WebProNews

Tag: Net Neutrality

  • AT&T’s Sponsored Data Raises Big Concerns For Consumers and Content Providers

    AT&T’s Sponsored Data Raises Big Concerns For Consumers and Content Providers

    Though it was easy to miss among the flood of CES coverage this week, AT&T has announced a plan to capture new revenue from its data network. Called “Sponsored Data,” the plan would see AT&T charging mobile content providers for AT&T subscribers’ data usage. In other words, Netflix or Facebook could pay AT&T for its customers to access their mobile services without it counting against their monthly data caps.

    How would Sponsored Data influence your mobile habits? Tell us in the comments.

    On a surface level the plan seems like a win for customers, and that’s certainly how AT&T has tried to spin its announcement. Customers who pay high prices for small amounts of data would be offered a break on many of the mobile services that they use the most.

    However, actually looking at what the plan means for AT&T’s data network and the mobile industry as a whole uncovers a range of concerns for consumers, content providers, and the future of mobile access.

    In its original announcement of Sponsored Data, AT&T characterized its new plan as a way for content providers to better reach consumers on AT&T’s network.

    “The Sponsored Data model is just one way we’re helping companies tap into our network to offer differentiated experiences and transform the way they do business,” said Andy Geisse, CEO of AT&T Business Solutions.

    Though the plan certainly would help content creators reach AT&T customers, these same companies already have essentially equal access to those customers as it stands. Sponsored Data could also help customers stay under their bandwidth limits, but AT&T will not be refunding subscribers for unused data. This means that AT&T will essentially be charging twice for the same data – once for customers and again for content providers (that, it must be pointed out, already pay their own bandwidth costs.)

    So, Sponsored Data is essentially a plan for AT&T to charge more for the same data passing over its network. While this may be perfect for AT&T and larger content providers, the plan immediately raised red flags for net neutrality advocates who believe network operators should not function as gatekeepers between customers and content.

    Do you think AT&T’s Sponsored Data violates net neutrality principles? Post your stance in the comments.

    The plan was quickly criticized by Congresswoman Anna Eshoo, who represents most of Silicon Valley. Eshoo released a statement saying that Sponsored Data would put AT&T “in the business of picking winners and losers on the internet, threatening the open internet, competition, and consumer choice.”

    The fear is that customers who hit their data limits would not be able to access non-sponsored content without fear of being charged more by AT&T. In this way, AT&T could potentially manipulate the content flowing through its network, extracting higher revenue from both consumers and content providers.

    Sponsored Data may also set up a system in which companies have to pay AT&T to access its customers in a meaningful way. While big content providers such as Netflix, Google, and Facebook can undoubtedly afford to pay AT&T’s sponsor fees, smaller content companies and the startups that have made the internet as competitive as it is today could be shut out as customers choose not to risk their data on the unknown.

    AT&T would argue that it isn’t specifically picking winners and losers using its network. However, it will be providing its customers with a false choice: AT&T sponsored content for free or other content at the cost of their precious data. For most customers the choice between free and not free isn’t much of a choice. By giving its customers this illusory choice AT&T can claim that it won’t be directly choosing what its customers can access, though it will be very much influencing its network’s winners and losers.

    Though AT&T may have found a way to technically skirt net neutrality concerns while exerting influence over its network’s content, the Sponsored Data plan might just be enough to draw out government regulators.

    Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Chairman Tom Wheeler weighed in on the topic this week, telling the Wall Street Journal that the FCC will be taking a wait-and-see approach to AT&T’s new program. Wheeler made it clear that the FCC is well aware of the concerns surrounding Sponsored Data, and that the organization is “ready to intervene” if the program is deemed anticompetitive or interferes with customers’ internet access.

    Should the FCC curb AT&T’s Sponsored Data ambitions? Let us know in the comments.

    Underlying all of the net neutrality debate is a fact that has largely gone unmentioned. By offering to provide sponsored content to consumers without any potential limit on data use, AT&T is tacitly admitting that its data caps are not in place to better manage its network. AT&T and other mobile providers in the past have characterized data caps as necessary to create stable networks for all of their subscribers, but it now appears that the incredibly high per-GB prices on its data caps represent nothing more than a price gouge on consumers.

    This is precisely why the language in AT&T’s Sponsored Data announcement sounds so disingenuous. AT&T could provide customers with a truly unlimited data plan, allowing them to peruse all the apps and streaming content they please without fear of extra charges. This would also enable content providers to give customers as much content as they can in a truly competitive marketplace without having to pay for AT&T’s Sponsored Data. Instead, AT&T is creating a new tier of content provider access to its network that will be prioritized by customers due to AT&T’s expensive and unneeded bandwidth caps.

  • AT&T’s Sponsored Data Criticized by Congresswoman

    AT&T’s Sponsored Data Criticized by Congresswoman

    Yesterday AT&T announced its “Sponsored Data” initiative, which would allow companies to pay AT&T subscribers’ data costs for accessing their content.

    The plan immediately raised red flags for net neutrality activists, who saw the plan as the very thing they had been fighting to prevent. Though AT&T attempted to promote Sponsored Data as a good thing for consumers who might save on data costs, critics immediately saw how the plan could see AT&T and content providers influencing the competitive mobile marketplace. For example, it’s easy to see how the plan could prevent startups from reaching data-conscious AT&T subscribers, who might instead stick with established mobile services that can afford to pay AT&T’s Sponsored Data prices.

    Criticism for the plan has not been contained to activist circles, however. Today Congresswoman Anna Eshoo spoke out against AT&T’s Sponsored Data plan, saying that it could threaten the open internet. Eshoo is a Democratic representative from California’s 18th district, which includes most of Silicon Valley. She is also a member of the House Communications and Technology Subcommittee.

    Eshoo’s statement, in full:

    “The announcement of a sponsored data program by AT&T puts it in the business of picking winners and losers on the Internet, threatening the open Internet, competition and consumer choice. It’s exactly why net neutrality rules came to exist in the first place and why these rules should apply equally to all forms of broadband Internet service.

    “AT&T’s sponsored data program allows content creators and app developers to pay for a customer’s wireless data much like a company covers the cost of a long distance call using a 1-800 number. On its face, the ability for consumers to access ‘toll-free’ content seems like long-awaited relief from frustrating data caps. But embedded in programs of this type are serious implications for fairness and competition in the mobile marketplace. And we must ask just how beneficial a program like this is to consumers who could ultimately foot the bill for the added cost of doing business.”

    It is not clear whether AT&T will face regulator scrutiny over its Sponsored Data plan. Under current net neutrality agreements, mobile service providers have nearly free reign when it comes to such matters. Still, the attention of legislators is the last thing AT&T needs while trying to fend off competition from T-Mobile.

  • CES 2014: AT&T Announces New “Sponsored Data” Offering

    CES 2014: AT&T Announces New “Sponsored Data” Offering

    AT&T today unveiled a new plan to allow content providers to subsidize data costs for AT&T mobile subscribers.

    The plan, called “Sponsored Data” would allow companies to pay for any data charges that AT&T mobile customers would ordinarily incur accessing those companies’ content. Sponsored Data content will be marked with a special icon denoting that certain apps, videos, and services can be used by AT&T subscribers without fear of being charged extra for data costs.

    It must be pointed out that AT&T’s Sponsored Data is exactly the sort of thing net neutrality advocates have been warning about for years now. Though AT&T emphasized that the new plan does not prioritize sponsored traffic over its network, the system will still be able to push users toward apps, storefronts, and other content provided by those companies that can pay AT&T’s Sponsored Data costs.

