Jonathan Adelstein is the other Dem commissioner. (He also plays harmonica. I’ve seen him do it. He takes lessons from Howard Levy.)

He says that they’re taking video testimony today, and they ought to send it back to HQ via BitTorrent to see how it does. Scattered laughs.

After giving the obligatory reference to his time at Harvard, he goes back to the American Revolution. Just as the Constitution established freedoms, we need an Internet Bill of Rights to secure the freedom of citizens on the Internet. “The beauty of the Internet is that nobody is in charge and everybody is in charge.” (It’s cool to hear three senior gov’t folks in a row get it so right.)

He quotes TBL about the importance of an open Net. He too brings up the issue of consolidation. We’re going to see more competition in wireless, he says, but broadband is 93% controlled by the major providers. He says that at least he and Copps got AT&T to agree to support net neutrality as a condition of consolidation. (This was satisfying if only because after years of saying the net neutrality has no definition, AT&T defined it clearly in a couple of sentences.)

He says he comes here with an open mind, which, frankly, I find a little disappointing ;)

He closes by again exhorting us to create an Internet Bill of Rights. [I know! Let’s do it together on a wiki!] [Tags: fccboston08 net_neutrality ]

Be the first to comment »

Copps is one of the two Democratic commissioners. He begins by effusively thanking Markey. (If it’s not obvious, I am not non-partisan on this issue.) He’s glad that the FCC is getting outside the Beltway. Of course, the day will consist of panels of experts chosen by the FCC.

Copps says that the network operators are today making decisions about how Americans communicate. He says that until the FCC opened these hearings today, those decisions were being made in a black box. E.g., in 2007 we learned that one of the wireless providers rejected a text message as too controversial. US carriers hae required manufacturers to disable wifi access in some cell phones. Standard contracts contained provisions prohibiting customers from criticizing them. He says we don’t know that choices like these are unlawful, but they are determining how we communicate. We need a principle of non-discrimination. It would allow for reasonable network mgt but make it clear that the network operators cannot “shackle” the Internet. There ought to be a process for adjudicating claims of discrimination.

Copps makes it clear where he stands: We need to be suspicious of the carriers because they have a history of being devious and manipulative [my summary]. (Commissioner Adelstein, the other Dem, is nodding.) [Tags: fccboston08 net_neutrality ]

1 Comment »

Kevin Martin points to the Four Principles that his predecessor (POwell) propagated. He adds that these are subject to “reasonable network mgt,” which refers to footnotes he added that vitiated the principles. E.g., you can connect any device … so long as it doesn’t “harm” the Net.

He’s addressing the weasliness of thee “reasonable” exceptions he introduces. He says the FCC takes seriously allegations that the carriers have misapplied the exceptions. He says the FCC is willing to step in to correct behaviors.

Good. [Tags: fccboston08 net_neutrality ]

2 Comments »

Rep. Ed Markey opens it. He’s been one of the staunchest and most reliable defenders of an open Internet. He recalls his long standing on the Internet’s behalf. He asks us to keep users in mind, preferring their needs to that of the carriers. What a concept!

He says that the carriers should not be thought of as providing Internet services. They provide access. [Right on.] He’s making a nose-in-the-tent argument: If we let the carriers use Net management as an excuse to manage content, they will take this as permission to manage content overall.

He would rather that we have genuine competition and/or sufficient bandwidth. If the lack of bandwidth is making problems, then the Commission “would do well” to examine policies to open up competition.

Oscar reference: We should look back from the future and see that this is no country for old bandwidth. (Better, says Markey, than saying “There will be blood.”)

The beauty of the Internet is its chaos, it’s ability to reinvent itself, he says. He takes a swipe at media concentration — protestors outside are picketing the meeting because of the FCC’s unseemly insistence on permitting massive consolidation.

BitTorrent should not be turned into BitTrickle, he says, to applause and whoops. [The crowd is trying to figure out if they should be holding their applause for the end.]

