Factors undermining the forecast include "the effect of the network neutrality debate on Sandvine's North American installed base, the reduced predictability associated with expansion into new markets such as Sandvine's entrance into the tier-one DSL and wireless markets, and the increasing number of opportunities being pursued through the indirect sales channel," the company stated.

I do not wish ill on Sandvine but this story only hi-lights the forces at work as this debate goes on.

This is one of the Washington DC interviews we did.

We hear a lot of villification of this group in the media, so it's nice to sit down and hear his point of view on a wide range of things. I love how he blamed me for using too much bandwidth at one point at about 17 minutes into the video.

Compare his responses on broadband and network neutrality to those from when I interviewed Representative Ed Markey or my interview with Representative Zoe Lofgren. You can see a rift, even if it's a nuanced one.

Discussion of this video has already started on FriendFeed. How about you, what do you think of the interviews we got in Washington DC so far? (a few more are coming soon)

Personally I came away with a lot better impression of the cable industry after this interview. What about you?

Dopo il vero e proprio "casino" creato dall'annuncio di Sarkozy di togliere deifnitivamente l'accesso a internet agli utenti che fossero scoperti a scaricare musica illegalmente, ora anche l'Inghilterra, minaccia i suoi ISP.
La Virgin media, infatti, sta mandando oltre 800 lettere che avvisano ad altrettanti utenti che sono sorvegliati speciali, e che se scoperti altre 2 volte a scaricare musica gli verranno disabilitati definitivamente gli ISP, con una conseguente impossibilità permanente di accedere a internet... una vera e propria schedatura insomma.

Colpirne 800 per educarne milioni dice PI...ma servirà veramente tutto questo pandemonio che ricshia di far arrivare alla Virgin migliaia di disdette?

Per fortuna, infatti, è solo la Virgin a minacciare i suoi utenti, sotto pressione delle major britanniche, e gli altri servizi provider non sono interessati a seguirne le orme.

Come prevedibile i blogger si stanno scatenando, e a mio parere anche giustamente, perchè sono d'accordo con l'eliminzaione del download da internet, ma a patto che per comprare un Cd non debba spendere 20€, e che non si può paragonare un download di una canzone ad una vera e propria violazione del Copiright a scopo di lucro, visto che nella maggior parte dei casi chi scarica musica la mette nel suo lettore mp3, o nel suo ipod, e on la vende certo, e soprattutto non si può condannare il sietema p2p, nato con il nobile scopo di facilitare lo scambio di file OS tra utenti.

"We're boring," she said, when I noted that Andrew Feinberg chastized me and other tech bloggers for not going to Washington DC more often (Andrew runs the Capitol Valley blog and setup these interviews for me).

After that bit of joking around we got into broadband policy, network neutrality, immigration policy, R&D incentives, and she tells us what geeks should pay attention to in the political world of Washington DC.

Enjoy, and enjoy the Fourth of July with your families. For those of you who aren't Americans, see ya on Saturday.

Some notable things she said: "it's ridiculous," she said, that we're increasing our prosecution of nannies and decreasing our prosecution of organized crime.

She advocated for a chief technology officer and decried that there are still lots of pieces of the government that are still working on paper.

Regarding advertising, she admitted that the technology is moving faster than Congress can move.

Thank you to Seagate, producers of great storage devices, for sponsoring this show, which makes it possible for us to bring stuff like this to you.

After all, politicians have huge control over our industry.

They can decide things concerning network neutrality, taxation, whether universities get funded so that our industry will have a constant stream of new potential new employees, immigration (one tech-industry CEO recently told me his company is losing its best R&D talent which we educated here, but then are forced to go back home due to immigration laws), wireless bandwidth allocation, and much much more.

These are issues that the "shiny new thing chasers" like me don't often talk about cause, well, they require doing homework and building partnerships and, well, going to Washington DC. Most of the geeks I hang out with don't like hanging out with politicians. They would rather watch an hour-long-PowerPoint presentation on some boring enterprise-focused technology than hang out with politicians.

But I saw value in Andrew's plea. He was right that we need a new conversation about technology and politics, particularly because there will be a regime change in Washington DC in January (even McCain would bring a different approach to the tech industry than Bush had).

So, next week me and the crew from FastCompany.tv is headed to New York for a day to attend the Personal Democracy Forum. Andrew will do some interviews there with me and I'll be on a panel discussion.

Then on Tuesday we're headed to Washington DC. Right now we're tentatively speaking to four congressmen/women including Nancy Pelosi, speaker of the house.

My agenda for the week?

1. Learn about pending or upcoming legislation that will affect the technology industry.
2. Start a dialog between tech journalists and politician's staffs, so we will have better understanding of what they are thinking and will have a chance to get our audiences feedback on potential legislation.
3. Hear how the regime change (er, Presidential election) will affect what they are thinking and what executives at technology companies should be aware of going into 2009.
4. Listen and bring you into conversations. I hope to do some Qik videos while there, and have some discussions on Twitter and FriendFeed.

