Every time you use a search engine, data from your search is collected. It doesn’t matter if you’re logged in to any account or not — even if you’re using a public computer, the search engine compiles data from that IP address for future reference. (more…)
Dick Armey, a former high-profile U.S. Congressman from Texas who was House Majority Leader for the Republicans from 1995 to 2003, recently issued a strong statement to the U.S. Treasury Department urging restraint regarding the regulation of online business practices.
Today’s Washington Post tell us that the recent Comcast controversy may have succeeded in finally prodding the FCC to take definitive action regarding the net neutrality issue:
The chairman of the Federal Communications Commission yesterday sharply questioned Internet service providers who control consumers’ Web access over their networks, and suggested the agency could intervene against the practice.
Kevin J. Martin made his remarks at an unusual off-site hearing to address complaints that cable provider Comcast restricts the flow of content — such as video and music clips — through file-sharing service BitTorrent. Rep. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.), chairman of the House Energy and Commerce subcommittee on telecommunications and the Internet and a proponent of so-called net neutrality rules barring online traffic controls, offered opening remarks. “While carriers will assert the need to manage networks in their current state of evolution, we need to remember that Internet freedoms are most properly thought of as consumer-centric,” he said.
The hearing, held at Harvard University, pit Comcast and DSL provider Verizon against legal scholars and public interest advocates who have pushed for open-Internet rules.
… “These are very significant issues, and we don’t take those allegations lightly,” Martin said in opening remarks. “The commission is ready, willing and able to step in and correct any practices that are ongoing today.”
Industry watchers said the chairman’s comments were his strongest yet against the carriers. The prospect of punishment for those who violate the FCC’s 2005 policy statement safeguarding net neutrality could pave the way for legislative action, some analysts said. With the backing of Martin, a Republican, the FCC’s two Democratic commissioners — both supporters of net neutrality — would have the majority.
So, does this mean that action is imminent, or is it simply political-flavored posturing? There’s no way to tell for sure at this point, but it does seem like this issue is regaining some momentum in the public sector. Whatever happens (or doesn’t happen), we’ll keep you informed here at the Aplus.Net Blog.
The original article has many more details; click here to check it out.
In response to petitions from consumer groups claiming unfair practices, Comcast admitted yesterday that it “purposely slows down some traffic on its network, including some music and movie downloads,” according to today’s Washington Post.
This admission is sure to heat up the ongoing controversies involving just how much control Internet network providers should be able to exert.
A little background: Many feel that Comcast, and other companies like it, should not be allowed to interfere with the delivery of their service. The Internet, it is argued, should remain a fully equal place; if Internet service providers are allowed to tamper with access here and there, then what’s to prevent them from signing a deal with, say, Amazon.com so that Amazon.com’s site loads faster than competing online retailers? If this happened, it would deal a serious blow to the notion that anyone can succeed by creating their own online business site.
However, others argue that companies like Comcast have every right to control how their service is provided. They are the ones providing the service, it is argued; therefore they can provide it in any way they see fit. (A potent counterpoint to this claim is the fact that many customers don’t have a choice between ISPs but have to go with whatever one is located in their neighborhood. In other words, if you don’t like Comcast’s business practices, you can’t jump to the competition if there is no competition.)
In yesterday’s filing to the FCC, Comcast makes an effort to justify its business practices:
In a filing with the Federal Communications Commission, Comcast said such measures — which can slow the transfer of music or video between subscribers sharing files, for example — are necessary to ensure better flow of traffic over its network.
In defending its actions, Comcast stepped into one of the technology industry’s most divisive battles. Comcast argues that it should be able to direct traffic so networks don’t get clogged; consumer groups and some Internet companies argue that the networks should not be permitted to block or slow users’ access to the Web.
… Comcast said network controls are necessary, especially for heavy Web users. Specifically, the company imposes “temporary delays” of video, music and other files shared between computers using such technologies as BitTorrent.
Comcast compared its practices to a traffic-ramp control light that regulates the entry of additional vehicles onto a freeway during rush hour. “One would not claim that the car is ‘blocked’ or ‘prevented from entering the freeway; rather it is briefly delayed,” the company’s statement said.
It’s a valid argument, but it’s unclear as of yet whether federal officials will be convinced:
Separately, the FCC began an investigation of Comcast’s network practices after receiving those complaints. That review is ongoing, according to Comcast, which said it hasn’t received any specific orders based on the complaints.
The FCC prohibits network operators from blocking applications but opens the door to interpretation with a footnote in a policy statement that provides for an exemption for “reasonable management.”
Rep. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.), chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee’s subcommittee on telecommunications and the Internet, plans to introduce a bill today calling for an Internet policy that would prohibit network operators from unreasonably interfering with consumers’ right to access and use content over broadband networks. The bill also calls for the FCC to hold eight meetings around the nation to assess whether there is enough competition among network providers and whether consumers’ rights are being upheld.
“Our goal is to ensure that the next generation of Internet innovators will have the same opportunity, the same unfettered access to Internet content, services and applications that fostered the developers of Yahoo, Netscape and Google,” Markey said in a written statement yesterday.
The case with Comcast illustrates the high-stakes battle between those who argue that the Internet should remain open to all traffic, and the companies who argue that some governance of their networks is in the best interest of their customers.
Read more about that issue here. And click here to read the original Comcast article in the Washington Post.
The FCC faced its first real challenge in the realm of net neutrality this week, when several consumer groups called upon the federal regulation organization to “stop Comcast from interfering with Internet traffic on its network,†according to last Saturday’s Washington Post.
The groups, including Free Press, Public Knowledge and Media Access Project, filed a petition with the Federal Communications Commission to take action against the cable giant. Comcast has been criticized for interrupting Internet access to subscribers who are using popular programs like BitTorrent to download and exchange songs, movies and software programs.
The petition, filed Thursday, will serve as the first test of the FCC’s position on the issue of net neutrality, which has become a hot-button topic among technologists and policymakers in Washington. Net neutrality refers to measures that would bar Internet providers like Comcast and phone companies from giving preferential treatment to content on their networks.
The five-member FCC has said it supports the concept, but has not been pressed to enforce it. The agency has also said Internet providers have the right to manage their networks.
This is an interesting development because the FCC has no requirement whatsoever to maintain any kind of net neutrality balance. Net neutrality is an issue being debated by the Cognress, and has not yet passed into law; therefore, the FCC is not bound by it in any way.
Still, many observers feel that it would be in the FCC’s best interest to treat the issue as though it were in the best public interest.
The agency itself, however, just may disagree with that sentiment.
The FCC is not required to act on the petition, but the agency’s response could affect the ongoing legislative debate over net neutrality.
If it chooses not to enforce its principals, “it will signal to Congress that action is needed,” said Art Brodsky, communications director for Public Knowledge.