    While AT&T is marketing the plan as beneficial to consumers who access content that will be participating in Sponsored Data, the startups that have made the mobile market as competitive as it is today would effectively have to pay AT&T a Sponsored Data ransom – or else convince consumers that their content is worth a bit of consumers’ precious monthly allotment of data. The Sponsored Data plan also provides AT&T with no incentive to raise low (and expensive per GB) mobile data caps.

    “As content consumption has evolved from analog to digital, so have the ways for companies to reach consumers,” said Andy Geisse, CEO of AT&T Business Solutions. “The Sponsored Data model is just one way we’re helping companies tap into our network to offer differentiated experiences and transform the way they do business.”

  • An Internet Without Net Neutrality Looks Pretty Damn Scary

    An Internet Without Net Neutrality Looks Pretty Damn Scary

    Even though the network that gives life to the Internet is considered an interstate communications service, and therefore is under the regulatory watch of the FCC, companies like Verizon, AT&T, and Time Warner are trying their hardest to have these powers stripped in what some are calling a plan to “ruin the Internet.” While that may come across as misguided hyperbole to the ISPs and the kind of consumer who would openly praise AT&T’s 9/11 tweet as having nothing to do with advertising (yes, really) alike, after watching the lead video, if the ISPs gets their way, hyperbole could quickly become a hard, cold truth.

    Verizon is currently at the focal point of the net neutrality argument, and with good reason. A couple of days ago, Verizon’s lawsuit against the FCC’s net neutrality rules began its hearing phase in front of a three-judge panel of the Washington D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. One of Verizon’s main arguments revolves around the freedom of speech; however, this concern isn’t for their subscribers accessing their content on the best Internet network possible. Instead, Verizon’s position is net neutrality impedes on the company’s right to free speech, which can apparently manifest itself in the form of controlling the flow of information based on who pays for the best delivery pipe.

    Yes, really.

    Showing favoritism to one type of content over another is a free speech issue, and net neutrality infringes on that. With that in mind, who says patent attorneys are the only legal trolls out there?

    The video–which I urge you to watch–has a 30-minute run time. If, at any time, you’re confused about the message, or don’t quite get the concept of sarcasm and parody, the following quote from the supporting site’s Take Action page is quite revealing:

    If you agree that your Internet Service Provider should not be making decisions for you about the Internet you get access to, the most important thing you can do right now is share this film with everyone you know, and help raise mass awareness of the importance of the open Internet and broadband access.

    Vigilance on this issue, if you truly care about a neutral net, is constantly required.

  • Democratic Party Platform Touches on Internet Freedom

    Democratic Party Platform Touches on Internet Freedom

    On the eve of the kickoff of their 2012 National Convention, the Democrats released their official party platform. And just like the Republicans did in their official platform, they’ve included a small segment concerning “Internet Freedom.”

    It looks like the three main tenets of the Democrats’ internet strategy concern unfettered information flow, IP protection, and privacy. Here’s what they have to say about Internet Freedom, as a subsection in the “Advancing Universal Values” platform:

    The Obama administration has led the world to recognize and defend Internet freedom – the freedom of expression, assembly, and association online for people everywhere – through coalitions of countries and by empowering individuals with innovative technologies. The administration has built partnerships to support an Internet that is secure and reliable and that is respectful of U.S. intellectual property, free flow of information, and privacy. To preserve the Internet as a platform for commerce, debate, learning, and innovation in the 21st century, we successfully negotiated international Internet policymaking principles, support the current multi-stakeholder approach to Internet governance, and oppose the extension of intergovernmental controls over the Internet.

    Earlier in the platform, the party highlights what they feel are examples of the Obama administration’s efforts to protect user privacy – the launch of the Internet Privacy Bill of Rights and the encouragement of Do Not Track options. They also tout the President’s commitment to giving most of the country access to high-speed, secure, and reliable internet:

    “President Obama has committed to ensuring that 98 percent of the country has access to high-speed wireless broadband Internet access. We are finding innovative ways to free up wireless spectrum and are building a state-of-the-art nationwide, interoperable, public safety network. President Obama is strongly committed to protecting an open Internet that fosters investment, innovation, creativity, consumer choice, and free speech, unfettered by censorship or undue violations of privacy,” they say.

    Of course, the “protection of IP” part of the platform is likely to receive a mixed response from internet activists. The platform states that the administration is “vigorously protecting U.S. intellectual property,” but maintains that they are doing so in a way that also supports the free flow of information.

    This marks the first time in our nation’s history that both major parties have included language in support of internet freedom in their official platforms. Here’s what the Republicans had to say last week:

    The Internet has unleashed innovation, enabled growth, and inspired freedom more rapidly and extensively than any other technological advance inhuman history. Its independence is its power. The Internet offers a communications system uniquely free from government intervention. We will remove regulatory barriers that protect outdated technologies and business plans from innovation and competition, while preventing legacy regulation from interfering with new and disruptive technologies such as mobile delivery of voice video data [sic] as they become crucial components of the Internet ecosystem.

    We will resist any effort to shift control away from the successful multi-stakeholder approach of Internet governance and toward governance by international or other intergovernmental organizations. We will ensure that personal data receives full constitutional protection from government overreach and that individuals retain the right to control the use of their data by third parties; the only way to safeguard or improve these systems is through the private sector.

    As you can see, the parties’ stances on internet freedom accurately reflect their core party philosophies. While the Democrats talk about government stepping in to protect user privacy, the Republicans emphasize the removal of regulations and protection from “governmental overreach.”

  • Neelie Kroes Discusses European Net Neutrality

    Neelie Kroes Discusses European Net Neutrality

    Neelie Kroes, the European Commissioner for Digital Agenda and Vice President of the European Commission, is an active supporter of net neutrality and all that it entails. In fact, she goes beyond the idea of an open net and in her latest blog post, discusses some concepts that some may not consider when the subject of net neutrality arises.

    Not only does Kroes champion the open net aspect, she also wants to ensure customers get what they pay for in regards to Internet access. From her perspective, this goes part and parcel with an open net. Kroes also believes these service providers should be more transparent with their terms of service agreements, as opposed to offering obfuscated booklets that no one really reads to begin with.

    To address the “net neutrality waiting game” that some European consumers endure, Kroes proposes a three-step approach to ensure subscribers get the service they are paying for:

    First, consumers need clear information on actual, real-life broadband speeds. Not just the speed at 3 am, but the speed at peak times. The upload as well as the download speed. The minimum speed, if applicable. And the speed you’ll get when you’re also watching IPTV as part of your triple-play bundle, or downloading a video on demand via a premium “managed” service. Plus, you should know what those advertised speeds typically allow you to do online.

    Second, consumers also need clear information on the limits of what they are paying for. Clear, quantified data ceilings are much better than vague “fair use” policies that leave too much discretion to Internet Service Providers (ISPs). They allow low-volume users to look for deals that suit them. And they incentivise ISPs to price data volumes in ways that reflect costs, and so support investment in modernising networks as traditional voice revenues decline.

    Third, consumers also need to know if they are getting Champagne or lesser sparkling wine. If it is not full Internet, it shouldn’t be marketed as such; perhaps it shouldn’t be marketed as “Internet” at all, at least not without any upfront qualification. Regulators should have that kind of control over how ISPs market the service.

