The Hypocrites Of Congress: Who Voted Against Net Neutrality, But For SOPA/PIPA

from the just-checking dept

An interesting article by Grant Gross over at PC World notes the hypocrisy of many in Congress who screamed loudly about how net neutrality was a dangerous attempt by government to "regulate the internet," but are now the main supporters of SOPA. We already highlighted one of these, Rep. Marsha Blackburn, who went so far as to create a video hysterically warning about the dangers of regulating the internet: As we noted at the time, many of her arguments apply equally to SOPA's regulation of the internet, but she just doesn't seem to get it. Here are just a few of her arguments:

But some people fear that without government intervention, that entrepreneurs and innovators are going to hijack the internet that you enjoy... the World Wide Web! This has never happened and there has never been a time that a consumer has needed a federal bureaucrat to intervene.... Here's what they want to do: Take the private internet and put it all under government control. Think about it: what's going to happen to the next Facebook innovator, if they have to go apply with the government to get approval to develop a new application. And what would happen to your small business, if you had to depend on internet speeds that Uncle Sam says is going to be okay.... We want to keep [the internet] open, free and prosperous.

How that doesn't apply equally to SOPA... I don't know. But she's listed as a co-sponsor. Funny, that. Especially since SOPA is likely to have a much more direct impact on "the next Facebook innovator" than anything in the (yes, poorly designed) net neutrality rules put forth by the FCC.

Unfortunately, Gross's article only names a few names. But not all of them. So we thought we might as well do that. Below, for your viewing pleasure, the list of hypocritical Congressional Reps and Senators who claim to be against regulating the internet, but have no problem doing so when it comes to SOPA or PROTECT IP (PIPA):

• Rep. Marsha Blackburn, Tennessee
• Rep. Mary Bono Mack, California
• Rep. John Carter, Texas
• Rep. Steven Chabot, Ohio
• Rep. Elton Gallegly, California
• Rep. Robert Goodlatte, Virginia
• Rep. Tim Griffin, Arkansas
• Rep. Peter King, New York
• Rep. Thomas Marino, Pennsylvania
• Rep. Alan Nunnelee, Mississippi
• Rep. Dennis Ross, Florida
• Rep. Steve Scalise, Louisiana
• Rep. Lee Terry, Nebraska
• Sen. Lamar Alexander, Tennessee
• Sen. Kelly Ayotte, New Hampshire
• Sen. Roy Blunt, Missouri
• Sen. John Boozman, Arkansas
• Sen. Saxby Chambliss, Georgia
• Sen. Thad Cochran, Mississippi
• Sen. Bob Corker, Tennessee
• Sen. Michael Enzi, Wyoming
• Sen. Lindsey Graham, South Carolina
• Sen. Charles Grassley, Iowa
• Sen. Orrin Hatch, Utah
• Sen. John Isakson, Georgia
• Sen. James Risch, Idaho
• Sen. Marco Rubio, Florida
• Sen. David Vitter, Louisiana

Of course, the really amazing thing is that SOPA and PIPA are much more about regulating the internet than the FCC's "net neutrality" rules are. I already think the FCC's rules are pretty silly (designed more to protect a few big businesses), but they'll have little to no impact on everyday internet startups. That's not true of SOPA/PIPA. Those rules will have a massive impact on every day startups. So how can supporters of SOPA/PIPA claim to be against "regulating the internet" while signing on to a bill that is almost entirely about regulating the internet?

