, we also noted that, “For whatever reason, a disproportionate number of these [new regulatory proposals] have been aimed at cable television, so much so that press and industry analysts now speak of Chairman Martin’s ongoing ‘war on cable.'”
Today, the editors at National Review have chimed in with an editorial of their own on the issue entitled, “Pulling the Cable on Martin’s Crusade.” Specifically, the editors address what most pundits believe really motivates the Chairman’s crusade against cable: His desire to force cable companies to offer consumers channels on “a la carte” basis in an effort to “clean up” cable TV. “Martin should abandon this particular crusade,” the NR editors argue. “While we are sympathetic to parents’ desire to get the channels they want without having to buy access to racier fare, using economic regulation to restructure an industry is the wrong approach.” They continue:
The AP reports today the results of an investigation it conducted on Comcast’s “traffic shaping” practices as they relate to BitTorrent. The bottom line, if the AP is correct, is that Comcast interferes with packets coming from both ends of a BitTorrent communication. Comcast allegedly inserts messages pretending to be one or the other end requesting that the transmission be reset. Susan Crawford has a technical explanation on her blog.
If this is a consistent policy, this is much worse than the meaningless one-off snafus such as Madison River, Pearl Jam, or NARAL. While this is technically legal, and should always be, it’s a bit indefensible. No doubt Comcast and every other access provider should have the ability to manage their networks to ensure that a minority of users doesn’t slow down or increase costs for the majority. However, they should be transparent about what they do.
As the AP reports it (and I’m really looking forward to clarification), “Comcast’s technology kicks in, though not consistently, when one BitTorrent user attempts to share a complete file with another user.” If that means any BitTorrent user, even if they’re not a heavy user, then the policy seems over-broad to me. In its acceptable use policy,1 Comcast reserves the right to take any measures it deems necessary to deal with subscribers who use too much bandwidth (although how much is too much is not clearly defined). But if the AP is right, this is targeting a specific application, not specific users.
What this all points out to me, however, is that we don’t need regulation prohibiting these kinds of network management practices. The problem is not the practice, but the lack of disclosure, and as Google’s Andrew McLaughlin has said, it’s more of an FTC issue than an FCC one. The other issue this brings up is Adam’s favorite: Why not just have a Ramsey two-part tariff style metering after instead of interfering with legitimate applications?
PFF has just released my latest paper entitled “Parental Control Perfection? The Impact of the DVR and VOD Boom on the Debate over TV Content Regulation.” In the report, I focus on the extent to which new video technologies, such as digital video recorders (DVRs) and video on demand (VOD) services, are changing the way households consume media and are helping parents better tailor viewing experiences to their tastes and values. I provide evidence showing the rapid spread of these technologies and discuss how parents are using these tools in their homes. Finally, I argue that these developments will have profound implications for debates over the regulation of video programming. As parents are given the ability to more effectively manage their family’s viewing habits and experiences, it will lessen—if not completely undercut—the need for government intervention on their behalf.
This 16-page report can be found at: http://www.pff.org/issues-pubs/pops/pop14.20DVRboomcontentreg.pdf
With the release last month of its report on Violent Television Programming and Its Impact on Children, the FCC teed up the issue of regulating televised violence and tossed it over to Congress with a recommendation that lawmakers go ahead and swing for the fences. And Congress appears ready to oblige, although not necessarily in the way some at the FCC had originally envisioned.
You will recall that FCC Chairman Kevin Martin used the FCC’s violence report as another opportunity to engage in his monomaniacal, Moby Dick-like quest to impose a la carte regulation on cable and satellite operators. Martin argued that “Requiring cable and satellite television providers to offer programming in a more a la carte manner would be a more content neutral means for Congress to regulate violent programming and therefore would raise fewer constitutional issues.” But it doesn’t appear that the chairman is going to get his whale this time around.
The Technology Liberation Front is the tech policy blog dedicated to keeping politicians' hands off the 'net and everything else related to technology.