Andrew also has us scheduled to interview a few key members of the FCC and we're still working on our schedules to fit in some other fun stuff.

Plus, on Wednesday night we're hosting a party which is open to all -- wow, 122 are already signed up on the Facebook page for the party. We're hosting Gary Vaynerchuk, the web superstar behind Wine Library TV and owner of one of the biggest wine stores in the world, along with a few other surprises.

Anyway, I really want to thank Andrew Feinberg. He did all the heavy lifting on this week and it should be an amazing week. He has my deepest respect and can't wait to see what conversations start.

We'll publish our calendars as we get them firmed up. Unfortunately in the world of politics even the best planned out calendar can instantly change due to world events, so we probably won't know for sure we'll get interviews with specific people until it happens.

Anyway, anything you'd like us to look into while we're there? Leave suggestions on the comments here.

How is posting something to Twitter any different from sending an SMS message. Apple has explicitly forbid VOIP applications, or at least seems to. We know for sure that they won't allow VOIP on carrier(s)' data networks, but a few different companies seem to be skirting the edge and allowing users to sneak VOIP calls through Safari or over WiFi.

Now, from a business perspective, I understand why AT&T doesn't want any of this vile, vile software on their gorgeous little baby. They've set a price for data access ($30 for unlimited data) and otherwise sell minutes, a somewhat outdated analog business model that should have been eliminated around the time that VOIP started to emerge in the marketplace. AT&T tells us that for $30, we can have unlimited bandwidth on their network with which to make VOIP calls, and yet, they also explicitly prohibit us from using that bandwidth for one special type of data: VOIP data.

I understand all this, but my question is, how is a Twitter application any different.

Aren't SMS texts one of the most lucrative services they've got their dirty little fingers in? Do they think the FCC would crack down on them if they started restricting these sorts of Apps? Or are they worried about the way it might fill in the gaps in the bigger picture?

If anyone needs any convincing argument as to whether we need net neutrality, I say they need only look at our phone companies. Everyone could have unlimited calling for $30 a month, if only that data was as neutral as any other.

NEW YORK (AP) — You're used to paying extra if you use up your cell phone minutes, but will you be willing to pay extra if your home computer goes over its Internet allowance?

Time Warner Cable Inc. customers — and, later, others — may have to, if the company's test of metered Internet access is successful.

On Thursday, new Time Warner Cable Internet subscribers in Beaumont, Texas, will have monthly allowances for the amount of data they upload and download. Those who go over will be charged $1 per gigabyte, a Time Warner Cable executive told the Associated Press.

Metered billing is an attempt to deal fairly with Internet usage, which is very uneven among Time Warner Cable's subscribers, said Kevin Leddy, Time Warner Cable's executive vice president of advanced technology.

Just 5 percent of the company's subscribers take up half of the capacity on local cable lines, Leddy said. Other cable Internet service providers report a similar distribution.

"We think it's the fairest way to finance the needed investment in the infrastructure," Leddy said.

As one commenter on my current.com story wrote:

This is in no way analogous to cell phone minutes. You're not inhibiting small businesses or minute heavy companies when charging for minutes on a cellphone, but when you penalize bandwidth, you limit what is possible online and create a tiered system that goes against the egalitarian nature of the Intern

I could understand these upcharges if these companies were drastically improving service or improving our telecommunications infrastructure, but that does not appear to be the case. Not to mention the fact that they have been making money off of the use of what I consider to be the commons (considering the fact that cable does run under and over public property) and most U.S. residents do NOT have a choice when it comes to broadband. Some may be able to choose between two of the telecom giants, but there don't seem to be ANY middle or small market ISPs anymore. Not like when I first jumped online in 1996. Just look at the mobile market, there are competitors sure, but they all seem to offer the exact same rate packages. Much like other oligopolized (new word!) industries such as mobile, oil, and pharmaceuticals, there is a revolting amount of collusion to keep prices high so that everybody wins--except the consumers.

Can anyone deny that this medium has proved absolutely vital to the health and vitality of our democracy considering the historic candidacy and campaign of Barack Obama? If this sort of metering is allowed to be implemented across the board (as I'm certain it will), it is democracy that will suffer through the diminished usage of sites such as Youtube, Current, and other essential people-powered media. 15gigs ain't shit when you're as active a participant in this movement as I tend to be. I also would not be surprised to see the telecoms start to allow users to view select 'partner' sites that will be exempt from this metering. It is this stage that will be the undoing of all our hard work to bypass and eradicate the traditional establishment media stranglehold on our socio-political discourse.

If you'd like to learn more about how to stop this trend from continuing, please visit http://www.savetheinternet.com, and if you are a current.com user, please vote up my article.

And to anyone out there who thinks that contacting their reps doesn't mean shit, I recently learned that when you contact your representative, they tend to go by a ratio of 1:13000. That is they assume that if you care enough to contact them about something that there are 12,999 other voters who care just as much but for whatever reason have not taken the time to make their opinion known.