    Based on her first postion alone, it’s pretty clear Kroes’ “give the consumers what they pay for” approach would go over like a bucket of dead fish with American ISPs, the same collective that loves to use the phrase “up to” when boasting about the speeds their various Internet service tiers offer. That being said, Kroes does not believe forcing ISPs to act is the way to go about ensuring good net neutrality. Instead, if there’s enough choice offered to consumers, they will be the one deciding the fates of these service providers by choosing to subscribe or move to another provider:

    But I do not propose to force each and every operator to provide full Internet: it is for consumers to vote with their feet. If consumers want to obtain discounts because they only plan to use limited online services, why stand in their way? And we don’t want to create obstacles to entrepreneurs who want to provide tailored connected services or service bundles, whether it’s for social networking, music, smart grids, eHealth or whatever. But I want to be sure that these consumers are aware of what they are getting, and what they are missing.

    Our guidance will make it easier to “switch” service providers, and service offers, so that you can choose the market offer that suits you best. And I will continue to monitor the market to ensure that European consumers generally have access to competitive full Internet products, fixed and mobile.

    Again, this sounds like the type of enforcement companies like AT&T, Comcast, and Verizon are directly opposed to. Apparently, because they provide the service, it’s up to them to decide how the consumers are best served. In Europe, officials like Kroes would laugh at such a notion because they are bold enough to believe the consumer is entitled to the services that they paid for, not the “up to” level of service that many North American residents are used to receiving.

  • Are Data Caps Bad, Or Are They Justifiable?

    Are Data Caps Bad, Or Are They Justifiable?

    How do you feel about data caps? I think it’s safe to assume that most people aren’t in favor of them, which is why many public interest groups are speaking out against them. Several of these groups have reached out to lawmakers and the FCC asking that they investigate data caps.

    In a letter to Congress, Public Knowledge, Free Press, Consumers Union, and New America Foundation wrote:

    Data caps do have a very real impact on consumer behavior. Data caps dampen the use of broadband generally and discourage high-bandwidth applications, like online video, specifically. This dynamic has been illustrated in letters submitted to the Federal Communications Commission last year by public interest groups [including signatories to his letter].1

    If data caps had a legitimate economic justification, they might be just a necessary annoyance. But they do not have such a justification. Arbitrary caps and limits are imposed by multichannel video providers that also provide broadband Internet access, because the providers have a strong incentive and ability to protect their legacy, linear video distribution models from emerging online video competition.

    Do data caps cause harm to you? Why or why not? We’d love to hear your perspective.

    These issues have gained a lot of attention lately after several companies have raised concerns regarding the negative impact that data caps have on them. Netflix recently lashed out at Comcast over the cable giant’s announcement to not count the television programming users access through its Xfinity video streaming service against their 250-gigabyte monthly data cap. Reed Hastings, Netflix’s CEO, believes that Comcast isn’t following the FCC’s Open Internet Order and took to Facebook to voice his distaste for the company’s latest move:

    Comcast no longer following net neutrality principles.

    Comcast should apply caps equally, or not at all.

    I spent the weekend enjoying four good internet video apps on my Xbox: Netflix, HBO GO, Xfinity, and Hulu.

    When I watch video on my Xbox from three of these four apps, it counts against my Comcast internet cap. When I watch through Comcast’s Xfinity app, however, it does not count against my Comcast internet cap.

    For example, if I watch last night’s SNL episode on my Xbox through the Hulu app, it eats up about one gigabyte of my cap, but if I watch that same episode through the Xfinity Xbox app, it doesn’t use up my cap at all.

    The same device, the same IP address, the same wifi, the same internet connection, but totally different cap treatment.

    In what way is this neutral?

    Although Larry Downes, a senior adjunct fellow at Tech Freedom, would prefer not to have data caps, he told us that they do not fall under net neutrality concerns. As he explained, net neutrality is being misrepresented in this case and, therefore, takes the focus off of the real issues.

    “The advocates believe any new service that is not really clear from a competitor’s standpoint… they kind of like to just paste it with the phrase net neutrality,” said Downes.

    “It’s extremely misleading and very unhelpful to try to figure out what is best for customers if we just kind of paste everything with net neutrality,” he added.

    Amazon is another company that is sounding alarm over data caps, and it expressed its concerns in a Senate Commerce Committee hearing on online video. Based on numerous reports, Sony is also halting plans to move forward with its own video streaming service until the FCC weighs in on Comcast’s Xfinity decision.

    Just yesterday, Senator Al Franken sent a letter to the FCC vocalizing his concern over Comcast’s behavior as well. He is urging the commission to take action against cable company.

    Eli Dourado, Research Fellow at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University There is, however, the other side of this debate that believes data caps are necessary and even justifiable. Eli Dourado, a research fellow at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University, is among this group. He spoke with us and explained that, even though he is a paid subscriber to three different online video services, he still thinks that data caps serve a significant purpose.

    According to him, the first reason Internet service providers have data caps is for pricing incentives. In other words, if ISPs had one flat rate and no data cap, they would have to charge a lot more for their services. With caps, Dourado explains that ISPs can offer options to consumers, thus better meeting needs.

    For example, ordinary consumers pay a lower cost for their services but have a data cap. Businesses, on the other hand, pay more but have no cap. Consumers are also able to pay more to not have a cap, if they wish.

    The second reason Dourado thinks data caps are necessary is to help alleviate congestion. Everyone knows that when too many people are using the same bandwidth, the service slows way down. If data caps didn’t exist, more than likely, ISPs would have a metering plan in which users would pay bit-by-bit. Most consumers, however, would prefer to pay a flat rate, even if it’s more, in order to make their accounting easier.

    “They’re [consumers are] willing to pay more and to have a flat rate than to pay less and have a metered rate,” said Dourado.

    Thirdly, he believes data caps are justifiable to ISPs for copyright reasons. As SOPA and PIPA demonstrated, the entertainment industry is very concerned with copyright violations. Without data caps, Dourado told us that there would be “a lot more filtering and a lot more government control over content on the Internet.” This, in turn, could lead to ISPs being forced into a “copyright police” position. Dourado also mentioned that the chances of a SOPA passing could be more realistic without caps.

    “If not something exactly like SOPA, something equally bad or worse could happen if there were no data caps,” he said.

    Dourado went on to say that he too doesn’t think data caps are an issue of net neutrality. According to him, caps are important given the current economy and cable infrastructure.

    “Everybody wants a neutral Internet… but, it’s totally different when you get into the actual economics of network industries of building out this infrastructure… it’s not always easy to provide neutrality,” said Dourado.

    “Somebody has to pay for the pipes,” he continued, “and the most efficient way to have people pay for them is to pay a share of the fixed costs, and then a share of the marginal costs.”

    Furthermore, Dourado told us that he has never gone past his cap even with his three online services. As a result, he doesn’t think that excess usage is very common.

    “If you’re a normal Internet user and you browse the Web and use email and watch some YouTube videos here and there, you’re not gonna get anywhere near the cap,” he said.

    He went on to say that, for those users who are afraid they will go over their limit, the consequence is essentially an “idle threat.” He said most ISPs simply send a letter of notification, and beyond that, nothing really happens.

    “If enough consumers just say…. ‘We’re gonna use this and we’re gonna go to our cap or even succeed it,’ I think that the Internet service providers will have to accommodate them,” said Dourado.

