Minority Astroturf Group Gets Comcast-Affiliated News Site To Remove Article About Minority Astroturfing On Net Neutrality

from the no-open-internet-and-no-open-discussion dept

Last month, we wrote about the vastly different views on net neutrality from a variety of minority and latino organizations. The key to the story, not surprisingly, was that the minority groups that are heavily funded by the giant broadband troika of Verizon, AT&T and Comcast apparently think that true net neutrality would be a disaster for the minority community -- while the groups not funded by those corporate giants believe that more open and free internet devoid of fast and slow lanes is a good thing for the minority community.

Reporter Lee Fang had written a similar article for Republic Report, touching on some of the same points about the disagreements between these groups. That story got syndicated to a bunch of other sites, including Salon, and some others wrote about it. One site was NewsOne, which describes itself as being a news site "for black America." They had a blog post that discussed the Salon story and quoted heavily from it. That story no longer exists, taken down thanks to complaints from the same group it criticized. Here's a screenshot of what it looked like (you can click for a larger version): So, where did the article go? Well, it just so happens that NewsOne is owned by Radio One, a company that is closely tied to Comcast. So, there's a bit of a conflict there already. Fang called up NewsOne and was told that the order to take it down "came from corporate headquarters."

NewsOne editor Abena Agyeman-Fisher told Republic Report, “the company didn’t feel it was appropriate to have up and we were suppose to take it down.”

For the life of me, I can't see anything in the original article that was "inappropriate," other than that corporate bosses might not have liked pissing off corporate partners by exposing some of their astroturfing. But that's not all. Fang also reached out to the lobbying group the Minority Media and Telecommunications Council (MMTC). MMTC is the organization that featured prominently in both my story and Fang's original story as being the central player in pushing the big broadband players agenda in DC and dragging along these other minority groups. Just last year, the Center for Public Integrity had called out MMTC as a big broadband astroturfing front group, noting that it had taken a strong stand against telco consolidation... until it was suddenly flooded with money from the telcos, and totally flipped its position:

From 2009 through 2011 MMTC received at least $725,000 in contributions and sponsorships from network neutrality foes including Verizon, Time Warner, and the National Cable and Telecommunications Association, according to MMTC tax filings and sponsorship lists.

MMTC’s relationship with Verizon demonstrates the group’s various methods of obtaining industry revenue. In 2009, at the height of the net neutrality debate, Verizon made a direct $40,000 contribution to MMTC. From 2010 to 2013, MMTC documents list Verizon as funding at least $160,000 in MMTC conference sponsorships.

It's also worth noting that one of Comcast's main political operatives, Joe Waz, happens to be on MMTC's board of advisors. We're sure that's just a coincidence though.

Either way, it appears that MMTC hasn't been particularly happy with people highlighting its curious change of position so closely tied to all that money from the telcos. As Fang reports:

On Monday, according to an attendee at an MMTC conference, MMTC vice president Nicol Turner-Lee referred to my reporting as a “digital lynch mob.” Turner-Lee... reportedly claimed that minority organizations that support Title II reclassification — the only path for effective Net Neutrality after a court ruling in January — are not “true civil rights leaders.”

So, Fang called up MMTC, and the group flat out admitted to contacting NewsOne to get them to pull the article. Because throwing around your weight to stifle criticism is cool:

Contacted by Republic Report, MMTC president David Honig confirmed that he reached out to NewsOne, and also stood by Turner-Lee’s comments from earlier this week. Asked about the digital lynch mob comment, Honig e-mailed us to say, “I stand with Dr. Turner Lee’s assessment of the various hit pieces written by you and others. She spoke in the vernacular of the movement to which she has devoted her life, and is referencing the divide and conquer tactics used for decades to undermine the civil rights movement.” Regarding the claim that no “true civil rights leaders” support reclassification, Honig replied, “she was correct. Not one of the leaders of the major national civil rights membership organizations has endorsed Title II reclassification.”

Honig is lying. Tons of major national civil rights organizations have, in fact, endorsed Title II reclassification. But, I guess when you can use totally arbitrary standards like "true" civil rights leaders and "major" civil rights organizations, you can make any claim you want and pretend you're on solid ground.