NEW YORK (AP) — You're used to paying extra if you use up your cell phone minutes, but will you be willing to pay extra if your home computer goes over its Internet allowance?

Time Warner Cable Inc. customers — and, later, others — may have to, if the company's test of metered Internet access is successful.

On Thursday, new Time Warner Cable Internet subscribers in Beaumont, Texas, will have monthly allowances for the amount of data they upload and download. Those who go over will be charged $1 per gigabyte, a Time Warner Cable executive told the Associated Press.

Metered billing is an attempt to deal fairly with Internet usage, which is very uneven among Time Warner Cable's subscribers, said Kevin Leddy, Time Warner Cable's executive vice president of advanced technology.

Just 5 percent of the company's subscribers take up half of the capacity on local cable lines, Leddy said. Other cable Internet service providers report a similar distribution.

"We think it's the fairest way to finance the needed investment in the infrastructure," Leddy said.

As one commenter on my current.com story wrote:

This is in no way analogous to cell phone minutes. You're not inhibiting small businesses or minute heavy companies when charging for minutes on a cellphone, but when you penalize bandwidth, you limit what is possible online and create a tiered system that goes against the egalitarian nature of the Intern

I could understand these upcharges if these companies were drastically improving service or improving our telecommunications infrastructure, but that does not appear to be the case. Not to mention the fact that they have been making money off of the use of what I consider to be the commons (considering the fact that cable does run under and over public property) and most U.S. residents do NOT have a choice when it comes to broadband. Some may be able to choose between two of the telecom giants, but there don't seem to be ANY middle or small market ISPs anymore. Not like when I first jumped online in 1996. Just look at the mobile market, there are competitors sure, but they all seem to offer the exact same rate packages. Much like other oligopolized (new word!) industries such as mobile, oil, and pharmaceuticals, there is a revolting amount of collusion to keep prices high so that everybody wins--except the consumers.

Can anyone deny that this medium has proved absolutely vital to the health and vitality of our democracy considering the historic candidacy and campaign of Barack Obama? If this sort of metering is allowed to be implemented across the board (as I'm certain it will), it is democracy that will suffer through the diminished usage of sites such as Youtube, Current, and other essential people-powered media. 15gigs ain't shit when you're as active a participant in this movement as I tend to be. I also would not be surprised to see the telecoms start to allow users to view select 'partner' sites that will be exempt from this metering. It is this stage that will be the undoing of all our hard work to bypass and eradicate the traditional establishment media stranglehold on our socio-political discourse.

If you'd like to learn more about how to stop this trend from continuing, please visit http://www.savetheinternet.com, and if you are a current.com user, please vote up my article.

And to anyone out there who thinks that contacting their reps doesn't mean shit, I recently learned that when you contact your representative, they tend to go by a ratio of 1:13000. That is they assume that if you care enough to contact them about something that there are 12,999 other voters who care just as much but for whatever reason have not taken the time to make their opinion known.

According to an article on AlJazeera.net, Naim Qassam, Hezbollah's deputy secretary-general equated the telecommunications networks to munitions:

Hezbollah's telecommunications network is tantamount to Hezbollah's arms and those who are taking aim at the telecommunications network are targeting our arms. They are calling on us not to fight Israel.

A professor expounds in the Al Jazeera article that a military response to the government's action should have been expected. Professor Ahmad Moussalli of the American University of Beirut stated that "[t]he communications system that Hezbollah has, was ... instrumental in its defeat of the Israeli invasion [in 2006]." Significantly, the Israelis had blocked cellular communication but were not able to effectively interfere with landline communications. So, Hezbollah, working with Iranian contractors, has installed a complex telecommunication system along the border with Israel and other locations they have deemed strategic. (good article here--> AFP Hezbollah Phone System Sparks New Unrest)

In the first five days following the outbreak of the violence over forty people have died, and one hundred twenty injured. Fighting has extended out from Beirut so the numbers will unfortunately continue to rise...

The situation in Lebanon, where they are on the verge of a Civil War, is a stark reminder of many things, including the importance of all methods of telecommunication.

The lede quote is delightful and direct:

"The rule requires openness for 'Any Applications, Any Devices'—not 'Any Applications, Except on Verizon Devices,' as Verizon would interpret it," a small squad of Google attorneys told the FCC on Friday. "The Commission must ensure that Verizon understands that this license obligation means what it says: Any Apps, Any Devices."

Love those Google lawyers - especially William Patry.

Here's an especially informative moment re: Verizon's tactics:

Since [last October], the wireless giant has contented itself with making comments that suggest that the company will obey the open platform rule—except when it won't. Around the time that Verizon withdrew the lawsuit, Thomas Tauke, the telco's Vice President for Public Policy, spoke at a Web 2.0 conference in San Francisco. There he unveiled what he called the "two-door concept" regarding the auction: "Door No. 1, in the rules as written, you can bring your own device and it's open and you can get on the network," Tauke explained. "Door No. 2 is for the customer who wants the kind of contract they have with Verizon today, where we provide the device and we guarantee the service quality and so on."