    As for mobile data caps, Dourado told us that they are even more important than those imposed by ISPs since mobile networks contain a much higher volume of congestion. In other words, the days of unlimited data plans are a long way from coming back.

    Although there isn’t an investigation open to examine data caps at this time, Dourado said the groups that oppose them are very effective at getting their message out. In the long run, however, he is optimistic that the government will not intervene.

    Do you think the government should step in regarding data caps? Please share your thoughts.

  • The Netherlands Successfully Passes Net Neutrality

    The Netherlands Successfully Passes Net Neutrality

    The Netherlands has historically been on the cutting edge in relation to certain concepts, especially in regards to personal freedom. While Amsterdam is famous for its approach to recreational drug use, other concepts like prostitution, which is legal and regulated, are obviously treated differently in the Netherlands than they are in the United States.

    Now, it appears as if the Netherlands is once again on the cutting edge, this time, with the country’s approach to net neutrality laws. Thanks to the passage of new legislation, the Netherlands is the first European country to make net neutrality the law of the land. Not only that, but the Dutch lawmakers also introduced restrictions concerning Dutch ISPs wiretapping their users, and introduced limitations concerning ISPs disconnecting their subscribers.

    According to a report from the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the wiretapping limitations include the use of deep packet inspections, which are no longer allowed without legal approval or consent from the subscribers themselves. Regarding the stipulations for which ISPs can disconnect a subscriber, the new legislation introduced six conditions, which are spelled out quite clearly:

    …termination at the request of the subscriber, non-payment by a subscriber, in cases of deception, at the expiry of a fixed contract, force majeure, or if the ISP is required to terminate by law or a court order. In addition, the network neutrality provisions also permit blocking of an Internet connection where necessary for the integrity and security of a network.

    Furthermore, the disconnection stipulations are based on EU standards from 2009, which states such an interruption of Internet service may only occur if the following conditions are met:

    appropriate, proportionate and necessary within a democratic society, and their implementation shall be subject to adequate procedural safeguards in conformity with the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and general principles of Community law, including effective judicial protection and due process.

    The adoption of net neutrality principles by the Netherlands was happily greeted by Bits of Freedom, a Dutch watchdog group that focuses on citizens’ digital rights:

    Bits of Freedom, the Dutch digital rights movement which campaigned for these provisions, applauds the new law. It considers this a historical moment for internet freedom in The Netherlands and calls on other countries to follow the Dutch example.

    Meanwhile, in the United States, ISPs still have entirely too much influence over the adoption of net neutrality, and they are, unfortunately, given much more credence then they would get in a country like the Netherlands.

  • Is the Internet Becoming Less Open?

    Is the Internet Becoming Less Open?

    Although the issue of Web openness has been mostly quiet of late, it was revived after Google’s Sergey Brin made some powerful statements to the Guardian. According to him, the freedom of the Internet is under a greater threat than it has ever been before.

    “I am more worried than I have been in the past,” he tells the Guardian. “It’s scary.”

    Brin also indicated that he and fellow Google co-founder Larry Page would not be able to build their search engine in the current Internet environment given restrictive players such as Facebook. He categorized both Facebook and Apple as “walled gardens” saying they have too many limitations within their services.

    As one can imagine, Brin’s statements have gained a considerable amount of criticism. What’s more, his perspective has also reignited the debate over what true openness actually is and what real threats lie with it.

    How do you define a truly open Internet? We’d love to know.

    The Web quickly responded to Brin’s interview with numerous claims of Google being hypocritical. Bobbie Johnson on GigaOM compiled a comprehensive piece on the Web’s reaction including statements from Dave Winer, Andrew Keen, and others.

    Rebecca Lieb, analyst with the Altimeter Group WebProNews spoke with Rebecca Lieb, an analyst with the Altimeter Group and who is also veteran in the search industry, about the matter and she told us that Brin lumped two very different types of openness together. As she explained, the one side of openness covers government censorships and restrictions in regimes such as China and the Middle East. The other side of Web openness, she continued, is Web-specific and deals with “walled gardens.”

    “It’s disingenuous to put the two in the same basket, which is what Brin is doing,” she said. “One is a very, very important social and political discussion; the other is a business discussion.”

    The most recent threat to Internet freedom or net neutrality has been in regards to telecommunications’ companies hampering with Web access. While it is real and should be addressed, Lieb told us that there are other threats, including Brin’s concerns, that exist as well. However, she believes they are all on various levels of importance and should, therefore, be handled differently.

    “There are threats to free and open Internet access through business, through governments, through anti-democratic means, but they can’t really all be lumped in one basket,” she said.

    On the business side of the threat and in reference to the “walled gardens” that Brin mentioned, Lieb told us that his point would have been clearer if he had not mentioned direct competitors to Google. Even though he raised some legitimate points in this regard, she said she would have liked to see him take his argument outside of potential business threats to Google.

    In addition, his bringing Google’s competitors to the table make it easier for his stance to come under attack, especially in light of recent actions from the search giant. For example, in Matt Cutts‘ latest video, he reminds people how Google may remove or demote a website.

    “We do reserve the right to take action, whether it be demotion or removal, and we think we have to apply our best judgment,” said Cutts.

    Here’s his complete video:

    Another example is when Google announced that it was beginning to encrypt searches when users are logged into Google.com. This move, as Lieb explained, limits the openness that people once had since Google no longer shares the keyword referral data with those who don’t advertise on Google.

    As evidenced in the below piece that WPN did last year when the news transpired, the overall consensus from the SEO community, including Lieb, was that this move was evil:

    After these and other issues were raised, Brin spoke out on his Google+ account and said his words were taken out of context calling the Guardian report a “short summary of a long discussion.” He clarified that he did not think the openness of digital ecosystems was “on par” with government censorship of the Web.

    Also, to address the comments made specifically about Google’s own practices, Brin wrote:

    “So what was my concern and what about Google for that matter?
I became an entrepreneur during the 90’s, the boom time of what you might now call Web 1.0. Yahoo created a directory of all the sites they could find without asking anyone for permission. Ebay quickly became the largest auction company in the world without having to pay a portion of revenue to any ISP. Paypal became the most successful payment company and Amazon soared in e-commerce also without such tolls or any particular company’s permission. 



    Today, starting such a service would entail navigating a number of new tollbooths and gatekeepers. If you are interested in this issue I recommend you read http://futureoftheinternet.org/ by +Jonathan Zittrain. While openness is a core value at Google, there are a number of areas where we can improve too (as the book outlines).

But regardless of how you feel about digital ecosystems or about Google, please do not take the free and open internet for granted from government intervention. To the extent that free flow of information threatens the powerful, those in power will seek to suppress it.”

    Lieb agrees with Brin in that she believes the real concerns and threats to Internet freedom lie in anti-net neutrality and the government regimes that block Internet access. Furthermore, the oppression in the Middle East and other regions over the past couple of years only solidifies what an important role the Internet plays in staying connected to the world.

    “The business threats posed by a Facebook or a Bing, or even a Google or a Apple, are small potatoes compared to really anti-democratic Internet threats such as those posed by anti-net neutrality or the governments in oppressive or non-democratic regimes worldwide,” she said.

    She went on to say that more lobbying needs to happen in Washington to raise awareness of these very real threats.

    Do you think the “open Web” is at risk? If so, what are the real threats you see? Please share.