Either way, this incident not only highlights MMTC's willingness to not just bully the press and attack it with lies, but to go so far as to push media companies to remove content that criticizes them. The fact that NewsOne complied says nothing good about NewsOne as well. It also highlights why having truly independent media reporting on these issues is so important.

Filed Under: astroturfing, broadband, lee fang, lobbying, minority groups, net neutrality
Companies: comcast, mmtc, newsone

Pay Different Prices To Access Different Sites: Virgin Mobile Leaps Through Net Neutrality Exemption With Gusto

from the pick-your-plan dept

We've talked about the mocked up versions of what a non-neutral internet service might look like -- whereby the service provider offers different "packages" to include different websites. There have been a few attempts to show what this looks like. Here's probably the most well known example: At some point, someone created a similar version that was specific to AT&T: These graphics were seen as warning signs for what internet access providers desired. But we keep hearing from those who advocate for the big broadband guys that no access provider would ever really want to do that. Well, in the midst of all this fighting over what the FCC should do about net neutrality, Sprint's Virgin Mobile subsidiary has decided to dive into the pool with a bunch of plans that look suspiciously like the ones above:

For about $12, Sprint will soon let subscribers buy a wireless plan that only connects to Facebook.

For that same price, they could choose instead to connect only with Twitter, Instagram or Pinterest—or for $10 more, enjoy unlimited use of all four. Another $5 gets them unlimited streaming of a music app of their choice.

This is all being powered by a startup called ItsOn, which looks designed specifically to break net neutrality to help access providers shake people down. It specifically filters only "approved" (i.e., paid for) services.

So far, it appears that Virgin Mobile and Sprint have wisely avoided marketing graphics like those above, but the plan sounds nearly identical. As with T-Mobile's Music Freedom plan and the famed zero-rated plans that have allowed people in various countries to access Facebook and other apps without incurring data charges, these are all positioned as being pro-consumer. That's done on purpose, but it's bogus.

The "pro-consumer" nature of these deals is only the fact that the carriers are giving people a way to get around the restrictions they themselves set up. Was it a "pro-public" move when Governor Chris Christie's staff in New Jersey "removed" the traffic blockades they themselves had put on the George Washington Bridge? Offering a (costly) exemption to your own crappy policies isn't "pro-consumer" at all. It's setting up a world in which the access providers get to pick the winners and losers, and that will be a disaster for startups and innovation. Venture Capitalist Fred Wilson put it best earlier this year about his concern for what we lose without net neutrality on the rest of the internet:

Entrepreneur: I plan to launch a better streaming music service. It leverages the data on what you and your friends currently listen to, combines that with the schedule of new music launches and acts that are touring in your city in the coming months and creates playlists of music that you should be listening to in order to find new acts to listen to and go see live.

VC: Well since Spotify, Beats, and Apple have paid all the telcos so that their services are free on the mobile networks, we are concerned that new music services like yours will have a hard time getting new users to use them because the data plan is so expensive. We like you and the idea very much, but we are going to have to pass.

Entrepreneur: I plan to launch a service that curates the funniest videos from all across the internet and packages them up in a 30 minute daily video show that people will watch on their phones as they are commuting to work on the subway. It’s called SubHumor.

VC: Well since YouTube, Hulu, and Netflix have paid all the telcos so that their services are free via a sponsored data plan, I am worried that it will hard to get users to watch any videos on their phones that aren’t being served by YouTube, Hulu, or Netflix. We like you and your idea very much, but we are going to have to pass.

The last round of net neutrality rules did not apply to wireless data, and it's unclear if any new rules will either. It's at least somewhat good news to see FCC boss Tom Wheeler investigating Verizon Wireless's recently announced plans to throttle LTE users, but will he let these new Virgin Mobile plans slide by?

The telcos and cable companies aren't dumb. They know the public is on the lookout for the extreme cases like when Madison River blocked Skype. So they're chip, chip, chipping away at the idea of a neutral network by making sure that every move is painted as "but this offers a better plan to the consumer." What they leave out, of course, is that they actually set up the "barriers" that make the other plans "worse" for the consumer in the first place. It reminds me of the classic city scam in which the guy in the street starts "cleaning" your car by making it dirtier, and then you can pay him to go away.