Two Doors?! Who do these folks think they're fooling? This is an obvious recipe for tiered service, throttled traffic, preferential packet treatment, and all the other tricks in the big telco's baskets.

As the article goes on to point out, Google's actions at the FCC indicate that it is indeed quite serious about its Android platform.

Yesterday Singapore announced it was building a next generation broadband network that would bring 3 gigabits per second to each home.  The government will supply $750 million to put the fiber optic conduit  and two private companies are bidding to run the network. What's most important from a policy standpoint is that the network will be run on an open access policy. For those of us who believe in Network Neutrality, it is a breath of fresh air.

Any operator can plug into it for a fee and provide Internet, IPTV and telephony services. No single operator will be allowed to own the network and block newcomers from accessing it.

Last night I toured with my host the new Fusionopolis Complex where many of the creative industries are starting to locate. They have everything from a Lucasfilm animation facility to a state of the art Biotec research center. It is a brilliantly designed complex of live-work spaces with large swaths of green park, all built, ironically on the military bases of the former British Army Colonial occupiers. The attention to cutting edge detail in the building is astonishing right down to the acoustic sound treatment on the auditorium walls--millions of teak balls with hollow centers that baffle sound. Because Singapore has very little fresh water they have already deployed on a wide scale desalinization and reverse osmosis water recycling plants and are beginning to sell the technology to an increasingly water starved world. Some of the work they are doing in browser based 3-D virtual worlds sounds to be on the leading edge of what you will see in the coming years.

One of our community has pointed out that Singapore is a command and control economy. I am well aware of this, but the reality of being in a country that does not have a huge military budget, is not in debt to the world and in fact generates surplus capital from its trade balance is quite stark. It means it can invest in next generation technologies, build cutting edge research labs with the world's great universities, educate all its students brilliantly and bilingually and--when needed bail out the West's failing financial system.

Imagine what the US could do for its citizens if it wasn't so busy spending its blood and treasure "fighting the last war?"

Comcast, one of the leading providers of broadband cable Internet access in the U.S, has your rights at heart. Of course, exactly what rights you have remains to be seen. But Comcast plans to let you know, just as soon as it's decided what they are.
That was the gist of Comcast and Pando Networks' joint announcement yesterday, calling for a "P2P Bill of Rights and Responsibilities." But skeptics worry that such a plan is likely to be light on the rights, heavy on the responsibilities

This is the next step for the telecom companies.  In order to increase profit margins, the telephone companies are now going to start taking away what you thought were your digital rights and then re-sell them to you at a discount.  Yea, sure, the discount is still going to be more than you are paying for now but at least you'll be getting a "discount"!

The funny part is that they are going to sell this whole bait-and-switch routine as if they are doing you a favor.  The really funny part is their argument that the government protecting the rights of people to use bandwidth for their speech how they see fit is now called "government interference", while the concept of telecoms themselves deciding which packets get delivered by the dumptrucks is actually a service people want.

Because we all know that you should give AT&T a call before uploading that video of Cheney rimming Rumsfeld.  And we all know that they never censor anything....

The controversy surrounding AT&T's alleged censorship of a Pearl Jam Lollapalooza show that AT&T webcast as part of its Blue Room series continues, despite AT&T's Statement that Eddie Vedder's anti-Bush lyrics were excised from the show footage by a third-party webcasting service provider.

SavetheInternet agrees with Pearl Jam that the situation could indicate how AT&T might act if net neutrality laws are not passed, and posted the footage on YouTube:

[note the part you can't hear in the first version]

 Update: here's the unedited version, as shot by a fan:

(update via futureofmusiccoalition)

 [source of censored songs]

Net Neutrality in a Nutshell:
Backgrounder for the BCLA AGM, April 19, 2008

What is “Net Neutrality”?
Network (“Net”) Neutrality is “the principle that all information that is sent over the Internet should be treated equally.” This means that:

• Internet Service Providers (ISPs, like Telus, Shaw, Rogers or Bell) shouldn’t interfere in web content getting to you
• All sites and formats should be treated the same by ISPs
• Users are free to go where they want on the Internet, and access whatever information they wish

Who is opposed to Net Neutrality, and why?
The primary opponents of regulation to require net neutrality are telecommunications and cable companies. They argue that they need the ability to block or filter their networks in order to prevent illegal file sharing, viruses and spam, and congestion due to bandwidth-intensive traffic (such as video streaming). Net neutrality regulation would also prevent ISPs from levying surcharges on users or content providers who want premium (fast or equal) access to their networks.

Who supports Net Neutrality, and why?
The National Union of Public and General Employees (which represents more than 340,000 workers across the country), the Council of Canadians, the Campaign for Democratic Media, and the Canadian Association of Internet Providers, and the Independent Film and Television Alliance, to name a few. The Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage also raised concerns about non-neutrality’s impact on Canadian heritage, in their recent report.