  • Netflix CEO Reed Hastings Blasts Comcast Over Net Neutrality

    Netflix CEO Reed Hastings Blasts Comcast Over Net Neutrality

    While using a number of stream-related apps recently, Netflix CEO noticed something about Comcast’s application of their much-maligned Internet data usage caps–they, according to Hastings, weren’t being applied equally. And so, he posted about it on Facebook, taking his beef with Comcast to the masses. By airing his grievance in such a public forum, Hastings accomplished a few things.

    First, his complaint has become a national story, and second, it shines the light on not only how silly the idea of a data usage cap is, it also shows that apparently, Comcast doesn’t apply their needless caps with any kind of consistency. Before Hastings’ statement, here’s an example of what motivated Comcast to introduce their bandwidth reduction measures, starting with this hard-to-swallow claim:

    We’ve listened to feedback from our customers who asked that we provide a specific threshold for data usage and this would help them understand the amount of usage that would qualify as excessive.

    So it’s the Comcast customers who asked for bandwidth caps? I find this to be an exaggeration at best. At worst, it’s an outright lie created by Comcast to deflect any criticisms about their cap policy. You see, if they put the onus on the customers, then they’re Comcast is not to blame for implementing these caps because they’re simply “meeting the needs of their customers.” In all likelihood, the truth is much closer to this: The caps are a result of customer complaints concerning Comcast’s Internet provision, and instead of improving their network’s infrastructure, Comcast used these complaints to base their bandwidth cap strategy upon.

    As for Hastings, based on his experience with Comcast’s use of these caps, he doesn’t believe the ISP follows the FCC’s net neutrality principles, and so, he took to Facebook to voice his displeasure. Hastings’ statement, in its entirety:

    Comcast no longer following net neutrality principles.

    Comcast should apply caps equally, or not at all.

    I spent the weekend enjoying four good internet video apps on my Xbox: Netflix, HBO GO, Xfinity, and Hulu.

    When I watch video on my Xbox from three of these four apps, it counts against my Comcast internet cap. When I watch through Comcast’s Xfinity app, however, it does not count against my Comcast internet cap.

    For example, if I watch last night’s SNL episode on my Xbox through the Hulu app, it eats up about one gigabyte of my cap, but if I watch that same episode through the Xfinity Xbox app, it doesn’t use up my cap at all.

    The same device, the same IP address, the same wifi, the same internet connection, but totally different cap treatment.

    In what way is this neutral?

    Aside from the knowledge that Reed Hastings is an Xbox guy, what else did we learn? Well, in relation to streaming video and Comcast data usage caps, the two don’t seem to get along well at all. Second, we learned that as long as you’re using Comcast-friendly applications–the Xfinity Xbox app Hastings refers to is provided by Comcast–your cap usage doesn’t seem to be effected. Which seems to indicate that, as long as you’re using Comcast-approved applications, your cap usage is fine. However, if you use a third-party streaming video app–Netflix, HBO GO, Hulu–Comcast applies this to your monthly usage cap.

    Does this sound like any kind of net neutrality you’ve ever heard of? Is it ethical for a company to play favorites in such a manner or was this a big misunderstanding on the part of Comcast, and under normal circumstances, Xfinity should count against your data usage?

    The explanation/response from Comcast will be interesting, to say the least.

  • Is Net Neutrality Being Misrepresented?

    Is Net Neutrality Being Misrepresented?

    Net neutrality is in the spotlight once again after Comcast’s recent announcement about its Xfinity video streaming service. The cable giant said that it would not count the television programming users access through Microsoft’s Xbox against their 250-gigabyte monthly data cap.

    On a FAQs page Comcast set up for the use of Xfinity on the Xbox 360, it states:

    Comcast Xfinity FAQs

    While the announcement is good news for many consumers, some media activists are raising concerns over the implications of the move. Public advocacy groups including Public Knowledge and Free Press fear that it threatens the Open Internet and that it would give Comcast an unfair advantage over other video streaming services.

    Does Comcast’s plan put net neutrality at risk? Please share your thoughts.

    Tim Wu, who first coined the term net neutrality, is also against Comcast’s announcement and spoke out about it in a recent interview with Marketplace Tech Report. According to him, this move will be detrimental to services such as Netflix.

    “The whole idea of net neutrality is to try and guarantee that similar content gets treated similarly,” Wu said to Marketplace Tech Report, “and if you think about it for a second, if something doesn’t count against your cap, obviously it’s getting a preferential treatment. You’re more likely to stream that instead of someone else’s.”

    If you remember, the FCC passed the Open Internet Order in late 2010, which is a set of rules intended to preserve net neutrality. At that time, many of these same public interest groups spoke out about the “potential loopholes” that could result if Internet service providers tried to get around the “spirit of the rules.”

    These groups and Wu are now saying that Comcast’s latest move does this. In a post on Public Knowledge’s Policy Blog, staff attorney Michael Weinberg wrote:

    “This decision is a perfect example of the behavior that net neutrality rules were designed to prevent AND raised additional questions about the true motivation behind data caps… Today’s announcement turns these concerns from theoretical to concrete. Comcast has transformed the competitive online video marketplace into a two-tiered world, where its own online video doesn’t have to play by the same rules as everyone else’s. This is pretty bad–the internet should reward the best services, not the ones with the right corporate owners.”

    Larry Downes, Senior Adjunct Fellow at Tech Freedom Not everyone, however, believes this is true. WebProNews spoke with Larry Downes, a senior adjunct fellow at Tech Freedom, who told us that Comcast is not violating the FCC’s rules from both a legal and technical standpoint.

    As he explained, all cable programming is exempt from the rules because it is already heavily regulated by the FCC and on the state and local level.

    “Since these services are already highly regulated, the FCC decided when it passed its Open Internet rules to exempt from them any programming that happens to come down the cable that isn’t actually Internet content,” he said.

    “From a strictly legal sense, the Open Internet rules explicitly exempt any television programming from the rules, so no matter what Comcast is doing here, it’s not gonna violate the letter of the net neutrality rules.”

    Downes also told us the claims based on the “spirit of the rules” were also overblown. According to him, television programming, even though it uses the same “last mile” that Internet services do, does not apply to the rules.

    “From a technical standpoint, it’s very different in terms of how that data stream is handled [and] how it’s compressed,” he said.

    In a piece Downes wrote on CNET called “No, Comcast Is Not Breaking the Internet…Again,” he said:

    “If the Xbox service unreasonably discriminates against over-the-top services, then all cable TV unfairly competes with Internet video. That, however, is not the view of the FCC’s Open Internet rules, nor its extensive regulations of cable TV providers. Nor should it be.”

    It appears that a large part of the concern that media activists have against Comcast’s plan is based on the issue of capping data. Public Knowledge, for example, has filed multiple requests with the FCC asking more information on data caps.

    Downes told us that while he would prefer not to have data caps, he understands why some cable companies are implementing them. He explained to us that the cable infrastructure wasn’t built for the Internet or digital programming. Although cable companies have already invested billions of dollars in order to handle digital services, he said they currently have to make do with what they have until more efficient systems are established.

    He, however, pointed out that the claims that equate these issues with net neutrality risks are wrong.

    “The advocates believe any new service that is not really clear from a competitor’s standpoint… they kind of like to just paste it with the phrase net neutrality,” said Downes.

    “It’s extremely misleading and very unhelpful to try to figure out what is best for customers if we just kind of paste everything with net neutrality,” he added.

    According to him, this misrepresentation of net neutrality takes the focus off of finding the real issues. If the programs are given the chance to work, he believes the market will determine if any anticompetitive concerns exist.