Filed Under: consumer friendly, net neutrality, tiered plans
Companies: sprint, virgin mobile

Thank You For Supporting Our Net Neutrality Reporting

from the you-are-amazing dept

Just a couple hours left to
support our net neutrality coverage »

Hey everyone, I just wanted to post a massive thank you to each and every one of you who helped us reach our goal in our crowdfunding campaign for our net neutrality reporting. Having spoken to people who have run crowdfunding campaigns in the past, they talk about how nerve-wracking it is, and that's absolutely true. Something you don't quite understand until you actually go and do it. We had no idea if people would be willing or able to contribute, but so many of you did -- and many others who couldn't afford to still helped out by sharing and spreading the word. That's amazing to me. If you haven't read former Congressional staffer Jen Hoelzer's explanation for how we can make a difference, please do so, because it really explains everything.

There are just a couple hours left in the campaign, and wherever we end up, this was an amazing and enlightening experience that has left me awed by the passion and support that many of you have shown over this issue and over the work that we do. Here at Techdirt, this process has really just begun. The net neutrality fight is heating up very rapidly, and we need to take the success of this campaign and turn it into something. Thank you for believing in us.

Just a couple hours left to
support our net neutrality coverage »

Filed Under: crowdfunding, net neutrality, techdirt

FCC Is 'Deeply Troubled' By Verizon Wireless's New Throttling Plans

from the not-so-fast-with-that-'network-optimization' dept

Earlier this week, we wrote about the ridiculousness of Verizon Wireless refering to its new plans to throttle heavy users of its LTE mobile data network as "network optimization" while denying that it was "throttling." However, in a bit of a surprise move, FCC chair Tom Wheeler has sent a rather angry letter to the company, questioning the plan:

I am deeply troubled by your July 25, 2014 announcement that Verizon Wireless intends to slow down some customers' data speeds on your 4G LTE network starting in October 20 14. Your website explained that this was an extension of your "Network Optimization" policy, which, according to your website, applies only to customers with unlimited data plans. Specifically, Verizon Wireless "manage[s] data connection speeds for a small subset of customers - the top 5% of data users on unlimited data plans" in places and at times when the network is experiencing high demand. Verizon Wireless describes its "Network Optimization" as "network management."

"Reasonable network management" concerns the technical management of your network; it is not a loophole designed to enhance your revenue streams. It is disturbing to me that Verizon Wireless would base its "network management" on distinctions among its customers' data plans, rather than on network architecture or technology. The Commission has defined a network management practice to be reasonable "if it is appropriate and tailored to achieving a legitimate network management purpose, taking into account the particular network architecture and technology of the broadband Internet access service." Such legitimate network management purposes could include: ensuring network security and integrity, including by addressing traffic that is harmful to the network; addressing traffic that is unwanted by end users (including by premise operators), such as by providing services or capabilities consistent with an end user's choices regarding parental controls or security capabilities; and reducing or mitigating the effects of congestion on the network. I know of no past Commission statement that would treat as "reasonable network management" a decision to slow traffic to a user who has paid, after all, for "unlimited" service.

The letter then has a list of questions it is expecting Verizon to answer concerning this program. The third question may be the most important:

How does Verizon Wireless justify this policy consistent with its continuing obligations under the 700 MHz C Block open platform rules, under which Verizon Wireless may not deny, limit, or restrict the ability of end users to download and utilize applications of their choosing on the C Block networks; how can this conduct be justified under the Commission's 2010 Open Internet rules, including the transparency rule that remains in effect?

This is, in some ways, a follow up to Wheeler's letter last week, in which he reminded access providers of those transparency rules. Wheeler has shown, a few times, that he's willing to speak up against the actions of some of the broadband companies, which is a shift from previous FCC chairs. Of course, many are still reasonably skeptical about how much bite there is behind the bark, but it's at least a marginally good sign that he's paying attention and worried about this plan.