Primary arguments for net neutrality are that both the Internet and Canadian Telecommunications Policy rely on the principle of “common carriage” – that public networks shouldn’t discriminate among content. Supporters of net neutrality don’t want to see the Internet run by a bidding war, with fast access sold to the highest bidder. As Michael Geist warns, “imagine a world in which Chapters cannot compete in the online book space because its content is on the slow lane while Amazon is on the fast lane.” That is a world without net neutrality.

What are some examples of non-neutrality?
Non-neutrality is often likened to a highway with a toll fast lane for content providers who pay a premium, and a regular slow lane for the rest of us. Here are just a few exampled of violations of net neutrality in Canada:

• During the 2005 Telus labour dispute, Telus blocked its internet subscribers from accessing a website that supported striking union members (and 766 unrelated sites with the same IP address)
• In 2006, Vonage filed a request for a CRTC investigation because Shaw was privileging its own VoIP service by charging a $10 fee to customers who use another company’s VoIP service
• This March, the CBC decided to use BitTorrent to distribute an episode of Canada’s Next Great Prime Minister. When ISP “throttling” (deliberately slowing high-bandwidth activities) made the download of this show excessively long, Bell and Rogers Communications’ practice of “traffic shaping” came to the public’s attention -- and that of smaller ISPs who buy wholesale access from the big ISPs.

Do any existing laws or regulations pertain to Net Neutrality?
The principle of Common Carriage is enshrined in Canada's Telecommunications Act (1993), Sec. 27(2): “No Canadian carrier shall, in relation to the provision of a telecommunications service or the charging of a rate for it, unjustly discriminate or give an undue or unreasonable preference toward any person, including itself, or subject any person to an undue or unreasonable disadvantage."

But in 1999 the CRTC decided that regulating the Internet was beyond its scope. The CRTC is currently reviewing its jurisdiction over new media and their report should be released in May. Several organizations and individuals are filing submissions to the CRTC this spring, and there is a call for public hearings on the issue.

[We] would like to emphasise the importance of considering the case for a new definition of universal service aims in a higher-speed future. There is a need to scope the case for public intervention to ensure all parts of the UK have access to modern broadband networks, even in areas where it may be commercially unattractive. For if broadband delivers social value that goes beyond private value, then it will be essential to ensure that no-one is left out.

In the US, the FCC Chair told Congress that Comcast was blocking peer-to-peer traffic even when there was no network congestion, contrary to what Comcast had told the FCC.

Then there's the Dave Winer Comcast story from last week. With no warning, Comcast cut off his service, not once, but twice. The company threatened to send workers to his house to put a regulator on his router.

Winer pays $180/mo for his combined Comcast offerings, which includes its "power boost" internet service. He's an edge case, but his usage is legal.

To be expected, Sen. Ted Stevens (R-AK), of "the Internet as a series of tubes" fame, opposes any network neutrality bill. Regulation, of course is "unwarranted." Media companies, telecoms and television services are three of the top 20 industries buying the Senate seat for Stevens.

Anyone else? We do know that Google's Rick Whitt and Skype's Christopher Libertelli will be in the audience, taking up seats that otherwise might go to the newest Comcast employees.

UPDATE: According to DeVitt's spokespeople, other panelists for Thursday include Harold Feld and Ben Scott from the Free Press. Quite the busy week for Harold, who spent Tuesday on Capitol Hill testifying at the 700 MHz hearings (where he invoked Passover themes in an entertaining argument to "let my spectrum go," or something along those lines).

Lo and behold my reasons for being ambiguous about supporting Network Neutrality did not seem so solid anymore. The term Network Neutrality has been used to describe many open network policies, some which go far beyond traffic and user non-discrimination. Additionally, many of the organizations and companies advocating for Network Neutrality also advocate for reform of the copyright laws which could be detrimental to the rights of creators.

Rhetoric has muddied the waters, and made the issue much more complicated than it probably should be. The fundamental element of Network Neutrality is that the infrastructure of the Internet needs to be managed in a non-discriminatory manner in the same way the telephone system operates. Per the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (the "Act") telephone companies are "common carriers who may not implement any

unjust or unreasonable discrimination in charges, practices, classifications, regulations, facilities, or services for or in connection with like communication service, directly or indirectly, by any means or device, or to make or give any undue or unreasonable preference or advantage to any particular person, class of persons, or locality, or to subject any particular person, class of persons, or locality to any undue or unreasonable prejudice or disadvantage.

That is, a telephone company must allow third parties access to its infrastructure to provide services to consumers, even if those services compete with those of the telephone company (i.e. calling cards for long distance).

Unfortunately, the Federal Communications Commission (the "FCC") does not agree that the companies who provide the "tubes" of the Internet are "common carriers." Specifically, the FCC has classified the Internet as an "information service" which are not subject to the "common carrier" laws and regulations. Therefore, internet access providers could discriminate against potential competitors to limit access to the network. For example, a cable provided network may limit new television over the Internet services because of potential competition.

