Net Neutrality FAQ: What's in it for You

Net Neutrality FAQ: What's in it for You
by Tim Greene, Network World of PCWorld.com

The FCC has approved a notice of proposed rule making on the subject of net neutrality, and here are a few questions and answers to help shine a light on what that means.
(See "FCC takes first step toward net neutrality rules")

What exactly did the FCC do?
The FCC agreed to consider what regulations, if any, to impose on ISPs about the applications and services that they allow, ban or rate limit. The process calls for formally proposing rules and holding public hearings on them. A vote about the rules themselves will take place sometime next year.

What is net neutrality anyway?
It is the common name for creating and preserving what the FCC calls the "open Internet".

The FCC is trying to write rules that enforce six principles it says ISPs must uphold to preserve what the commission calls the "open Internet." These rules would tell ISPs to:

• allow sending and receiving all lawful content.
• allow all lawful applications and services.
• allow all lawful devices that don't harm the network.
• allow access to all network, application, service and content providers.
• ensure there is no discrimination against particular lawful content, applications, services and devices.
• reveal practices necessary network management that might limit the other five principles.

Who wants it?
A majority of the FCC, Google and other Internet-based companies, consumer advocacy groups and Internet luminaries such as Vinton Cerf and Tim Berners-Lee. They fear that without rules, ISPs will impose tiered service levels, making the top-level services so expensive as to rule out their use by innovators trying to start Internet-based businesses. They are also concerned that selectively banning certain applications such as VoIP will reduce consumer choice about how to make voice calls. There have been cases where ISPs blocked VoIP and rate-limited peer-to-peer traffic like that used for gaming and file sharing.

Who's opposed to it?
The loudest opposition comes from AT&T, Verizon and other Internet providers. They say the rules would block charging extra for premium services, the financial incentive they need to invest in network upgrades that keep traffic running smoothly. They say the rules would unfairly restrict what they call differentiating services that might justify higher rates than competitors charge. They say the consequences of net-neutrality rules would be one of two things: higher flat rates for services or paying by the byte for Internet traffic.
Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) also has introduced a bill to block the FCC's net neutrality rules.

What does it mean to businesses?
If net neutrality prompts higher Internet access rates for all-you-can-eat ISP services, businesses would have higher ISP bills. Usage-based fees might or might not increase costs to individual businesses depending on how much they use the Internet. Businesses that rely on the Internet to provide services might face decreased demand if their customers are forced to buy more-expensive services in order to consume their products. For example, a business that sells HD video downloads over the Internet might sell less if customers have to buy premium Internet access in order to enjoy a movie.

What does it mean to carriers?
Carriers fear net neutrality will restrict their ability to make money off their networks to the point that they will slow the rate at which they invest in network improvements that boost Internet performance. They also say they buy into the principles of an open Internet and that no rules are needed.

What does it mean to residential Internet users?
Flat monthly rates that are common now would likely remain, but ISPs might charge more for them. Or they might shift over to billing for the amount customers download, forcing customers to think twice about what they use the Internet for. At the same time, they would be able to use the Internet to make phone calls without worrying that the traffic would be blocked.

The rules would have the biggest impact on what services?
Without rules, ISPs are most likely to limit bandwidth hogs – gaming, streaming video - and VoIP. Many large ISPs such as AT&T and Verizon are also voice carriers, so VoIP riding the Internet is a threat to their revenue streams. The flip side is that providers of VoIP services that rely on the Internet ought not to be hindered by the ISPs.

----

See Also: Jon Stewart on McCain's Anti-Net-Neutrality Bill

We've Got Reps for That (video)

Obama Trying Out Social Policies In 'Second Life'

Obama Trying Out Social Policies In 'Second Life'
September 25, 2009 | Issue 45•39

WASHINGTON—According to White House sources, an increasingly cautious President Obama has begun testing out parts of his executive agenda on the 15 million citizens of the online world known as Second Life. The commander in chief's avatar—an attractive African-American man with two more years of senatorial experience than the president—has already dedicated 3.5 billion Linden dollars to developing sustainable green energy in the virtual community. "After what happened when he expanded the Peace Corps, we're anticipating a large portion of the program will be cut," one unnamed administration official said. "I saw the screencaps myself. There were thousands of arrogant, college-age avatars just camping out, being of no help to anyone. It was awful." After moderators confirmed Monday that the virtual world is in no danger of terrorist attack because there is no death in Second Life, former vice president Dick Cheney reportedly canceled his recently opened account.