Still, remember, that the "open internet rules" leave out wireless networks, a massive loophole that many of us warned about all along. However, in the current proposal, Wheeler did ask about whether the rules should extend to mobile operators as well, and this letter is a pretty clear signal that he sees very clear reasons to include such networks in the final rules.

Filed Under: fcc, net neutrality, network optimization, open internet, throttling, tom wheeler, transparency, wireless
Companies: verizon, verizon wireless

Reclassifying Broadband Under Title II Becoming Politically Feasible

from the this-can-happen dept

One of the most annoying things about the net neutrality fight -- as we've been noting for over a decade -- is how silly the net neutrality debate was once it became "partisan." An issue that, previously, had been a general one about the future of the internet turned into a ridiculous political circus with Republicans (misleadingly) claiming it was about "regulating the internet." You'd think that the "pro-business party," as they like to call themselves, would support a policy of an open and free internet that enables so many entrepreneurs and businesses to exist. But, of course, "pro-business" is often code for "pro-big-legacy business." Either way, the unfortunate news is this has become a stupidly partisan issue, and when that happens, reasoned debate often goes out the window. Given that, one the prevailing narratives in DC circles is that this idea of reclassification of broadband under Title II (basically common carrier status) was "politically impossible," because it would entail a huge partisan fight in Congress, and apparently no one wants to do that.

This argument, too, is kind of stupid and typical of the Jay Rosen-coined concept of the "Church of the Savvy," in which the narrative of the politics becomes much more important than the policy itself. In this case, it's pretty clear that the "fight" is happening no matter what rules the FCC comes out with. The politicians opposed to net neutrality have made it clear that they'll oppose any rules that the FCC adopts, including its currently proposed, ridiculously weak, rules under Section 706, which leave the door wide open to destroying net neutrality and creating fast lanes.

Given that, it seems like the FCC has a choice on its hands: (A) go with pretend net neutrality and have Republicans fight like hell against it, or (B) go with real net neutrality rules and have Republicans fight like hell against it. It's difficult to see how choice (A) makes any sense, except that the "savvy" claim has long been that the Democrats didn't have the political will to really fight back against Republicans over Title II (suggesting that they would be more willing to support Wheeler's fake neutrality rules).

But, a funny thing has been happening over the last few weeks, indicating that "the savvy" may not be so "savvy" after all. A bunch of Senators have come out strongly in favor of Title II reclassification. And then the big gun came out: Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has basically told activists that he'd support the FCC in a political fight with Republicans if the FCC chooses Title II. Reid, unfortunately, did not go all out, and directly urge the FCC to support Title II, but his statement that he would support "any Open Internet rules" that the FCC comes up with is a pretty clear signal to the FCC that the Democratic Leadership in the Senate wouldn't shy away from supporting Title II, as many had assumed.

It may seem like a small step, but the signalling here is pretty important, because it suggests that the "politically impossible" Title II reclassification is moving towards a political possibility... if the FCC and Chairman Wheeler are actually willing to make that move. In the past, Wheeler has argued that there wasn't enough political support to go with Title II, and that's part of the reason he was leaning on the fake solution of Section 706. But as more and more support in Congress is popping up for Title II, the tide is shifting towards it being a political possibility, even if it still very much depends on if Wheeler is willing to take a stand, or fold like so many previous FCC bosses.

Now, if only some on the Republican side stopped listening to the misleading talking points on this, and took the time to understand why this actually matters, and is so important to businesses and innovation...

Filed Under: broadband, common carrier, congress, democrats, fcc, harry reid, net neutrality, republicans, section 706, title ii

24 Hours Left To Support Our Crowdfunding Campaign On Net Neutrality: Now With Stretch Goals

from the almost-at-the-finish-line dept

Home stretch: Less than 24 hours left
to support our net neutrality coverage »

In the last 24 hours or so, you guys came through in an amazing way to shoot us past our target goal in our crowdfunding campaign to support our net neutrality reporting. Following yesterday's amazing post from former Congressional staffer Jen Hoelzer about how much reporting like Techdirt's can make a difference in DC, there was a flood of support, which was great. There's still another 24 hours or so to go in the initial campaign and we've decided to add some stretch goals, because all the crowdfunding kids are doing it (and we can't resist the peer pressure). The support has continued to flow in, but the more support we can get in these last 24 hours, the more we can do, and the more impact we can hopefully have in making sure that the public's voice is heard in DC and that the future of the internet isn't just decided by "DC insiders."