Attaboy, Ed! [Tags: fccboston08 net_neutrality ]

4 Comments »

The Boston Globe today is running an op-ed by me on Net neutrality. (It grew out of conversations with David Reed and Yochai Benkler, but they are obviously not responsible for what’s wrong about it.)

* * *

This Monday, the Berkman Center is hosting an FCC hearing on Comcast’s blocking of BitTorrent. It’s a series of panels that look to be composed of matter vs. anti-matter. Some fantastic people are on board. I hope the panel format works for this.

Immediately afterwards, there is likely to be a Berkman-led discussion among those in the audience, since there’s no room in the hearing schedule for public comment.

[Tags: net_neutrality fcc comcast bittorrent ]

2 Comments »

Here is an extract from the summary of FreePress.net’s filing with the FCC protesting Comcast’s throttling of bittorrent, a clear violation of Net neutrality (and possibly of laws against impersonation, although that one seems like a stretch to my non-lawyerly mind):

Free Press focuses these comments on two topics: network discrimination and required disclosure.

Regarding network discrimination, Free Press et al. urges the FCC to declare that discriminatory tactics, such as those employed by Comcast, violate federal policies and will not be tolerated. First, we demonstrate that four relevant sources of law prohibit broadband discrimination: 1) The FCC Internet Policy Statement, 2) The Communications Act, 3) Precedent in a recent order and 4) The FCC orders eliminating ISP open access. Second, we refute the arguments advanced that discrimination is merely ‘reasonable network management.’

Arguments based on bandwidth, “delaying,” and anti-competitiveness are as dangerously wrong as they are irrelevant. Moreover, we show that Comcast’s actions are anticompetitive.

Regarding disclosure, Free Press et al. demonstrate that, while network providers must be required to disclose their network management practices, disclosure is not enough. First, network providers should be required to disclose their network management practices so that consumers, the tech community, software providers, and the FCC can respond accordingly.

Second, while we generally prefer a competitive market solution, which disclosure can often promote, disclosure alone will not result in pro-consumer or pro-innovation market outcomes here. The market is too concentrated for disclosure to discipline the market participants or empower consumers.

Third, network providers have repeatedly made a deal with the public and the FCC in merger reviews, sworn declarations, and FCC proceedings—the network providers were relieved of competition and in exchange promised not to discriminate, not merely to disclose their discrimination. Similarly, the FCC pledged it would ensure for consumers an open Internet, not mere disclosure, should the network providers break their vows. The rubber has now hit the road.

[Tags: net_neutrality comcast bittorrent fcc harold_feld ed_markey]

* * *

Harold Feld explains Ed Markey’s Internet bill, and why he likes it even though it’s not as strong as it might be.

* * *

One more item just crossed the ol’ digital desktop: J.H. Snider, a Shorenstein Fellow, is having a talk and dinner on Feb. 19 at 6pm on the current FCC auction as “a paradigmatic example of special interest politics and media failure.” It’s in Cambridge, and if you want to go, you have to rsvp to camille stevens by putting an underscore between her names and sending it to her @harvard.edu. In any case, you can read Snider’s “The Art of Spectrum Lobbying: America’s $480 Billion Spectrum Giveaway, How it Happened, and How to Prevent it from Recurring” here.

4 Comments »

Brookline’s public wifi had so much promise. But tonight, when I was sitting in the high school auditorium trying to connect, I found out that the system is only available by the month, which means that it competes with the local wired Internet providers — the lowest priced plan gets you 1 mps for $20/month — but it doesn’t let you connect for an hour if that’s all you need, or let travelers and guests get online as they need. Weird. And really disappointing.

[Tags: muni_wifi brookline ]

Later that same day: I received this in reply to my whining email to the wifi provider:

We do have a few locations throughout Brookline that are free for one hour
per day. They are in Coolidge Corner, Washington Square, and Brookline Village. We are going to be adding other time features in the future, however, currently we only have a month to month service with no contract. If you only need it for a month and are outside of the areas that are free
and/or you need service more than 1 hour per day, I recommend that you sign up with the monthly package.

