Net Neutrality

[This post is for Greg Scott, who caught me in the middle of a rant about RCN over at Twitter.]

For about 4 months now I have noticed the change in service : I will get to YouTube but the pages load as slow as molasses. Other times, if I'm doing a search in Google, the page will take forever to load.

Today though, it's pretty obvious what's happening : I can't get into Google from my home connection. No Google. No Gmail. No YouTube. So I pinged people on Twitter and asked if anybody was having problems getting into Google.

Erica G replied from Boston :

I'm on RCN in Boston and having trouble connecting to Yahoo and tinyurl this evening. # [...] And actually, thinking of it, for the past several weeks I haven't been able to load YouTube videos properly, either. #

Melanie Notkin, who is also in NYC, reported the same issue. Maria Niles is on Comcast California, but she has had similar choppy access to YouTube in the past several weeks, making her wonder if she's living in China.

Why is this so important to blog and not dismiss as a possible "blip" or outage? Well, if we take into consideration all the services Google provides, the search company may indeed be the largest and most trafficked network of websites in the world. YouTube alone would make Google the largest video broadcaster at least in the United States.

Are you going to tell me RCN just happened to degrade service to the biggest web network and web services provider in the United States? As Seinfeld would say ... I. Don't. Think. So.

Either way, enjoy!

I was asked if I wanted to help The Nation identify the blogosphere's influentials that could help them in one of their current campaigs, the first thought that popped into my head was, "here we go again, another one of those blogger phone calls". Yet, when I heard the name "TimeWarner" as one of the main antagonists, I knew I had to take on this project.

Earlier this year, the Postal Regulatory Commission (PRC) rejected a postal rate increase plan offered by the U.S. Postal Service. Instead of implementing a plan that would spread equitably the rate hikes across all bulk mail clients, they opted to implement a modified version submitted by and partial to media giant Time-Warner Inc.

The new postal increase drafted by TimeWarner-AOL and approved by the PRC favors large bulk mail users like the magazine publishing divisions of TimeWarner-AOL by increasing the rate of small independent publishers by as much as 20%. Just to put things into perspective, for a publication like The Nation, this translates into paying $500,000 extra in postage yearly and in perpetuity (or until the next postal increase comes along).

As Teresa Stark put it in Disseminate Information, Protect Democracy, "While it is understandable that Time Warner would relish the idea of making it more difficult for new competitors, there is no reason to think that it is in the interest of the American people or the market economy.

Ironically, about two years ago a coalition of organizations and netactivists created DearAOL.com after the media giant tried to impose an email “stamp” system for bulk emailers like MoveOn.org or bloggers with weekly newsletters produced by blogs like YearlyKos, BradBlog or Afronetizen. Yes, they actually tried to play post office with AOL's email service.

And it was thinking about this bit of irony that it hit me : TimeWarner has been one of the biggest enemies of the free internet (aka, net neutrality) not just so they can be free to charge whatever they want for all aspects of publishing, privacy, creativity and freedom on the internet. It's part of a larger business vision in which all publishing, recording and broadcasting in the United States is control by a handful of large (and therefore manageable) media conglomerates.

UPDATE 23 MAY 2007:
Click here to listen to the podcast

Last saturday I facilitated a session at the Personal Democracy Unconference, which took place at Pace University's downtown NYC campus.

To those who don't know what means unconference, the concept is an interesting take on the old formula. People come in with a topic or set of topics they'd like to talk about. All the topics are placed written on a piece of paper and placed on the wall, next to an empty schedule grid. Once the organizers give it a go, facilitators place on their preferred time slot and/or negotiate with other facilitators the timing of their session.

The session I facilitated was titled, Reframing Net Neutrality as a Civil Rights Issues. I honestly wasn't expecting more than a few people but was amazed when about a dozen strong came to the corner where I was set up. Nancy Scola, Aldon Hines, Cheryl Contee, Ruby Sinreich, Ed Cone, Heather Holdridge and so many other amazing people came to discuss this important issue that has been amazingly bogged down by too much geek speak.

What's at the core of Net Neutrality? There's people who can put this better than me, but at the heart of the debate is the issue that internet providers should have the right to distinguish all sorts of bandwidth usage in order to better manage their resources and provide better service. The concern is that companies like YouTube may literally clog the internets and it's tubes.

[via Net Neutrality - Google Video]

Chris Burke is digital artist who's been around for a looooong time on the net, all the way back when netart seemed to be unstoppable. Chris is also the creator and producer of This Spartan Life, one of two of the best machinema shows created using HALO. The other is Red vs. Blue.

Chris has created an incredibly funny visual explanation of why telephone and cable companies want to use the ruse of the "free market" to justify discrimination as a way to make money.

