‘Don’t let Hollywood hijack the net’
p2pnet news view P2P | Politics:- To vested interest concerns such as Big Music’s RIAA and Hollywood’s MPAA, net neutrality is something to be feared and loathed.
To them it means terrifying loss of control. But to others, it means openness and freedom.
In October last year the US Federal Communications Commission took the first step “toward creating formal net neutrality rules, despite a huge lobbying effort from opposing groups in recent days,” said NetworkWorld, going on:
“The FCC voted … to open a rulemaking process and begin receiving comments on a proposal to create new net neutrality rules following a contentious debate on whether new regulations are needed.
“The FCC is still months away from voting on the final regulations, but the rules, as proposed, would allow Web users to run the legal applications and access the legal Web sites of their choice, while prohibiting broadband providers from selectively blocking or slowing Web content. Providers could use ‘reasonable’ network management to reduce congestion and maintain QoS, but the rules would require them to be transparent with consumers about their efforts.”
January 14, 2010, marked the deadline for initial public comment on the proposal, but the EFF (Electronic Frontier Foundation) wonders “is the FCC’s version of Net Neutrality the real deal? Or is it a fake?”
In RealNetNeutrality, a page it’s now running specifically to address the question, “Tell the FFC: Don’t let Hollywood hijack the internet,” it says.
Because, “Buried in the FCC’s rules is a deeply problematic loophole,” it states, going on >>>
“Open Internet principles, the FCC writes, “do not… apply to activities such as the unlawful distribution of copyrighted works.”
For years, the entertainment industry has used that innocent-sounding phrase — “unlawful distribution of copyrighted works” — to pressure Internet service providers around the world to act as copyright cops — to surveil the Internet for supposed copyright violations, and then censor or punish the accused users.
From the beginning, a central goal of the Net Neutrality movement has been to prevent corporations from interfering with the Internet in this way — so why does the FCC’s version of Net Neutrality specifically allow them to do so?
Tell the FCC that if it wants to police the Internet, it first needs to demonstrate that it can protect Internet users and innovators by standing up to powerful industry lobbyists. Sign your name here to demand that the copyright-enforcement loophole be removed.
..… and identi.ca
First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win ~ Mahatma Gandhi
NetworkWorld – FCC takes first step toward net neutrality rules, October 22, 2009
Use free p2pnet newsfeeds for your site. Subscribe to p2pnet.net | | rss feed: http://p2pnet.net/feed
Net access blocked by government restrictions? Use Psiphon from the Citizen Lab at the University of Toronto. Go here for details.
Today marks the deadline for the first round of comments to the FCC regarding its proposed “net neutrality” regulations. Here’s a quick summary of what EFF had to say in its comments to the Commission:
While the question of how to best protect the openness of the Internet is a timely and important one, EFF believes the FCC currently lacks the statutory authority to issue the broad regulations on ISPs that it has proposed. The “ancillary jurisdiction” that the FCC has asserted as a basis for the regulations is legally insufficient and would, if accepted, give the FCC potentially unbounded power to regulate the Internet however it likes. In other words, if the FCC wants to issue net neutrality regulations, it needs to wait until Congress passes a net neutrality bill.
If the Commission nevertheless chooses to forge ahead with the regulations proposed, EFF urges it to make the following revisions designed to protect the free speech and privacy interests of Internet users, and to foster competition and innovation.
First, in order to protect the free speech interests of Internet users, the Commission should reject copyright enforcement as “reasonable network management.” Copyright enforcement has nothing to do with the technical business of network management. Moreover, the proposed regulations, by their terms, already exclude “unlawful content,” making any exception for copyright enforcement unnecessary. Should ISPs want to deploy copyright enforcement technologies that inflict collateral damage on lawful content, those ISPs should be required to submit any such technologies to the Commission for pre-deployment review as part of a transparent public waiver process.
Second, in order to protect the privacy interests of Internet users, the Commission should clarify that the law enforcement exception applies only to an ISP’s legal obligations to address the needs of law enforcement. Because the six proposed neutrality principles do not, by their terms, apply to unlawful content or activities, a general exception for law enforcement is unnecessary. Should ISPs want to voluntarily deploy technologies that would block lawful activity in the course of addressing the needs of law enforcement, those ISPs should be required to submit any such technologies to the Commission for pre-deployment review as part of a transparent, public waiver process.
Third, in order to protect the privacy interests of Internet users, the Commission should make it clear that its proposed regulations do not reach noncommercial providers of broadband Internet access service, whether they are individuals who operate open Wi-Fi networks at home, or public-minded entities that provide free Internet access in their local communities. The Commission should avoid the specter of federal regulation looming over noncommercial, public-spirited network providers. Federal regulation of these initiatives is not necessary to vindicate the openness, competition, innovation, and free expression goals of this proceeding.
Fourth, in order to foster competition and innovation, EFF urges the Commission to make it clear that the proposed “transparency” principle is not subject to an exception for “reasonable network management.” As exemplified by the Commission’s ruling against Comcast regarding its discriminatory treatment of BitTorrent traffic, it is precisely when ISPs invoke the need for “reasonable network management” that the principle of transparency becomes most vital. Only if ISPs are required to adequately disclose their network management practices will consumers, competitors, innovators, and the Commission be able to evaluate whether the practices are, in fact, “reasonable.”
Fifth, in order to foster competition and innovation, the Commission should require wireless ISPs to allow “tethering” as a form of device interconnection. This requirement is a necessary corollary to the principle that consumers should be entitled to use any lawful device or application that does not harm the network. Tethering facilitates interoperability, competition, and openness. Furthermore, tethering blocks some troubling practices that are already emerging in the marketplace.
Related Articles
Del.Icio.Us this! | Digg this! | Reddit this! | Stumble this!
No comments yet