* * *

On the other hand, the Wall Street Journal reports on the French requiring France Telecom to provide competitors with access to the fiber optic cable its laying. That enables competition, which helps explain why “in Paris you can get 50 Mbps symmetrical broadband service for 30 EUR per month.”

Requiring whoever wins the 700mH auction in the US to act as a wholesaler to other ISPs could bring about the same sort of opening of the bit-floodgates.

7 Comments »

Harold Feld, who understands this stuff as well as anyone and 150 times better than I do, is calling on the FCC to stop the current spectrum auction because of underhandedness in the killing of the bid by the Frontline group. Harold has more details here. And Dow Jones has a shorter version here. Harold also points to an op-ed by one of the Frontline members.

[Tags: fcc auction d_block harold_feld frontline spectrum telecommunications ]

5 Comments »

Just received the following mass email mailing from the John Edwards campaign:

Dear david,

When it comes to protecting the rule of law, words are not enough. We need action.

It’s wrong for your government to spy on you. That’s why I’m asking you to join me today in calling on Senate Democrats to filibuster revisions to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) that would give “retroactive immunity” to the giant telecom companies for their role in aiding George W. Bush’s illegal eavesdropping on American citizens.

The Senate is debating this issue right now — which is why we must act right now. You can call your Senators here:

Edward M. Kennedy, (D): (202) 224-4543
John F. Kerry, (D): (202) 224-2742

Granting retroactive immunity is wrong. It will let corporate law-breakers off the hook. It will hamstring efforts to learn the truth about Bush’s illegal spying program. And it will flip on its head a core principle that has guided our nation since our founding: the belief that no one, no matter how well connected or what office they hold, is above the law.

But in Washington today, the telecom lobbyists have launched a full-court press for retroactive immunity. George Bush and Dick Cheney are doing everything in their power to ensure it passes. And too many Senate Democrats are ready to give the lobbyists and the Bush administration exactly what they want.

Please join me in calling on every Senate Democrat to do everything in their power — including joining Senator Dodd’s efforts to filibuster this legislation — to stop retroactive immunity and stand up for the rule of law. The Constitution should not be for sale at any price.

Thank you for taking action.

John Edwards
January 24, 2008

You can find your senators’ phone numbers here. (Disclosure: I sometimes get to talk wit the Edwards campaign about Net policy but had zero to do this with.) [Tags: telcos net_neutrality politics john_edwards ]

4 Comments »

Time-Warner apparently is going to try an experiment in which users will get charged if they download (and upload?) more than the bandwidth they’re paying for. If you’re in a particular tier of service, you’ll be able to see a meter telling you when you’ve gone over your limit, and then you’ll be charged for the overage. That’s pretty much how cellphone billing works for most of us, and it only sucks reasonably — it’s a bit of a hassle and can result in surprisingly high bills, but does seem roughly fair.

So, it sounds like a step forward, and it’s a far preferable way to manage network congestion than having the cable company decide what content has priority. This approach does not, in my understanding, violate Net neutrality. It is, however, merely a very limited trial. If that.

If this heads towards an untiered pay-per-bit system, I’ll be concerned, however, because paying per bit discourages the exchange of ideas and creative works on the Net, and disproportionately affects the poor. (Tiering affects the poor, too, of course, which is an argument for socializing the Net. But, well, that’s a different can of Vermes.)

If only we could introduce some real competition into the system so connectivity becomes a commodity, as providers race to provide the most bits at the lowest price. In a truly competitive market, a whole bunch of business models, including ones not yet invented, could slug it out as users decide what’s best for them.

[Tags: net_neutrality time-warner ]

Ben Scott of Free Press says, in a press release thingy:

“Compared to that approach [unilaterally blocking traffic], Time Warner’s proposal is better — at least customers will know what they’re getting into. But metered prices may chill innovation in cutting-edge applications because consumers will have a disincentive to use them. Viewed in the context of our long-term national goals for a world-class broadband infrastructure, telling consumers they must choose between blocking and metered pricing is a worrying development.

Yup.

5 Comments »