The internets have been the scene of much wailing and gnashing of teeth over the recent court ruling smacking down the FCC's efforts to enforce net neutrality through the back door. The immediate reaction from the netroots was horror: Now the providers could have their way, and make us use Bing instead of Google; Hotmail instead of GMail or worse...Yahoo. (I'm kidding, truly.)

After reading the ruling and some pretty wonky policy blogs, the story is more interesting than that. The court didn't deny FCC the right to penalize Comcast. It only denied the FCC the right to penalize Comcast under the current self-imposed (and weak) regulatory classification for broadband providers.

This LA Times article is a pretty clear explanation of where the FCC should go next:

One option is for the FCC to reverse its previous decisions and classify broadband as a communications service. It wouldn't be far-fetched -- the Internet is a more sophisticated and powerful communications medium than traditional telephony. In fact, phone service is just one of many communications applications the Internet supports. Considering how much has changed since Congress overhauled telecommunications law in 1996, however, it would be better to have lawmakers give the FCC specific powers to safeguard the Net than to have the commission stuff broadband providers into the same regulatory category as last century's Bell system.

And this is, more or less, what the court challenged the FCC to do. It ruled that under the current classification, the FCC lacked authority to fine Comcast or require it to remain neutral. In fact, it more or less ruled that as things stand, the FCC lacks authority to do much of anything. However, the court also clearly stated (more than once) that if broadband is classified as a communications service, FCC regulatory authority expands significantly.

All is not lost and net neutrality isn't dead. There are many reasons for the FCC to move ahead and properly classify broadband services as a communication service. In fact, I'm surprised they ever chose to limit their authority the way they did, though it is what I've come to expect from regulators under Republican administrations.

Shorter appeals court to FCC: Use the authority granted to you under the proper statute, or lose it. In the long run, the loser may be Comcast.

A little over a week ago I delved into a troubling topic: Why are so many civil rights groups and members of the Congressional Black Caucus opposing net neutrality? It seemed strange to me that leaders in communities of color would be echoing discredited telecommunications industry talking points.

For those not familiar with the term "net neutrality," it describes the rules and practices that currently keep the Internet a free and open communication medium. Net neutrality guarantees that blogs, small businesses, and organizations are on a level playing field with the largest corporations. Whether you're GM or an individual, the content you put online is accessible and delivered in the same way, with the same priority, and nothing is blocked. For communities of color, net neutrality is key. It keeps barriers to Internet entrepreneurship low so that anyone with a good idea and some technical savvy can join the 21st century economy.

Predictably, the major players in the broadband industry have been fighting the FCC's efforts to adopt rules that would solidify net neutrality principles into law, because scrapping net neutrality would enable them to make even more money by creating new revenue streams. Ironically, civil rights leaders and CBC members have joined the dominant players. Their stated reasoning: the belief that net neutrality rules could hurt efforts to close the digital divide. The problem is that, as far as I can see, the argument doesn't hold water. It falls apart whether you approach it from the perspective of business, common sense, or history.

My hope in writing my first post was that it might encourage civil rights leaders who have opposed or questioned net neutrality to publicly explain their positions. Given what's at stake, I think its incumbent on leaders opposing or questioning net neutrality to publicly make clear why. Unfortunately, none have done so.

Continue reading »

According to a report in the Financial Times, Microsoft has approached News Corp. about de-listing their sites from Google, which would be an apparent escalation in the search engine wars.

It appears that Microsoft isn’t limiting this to just News Corp either. It’s reported that they are approaching numerous online publishers and offering to pay them for content if they delist from Google. One publisher approached by Microsoft said this is all about “Microsoft hurting Google’s margin”.

Microsoft’s new search engine Bing is their latest attempt to give Google a run for the money. Here are the October search engine market shares, and as you can see Microsoft has a long way to go to beat out Google:

Bing has increased at the same rate that Google has, but what is interesting is that it appears their shares are coming from Yahoo. In July of this year Microsoft and Yahoo entered a deal for Yahoo to use the Bing search engine on their sites in exchange for a split on advertising revenue, so Yahoo’s decrease in the market share also directly effects Microsoft.