    In a statement released to WebProNews regarding the opposition to its new policy, Comcast told us:

    “Our treatment of the Xfinity services being delivered through an Xbox is wholly consistent with our commitment to maintaining an open Internet and with the FCC’s Open Internet Order.  Our standard is clear. If we are delivering a traditional cable service on a Title VI basis, where the customer is already paying us for that service, and all we are doing is delivering it in IP over our managed network through a different device that effectively serves as an additional outlet in the house, then we don’t believe it should count against their data usage threshold.  There is no ‘discrimination’ here – remember, we do count customer use of XfinityTV.com, the Xfinity TV app and nbc.com against data usage threshold standards (because that’s not a Title VI service being delivered only in the home).”

    As for what happens next, Public Knowledge is currently examining Comcast’s new policy to see if it wants to file a formal complaint with the FCC.

    Is the future of net neutrality in danger, or are the recent claims distorting the true meaning behind keeping the Internet open? We’d love to hear your thoughts in the comments.

  • AT&T Proposes Charging Developers For Data Usage At The Expense Of Net Neutrality

    AT&T Proposes Charging Developers For Data Usage At The Expense Of Net Neutrality

    AT&T may have found a solution to their ever growing problem of skyrocketing mobile data usage. At the Mobile World Congress event in Barcelona, Spain, AT&T revealed that it has a possible pay plan in the works make the providers of mobile services, pay for the cost of data usage associated with things like streaming movies and smart phone apps.

    AT&T’s network and technology executive explained to the Wall Street Journal Ma Bell’s interest in exploring the service. “A feature that we are hoping to have out sometime next year is the equivelent of 800 numbers that would say, if you take this app, this app will come without any network usage.”

    More carriers are going away from unlimited data plans to plans that charge more money for more data used. If AT&T started to use this plan, an app such as Spotify could pay more money to AT&T in exchange for it’s users experiencing no data usage when using the app. What if Facebook decides to pay but Twitter doesn’t? Twitter on an iPhone or Android phone would be seriously hurt, or it could create confusion with 2 different kind of apps for the same product: Premium and a basic with the premium version not using your data.

    This in turn now has the internets all up in arms, re-igniting the net neutrality debate and its effect on mobile internet rules. Their biggest argument seems to be about small start ups being disenfranchised because they would need an immense amount of capital just to compete in the the high stakes world of app development. Because if the choice was get a free game from Zynga that uses no data, or pay $1.99 for a game from Ma and Pa that uses data, what is the average consumer going to do?

  • Mike D of the Beastie Boy to Rock the AT&T Net Neutrality Vote

    Mike D of the Beastie Boy to Rock the AT&T Net Neutrality Vote

    When AT&T holds their next annual shareholder voting process, the SEC is commanding that net neutrality be included in the list of items to be voted on. This means shareholders will be allowed to at least influence AT&T’s postion on providing a truly neutral wireless Internet to their mobile subscribers.

    Naturally, AT&T resisted such a stipulation, which was spearheaded, in part, at least, by Beastie Boy Mike D, who’s legal name is Michael Diamond. According to BusinessWeek.com, Diamond, his wife, movie director Tamara Davis, and John P. Silva of Silva Artist Management are represented by Trillium, an asset management collective, which was one of the chief movers in relation to getting such topics including on the shareholders ballot.

    In a letter from the SEC, the idea of denying shareholders the right to vote on these issues is not in the plans:

    “In view of the sustained public debate over the last several years concerning net neutrality and the Internet and the increasing recognition that the issue raises significant policy considerations, we do not believe that AT&T may omit the proposal from its proxy materials,” the SEC said in the Feb. 10 letter.

    The position of the shareholders, at least the group represented by Trillium, is that net neutrality is something these wireless providers should adhere to:

    The shareholder resolution would recommend each company “publicly commit to operate its wireless broadband network consistent with network neutrality principles,” the letter said. The companies should not discriminate based on the “source, ownership or destination” of data sent over their wireless infrastructure.

    Naturally, AT&T opposes net neutrality because it would “directly interfere with its network management practices and seriously impair its ability to provide wireless broadband service to its customers.” Apparently, the nice about speaking in such general terms is that no one will demand that AT&T quantify these statements with some tangible evidence. In light of that, the pressure applied by the Trillium group was much-needed.

    The question going forward is, how will AT&T respond if the majority of their shareholders support a neutral net? Will they continue to toe the party line with more nonsense about net neutrality impeding their ability to provide wireless broadband service or will they miraculously see the light and change their tune?

  • Previously, Lamar Smith Supported A Non-Regulated Internet

    Previously, Lamar Smith Supported A Non-Regulated Internet

    About five years ago, during hearings concerning the adoption of net neutrality rules, Lamar Smith, the US House Representative who introduced SOPA to the world, had a much different stance on regulating the Internet, but only when it suited his needs.

    There’s an infamous quote from Smith in 2006, which was unearthed by TechDirt, and while it reads like a vote for an open, non-regulated Internet, the statement is much more self-serving than that. The quote in question:

    “I want a vibrant Internet just like they do,” said Rep. Lamar Smith, a Texas Republican. “Our disagreement is about how to achieve that. They say let the government dictate it…I urge my colleagues to reject government regulation of the Internet.”

    As TechDirt points out, Smith’s position changed as his donations from the entertainment industry increased, and while that’s incredibly valid, it should also be pointed out that the one of the primary reasons Smith was against regulating the Internet in 2006 was to reject the idea of net neutrality.

    Smith, instead, preferred the Republican-backed Communications Opportunity, Promotion, and Enhancement (COPE) Act over net neutrality.

    In essence, Smith didn’t want the Internet regulated by the Obama administration, and while the entertainment industry money no doubt greased the wheels for his stance on SOPA, his 2006 statements come across as partisan politics, instead of protecting the nature of the Internet.

  • Obama Threatens To Veto Any Net Neutrality Repeals

    Obama Threatens To Veto Any Net Neutrality Repeals

    Net neutrality, because of extreme corporate influence, has been a contentious issue ever since it was introduced. In fact, the subject has been completely muddied by a lack of understanding from various outspoken anti-Obama groups to the point where a large majority of people who oppose it have no idea what it is they are opposing.

    For further insight into this dilemma, check out the comments from a Breitbart TV piece. Statements like:

    Here’s a thought…maybe since obummer and the socialist have used the internet to over through governments, they want to use net neutrality to make sure they control the internet so nobody over throughs their nwo.

    And:

    Steve sure helped clarify Net Neuter for me. The traffic jam analogy was very good, and how EVIL corporations like Google that are *Okay for the libtarded to operate, potentially unhindered is now made crystal clear for me.

    Help prove the abject ignorance that surrounds the topic. Yes, there are legitimate criticisms of how the FCC modeled their approach to net neutrality, but the concept is a vital one, especially for those of us who do not want to see Internet service provision become an offshoot of cable television packages.

    Or those of us who don’t want corporate influence to determine when, where, how, and why we use the Internet.

    With that in mind, the news that President Obama will veto any repeal of net neutrality should be welcomed with open arms from those of us who truly want a free and open Internet. Currently, a group of Republican senators are working hard to remove the bill from the books, following the lead of the Republican-controlled House of Representatives. The Hill explains:

    The House approved a resolution to repeal the rules in April. The Senate version is sponsored by Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas) and has an additional 42 Republican co-sponsors. It has no Democratic co-sponsors.