Home stretch: Less than 24 hours left
to support our net neutrality coverage »

Filed Under: crowdfunding, net neutrality, stretch goals
Companies: floor64, techdirt

If You Want To Know How Supporting Techdirt Can Help Shift The Debate In Washington DC, Read This

from the and-then-donate dept

The following is from Jen Hoelzer, who for years worked as Senator Ron Wyden's Communications Director and Deputy Chief of Staff. During the SOPA/PIPA fight, she was perhaps the key person in Congress getting the press (and others in Congress) to understand the importance of SOPA and PIPA and what it meant for the internet. This morning, completely out of the blue, she sent this over. I think it does an amazing job highlighting just how important independent coverage of important tech policy issues, like what we provide, can be on these debates. Plenty of cynical people said that the SOPA/PIPA fight couldn't be won. Those same people are saying that the net neutrality battle is already lost. Good, independent reporting on these issues does make a difference, which is why we're asking you to support us in our net neutrality coverage.

Click here to support our crowdfunding campaign »

Hi. My name is Jen... and I was once a Congressional staffer who knew so little about Internet policy that I had no idea how little I knew about Internet policy. (I think this is where you're supposed to supportively say, "Hi, Jen," and reassure me that this is a safe space for me to continue my embarrassing confession. Because it gets worse.)

In late 2010, when my former boss -- U.S. Senator Ron Wyden -- announced that he was putting a hold on the Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act (COICA) – the predecessor to PIPA and later, SOPA -- I not only didn't know how the DNS system worked, I'm not sure I knew what infringement meant. (I'm not proud of these things, but they're true.)

If my boss hadn't involved himself in this issue, odds are I would never have heard of it and, heck, if by some chance I had learned that the Judiciary Committee had unanimously passed legislation giving law enforcement (what their press release called) "important tools" to go after illegal activity, I probably wouldn't have given the issue any thought beyond thinking it was nice that Democrats and Republicans remembered how to work together.

Worse yet, when my chief of staff stopped by my office to let me know that the Senator would be placing a hold on the legislation, I didn't drop what I was doing to alert reporters or ask one of my deputies to pound out a press release. I'm not sure I even looked up from my computer.

Honestly, it didn't occur to me that anyone would consider what my boss did that afternoon news, until I got a Google News Alert that a blog called, Techdirt, had written about it.

Now, in my defense, the above does not mean that I was lazy or willfully ignorant. From the outside, I realize Congress doesn't appear to do anything, but there are so many bills and issues swirling around Capitol Hill at any one time that it's a challenge just to stay on top of the sliver of them that pertains to your job. On an average day, Senator Wyden could go from a breakfast forum on health reform, to a committee hearing on tax reform, to introducing legislation on renewable energy, to questioning the forest service on resources for firefighting, before giving a floor speech on NSA surveillance, and that would just be before noon. So, the odds of my being on top of something that happened in a Committee my boss wasn't assigned to -- like the Judiciary Committee -- were slim.

Furthermore, my deputies and I -- as Wyden's communications director -- could barely keep up with all of the questions and requests we got from reporters. We didn't have the time or resources to tweet about everything he did, let alone proactively promote all of his work. I mean, just writing and distributing a press release can take a few hours, coming up with a messaging strategy, educating reporters, planning events and writing the various one-pagers, FAQs, op-eds and speeches needed to support a successful advocacy campaign can take days, weeks, even months and that's if nothing else is going on (which is rarely the case).

The day Senator Wyden put a hold on COICA, was the same day he introduced legislation to amend the Affordable Care Act with Senator Scott Brown. I was getting inundated with questions from reporters and bloggers wanting to understand "why in the hell he'd do such a thing," plus the Democratic caucus wanted us to put out and promote a statement pushing for the repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell, which had my deputy tied up, in addition to the various other things that tended to make the end of session a sprint.