Filed Under: copyright, internet, net neutrality, protect ip, regulations, sopa

Rep. Blackburn, Co-Sponsor Of E-PARASITE, Explains Why Regulating The Internet Is Terrible

from the do-they-even-know-what-they're-doing? dept

This one is really quite incredible. Among the sponsors of the absolutely dreadful E-PARASITE Act, which imposes massive regulations across the entire internet sector, is Rep. Marsha Blackburn from Tennessee. What's odd is that Rep. Blackburn, just a few months ago, went onto YouTube to emphatically explain why regulating the internet was a terrible idea: It's a short video, in which Rep. Blackburn says:

You're probably watching me on a high speed internet -- the same internet that has given us our competitive advantage. You know it took years for innovators and investors to create the online experience that you enjoy today. It really is the highway for all the goods and services and jobs that we need for the creative economy. Facebook, YouTube, Twitter. They're right there at your fingertips because of the internet that we enjoy. But some people fear that without government intervention, that entrepreneurs and innovators are going to hijack the internet that you enjoy... the World Wide Web! This has never happened and there has never been a time that a consumer has needed a federal bureaucrat to intervene. But yet this policy, called Net Neutrality is the Obama administrations hysterical reaction to a hypothetical problem. Here's what they want to do: Take the private internet and put it all under government control. Think about it: what's going to happen to the next Facebook innovator, if they have to go apply with the government to get approval to develop a new application. And what would happen to your small business, if you had to depend on internet speeds that Uncle Sam says is going to be okay.... We want to keep [the internet] open free and prosperous.

First of all (and I say this as someone who agrees that the administration stretched its mandate with its net neutrality move), what she describes as net neutrality is not what net neutrality is. That said, what her comments apply much more to is the bill that Blackburn herself co-sponsored, which definitively regulates the internet -- including YouTube, Facebook and Twitter -- by putting a massive burden on them to proactively monitor the internet, to stop infringement.

Amusingly, this very video is on YouTube, via Rep. Blackburn's official account. If this bill that Blackburn is co-sponsoring was in place as law just a few years ago, it's extremely unlikely we would have YouTube still in existence today. That's because a company -- let's just say "Viacom" -- could decide that YouTube was "dedicated to the theft of U.S. property" (under this law -- which includes enabling or facilitating infringement) and could then issue a notice to all payment processors and ad providers, barring YouTube from ever being able to make money. That would have killed YouTube dead. A few years ago. And Blackburn would be stuck.

Instead, Viacom has tried suing, under existing copyright law... and to date the US courts have found that YouTube obeyed the law. And because of that, people like Rep. Blackburn can reach out to her constituents and explain why regulating the internet is bad. But what we can't figure out is, why is she co-sponsoring a bill that actually does massively regulate that same internet?

Filed Under: copyright, e-parasite, marsha blackburn, net neutrality, regulating the internet

Brazil Drafts An 'Anti-ACTA': A Civil Rights-Based Framework For The Internet

from the who's-leader-of-the-*free*-world-now? dept

One of the striking features of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement is that it is mainly being signed by Western/“developed” countries – with a few token players from other parts of the world to provide a fig-leaf of nominal inclusiveness. That's no accident: ACTA is the last-gasp attempt of the US and the EU to preserve their intellectual monopolies – copyright and patents, particularly drug patents – in a world where both are increasingly questioned.

Much of the challenge to the old order is coming from the BRICS group of emerging countries – Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa – none of which has been involved in ACTA. Of those, the one in the vanguard of adopting innovative approaches to making knowledge widely accessible in the Internet age is Brazil.

For example, the federal government has actively supported open source software by creating a Public Software Portal. The country has also been at the forefront of open content use: just this week, the city of São Paulo specified that all educational materials produced for it must be released under the Creative Commons CC BY-NC-SA license.

It's true that there have also been some mixed signals recently, notably the re-surfacing of the punitive “cybercrime bill”, which Techdirt reported on a couple of months ago. But here's some positive news coming out of the country, in the shape of a draft of a bill for a civil rights-based framework for the Internet:

The draft bill proposition for a Civil Right’s Based Framework for Internet in Brazil has just reached Congress. The English translation of this version is available here.

It is the result of an initiative from the Brazilian Ministry of Justice, in partnership with the Center for Technology and Society of the Getulio Vargas Foundation (CTS/FGV), to develop a collaborative online/offline consultation process in which all the actors from Brazilian society could identify together the rights and responsibilities that should guide the use of the Internet in Brazil. The process, which resulted in a Bill of Law, is an example of the importance and the great potential of multistakeholder involvement on policy-making.