Of course the whole basis of this plan depends upon the belief that Google is actually “stealing” content, something that is in serious debate in both the tech and legal worlds. If this war does escalate and end up in the courts then we could finally see a ruling come out on exactly what the “fair use doctrine” covers – something we have been running blind on for years. Given the fact that Google only reproduces the headline and first few words of an article and that this use is both for research and archival purposes, it appears that Google would have a very strong case in the courts. To really solidify their case and put the final nail in the coffin of this war, Google could remove advertising from the news section of their search engine, which is the only questionable part of “fair use” when it comes to their service. Even better would be for Google to spin off the news part of their search engine and make it a non-profit partnered with Google. Google can surely afford it, and this would destroy any battle Microsoft or News Corp may be planning.

Whatever happens with this, it is clear that Murdoch still isn’t set on removing his sites from Google. I just checked again and what I reported a couple of weeks ago still stands – News Corp sites have explicit directions asking Google to index them. This could also be used against the Murdoch/Microsoft plan. What would happen if Google showed that News Corp sites saw a large percentage of their visits originate from Google? I know that they have records of those kind of metrics, and it would be interesting to hear News Corp argue that they didn’t mind Google increasing their online visibility all these years for free.

(cross posted at IntoxiNation)

I'm starting to get into twittering. I blog and write so much that my first impulse was to not want to do that much of it, but I'm starting to enjoy it now...

.

If you want to join me, http://twitter.com/JohnAmato.

.

You can follow the site at crooksandliars, or just the Music Club at cnlmusicclub.

It's all Howie's fault by the way, He's a twittering fool...

It looks like twittering beat cable in updating the recent elections.

Also use this thread to explain how twitter works for you, and any tips you have, if you use it please. Knowing the basics goes a long way.

I'm trying for 5000 followers.

My hat off to Natasha Chart of MyDD and OpenLeft for pointing me to this fantastic take on the issue of Web2.0, censorship and political activism.

With web 2.0, we’ve embraced the idea that people are going to share pictures of their cats, and now we build sophisticated tools to make that easier to do. as a result, we’re creating a wealth of tech that’s extremely helpful for activists. There are twin revolutions going on - the ease of creating content and the ease of sharing it with local and global audiences.

Author Ethan Zuckerman looks at political activism in Tunisia, China and Bahrain and how the respective governments tried to shut down the activists by blocking access to various sites like Daily Motion and YouTube, only to create more activists upset at the censorship of their right to look at cute kitties. The entire essay with all its links is well worth your time.

But that's international activism. Here at home, the internet has enabled a whole new swath of citizen journalists. And they are picking up the slack for the old media:

Continue reading »

I noticed this last week, because my internet access was unusually slow. I wondered then what was going on and finally read about the Bay Area cuts. This additional perspective isn't all that reassuring:

There may be more security issues than ever with a so-called smart grid controlling power distribution in the country.

The real likelihood that hackers can break into such a grid is actually not a possibility, but an inevitability. What is always overlooked when these fancy initiatives are unveiled is the nature of the Internet.

What we need is a distribution system that relies on computer technology for management, but which is completely off the Net itself. Nobody wants to do that.

It is crazy to put all of our eggs in one Internet basket, as the telecommunications scene worldwide is subject to too much hacking. Even a non-Internet network cannot be secured.

This problem goes further than hackers online -- it goes to our overdependence on interconnectivity through common connections.

This week in the San Francisco Bay Area, the fiber-optic cable network was purposely sliced at four distinct locations. Where a hacker cannot succeed, bolt cutters will do.

[...] Once the cables were cut, Internet service was flaky for the region and completely out for 50,000 customers. On top of that, the landlines would not work and the cell-phone towers in the area went dead.

Does anyone find this sort of interdependency a little disconcerting? It is as if someone was testing the grid for either redundancy or failure points.

Much of the problem stems from the issues with technologies such as fiber optics. They require a level of public trust to work, because the cables must be clearly marked to prevent public works and contractors from accidentally cutting them.

In most parts of the country, there are signs up and down highways, across bodies of water and even in cities marking the location of a fiber-optic line. There are even maps of these things and where they are located.

How much work would it take to find some choke points that you could cut for the purposes of disrupting data communications in an area? How would this affect the so-called smart grid?