    For an extended look at Hutchinson’s misguided approach to Internet legislation, take a look at this gem:


    Once again, the utterly incorrect stance of “net neutrality stifles innovation” is used by Hutchinson, when, in fact, the exact opposite is true. Hutchinson says she’s against the government controlling the Internet, but she apparently has no issue with companies like AT&T, Verizon, Time-Warner, and Comcast assuming that role. Of course, if you take a quick look at the corporations that contributed to Hutchinson’s coffers, you’ll find AT&T, one of the companies that would lose control if the FCC’s version of net neutrality survives the legislative process.

    And that’s where Obama’s veto hammer comes into play. The Hill has a quote from the White House, explaining their position quite clearly:

    “The Administration strongly opposes Senate passage of S.J. Res. 6, which would undermine a fundamental part of the nation’s Open Internet and innovation strategy — an enforceable, effective but flexible policy for keeping the Internet free and open,” the White House said.

    It should be noted that Obama’s list of donors include Time-Warner and he has rubbed shoulders both AT&T and Verizon. Nevertheless, at least in the case of net neutrality, Obama hasn’t let these companies influence his stance.

    Now, in regards to PROTECT-IP and other related legislative pieces, perhaps, but not with net neutrality, something his veto talk should indicate quite clearly.

  • Verizon Moves To Block Net Neutrality, Citing A Bunch of Nonsense

    Verizon Moves To Block Net Neutrality, Citing A Bunch of Nonsense

    Verizon doesn’t think the FCC should be able to regulate the Internet, even though it, as a company that started as one of the Bells, is well aware of the history of regulation within the telecommunications industry. And so, the company filed a lawsuit in an attempt to block the FCC’s implementation of these standards.

    While this was expected, the reason(s) the company offers for its attempted block is incredibly laughable, and well, false. Before that, let’s recap the FCC’s version of Net Neutrality, something that was officially filed on September 23, 2011. The concept is focused on three simple tenets:

    i. Transparency. Fixed and mobile broadband providers must disclose the network management practices, performance characteristics, and terms and conditions of their broadband services;

    ii. No blocking. Fixed broadband providers may not block lawful content, applications, services, or non-harmful devices; mobile broadband providers may not block lawful websites, or block applications that compete with their voice or video telephony services; and

    iii. No unreasonable discrimination. Fixed broadband providers may not unreasonably discriminate in transmitting lawful network traffic.

    Again, it’s surprising how simply effective the FCC can be when the collective actually tries. These standards are simple in concept and execution, although, some groups weren’t happy with the FCC’s apparent blind eye towards the mobile industry. To this writer, that’s another story for another day, because home-based Internet use needs to be protected as well.

    Too bad Verizon doesn’t think so.

    While discussing their lawsuit, a Verizon lawyer offered this stream of useless information as the company’s reason for the attempted block:

    “We are deeply concerned by the FCC’s assertion of broad authority to impose potentially sweeping and unneeded regulations on broadband networks and services and on the Internet itself,” said Michael Glover, Verizon’s general counsel. “We believe this assertion of authority is inconsistent with the statute and will create uncertainty for the communications industry, innovators, investors and consumers.”

    So an open Internet disrupts innovation? One wonders how Google would respond to such nonsense. Or the creators of YouTube. Or Yahoo. Or Facebook. Or Twitter. All of these ubiquitous services were successfully developed under an open net understanding, but for some reason, Verizon wants us to believe the opposite is true.

    Which means, Verizon’s reasons for wanting to block net neutrality are absolutely false. Verizon is simply trying to misguidedly justify why it wants to regulate the Internet for its customers. Verizon wants to be able to pick and choose what content it gives preferential treatment to, and the FCC’s rules don’t allow for them to do so. Who knows? Maybe the United States government will do what’s right and allow the FCC to, you know, do the job it was created for.

    But then again, when you understand Verizon has already won a case against the FCC over the same subject, it’s doubtful true net neutrality will be coming to the United States anytime soon. Not as long as the corporations are allowed to have as much influence as they do now.

  • The FCC Is Still Trying That Net Neutrality Thing

    The FCC Is Still Trying That Net Neutrality Thing

    In no way is the title of this post meant to be against the concept of net neutrality. Quite the opposite, in fact. That being said, considering how directly connected the telecommunications industry is to the political machine in the United States, I’ve pretty much given up hope for true net neutrality being implemented.

    I suppose the FCC should be commended for going forward with the concept, as watered down as their version is, but there’s a real sense that whatever version the United States receives will have the fingerprints of AT&T, Verizon, Time-Warner and any other powerful telecom entity in the United States all over what gets adopted. Considering AT&T’s burning love for capping its Internet customers, as well as their oft-discussed political influence via the purchase of various politicians, and the Supreme Court’s previous acquiescence to Verizon over the FCC, and it’s easy to see why this particular writer isn’t holding his breath for true net neutrality in the United States.

    Editorials aside, the FCC has officially laid down the soon-to-be cast aside guidelines for what net neutrality adherence would mean in the United States. The rules, courtesy of an FCC pdf, are as follows:


    i. Transparency. Fixed and mobile broadband providers must disclose the network management practices, performance characteristics, and terms and conditions of their broadband services;

    ii. No blocking. Fixed broadband providers may not block lawful content, applications, services, or non-harmful devices; mobile broadband providers may not block lawful websites, or block applications that compete with their voice or video telephony services; and

    iii. No unreasonable discrimination. Fixed broadband providers may not unreasonably discriminate in transmitting lawful network traffic.

    These “three basic rules” should be the backbone of any Internet network — in a perfect world, anyway — but we already know that AT&T and Verizon oppose these rules, thanks to their desire to turn the Internet into a 21st century cable television subscription package, and when you consider the sway these corporate entities have over the very government that supposedly backs the FCC, you can see why it’s hard to be optimistic about net neutrality being truly adopted in the United States.

    With that in mind, at least the FCC is giving it the old college try. These net neutrality provisions are scheduled to become active rules on November, 20th of this year, but it’s doubtful these rules go unchallenged by the corporate masters who rule the telecommunications industry.

  • Comcast Blocking Pirate Bay? (No, According to Comcast)

    Comcast Blocking Pirate Bay? (No, According to Comcast)

    Someone might want to let ISPs know that, no matter how much they want the opposite, net neutrality rules are still in effect. Of course, considering their success the last time Comcast went against the FCC, perhaps the ISPs just doesn’t give a damn.

    Thanks to various reports, word is Comcast is blocking access to The Pirate Bay, perhaps the most outspoken, defiant bittorrent site out there. While this writer isn’t subjected to Comcast’s iron rule, I can’t confirm or deny Comcast’s approach, but there are a number of publications that can. Over at Techland, Doug Aamoth confirms the active denial:

    I’m a Comcast subscriber and I can report that the site is inaccessible for me where I am in Boston at the moment.

    TorrentFreak goes a little further:

    Several tests and numerous user reports reveal that Comcast subscribers from all across the United States are unable to connect to The Pirate Bay. The traceroute from Comcast connections stops at thepiratebay.piratpartiet.se, as it’s supposed to, but The Pirate Bay website does not appear.

    And on the reddit thread, well, if an active Internet forum could have all of Comcast pilloried, we’d no doubt see Brian Roberts walking through the town center in stocks while the onlookers threw rotten fruit and vegetables at him.