NGOs, universities, internet service providers (collectively though associations, as well as individually), business companies, law firms, law enforcement agencies, individuals, Brazilian Embassies from all over the world, and many other participants have joined the online public hearing. The participation of several stakeholder groups has promoted the diversity of opinions and the availability of high quality information and expert advise, which have helped the government to draft a balanced bill. The openness and transparency of the process, entirely conducted online, in the public eye, has improved the legitimacy of the bill. Marco Civil was introduced in Congress with the political weight and the legitimacy that the Bill would be expected to have after a complex multistakeholder discussion.

Among its fundamental principles:

I – safeguarding freedom of speech, communication, and manifestation of thought, in the terms of the Constitution;

II – the protection of privacy;

III – the protection of personal data, in accordance to the law;

IV – the preservation and safeguarding of net neutrality, in compliance with further regulation;

And this is *real* net neutrality, not the compromised US kind:

Article 9. The party responsible for the transmission, switching or routing of data has the obligation of granting equal treatment to every data package, with no distinction by content, origin and destination, service, terminal or application; any traffic discrimination or degradation that does not arise out of the technical requirements necessary to the adequate provision of services is prohibited, in accordance to further regulation.

It also comes out strongly in favor of guaranteeing access to the Internet, respect for personal privacy online, and against any kind of “three strikes” laws cutting off users for alleged copyright infringement:

Article 7. Access to the Internet is essential for the exercise of citizenship, and the following rights are secured to its users:

I – the non-violation and secrecy of communications on the Internet, except under judicial order, in the hypotheses and form established by law, for criminal investigations or the gathering of evidence for criminal procedures;

II – the non suspension of Internet connections, except for debts directly related to their use;

It has plenty to say on the vexed issue of keeping users' access logs, including:

Article 10. The storage and disclosure of the connection logs and Internet application access logs regulated by this law must preserve intimacy, private life, the reputation and image of the parties directly or indirectly involved.

§1 The Internet service provider responsible for the storage of logs will only be constrained to disclose the information that allows the identification of the user under a judicial order

Nor is ISP liability overlooked:

Article 14. Internet connection providers shall not be responsible for damage arising from content generated by third parties.

Article 15. Except otherwise established by law, Internet application providers can only be responsible for the damages caused by content generated by third parties if, after receiving a specific judicial order, they do not take action to, in the context of their services and under the established time frame, make unavailable the infringing content.

And the crucial issue of judicial requests for logs is also spelled out in detail:

Article 17. Interested parties may, for the purpose of gathering evidence in civil and criminal proceedings, of either accidental or autonomous nature, request a judge to order the party responsible for storing Internet service access logs, or connection logs, to disclose these logs.

Sole Paragraph. Without prejudice of other legal requirements, the application shall contain, under penalty of not being admissible:

I – solid evidence of the occurrence of an illegal act;

II – a motivated justification for the utility of accessing the requested logs, for the purposes of investigation or the gathering of evidence;

III - the period that the logs refer to.

Article 18. It is the obligation of judges to take the measures necessary to guarantee the secrecy of the information received, and the preservation of the intimacy, private life, honor and image of Internet users. Judges are capable, for that purpose, to constitute the information as secret, including with respect to requests for the storage of logs.

All-in-all, it's a remarkable document, forming in effect an "anti-ACTA" that guarantees many of the protections for Internet users that ACTA seeks to eradicate, and forbids repressive measures that ACTA aims to introduce.