Doubledown Tandino's Diggs of the Week - Australia Gaming and Net Censorship? - June 2009

Australia to Begin Filtering Online Games incl Second Life

escapistmagazine.com — Australia plans to filter internet sites offering games and online gaming content that exceed the MA15+ age rating, including downloadable and Flash games as well as sites that sell retail games online.

Australia to Ban Second Life? | Dusan Writer’s Metaverse

dusanwriter.com — According to the Inquisitr, new laws in Australia will mean that Second Life is banned on that continent. Thoughts, comments, discussions with Dusan and members of the virtual worlds.

Australia Govt to block websites offering banned games.

gamespot.com — Australian gamers are probably well aware of their country's strict games classification system, with the lack of an R18+ rating meaning any title not fitting under the MA15+ rating is automatically banned from sale down under. This means it is illegal to sell a game which has been refused classification in Australia.

Australia to Block Online Access to Games with 15+ Content

gamepolitics.com — Australia's federal government said yesterday that it plans to block access to websites which host and sell games with content edgier than what is allowable under an MA-15+ rating. The unprecedented censorship policy will apply to Australians of all ages.


Australian network filtering promises to block Online Games

massively.com — Australian Communications Minister, Senator Stephen Conroy, has promised to extend Australia's proposed network-level content filtering regime to block games, online games, downloadable games, and websites that sell or allow download of games that are deemed not to be suitable for a 15-year-old audience.


Australia: Bans, Filters and Government 2.0 Taskforce

laurelpapworth.com — with regards to online games, some are boxed (closed systems such as Grand Theft Auto), some are box and server (multiplayer such as World of Warcraft) and some are downloadable clients or simply web based clients to a hosted server (Second Life, Habbo).


Who is Responsible for Assuring Freedoms in Virtual Worlds

metanomics.net — Recent developments in a discussion regarding human rights on the web are forcing the consideration of a complex set of issues related to virtual worlds.


Net filtering and virtual worlds: reactions

metaversejournal.com — After last night’s story on the Australian Government’s internet content filtering legislation and its potential impact on virtual worlds, the response has been astounding. Today has seen the largest ever traffic on The Metaverse Journal. Like any issue, there are a few camps of thought:

** NO CLEAN FEED | Stop Internet Censorship in Australia

nocleanfeed.com — The Australian Federal Government is pushing forward with a plan to force Internet Service Providers [ISPs] to censor the Internet for all Australians. This plan will waste tens of millions of taxpayer dollars and slow down Internet access.

Rumors of Australian Second Life Censorship Seem Rumurish

nwn.blogs.com — Over the last 24 hours I've been peppered with links as here and here which seem to suggest the Australian government is imminently planning to block access to Second Life from that country. It has to do with a recent Aussie Communication Ministry proposal to filter the online distribution of computer games not rated acceptable for teen play.

Second Life Banned in Australia? Not So Fast...

gamepolitics.com — As GamePolitics reported last week, the Australian government is moving to block online access to games containing content which would exceed the country's MA-15+ rating. The proposed filtering scheme would affect online retailers selling such games as well as games played online such as MMOs.

Q and A: The Poor Man's Copyright

Poor Man's Copyright

Q: My friend and I have a bet. I say mailing myself a copy of my songs is a valid copyright. He says it's not. Who's right?

A: Start writing the check; your friend is right, and mailing yourself a copy of your songs is not valid legal protection against copyright infringement.

Although technically a "copyright" takes place the moment the songs are created, mailing your songs to yourself unopened--sometimes called a "poor man's copyright"--provides absolutely no protection in the event of a lawsuit. In fact, according to several entertainment attorneys we spoke with, if you have not registered your copyright with the US Copyright Office, no court will hear your case. So, in order to protect and enforce your copyright if someone tries to steal your songs or sue you for infringement, you must register your songs. In the Court's eyes, if you haven't bothered to register the copyright with the US Copyright Office it's just not worth their time.

Forms and information are available at the Copyright Office. (We especially like Circulars 50 and 56.)

read more | digg story

Bush Administration Moving to Block Second Life and Other Online "Games of Skill"

Doubledown's preface: I am not sure if this is a 100% legit truthful story. It may be a total internet hoax... It may be some info that was embellished into this.... Either way, whether it's fake or real, you'll read it and think to yourself, "Bush can't do that" .... well, the fucking dipshit asshole running our country CAN! He's shown he does whatever the fuck he wants.

Bush Administration Moving to Block Second Life and Other Online "Games of Skill"
Original Source: http://netfreedomforever.com/vote.php

In 2006, Congress passed the "Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act." The bill was vaguely written and voted on months before the '06 election.