Of course there was litigation over the FCC's classification of the Internet as an "information service". In 2005, the Supreme Court held in Brand X that the classification of cable offered Internet service as an information service was within the authority of the FCC because it was a reasonable interpretation to an ambiguous statute. The Court did not, however, address the underlying classification just that it was a reasonable decision for the FCC to make.

While it was within the regulatory authority of the FCC to classify the cable offered internet service as an information service, the FCC made the classification because the Act was not explicit on how to treat such networks. Even in 1996, the last time the Act was substantially amended, there was no way to predict how ubiquitous the Internet would become or how important access on a non-discriminatory basis had been to the development of the Web.

As of 1996 internet service was being offered by telephone companies on a non-discriminatory basis under the common carrier laws and regulations. It may not have seemed necessary to specifically state that internet service was subject to such laws.

Times change, and so do laws and regulation. While many elements of proposed Network Neutrality solutions are unnecessary, the non-discrimination limits applied to common carriers (i.e. telephone service providers) should be explicitly applied to internet service providers, regardless of the communication platform on which the service is offered (telephone, cable, satellite, cellular, digital...).

Hablar tanto de datos de carácter personal no puede ser bueno así que voy a cambiar radicalmente de asunto y me propongo aburriros un pelín refiriéndome a este asunto de la Neutralidad de la Red.

La wikyedia ofrece la siguiente definición de la Network Neutrality": (equivalently "net neutrality", "Internet neutrality" or "NN")"Refers to a principle that is applied to residential broadband networks, and potentially to all networks. Precise definitions vary, but a broadband network free of restrictions on the kinds of equipment that may be attached, on the modes of communication allowed, that does not restrict content, sites, or platforms and where communication is not unreasonably degraded by other communication streams would be considered neutral by most observers”.

Se puede decir, en un primer acercamiento, que la neutralidad de la Red implica una garantía de que los operadores de telecomunicaciones deben aplicar respecto a sus usuarios el principio de “bits are bits”, esto es, que se deben limitar tan solo a proveer dicho acceso, en las condiciones pactadas y con el ancho de banda y calidad del servicio que se haya contratado, sin que los operadores puedan determinar qué contenidos deben ser accesibles, o más aún para permitir o denegar el acceso a según qué contenidos, servicios o aplicaciones que los usuarios deseen utilizar. De esta manera se considera que los ISPs no deben convertirse en gatekeepers de Internet ó policías de los contenidos y de ningún modo monitorizar los usos de los usuarios.

Aunque en España estas cuestiones no gozan de tanta popularidad como la Wii, tienen una importancia decisiva para el desarrollo de la Red y para el reparto de roles de los participantes (de cualquier modo que sea) en la misma. De hecho el concepto de NN está íntimamente ligado al propio concepto de qué sea (o qué deba ser) Internet, pues se afirma que a la hora de determinar cuál sería la estructura de Internet se optó por la descentralización, siendo precisamente la clave del éxito de Internet su carácter abierto y neutral.

Y ahora pensaréis, bueno a este muchacho (o sea yo) se le ha ido la cabeza, porque ¿en qué me afecta eso de la neutralidad? En realidad, nos afecta mucho y a todos.

Basta con recordar que, en estos días, hemos asistido atónitos a las noticias procedentes de Francia y Gran Bretaña relativas a la intención de sus legisladores de permitir/obligar a los operadores de telecomunicaciones a vigilar los usos de sus usuarios, de manera que pudieran requerir a éstos o impedirles el acceso a Internet si observaran que el tráfico generado desde estas cuentas se trataba de descargas de contenidos ilícitos. En una de las anteriores entradas de este blog, en concreto, la relativa a la Sentencia del TJCE en el asunto PROMUSICAE vs TELEFONICA veíamos cómo se trataba de un asunto relacionado. En España se ha pretendido identificar a ONO con uno de estos perversos operadores que se dedican a limitar el ancho de banda a los usuarios “piratillas” . Y luego están las operadoras que reconocen abiertamente que monitorizan las navegaciones de sus usuarios.

Decíamos antes que la formulación inicial del concepto de net neutrality era el descrito. Sin embargo, la cosa va más allá y lo podemos comprobar con ejemplos: en el año 2006, la operadora American Online (AOL) bloqueó el acceso a sus usuarios a una página web denominada que se creó para quejarse del servicio que daba la propia AOL. Asimismo varias operadoras europeas de telefonía móvil han estudiado (e incluso incluido en sus clausulados generales de servicio) la posibilidad de bloquear a sus usuarios el acceso a Internet desde medios móviles, cuando éstos pretendan utilizar servicios de mensajería instantánea o de Voip de otros proveedores que no sean éstas, a través de aplicaciones instaladas en sus teléfonos móviles.