However, two big questions hang over the draft. First, whether it will be passed by the Brazilian Congress in its present form (or at all), and, second, how it can be squared with the harsh penalties proposed in the “cybercrime” bill mentioned above if that too comes into force. But whatever happens, Brazil has already shown leadership by drafting a bill that dares to question and oppose the copyright maximalist orthodoxies underlying ACTA – something signally lacking in other countries.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+

Filed Under: acta, brazil, copyright, net neutrality, privacy

Sarkozy Routes Around Parliament, Ditches Net Neutrality, Forces Copyright Clauses Into All ISP Terms Of Service

from the but-of-course dept

This is hardly a surprise, given that the Sarkozy administration appears to believe that copyright is more important than all other human rights but apparently, as part of a telecom bill in France, the administration added a clause that forces all French ISPs to have clauses concerning copyright infringement in their terms of service, which also force ISPs to ignore some basic principles of net neutrality. What's interesting here is that Sarkozy didn't even go through Parliament to do this, but rather made use of some process called "transposition" that allowed him to add certain clauses to the Telecoms Act, outside of the Parliamentary process.

Over the summer, the French government has published its transposition of the Telecoms Package. The Sarkozy regime has used a controversial manipulation of the legislative process to get the transposition into law without going through the French Parliament. It includes provisions which contradict the French government’s stated objective of protecting net neutrality. Moreover, it includes a copyright obligation on ISPs to support France’s 3-strikes law.

Sarkozy even ignored the government's advisory committee on the digital economy, which explicitly came out against some of the provisions that were added. Of major concern is the fact that the required terminology being forced into ISP contracts, says that ISPs will restrict certain services for those accused of infringement. As the article notes, this could include things like blocking Skype, something that would go against basic net neutrality principles, which the French Parliament has said it supports. So, in yet another effort to put draconian copyright law ahead of all else, it looks like Sarkozy has routed completely around Parliament, slipped some extra rules into a Telecoms Package, and in the process made it clear that France officially has no respect for the principles of net neutrality.

Filed Under: broadband, copyright, france, hadopi, net neutrality, nicolas sarkozy, three strikes

Ante Upped Some More: $2,500 For John Sununu And Harold Ford Jr. To Pay Netflix's Broadband Bills

from the crickets dept

On Tuesday, we questioned John Sununu and Harold Ford Jr.'s assertion that Netflix was somehow getting a "free ride" on the internet these days, by asking if they'd be willing to swap broadband bills with the company for the rest of the year. On Wednesday we upped the ante, by offering to give each man $500 if they'd pay Netflix's broadband bill for the final quarter of the year. $500 would come from Derek Kerton who suggested it, and another $500 would come from us at Techdirt. Since then, a few more people have contacted me and offered (anonymously) to put up another $1,500 between them. So we're now up to $2,500 total (or $1,250 each) if John Sununu and Harold Ford Jr. agree to pay Netflix's broadband bills for the months of October, November and December. Or, you know, they could admit that their op-ed was misleading claptrap. Of course, their failure to accept this "free" money sorta makes that statement for them.

Filed Under: bandwidth, broadband, economics, free ride, harold ford jr., john sununu, net neutrality

Let's Up The Ante: We'll Pay John Sununu & Harold Ford Jr. $1,000 To Pay Netflix's Broadband Bill

from the crickets? dept

So we just wrote about a truly ridiculous opinion piece by two ex-politicians, John Sununu and Harold Ford Jr., claiming that Netflix somehow didn't pay for its bandwidth. They complained about the supposed "free ride" that Netflix was getting. As one of our commenters pointed out, this is sort of like the "free ride" that Ford Motor Company gets from the highway system.

But Derek Kerton may have had the best idea of all, noting that Sununu and Ford will almost certainly ignore our request that they swap their broadband bills with Netflix. Derek suggests we up the ante, and offer to actually give Sununu and Ford some money if they agree to pay Netflix's broadband bills for the rest of 2011. He's putting up $500 and we at Techdirt will match his offer and put up another $500. So, that's $1,000 for Sununu and Ford Jr. if they're willing to pay Netflix's braodband bill. Hell, we'll give them some time to think it over, and say they only have to pay for the last quarter of the year. If they'll pay Netflix's broadband bills for October, November and December, we'll give them $1,000 ($500 each). Some others in the comments have also offered to chip in as well, so perhaps we can raise the ante a bit more.

