This means they cannot block or degrade lawful traffic over their networks, or pick winners by favoring some content or applications over others in the connection to subscribers' homes. Nor can they disfavor an Internet service just because it competes with a similar service offered by that broadband provider. The Internet must continue to allow users to decide what content and applications succeed.Uh-oh. Sounds like he's saying, "You can have a neutral net, but only if you agree to let ISPs and the entertainment industry spy on every click and every byte, and then degrade the connections of anything they don't like the look of."This principle will not prevent broadband providers from reasonably managing their networks. During periods of network congestion, for example, it may be appropriate for providers to ensure that very heavy users do not crowd out everyone else. And this principle will not constrain efforts to ensure a safe, secure, and spam-free Internet experience, or to enforce the law. It is vital that illegal conduct be curtailed on the Internet. As I said in my Senate confirmation hearing, open Internet principles apply only to lawful content, services and applications -- not to activities like unlawful distribution of copyrighted works, which has serious economic consequences. The enforcement of copyright and other laws and the obligations of network openness can and must co-exist.
Well, we knew that the entertainment industry had the Dems in their pocket. Clinton gave us the DMCA. But it's a start.
Read the Speech (Thanks to everyone who suggested this!)
RSS Feed
You didn't really think that a high government official would go on the record as saying "This copyright law thing? Unenforceable. We should stop trying." did you?
"anything I don't like the look of" is exactly not the point. The point is that they will be required not to slow or stop connections based on assumptions over traffic type but based on whether it is believed to be infringing on copyright.
The pros and cons of a free exchange of IP make for a good discussion, but there's no room for it here.
This is only going to make it harder for ISPs to slow or stop our internet access, i'm sure we can put away the foil hats for now.
It also sounds like he's saying the heavy truckers should have a responsibility to the rest of us not to cause traffic jams at rush hour with truckloads of girly magazines and DVD knockoffs.
"open Internet principles apply only to lawful content, services and applications"
And the FCC gets to decide what's "lawful".
Remember, even if you think the Dems will do a good job making this decision, the other guys are going to be back in power eventually. Do you want John Ashcroft deciding what applications are "lawful"?
To preserve an open internet in Europe, go to www.euopeninternet.eu and make your voice heard
A timely twist for me. I get this splash screen now when trying to connect to the internet through Time Warner Cables High Speed Service called Road Runner here in NYC.
"Dear Subscriber:
This notice is being sent to you by Road Runner Customer Carebecause we have received a
complaint that your computer has been used to distribute copyrighted material without authorization
through a peer-to-peer program. We received this complaint from the movie studio, record company,
television studio or other company that owns the copyrighted material. The purpose of this email is
to remind you that the distribution of copyrighted material in this fashion may violate both the
copyright laws and Road Runner’s terms of service, and to tell you a bit about peer-to-peer programs,
the dangers they can pose to your computer and our network, and the steps you can take to protect
yourself... "
It supplants any website I try to navigate to and blocks my ability to purchase anything through iTunes.
The only way to clear this screen is to click on this.
--"I am aware of this issue and will take steps to resolve it."--
Which seems like the first step in a legal entanglement to me.
I am calling them to cancel their service today.
You can view the entire document here.
http://subscribermgmt.rr.com/?7DdDBb04SKkKxU4r2F2sJgMp8IHZWdv4m51YZ0IdhF1awEhXcjU5opShhj1XBiPcaXSLRkDPphe9Ze%2FjXCshqXppn41XwlPTUfLoBKLS%2Buq1xo44uiAC7dr3SyUsgauh77hr0AvQWUD9Al9Svp0ZFpNd9PMbKk%2FPLx0uqW0x6zb4La6f4Sbgi0BcEvhxaZ4F
Even if you ignore the copyright part, the traffic control part of the second paragraph completely invalidates the first paragraph. Might be time to build a new network.
And then they decide that VPN traffic might be used to hide what they think is unlawful traffic, start interfering with it and knock all the work-at-home employees off line. This could work really well.
And someone thinks the government doesn't already decide what is lawful?
This speech doesn't say FCC decides what is lawful.
This speech does not say "Hollywood can spy on you and screw up your net connection". It doesn't say they can't. Does every government speech need to say that now?
Angrily denouncing your allies at every turn raises the question of whose side you're really on.
This will have to be expertly crafted. Color me skeptical-- I can see the loopholes and I-didn't-think-of-thats from a mile away.
All we gotta do is say "that's the way it is in France" and the Republicans will kill it.
To be fair, Clinton may have "given us the DMCA," but it was really the Congress. Had Clinton vetoed the DMCA, the veto would have been overridden.
The DMCA was passed UNANIMOUSLY in the Senate and via voice vote in the House. Voice vote means that there was no way the vote was close.
I'm as suspicious as the next person when it comes to monitoring online activity, but this speech only raises the issue of monitoring ina roundabout what. What the guy is saying (especially in light of the preceding 3 paragraphs, not quoted here) is that when the FCC enforces the communications laws on a case by case basis, the principle that broadband providers cannot block or slow down particular content will not apply to unlawful content. To me, that reads more along the lines of something like, "in the instances where the FCC is reviewing specific instances of blocking or slowing content, they won't be punished for blocking or slowing illegal content." There's still the question of evaluating what is illegal or legal, but it's much more reactive than proactive, contrary to what is being suggested.