I didn't jump at the opportunity to publicize my boss's hold announcement, because I didn't know enough about the issue to judge its news value, let alone explain it to reporters or write a quick press release, and I didn't have the time to learn enough about it to do any of those things before the end of the day. So, I told my chief of staff "great" and went back to talking to reporters about health policy.

Again, I'm not proud of the above story, but I was moved to share it, when I read that Techdirt's coverage of the COICA/PIPA/SOPA debate ultimately cost them more than 50% of their advertising revenue and has since forced them to operate at a loss.

I don't want to imagine a tech debate without Techdirt in it.

I can't even begin to imagine how the COICA/PIPA/SOPA debate would have gone without Mike Masnick and Techdirt's coverage.

But I can imagine where I -- personally -- would have been without Techdirt's coverage. All I have to do is close my eyes and remember November 18, 2010. Now, as much as I'd like to tell you that Mike's November post on Ron Wyden's COICA hold changed everything for me, it didn't. One post couldn't make me an expert on Internet issues any more than a single story could have won the debate. But I can say the more I learned about the issues surrounding COICA and later PIPA and SOPA – and the more confident I grew in my knowledge and ability to explain those issues -- the more involved I got, the more press releases, speeches, FAQ's and blogs I wrote in support of Ron's work, the more reporters I talked to, coverage I influenced, and interviews I secured for the senator.

I can also say, I wouldn't have been able to do any of those things (at least not well) without Mike Masnick and the rest of the guys at Techdirt, because they're the guys who taught me tech policy.

That's not to say, I didn't work with really smart people who taught me a lot, I did and they did; but with Techdirt, I never had to ask a stupid question or admit what I didn't know. (I just kept reading.) Techdirt's posts were consistently straightforward, easy to understand and timely. Sure, another site might put together one or two good posts or a definitive explainer, but reading Techdirt every day was like taking a college course on the issues with every new post helping me understand a new aspect of what I'd learned previously. I often found some of the site's shorter posts and illustrative examples the most helpful, because they were the examples I ultimately used to explain the issues to others. For example, I've yet to find a better way to get someone to see the potential harm bills like SOPA and PIPA can do to free speech than pointing out that Universal once tried to blacklist 50 Cent's personal website, a fact I learned from a 6/21/11 Techdirt post, entitled "Did Universal Music Declare 50 Cent's Own Website A Pirate Site?" (Seriously, that story alone helped me convince at least a dozen – non-tech – reporters to write about the issue, not to mention all of the Hill staffers I shared it with.)

Now, I understand that some of you may be tempted to write my experience off as unique (or flame me for asking you to sympathize with Congressional staffers), but I guarantee not having enough hours in the day was not an affliction unique to my experience. I'd also argue that good lobbyists derive less power from campaign contributions than they do from helping tired, overworked, Congressional staffers "understand" complex issues.

Lobbyists are experts at framing their client's positions in ways that sound like non-controversial no-brainers. They're so good at it, that most of them have even been convinced by their own arguments. A seasoned staffer who understands the issue at play will see through the lobbyist's ploy (and realize the offers of assistance aren't really "help"), but there aren't very many seasoned staffers who work on Internet and tech policy. To create those staffers and make the lobbyist's job harder, means helping those overworked staffers learn these issues, with short, easily digestible information that makes the problems with the lobbyists' sales pitch easy to discern. And, speaking from experience, no one is better at that than Techdirt.

Now, one of the sad realities of our political system is the fact that helping for-profit entities maintain the advantages that made them profitable pays a lot more than advocating for the public interest, which – if you're lucky – might yield you a pat on the back. But just because something isn't done for the money, doesn't mean those who do it don't have to earn a living. Saving the Internet shouldn't force Mike's staff to take pay cuts or his kids to go hungry.

If you care about a free and open Internet, you want Techdirt to be at full strength in the Net Neutrality debate. You want them to be educating more lawmakers and their staffers (like my former self) to understand these issues and be confident enough in their knowledge to take a stand against the cable companies and their lobbyists.