So here we go. According to Sununu and Ford Jr., this is "free money" that we're offering them. Will they take it? Will they agree to pay for Netflix and its very cheap "free rider" broadband bill? I'm not holding my breath.

Filed Under: bandwidth, broadband, economics, free ride, harold ford jr., john sununu, net neutrality

Will John Sununu And Harold Ford Jr. Agree To Pay Netflix's Broadband Bill Next Month?

from the simple-request dept

Not this again. I thought that we were well past lobbyists publishing op-ed pieces in which they flat out lied about how broadband pricing works. Almost exactly five years ago, we called out (then) telecom lobbyist Mike McCurry (a former Clinton press secretary) for his bizarre and ridiculous claim that Google got its bandwidth for free. We asked, if that was the case, if McCurry would agree to pay Google's bandwidth bill. McCurry never responded, though the astroturf group he ran at the time was clearly reading, since they took other comments of mine totally out of context at a later date.

It looks like we're in for a repeat with some other ex-DC folks-turned-sell-out lobbyists. This time, it's former Senator John Sununu and former Rep. Harold Ford Jr., shilling for "Broadband for America," claiming that Netflix gets its bandwidth for free. There are so many things wrong with this particular op-ed piece, which is so dishonest that the Mercury News should publish a full retraction and apology. But, for now I'll just make the same deal that I offered to McCurry five years ago:

If John Sununu and Harold Ford Jr. really believe that Netflix is getting a "free ride" with its bandwidth and this is somehow socially irresponsible and unfair, will they agree to pay Netflix's broadband bills for the rest of this year?

Perhaps they can trade bandwidth bills with Netflix. I'm sure if they're willing to pay Netflix's bandwidth bill, Netflix would have no problem paying for their home DSL lines. Hell, maybe Netflix will even cover their mobile broadband accounts as well.

As for the rest of the op-ed, it's pretty funny. While they play up how Netflix "saves" $0.40 in postage by not having to use the mail, they ignore the fact that in order to stream movies, Netflix has to pay ridiculously high licenses. With disc rentals, it could buy one disc and rent it out many times. Not so with streaming licenses. It needs to pay a ton for those.

Then there's this bit of economic cluelessness:

Netflix argues that the marginal cost to the network providers of streaming a half-hour TV show to a residential customer is "one penny." This ignores the hundreds of billions of dollars in sunken network investments needed to create that one-penny marginal cost efficiency at the customer's end.

Um, yes, it does. And as most any economics professor will tell you, you're supposed to ignore the sunk costs in understanding how a market prices things competitively. Telling the market to do the opposite is the very definition of an anti-market, anti-efficient solution.

Consumers tend to pay more when they consume more goods and services, and pay less when they consume less.

And, contrary to the claims in the article, Netflix pays more when its users consume more. Again, will Sununu and Ford pay Netflix's bandwidth bill?

The reality is that Netflix and similar services want a free ride on the networks built with more than $250 billion in design, engineering, manufacturing, construction and maintenance -- a system that now provides broadband services to 95 percent of American households.

Hey, you know what? I spent a lot of money building Techdirt. All of you now owe me money. Apparently that's how Sununu and Ford view market functions. If one party spends a lot of money on something, everyone else is just required to pay. Of course, back here in the real world, that's not how things work. Various broadband companies (with massive taxpayer subsidies, by the way) built out broadband networks because they knew it would be profitable to do so. They made their bet and made their deal. Now they're trying to change the deal by pretending that someone's not paying. They're lying. What they really want is for service providers to pay twice for the same bandwidth. Netflix is already paying for its bandwidth. Consumers already pay for their bandwidth. Sununu and Ford (and really, the telcos they represent) are really trying to get Netflix to pay again, pretending that they should pay for the bandwidth that consumers already paid for, even though Netflix is already paying for that bandwidth. This is about trying to double charge.