Aunque éstos son solo unos pocos, podemos poner decenas de ejemplos. ¿Está legitimado un ISP para, autónomamente, bloquear o cerrar una página web que atente contra determinadas creencias? ¿Puede el titular de un servicio como Blogger, sin orden judicial, ceder los datos de un usuario porque su blog atente supuestamente contra la dignidad de una persona? ¿puede un ISP cobrar un canon adicional a los usuarios que utilicen programas P2P? Todos estos asuntos están relacionados con la cuestión de la neutralidad de la Red.

En España tenemos nuestra vilipendiada LSSI y CE que fija que cuando un determinado servicio de la sociedad de la información atente o pueda atentar contra determinados principios (orden público, seguridad, infancia, etc.), los órganos competentes para su protección, en ejercicio de las funciones que tengan legalmente atribuidas, podrán adoptar las medidas necesarias para que se interrumpa su prestación o para retirar los datos que los vulneran, no siendo responsables los proveedores de tales contenidos o transmisiones de datos “salvo que ellos mismos hayan originado la transmisión, modificado los datos o seleccionado éstos o a los destinatarios de dichos datos” (artículo 14).

Además, el artículo 12 de la misma norma, que regula el deber de retención de datos de tráfico relativos a las comunicaciones electrónicas establece que la retención se efectuará por un período máximo de 12 meses y debe limitarse a lo necesario para facilitar la localización del equipo terminal empleado por el usuario para la transmisión de la información (datos de conexión y tráfico).

En esas estábamos cuando he tenido noticia de una iniciativa legislativa presentado en el Congreso de los USA, de la que he tenido noticia a través del imprescindible Enrique Dans.

Esta iniciativa legislativa denominada ‘‘Internet Freedom Preservation Act of 2008” pretende modificar la norma norteamericana sobre telecomunicaciones, añadiendo una nueva sección relativa a Internet, tiene por objeto “to maintain the freedom to use for lawful purposes broadband telecommunications networks, including the Internet, without unreasonable interference from or discrimination by network operators as has been the policy and history of the Internet and the basis of user expectations since its inception”, así como “to preserve and promote the open and interconnected nature of broadband networks that enable consumers to reach, and service providers to offer, lawful content, applications, and services of their choosing, using their selection of devices, as long as such devices do not harm the network; and to safeguard the open marketplace of ideas on the Internet by adopting and enforcing baseline protections to guard against unreasonable discriminatory favoritism for, or degradation of, content by network operators based upon its source, ownership or destination on the Internet”.

En definitiva, una modificación legislativa que pretende mantener el principio de neutralidad en la Red y fijar una conducta de mínima injerencia por parte de los operadores en las navegaciones y usos que los internautas adopten, todo ello siempre que se trate de un uso no ilegal de aquélla. Será ahí, en la determinación de qué es legal o ilegal  y en la definición de una red abierta e intercomunicada que permita múltiples elecciones para los usuarios donde se centrará el debate. Debate que, en cualquier caso, deberán resolver los tribunales y no los operadores.

OK Go has emerged as a band willing to stand up for causes for which they believe. For example, they have been very involved with the reconstruction of New Orleans and supporting the city's musicians through fundraising and hands on work.

They have also been outspoken activists for Net Neutrality because of the importance the Internet has played in developing their brand. Just this weekend, the New York Times has published the band's lead singer Damian Kulash's editorial Beware the New New Thing on Net Neutrality. Specifically, he argues against the telecommunication companies, and other network providers, being allowed to offer tiered services.

Significantly, one copy of the video for Here it Goes Again on YouTube has been viewed over thirty two million times since being posted. Plus there are multiple versions of the video, as well as alternative versions like the Lego video, on YouTube that have also been viewed a huge number of times.

Yet, as of the fall of 2007, OK Go received no compensation from YouTube or any other online service for the use of the video. Of course, the terms and conditions for the use of the YouTube site provide that people upload their content on a gratis basis. However, the viral success of the Here it Goes Again video seems to have expanded YouTube's base as much, if not more, than it did the band's audience.

A fundamental element of Network Neutrality according to Mr. Kulash is that people should be able to upload, as well as access, content onto sites like YouTube, MySpace, Bebo, iMeem, etc. Of course Network Neutrality would prevent limits on network resources dedicated to file sharing and peer to peer traffic, but that does not seem to be Mr. Kulash's argument.

Companies do not offer sites like YouTube, MySpace, Bebo and iMeem out of the goodness of their hearts. No, they want to make money. Currently, advertising is the base for the revenue models of the sites but who knows what the future holds. The companies have been able to limit their costs, and thus increase their profit margins, by not paying for the use of the creative content that draws people to the sites.

Net Neutrality is a tricky debate because it technically is a question of network management, and cost allocation. It seems to me that the question being posed is who is going to pay for the bandwidth required to support high quality access. Telecommunication companies do not seem to want to subsidize the growth of online companies that essentially compete with them. The online companies do not want to pay for the additional bandwidth because that would decrease their revenue. And, thus, as Mr. Kulash points out, consumers are potentially going to pay for the access.

coming soon... after some interesting conversations, and a bit of research, I will be clarifying my position on Network Neutrality.  Yes, I know...