I'm donating to Techdirt's campaign because I know where I would have been without their work and I don't want a tech debate to take place without them. I hope you will do the same. It's also a great way to say thanks.

Click here to support Techdirt's crowdfunding campaign »

Filed Under: coica, crowdfunding, independent reporting, internet policy, net neutrality, pipa, ron wyden, sopa

NBC, Now Owned By Comcast, Once Told FCC It Should Break Net Neutrality To Force ISPs To Be Copyright Cops

from the oh-look-at-that dept

As you surely know by now, NBC Universal is owned by Comcast. And Comcast is one of the major players in today's fight over net neutrality. Comcast, of course, likes to pretend it supports net neutrality, even as it actually supports killing it. It seems worth wondering how the NBC Universal side of the Comcast family is viewing this current debate.

If you don't recall, NBC Universal has actually been vehemently against net neutrality for a long time, in large part because it's afraid that with net neutrality, broadband access providers wouldn't be able to spy on what users were doing, and wouldn't be able to throttle things like BitTorrent, as Comcast famously did in the past. You may even recall that, back in 2008, NBC Universal more or less offered up a deal to the broadband access providers: if the broadband ISPs agreed to become Hollywood copyright cops to spy on users and cut them off for any possible infringement, it would side with them in the fight to get rid of net neutrality.

In fact, in an FCC filing on net neutrality going all the way back to 2007, NBC Universal made it clear that it more or less wanted the FCC to force broadband providers like Comcast into being copyright cops:

What is missing from this debate – and from the Policy Statement and the Commission’s own commentary – is the acknowledgment that a huge and rapidly growing proportion of Internet traffic consists of stolen property and the concomitant recognition that service providers must act to stem the overwhelming use of their broadband facilities for the distribution of that stolen property. While the number of subscribers engaging in such activity is small, the impact on broadband service is enormous. The Commission should make unmistakably clear, as part of its regulations governing broadband industry practices, that broadband service providers have an obligation to use readily available means to prevent the use of their broadband capacity to transfer pirated content, especially when such use represents huge percentages of their capacity and reduces the quality of service to other subscribers. Whether those means consist of relatively low-tech but potentially effective steps such as forwarding notices to customers who have been identified as infringers, or using increasingly sophisticated bandwidth management tools as and when they come online, the obligation to deploy such measures must be explicit.

Now, recognize that many of the same folks in leadership positions at Comcast came from NBC Universal, including the author of that comment to the FCC, Rick Cotton, who was General Counsel of NBC Universal, but last year shifted to a new role, entirely focused on "anti-piracy issues." This is the same Rick Cotton who is famous for all sorts of misleading claims over the years, including telling Congress that piracy hurt the American corn farmer because apparently pirates eat less popcorn when they watch movies (I don't get it either). He was also one of the key driving forces behind SOPA.

And he remains a senior exec at Comcast -- the company that is both trying to kill off any chance at real net neutrality reform and which is famous for one of the first net neutrality "violations" in throttling BitTorrent users. Update: Comcast PR people have told me (somewhat snarkily) that Cotton retired this year, just a few months after the press publicly announced his new role (and while his LinkedIn page still lists him as currently employed at Comcast/NBC Universal.

If the FCC follows through and allows its new rules to be put in place, effectively killing off net neutrality, does anyone want to bet how long it will take Comcast -- driven by folks at NBC Universal like Rick Cotton -- to seize upon the opportunity to "monitor" your traffic and try to "use readily available means to prevent the use of their broadband capacity" for what Comcast/NBC Universal thinks is infringing (whether or not it is)?

Filed Under: copyright, copyright cops, fcc, hollywood, liability, net neutrality, rick cotton, throttling
Companies: comcast, nbc universal

As Deadline Approaches, Imgur Pledges Matching Funds To Support Techdirt's Net Neutrality Campaign

from the helping-out dept

Final days to support our crowdfunding campaign »

Last week we gave a special thanks to Twitch and Namecheap for providing matching funds for our big crowdfunding campaign, and today we want to welcome (and thank!) the greatest photo site on the internet, Imgur, for joining the campaign as well. As the company's CEO, Alan Schaaf said:

Imgur would not have been possible without the tidal wave of innovation that net neutrality makes possible. We're stoked to support Techdirt in paving the way for a genuine, important public dialogue about these issues.