The peculiar nature of the four cuts around the Bay Area indicated to me that someone was mapping how they would affect the region, keeping in mind that by cutting the cable in key areas you might be able to take down half the country. If more cuts are made in the future, then someone is trying to reverse-engineer the network to find the most vulnerable points of disruption.

Chalk this up as forcing you to become big brother:

Republican politicians on Thursday called for a sweeping new federal law that would require all Internet providers and operators of millions of Wi-Fi access points, even hotels, local coffee shops, and home users, to keep records about users for two years to aid police investigations.

The legislation, which echoes a measure proposed by one of their Democratic colleagues three years ago, would impose unprecedented data retention requirements on a broad swath of Internet access providers and is certain to draw fire from businesses and privacy advocates.

"While the Internet has generated many positive changes in the way we communicate and do business, its limitless nature offers anonymity that has opened the door to criminals looking to harm innocent children," U.S. Sen. John Cornyn, a Texas Republican, said at a press conference on Thursday. "Keeping our children safe requires cooperation on the local, state, federal, and family level."

Joining Cornyn was Texas Rep. Lamar Smith, the senior Republican on the House Judiciary Committee, and Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott, who said such a measure would let "law enforcement stay ahead of the criminals."

Two bills have been introduced so far--S.436 in the Senate and H.R.1076 in the House. Each of the companion bills is titled "Internet Stopping Adults Facilitating the Exploitation of Today's Youth Act," or Internet Safety Act.

So in essence, if you have a wireless router in your home then you would be required to log all access to that router and keep those logs for two years. Why? Because your neighbor might do something bad and use your internet connection to do it.

What has me scratching my head is the situation of failure. What if my $50 Linksys decides to bite the dust after one year? Do I have to store that router for another year to comply with this law?

How about people who have routers without logging, or that has very limited logging that might only keep X number of records and couldn’t possibly store the data for two years? Will these people have to go out and by new routers now?

This legislation will really cause outcries from privacy advocates. Just the idea that some people may have to go out and buy new hardware simply to become a new “big brother” for our government is very troubling.

If John were to ask his hard-working staff to "go boldly and seek the accolades of
AOL/Time/Warner", well, you can imagine what their reaction would be.

But Time Magazine thinks we rock anyway.

Everyone at C&L works long and hard to make this corner of the internet worth the visit seven days a week. It's not done for the awards, naturally, but it's always nice to be recognized for what we do.

John Amato:

I'm very grateful for everyone who helps put this blog together and for all the help our readers give. I think it was Dan Manatt of Politics TV that called me the Vlog Father a few years ago when we were talking on the phone. I thought that was pretty funny and we laughed about it. TIME used it.

Continue reading »

This could affect the blogosphere as we know it, most specifically news aggregators:

A copyright and trademark infringement lawsuit filed last month against The New York Times Co., owner of The Boston Globe and its Boston.com website, is being watched closely by news organizations, Internet researchers, independent bloggers, and companies that aggregate news online by linking to a variety of news sites.

At the heart of the complaint, lodged by GateHouse Media Inc., which publishes 125 community newspapers in Massachusetts, is the question of whether Internet news providers will be able to continue the practice of posting headlines and lead sentences from stories they link to on other sites.The case has been scheduled for trial in US District Court in Boston as early as Monday.

"This is the first case where these intellectual property issues have come to a head," said David Ardia, director of the Citizen Media Law Project at Harvard University's Berkman Center for Internet and Society in Cambridge. "If the judge was to rule for GateHouse on every point, it would have far-reaching implications for the news and information ecosystem that underlies the Web as we know it."

Kelly McBride, ethics group leader at the Poynter Institute in St. Petersburg, Fla., a school for professional journalists, said the case could result in new guidelines for how much, if any, content from one website can be used by another. "This is standard procedure across the Internet now," she said. "Newsrooms adopted the procedure from other practitioners."

And were wondering why:

Millions of people across the Middle East and Asia have lost access to the internet after two undersea cables in the Mediterranean suffered severe damage.

Huge numbers in Egypt and India were left struggling to get online as a result of the outage, when the major internet pipeline between Egypt and Italy was cut.

Internet Service Providers (ISPs) throughout the region, including those in United Arab Emirates, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, also reported problems. International telephone calls, which have also been affected, are being rerouted to work around the problem.