The bill's political purpose failed-- Republicans lost control of Congress, and the bill's primary House author, Rep. Jim Leach, was defeated in his reelection bid. Unfortunately, the law lives on.
This month, the regulations that will implement the 2006 act are nearing completion at the Federal Reserve and the U.S. Department of Treasury. The rules will significantly expand the reach of U.S. government oversight, bringing new scrutiny and enforcement activity to a wide range of online activities.

Broadly speaking, there are two areas of internet activity which the government intends to regulate. The first is online sports betting-- wagering on the outcome of sports events-- which is relatively easy to identify and control. Indeed, it is already very difficult to transfer funds to an online sports betting web site.

The second area targeted by the new regulations are "games of skill"-- such as online bridge or backgammon, some types of fantasy sports, predictive markets such as InTrade, and communities involving transactional activity like Second Life. This area is far more diverse and difficult to define, identify, and control. As the Federal Reserve itself noted in April testimony, “The activities that are permissible under the various Federal and State gambling laws are not well-settled and can be subject to varying interpretations,” and that both the new law and proposed regulations "did not specify what constitutes unlawful Internet gambling."

Because it is nearly impossible to ban actual web sites, which can be easily moved around the internet, the law targets the payment processing systems (bank credit cards, PayPal, etc) that make the internet economy work. The law makes banks evaluate your personal charges and block transactions which involve activity in these two areas. As Congressman Ron Paul testified in April,

"The regulations and underlying bill also force financial institutions to act as law enforcement officers. This is another pernicious trend that has accelerated in the aftermath of the Patriot Act, the deputization of private businesses to perform intrusive enforcement and surveillance functions that the federal government is unwilling to perform on its own."
To be clear, banks to not want this new burden. They bear liability under this new regime, and as a result will be very conservative when it comes to determining what types of web sites should be blocked under the regulations. Already, the U.S. Attorney's office has extracted tens of millions of dollars in fines through online gaming and related enforcement activities. For example, when eBay acquired PayPal in 2003, the company had to pay a $10 million fine to settle online gambling charges. And that was before the passage of the 2006 act substantially raised the stakes for the banking industry.

With the new rules under final consideration by the Bush Administration, the potential penalties will now expand to a broader category of internet activity, stifling innovation and economic growth online. The financial service providers will be even more risk-adverse and will implement blanket bans rather than take the risk of a case-by-case approach. The new federal rules will result in bans on processing for many activities such as low-stakes poker online, even though those activities are legal in most states.

Ground-breaking sites like Second Life will likely fall victim to this expanded reach. Second Life has a successful in-world economy that involves, in part, trading and developing real estate with other community members. The Second Life economic system has hundreds of thousands of users trading 5.3 billion "Linden dollars" which are freely convertible to U.S. dollars.

Linden Research has already moved to ban games of chance within Second Life, but the new regulations pose a threat to the fundamental economy of the site.

Given the new risks and burdens the proposed regulations places on the U.S. banking system, there is little difference between trading real estate in Second Life and other “games of skill” that the regulations target.

The new rules will clearly stifle innovation and the creation of new forms of online interaction. It will be impossible to distinguish new forms of collaborative economic activity from the wagering “games of skill” targeted by the law. For the payment processors, it won't be worth the legal risk to even try.

Further, these skill-based online activities will not only be banned for consenting U.S. adults, but for users accessing U.S. sites from anywhere in the world. Again, it does not matter if the “game of skill” is legal or not in the user's local jurisdiction. Federal law, as implemented by these new regulations, will make it illegal, and the feds are empowering your bank to analyze and block any offending transactions.

The new regulations also mean it will be more difficult for U.S. technology companies to operate on a global basis. It is a recipe for moving more technology companies offshore. Already one of the most innovative predictive futures markets covering U.S. elections, InTrade.com, operates in Ireland.

On Tuesday, September 16th, the House Financial Services Committee will hold an emergency mark-up of legislation that attempts to address this urgent matter. The bill is a compromise that will make online sports betting illegal, but delay the implementation of rules governing "games of skill." Instead, the bill would require formal rulemaking so that the impact of the new regulations on communities like Second Life can be fully understood.

Please consider taking action and Tell Congress to pass H.R. 6870, and to oppose regulating internet games of skill.

Urgent: Vote in Congress on Tuesday (9/16)

FreedomWorks
601 Pennsylvania Ave. NW Suite 700 North Building
Washington, DC 20004
NetFreedomForever.com is a project of FreedomWorks

----

An aside: Ron Paul's Testimony