Why? I own real-estate on the Internet. I can say whatever I want, when I want. No one will censor me and I don’t have to care who doesn’t like it. If I didn’t have this outlet, I wouldn’t have any reason to get out of bed in the morning.

Net neutrality is a very, very important issue to me. If you want to keep using the Internet like you do now, it’s important to you, too!

Net Neutrality is the reason why the Internet has driven economic innovation, democratic participation, and free speech online. It protects the consumer's right to use any equipment, content, application or service on a non-discriminatory basis without interference from the network provider. With Net Neutrality, the network's only job is to move data -- not choose which data to privilege with higher quality service.

Definition Source: http://savetheinternet.com/=faq

Learn more, take action, spread the word: http://savetheinternet.com/

Fun with activism:

Has the Internet changed your life? Leave a comment below and tell me how.

My faith has been restored: we live in a civilized business world where everybody can be a winner, sky is the limit etc.
More specifically, as far as the 700Mhz part of the sky is concerned, the breaking news are that there are no breaking news and no disruptive solutions:

Winners

US government has won
~ 20 billions of declining US  $.

AT&T has won
the C-block and the pride of carriers being carriers.

AT&T’s lawyers have won
significant fees and gem experience from lawsuits concerning the Openness clause.

Google has won

• the right to patch their apps on (carter)mobiles,
• access to the mobile advertising market (~ 3 billions d.US $)
• and saved ~ 5b.d.US $ to invest on their core business and on P&L  communication (partnerships and lobbying)

Consumers have won

• a stable thus fitter-happier-more productive market
• having the actors empowered and doing their best to focus on client satisfaction with the cease of this corporate battle
• a monetization of their mobile clicking
• federal income

(others)

… you’re welcome to brainstorm.

Geometry: Symmetry and a 3D market that moves in balance.

The equilibrium of this auction is a piece of art.
The main financial flows are organized symmetrically, in analogy of size.

This is my oversimplified prism:

• Big still pay the Big (B to B) : AT&T pays FCC
• MicroPlayers AKA “consumers” pay attention that pays Google (MP to G)

The notorious interoperability in telecommunications could actually apply to business models as well , since each one has found its place in this multidimensional world.

As you can see above  the 700 MHz space has been defined in 3D :

Little red axe: MP to G
Big red axe: B to B
The long red tail: their future interactions.

I commit to review my proposition to do away with auctions as sales procedures, taking off my hat to these infamous Google game theorists.

Hey guys, would you care to take a look into tougher games once you’ve finished with business peace?

Georgia

Many Internet service providers denied accusations it discriminates against users. We've heard a lot of press commenting on one provider in particular, while not mentioning any names, they're sticking to their guns stating that they do not block or limit any access to any Web sites or online applications, including file sharing.

The FCC has been looking into complaints by consumer groups accusing such Internet service providers of blocking some file-sharing services which are used to distribute large digital media files such as TV shows and movies.

The network neutrality issue also has attracted the attention of lawmakers in Congress, who are weighing a net-neutrality bill introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives last week.
Critics of such an approach have argued that imposing network neutrality would hinder development of the Internet by creating uncertainty for investors and service providers.

What are your thoughts?

“Far from managing our network in a discriminatory way to benefit our own offerings — other than managing our network to make our high-speed Internet service faster and better — our limited network management practices ensure that everyone else’s applications and services, even those that may compete with our services and use P2P protocols, work.

The reason Comcast is blocking P2P is that it uses extensive upstream bandwidth. All cable Internet is architected asymmetrically for 20-1 downstream. They never thought customers would want to send big file upstream. Now they are probably going to have to completely overhaul the way they have built their networks. Of course the whole hearing went on and no one mentioned this fact. Since cable company cap-ex is financed by junk bonds (a market that is in the tank right now), the investment community probably couldn't handle the news that more capital was going to be needed to keep up with the phone companies.

As a tease, let me say that it is no small feat to get so many big personalities in the world of telecom, media and communications into one small auditorium -- from commissioners from the FTC and FCC, to top execs from companies like Comcast, Google and Verizon to the leading legal and policy thought leaders -- and then get them to not just speak, but to challenge each other and respond to the multiple queries from the just-as-wired members of the audience. More soon, after a break for dinner.

Update: More tomorrow, not tonight. Promise!

So whats the issue? The telecoms have not made it clear to users that bandwidth could be limited to any number. Besides being a shady business practice, it takes us down a slippery slope that could ultimately lead to a system much like telecoms have with cell phones; which notoriously bend over the consumer. You know, how you have to pay for the number of minutes you want and then pay for every feature you want on top of your initial monthly fee and then they have the audacity to charge heavy fees for going over on your minutes. Which can easily lead to a monthly cell phone bill of 100 dollars or more for just one person. But people have become apathetic about cell phone bills and consequently allow the telecoms to overcharge them. If things do not begin to change soon or consumers do not speak up do not be surprised to have to subscribe to the 'Ultimate plan' for the low price of $99.99.