If broadband providers are so hard up for cash, then just let them raise rates. Nothing is stopping them from doing that. But that's not what this is really about. This is about trying to force Netflix to double-pay for consumers' bandwidth as well.

So, once again, John Sununu and Harold Ford Jr.: since you insist that Netflix is getting a free ride, will you pay Netflix's bills for the rest of the year? Or will you pull a Mike McCurry and simply ignore this simple challenge and go on pretending that Netflix doesn't pay?

Filed Under: bandwidth, broadband, economics, free ride, harold ford jr., john sununu, net neutrality
Companies: netflix

Are There Any Politicians Who Know What PROTECT IP Is About? Senator Hutchison Thinks It's About Net Neutrality

from the worse-and-worse-and-worse dept

Okay, this is just getting ridiculous. Last week, we wrote about Mark Lemley sending a letter to Rep. Anna Eshoo about the problems of PROTECT IP, and rather responding about that, Eshoo wrote him back about immigration. Then, we had another story about Senator Kristen Gillibrand receiving a similar letter complaining about PROTECT IP... and she sent back a letter talking about the unrelated "internet kill switch" legislation. And, in the comments to that post, Paul told us about his own letter protesting PROTECT IP, which was sent to Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison... and she wrote back about net neutrality:

Dear Friend:
Thank you for contacting me regarding the Federal Communications Commission's actions relating to the openness of the Internet. I welcome your thoughts and comments.

The Internet is a valuable tool that facilitates business, education, and recreation for millions of Americans. In 2009, an estimated 198 million Americans had access to the Internet. I am committed to ensuring that consumers continue to benefit from the Internet as an open platform for innovation and commerce.

Instrumental to the success of the Internet is the long-standing policy of keeping the Internet as free as possible from burdensome government regulations. Increased investment in upgrading and expanding America’s communications infrastructure, and, in particular, new broadband networks, will ensure that all Americans have access to affordable high-speed Internet. However, in my judgment, intensified regulation of the Internet, such as government-mandated treatment of data, would stifle competition and would decrease the incentive for network operators to invest in critical infrastructure.

The case for additional broadband regulatory authority, or “net neutrality,” has not effectively been made. Broadband investment began to truly flourish when the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) made a decision in 2002 to remove advanced communications technologies from the antiquated common carrier regulatory framework. However, advocates of a larger regulatory footprint have continued to call for net neutrality since 2006.

Unfortunately, the FCC chose to respond by beginning a new proceeding that would reverse the 2002 decision to treat advanced communications services with a "light touch" regulatory approach. On December 21, 2010, by a 3-2 vote, the FCC adopted new rules meant to impose a net neutrality regime on broadband services. I believe these new regulations represent an unprecedented power grab by the Commission to claim regulatory jurisdiction without Congressional authority. This FCC action threatens investment and innovation in broadband systems, places valuable American jobs at risk, and may subject communications companies to new legal liability in the management of their networks.

In response to the FCC's heavy-handed order, I intend to explore every option available to me to keep the Internet free from such burdensome regulations, including introducing a resolution of disapproval in an effort to repeal the new rules. As the Ranking Member of the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee, which has jurisdiction over the FCC, I will continue to work to prohibit further net neutrality-based regulations.

I appreciate hearing from you, and I hope that you will not hesitate to contact me on any issue that is important to you.

Sincerely,
Kay Bailey Hutchison
United States Senator

Is it really that hard to expect that, when we write our elected officials, they at least take the time to hear what we're saying? It seems like the staffers in these officials offices briefly skim the letters to see if there's a keyword they can hit on (or do they have software for that?), and then send back a form letter related to what they think the letter is about, rather than taking the time to figure out what it's actually about.

Can we actually expect any sort of informed debate and discussion on the serious problems of PROTECT IP when so many of our elected officials don't even seem to know what it is, and most certainly don't seem to want to hear from their own constituents about it?

Filed Under: anna eshoo, copyright, kay bailey hutchison, kristin gillibrand, net neutrality, protect ip