    An example of the average reddit member’s thought process concerning Comcast:

    Well. F**k comcast, then. [edit added]

    However, there are some measured responses as well, like this one from user bazhip:

    I can still access it through a proxy, but I feel that I should not have to. If Comcast is actively blocking it, I have a large problem with that. I don’t feel like using Tor whenever I want to get on there. Demonoid is nice, but not a big enough selection. I called Comcast to see what they had to say, and they told me that everything was fine on their end and it was not being blocked, but who knows. Minnesota here.

    With all of the above in mind, it’s pretty clear something is going on in relation to Comcast allowing its customers to access the Pirate Bay. The question now becomes what prompted such action? Is such action even legal, because, as pointed out in the lead, net neutrality measures are still an active part of Internet service provision, Republican backlash be damned.

    Granted, net neutrality may not remain in place, but currently, it is. With that in mind, is Comcast simply ignoring these rules in favor of protecting those who are charged with “protecting” intellectual properties? Should they face an attempt at punishment from the FCC or does the new appointment of Meredith Attwell Baker give them even more protection — not that they really needed it, seeing how the Supreme Court has already sided with them once already?

    Is this how the fight against file sharing should be fought, with ISPs doing the work of true legal entities, or does the infrastructure of the Internet demand ISPs get involved? Should Comcast be in the business of denying the wishes of its customers even if they plan to conduct illegal activity? Should a liquor store not sell alcoholic beverages to people who might drunk drive?

    For what it’s worth, Comcast denies they are blocking access to The Pirate Bay. In an email response to WebProNews, Charlie Douglas, Senior Director of Corporate Communications, says:

    We’re not blocking PirateBay and reports online indicate users from several ISPs around the world are affected.

    Does this change your perspective? Let us know what you think in the comments.

    Lead image courtesy of Deviant Art member, keerochee.

  • Tim Berners-Lee Believes Web Access is a Human Right

    Tim Berners-Lee Believes Web Access is a Human Right

    Tim Berners-Lee, the man attributed to the creation of the internet, gave a speech at an MIT symposium and shared his two decades worth of internet knowledge with the crowd. He spoke about a wide variety of issues, from net neutrality, which he is supportive of, to mobile web access.

    Berners-Lee’s words concerning web access raised a couple of eyebrows, and definitely raised the interest of this writer.

    “Access to the Web is now a human right” he continues, “It’s possible to live without the Web. It’s not possible to live without water. But if you’ve got water, then the difference between somebody who is connected to the Web and is part of the information society, and someone who (is not) is growing bigger and bigger.”

    Berners-Lee’s quote certainly adds an interesting thought to how we perceive the world wide web. Has the web manifested to such a point that we believe it to be a need in our society? This led me to think of my life, and where I would be without access to the internet. It was a pretty scary exercise.

    His quote also brings to mind the net neutrality debate. It strikes to the very heart of the matter, exposing the debate between the opposing sides. If web access is a right, then should providers be allowed to control it as they see fit, or should regulation be put into to place to allow our right to remain unfettered?

    Along with his comparisons to water, Berners-Lee stated how ISPs should have less control over how users access the web. He also warned of mobile apps, and how they should be “web apps” which are accessed, allowing the open web to stay relevant.

  • As Net Neutrality Battle Builds, Other Concerns Rise

    As Net Neutrality Battle Builds, Other Concerns Rise

    Although the issue of net neutrality has never been small, it has grown into a very large, complicated matter with more concerns rising frequently. It has actually developed into a political issue with outspoken parties on both sides.

    Do you think that net neutrality has gotten too political? Let us know why or why not.

    According to John Bergmayer, a staff attorney with Public Knowledge, net neutrality is “not supposed to be something for the Washington chattering classes to gossip about.” Instead, he stated, “It’s supposed to be a simple set of rules that allows innovators to innovate and creators to create.”

    To complicate matters even further, the U.S. House of Representatives recently voted to retract the net neutrality rules that the FCC adopted in December. However, in order for the rules to be completely reversed, the Senate and the President would have to be in favor of repealing the rules as well.

    There is also a lot of conflict around ISPs and the lack of options for consumers. Bergmayer explained that 80 percent of Americans that have access to broadband services only have, at most, 2 broadband options to choose from. Millions of other Americans only have 1 choice in a broadband provider.

    As a result, ISPs are not forced to compete in prices and services, which means that prices are often high and services are less than satisfactory. But, ISPs have their own concern since many of them also provide content services. They, in turn, fear the rise of services such as Netflix.

    In the end, the fight is about the future of the Internet, media, and communications. The big question is where the government fits in with determining these outcomes.

    Fortunately, consumers can share their opinion too. Because the FCC often takes comments on important issues, Bergmayer encourages people to participate. In addition, he suggests that individuals call their Congressmen and women to express their beliefs.

    “It’s not just about big companies like Google fighting big companies like Comcast. It’s really about the individual… out there throughout America,” he said.

    He further pointed out that Washington, DC listens to those who speak the loudest, especially on “political football” issues such as with net neutrality.

    Are you letting your voice be heard on these issues?

  • AT&T Says Goodbye To An Uncapped Internet

    AT&T Says Goodbye To An Uncapped Internet

    And the battle against a truly open Internet where service providers do not interfere with the usage rights — look it up in the service contract: long ago, in the BNNN (before no net neutrality) days, an uncapped Internet means you can use as much bandwidth as you please as long as you are a paying customer — continues, and folks, it’s pretty clear the customer is the one losing.

    Worse yet, apparently, he/she doesn’t seem to mind one bit. From AT&T’s perspective, their customers want the higher bandwidth users to pay more, therefore, “justifying” the upcoming cap rule.


    Oddly enough, I noticed “be tricked into believing unjustifiable bandwidth caps are good for you” was left out of their look-to-the-future commercial.

    Forgive the aside here, but why is it up the heavy bandwidth user to foot the bill for the mysterious cost of bandwidth usage when the company’s infrastructure may not be adequate enough to handle their rapidly increasing customer base? As more and more users enjoy the conveniences and pleasures of streaming video in high definition, high-end PC gaming, and other robust Internet tasks, the company needs to adapt in order to support this growth, instead of resorting to punishing its power users, or “hogs” for lack of a better term.

    Another consideration is, as pointed out by Wired.com, there isn’t a great deal of information concerning the congestion issues these caps are supposed to prevent. In other words, there’s no proof AT&T or Comcast even need these caps to begin with.

    Different subjects for a different day, apparently. As for the upcoming AT&T cap, the details are as follows: DSL customers will have a 150 gigabyte per month usage limit. Those that exceed the cap will be penalized an extra $10 for every 50 gigabytes they go over.

    Needless to say, reaction to AT&T’s wolf-in-sheep’s-clothing approach to such a sensitive subject has set off a firestorm of reaction around the Internet. Endgadget’s post has over 3000 comments and Reddit’s is somewhere around the 600 mark by now. As one might expect, there aren’t many supporters of the upcoming cap.

    Though the vitriol is fast and fierce, the first comment on Reddit’s thread stood out to this writer:

    “I love it when people who use the services they paid for and were promised are referred to as “hogs”. Kills me every time.“

    (via enderpanda)

    Too bad such negative reaction won’t impact AT&T’s decision in anyway, shape or form. At this point, only a mass exodus would reverse this particular course. That being said, it would be nice to actually meet some of these ubiquitous customers AT&T keeps referring to.

    The new cap makes its long-awaited debut on May 2nd, in what will no doubt be a red letter day… at least for AT&T