Geekularity

Here’s a terrific video that explains what Network Neutrality is all about. It’s very entertaining and it ends with a call to action to join SaveTheInternet.com. Please watch the video and if you agree with it, please sign the petition and then call your congressional representatives.

It’s not looking too good in the current Congress.  Declan McCullagh, staff writer at CNET News has a pretty good scoresheet article which covers the current status of most of the pending and dead legislation. Link

Not as well known for their stance on technology issues as they are for lobbying on pension and medicare protections, the American Association of Retired Persons (AARP) has recently joined the battle to keep the big telcos from walling off the Internet! Check out Anne Broache’s article on C|Net.

As of Friday, March 03, 2006 the Library of Congress has not yet received and/or published the text of Senate Bill 2360, which was only introduced yesterday. So, I have not read the official bill yet. However, an early copy, possibly even a draft version, has been circulating around the web and has been quite an interesting read!

First, I fully endorse the intent of this bill as I have read it. In a nutshell, it says that network operators shall be obligated to maintain a neutral stance on all data that passes through their network. They shall not offer special or exclusive access to those entities who pay extra. It does however permit network providers to take reasonable measures to fight spyware, malware, and spam so long as the network provider gives their subscribers the ability to opt out of the protection system. Both points seem reasonable and I hope that this bill progresses through committee more or less in the same state that it exists today.

In reading the early version however, I did discover some wording that, should it remain in the bill, could ultimately become a loophole for the network providers to wriggle through. The problem is as follows:

Sec. 4.(a).(1) of the bill states:

“[A network operator shall] not interfere with, block, degrade, alter, modify, impair, or change any bits, content, application or service transmitted over the network of such operator.”

It is technically impossible for a network provider to not “change any bits” as data travels through their network. Internet Protocol (IP) packets do change as they move from network node to network node. For example, an IP packet has a field called Time to Live (TTL). It is an integer that, by design, decrements every time a router device touches it. When the TTL field decrements to zero, the router is supposed to discard the packet. It’s meant to be used for troubleshooting and to keep data from traveling in an infinite loop.

I recommend modifying Sec. 4.(a).(1) to include language similar to:

“… over the network of such operator except where modification of the data is part of a standard network protocol transmission process and where such modification does not change the priority or eligibility of the data to travel across the operator’s network.”

Now I have already written multiple letters to Senator Wydens offices, but a few more voices will always help. Please help spread the word that you want this bill to succeed and that the wording should be changed in order to keep network operators from exploiting a possible loophole! You are free to use this form letter to contact Senator Wyden or modify it and use it to contact your Congressional representative!

Thanks,
Sean

Senator Ron Wyden (D-Oregon) intends to introduce new legislation today entitled the “Internet Non-Discrimination Act of 2006.” While details are scarce, aside from today’s New York Times Article, the intent is to limit network providers from offering faster access to those businesses who pay for premier pathways to the network provider’s customers; effectively creating toll roads on the information super highway. The argument against this scheme is that network providers won’t have any incentive to maintain or enhance the public networks and over time, a two-tiered, walled off network will arise. I look forward to reading this bill to see if it has any relevance to the AOL/Yahoo email extortion scheme.

I blogged about this topic earlier in February, and I’ve been watching the topic closely! AOL, and to a lesser degree Yahoo, are implementing an email filtering system that requires email senders to pay for the assurance that a message gets through to the recipient if the recipient is an AOL or Yahoo user. Now, I’m no legal expert, but this seems like a classic definition of extortion and racketeering.

The Hobbs Act, enacted in 1946, which was designed to fine and imprison organized crime members actually seems to fit here. Here’s an excerpt from United States Code, Title 18, Part I, Chapter 95:

(a) Whoever in any way or degree obstructs, delays, or affects commerce or the movement of any article or commodity in commerce, by robbery or extortion or attempts or conspires so to do, or commits or threatens physical violence to any person or property in furtherance of a plan or purpose to do anything in violation of this section shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.

(b) As used in this section -

(1) The term ”robbery” means the unlawful taking or obtaining of personal property from the person or in the presence of another, against his will, by means of actual or threatened force, or violence, or fear of injury, immediate or future, to his person or property, or property in his custody or possession, or the person or property of a relative or member of his family or of anyone in his company at the time of the taking or obtaining.(2) The term ”extortion” means the obtaining of property from another, with his consent, induced by wrongful use of actual or threatened force, violence, or fear, or under color of official right.(3) The term ”commerce” means commerce within the District of Columbia, or any Territory or Possession of the United States; all commerce between any point in a State, Territory, Possession, or the District of Columbia and any point outside thereof; all commerce between points within the same State through any place outside such State; and all other commerce over which the United States has jurisdiction.

(c) This section shall not be construed to repeal, modify or affect section 17 of Title 15, sections 52, 101-115, 151-166 of Title 29 or sections 151-188 of Title 45.

The process of blocking legitimate email messages, especially those that are intended for the purpose of commerce seems to qualify here. I realize the internet service providers are largely un-regulated and as such, they may be entitled to block data transmissions across their network. However, email has become a world-wide communications medium, equivalent to the telephone, and it should be protected as a public good. The companies that transport email data should therefore be regarded as a public utility and be required to move data reliably and without prejudice across its network. AOL should therefore be disallowed to block email messages which pertain to commerce else be subject to the fines and imprisonment stated in section “a” above. Please help spread the word and sign the petition to stop AOL from levying their own tax on the internet.