PS : If you need a more business-like video, check Public Knowledge's excellent public service announcement :

And Ask A Ninja makes it effing hilarious to understand.

[via YouTube - Ask a Ninja: Special Delivery 4: Net Neutrality]

Doesn't he sound like Strongbad?

Now back to net neutrality.

UPDATE | 9 June 2006
It is amazing what money will do. While there are more then 15 prominent sites running the Brangelina photos --the embargo is over after all-- I was insulted and berated by one of the lawyers of the company that serves the IP to my hosting company.

There are proper procedures that IP and hosting companies have to go through when there is a C&D. A C&D is not necessarily an order for a take down. Can you imagine if everybody could invoke the DCMA on an email everytime they didn't like something written about them?

I have been informally adviced that it is illegal to not follow certain steps and procedures and so I am weighing my options. Especially since I did not use the image to write about gossip but to criticize corporate tactics meant to curtail fair use and freedom of speech.

I am writing a longer piece on this issue especially the need for cultural creatives and progressives to invest in rock hard IT businesses. Back in the days art collectives like The Thing [ www.thing.net ] where dial-up networks themselves, 20 YEARS AGO, because they knew of the danger of being shut down for unpopular art.

To save democracy we are going to have to build a new infrastructure capable of sustaining it. That means, investing in businesses that will fight for fair use and freedom of speech instead of cower to the bottom line.

I get an AIM from Lynn and her husband saying to call them immediately. I freaked out given her recent health woes; but they reassured me it had all to do with the Brangelina photo.

The lawyers for TimeWarner AOL and Getty Images invoked the Digital Millenium Copyright Act sent a Cease and Desist letter to AboveNet, a company that services hosting companies.

With no questions asked, AboveNet immediately contacted Simpli.biz, the company that holds our servers. They ordered a "DCMA TAKEDOWN". It means, it does not matter if TimeWarnerAOL is lying about the infringement of copyright allegations. They would force Simpli to force me to take down the image within 24 hours or risk losing their IP and their business by having it blacklisted. And they can force them to do so because this kind of harrassment is protected under the Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act.

It really does not matter if I claim Fair Use. If I did not comply within 24 hours they would blacklist the hosting company and all IPs they held. What that means is that, once they blacklisted the IP, they would in effect put Simpli.biz out of business.

So what exists in place with the DCMA is a legally allowed harrassment system in place. If you are writing a blog that a big media company like TimeWarnerAOL finds to their dislike, they can use the DCMA to take you down, no questions asked. And the cost to fight to get back online makes it almost impossible for anybody to fight these kinds of battles.

So I asked Lynn what to do. She knows that ten years ago a similar thing happened to my kids' father with his Barbie spoof, The Distorted Barbie. It was the first in a string of actions that would culminate in Mattel v. Walking Mountain Productions [PDF].

This is what came out of our conversation :

My friend Joy Garnett, who is the the source of culturekitchen's guerrilla man logo, has also become an expert on fair use. She sent me this bit posted at the FairUseNetwork mailing list:

The fair use doctrine permits anyone to use copyrighted works, without the owners' permission, in ways that are fundamentally equitable and fair. Common examples of fair use are criticism, commentary, news reporting, research, scholarship, and multiple copies for classroom use.

[...]

News reporting = blogging.

TimeWarnerAOL owns People Mag. They happen to be one of the biggest lobbyists behind the DCMA (after the RIAA). They also declared with their new "anti-spam" policy how the stand against net neutrality : they want to create different paying levels of access to email, rss, web, ftp, you name it. The want as many tolls they can lay and control along the information superhighway as they can.

Which is why it puts into a whole different context these comments from the people of Hello! and Getty Images :

[via Shiloh Not Ready For Close-Up, Gets It Anyway - Yahoo! News]:

"It's a complete mystery," Hello!'s Herd told Reuters. "And we are very concerned at this breach of copyright.

"It is very difficult to control the Web and this proves how rampantly out of control it is. We have absolutely no idea how the picture was leaked."

A spokesperson for People magazine, meanwhile, had other ideas.

"Somebody from Hello! must have leaked it," the unnamed rep told BBC News. "I don't know how it got there."

However it did, it makes for a particularly pricey stealing of thunder.

As for Getty Images, which Pitt and Jolie announced earlier this week would market the photos, they claim the picture could be seen more as a teaser, enticing the celeb-savvy public into seeing the rest of the shots.

"Our legal team are looking into it and we will take it from there," spokeswoman Alison Crombie told Reuters. "But I really don't think it will devalue the pictures as everyone is dying to see the full set."

The C&D's are after the jump.