It's been great to see these three companies step up to support the campaign, but it's been you guys, our community, that has gotten us so far already. We're still a bit short of the target -- and I know that money is tight for many and that there are lots of competing offerings where you can put your money (though, if you donate money to the Potato Salad Kickstarter thing and not to us, I don't think we can be friends... because, really?), but any help that folks can give to either get us over the target or to share with others, recognizing how important this issue is, would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks again to all of you who have already supported it or shared it with others. With a little more help we'll be able to meet our goal, and focus that much more of our time and energy on bringing you the best reporting on the fight to keep the internet free and open. As noted earlier, our plan is to bring in additional voices on this issue, to interview key players, to dig deep into some of the more unexplored stories around this fight and much much more. But it's only possible with your help, and the deadline is rapidly approaching.

Please support our net neutrality reporting today »

Filed Under: crowdfunding, net neutrality, techdirt
Companies: floor64, imgur, techdirt

Home Stretch For Supporting Our Net Neutrality Reporting

from the running-out-the-clock dept

Please support our net neutrality reporting today »
We're in the final days of our big crowd funding campaign for our net neutrality reporting. We're about 65% of the way there as I type this, which is amazing... but not yet enough to get us over the hurdle to actually get the funding -- or the matching funds from our matching donors, Namecheap and Twitch (and we may have another one to announce soon...).

I know that we live in an age where everyone's asking for money, and you have an infinite number of places where you can spend that money. Hell, every week, in this very spot, we put up three or four interesting and compelling crowdfunding campaigns that I know many of you end up supporting. But, hopefully you also recognize just how important all of this net neutrality business really is to the future of the internet you love. And you also realize how complex this topic is -- partly on purpose by the very broadband providers and bureaucrats who are trying to confuse everyone to get what they want. To really fight back, we need to be out there digging for the truth, looking at what people are saying and what it really means -- so that we can report back to you and everyone else, so that we're informed and can really take part in this process.

And we can't do that without your help.

As I mentioned in the past, our reporting on SOPA was toxic to many advertisers. On the advertising side of things, the blog went from profitable to unprofitable as a result of the SOPA fight -- even as our traffic doubled. Our revenue from advertising was cut by more than 50%. And the net neutrality fight is the same way for many as well. I'm not complaining about it, because we knew that was a risk of standing up for what we believe in, and we wouldn't change a thing. But, because of that I need to ask directly for your help today. If we can reach this goal, it will allow us to do a variety of things, including bringing in some additional writers and guests, spending more time digging through various FCC filings and other paperwork for important details (rather than spending time trying to find advertisers). It will hopefully give us the time to conduct interviews with a variety of key players in the fight, including bringing them to the blog to answer you r questions. By digging in, we can bring you details about how lobbyists are funneling money to minority groups to get them to speak out against their own best interests. We can discuss how the broadband players claim to be so against Title II, but beg to be classified under Title II when it gives them tax breaks and subsidies.

We have a lot more of those kinds of reports we've wanted to do. In the last week, I, personally, have dug out over a dozen very questionable filings to the FCC from individuals parroting telco talking points in a curious way. And I've reached out to a few of those writers to find out who they are and why they're saying what they're saying. There's an interesting story there, but I simply haven't had the time to work on it. If we can reach our goal, it'll free us up to do a lot more, and to dig a lot deeper. But we need your help.

In the sixteen years of doing Techdirt, we've offered you a few ways that you can support us, but we've never made a strong push or given a deadline. This time, I'm asking you to support our campaign, to tell your friends and family, and to share with them just how important true independent reporting on the net neutrality fight is going to be to the future of the internet.

Or, you know, you can give your money to the dude doing a potato salad Kickstarter campaign. But, in the future, which one do you think is going to be more important?

Please support our net neutrality reporting today »

Filed Under: awesome stuff, crowdfunding, net neutrality, techdirt
Companies: techdirt