Results tagged “Vuze” from Capitol Valley

Did I call that or what? CTIA - The Wireless Association has filed comments before the FCC

Besides their live-blogging at Tech Policy Central the kind people over there had some great off-the-cuff commentary on their Twitter stream. 

We've had a string of posts on Comcast's repeated anti-consumer actions regarding "reasonable network management" and their throttling of BitTorrent downloads.  We also covered the fact that they hired people to take up space at an open FCC hearing on the subject to keep out people who might not have been there to cheer for Comcast.  Now their shenanigans have brought Net Neutrality into the spotlight and FCC Chairman Kevin Martin may be ready to make his move.

The scoop from Broadcasting & Cable

By John Eggerton -- Broadcasting & Cable, 3/3/2008

The issue of network neutrality was back with a vengeance last week, with Comcast in the hot seat and FCC Chairman Kevin Martin leading the interrogation.

Network neutrality is an umbrella term for the debate over whether the FCC or Congress needs to spell out what broadband networks--essentially, an entity like Comcast.net that provides an Internet connection to customers--can and can't do in managing Internet traffic to their customers.

Martin said last week he thought the FCC had the authority to fine or otherwise penalize Comcast if allegations of blocking peer-to-peer file-sharing services are true. Comcast says the allegations aren't true, but according to Martin, the FCC is taking the matter very seriously.

It certainly seemed that way. At a day-long open meeting on network management practices last week, Martin repeatedly grilled pro-network-neutrality advocates about the allegations against Comcast, which was represented at the meeting by Executive VP David Cohen.

More fuel was added to the fire after activists accused Comcast of packing the meeting with its own executives. Comcast denied that but admitted to hiring line-sitters, not to keep out the public, but rather to accommodate its interested employees.

...

And while trying to define "network neutrality" was the seemingly impossible quest when the issue dominated the telecom agenda in the last Congress, "What is 'reasonable network management?'" appears to be the $64,000 question this time around.

The issue is more than an academic question for content companies. Much of the bandwidth-heavy content in question is the sort of high-resolution video that studios and networks are increasingly putting on the Web.

Indeed, the other company complaining about Comcast, online content distributor VUSE, pointed out during the hearing that the content it is distributing using the peer-to-peer application includes programming from CBS, Showtime, A&E and others.

Mike McCurry, co-chair of Hands Off the Internet Coalition, the anti-regulation net-neutrality group, contends that legislation, rather than FCC enforcement of its own guidelines, could be a big problem. "[Content providers] really need to watch this debate because regulated network neutrality is a killer for them," McCurry says. "It basically makes it impossible for network providers to manage data flow that would give the consumer a satisfactory experience."

McCurry says that Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass), House Telecommunications and Internet Subcommittee chairman, is clearly signaling that this will be the year for the debate because the U.S. will have a new president, a new commission and a new Congress in 2009. "It is a good time right now for people concerned, particularly the content providers, to think about what kind of universe they want to live in," he says.

So Comcast's actions have brought it to the forefront, but now what?  The content providers are sure to argue (probably on their own, sadly) that there should be true neutrality and that the ISPs should just provide the gateway to the content and call it a day.  I'm sorry, but that won't happen.  Do you really think that multi-billion dollar companies are going to accept legislation that effectively says that they have no control over their own network?  I'm sorry, but no.

If the various content providers would band together, maybe with VUZE, the so-far largest and most vocal, at the helm they'd have a better chance of reaching a compromise that doesn't favor the "big boys"; the ISPs.  This definitely plays into one of Andrew's big things, which is that a lot of tech companies seem to ignore Washington.  If the content providers were represented by one single entity they might have the weight, not to push around, but to bargain on an equal lever with Comcast, AOL Time/Warner and Cox.

Time/Warner mentioned possibly going to a pay-per-use system where, like your electric bill, you would get charged accordingly with your usage.  That way, instead of limiting high-bandwidth users who pay the same flat rate as casual users they would just pay more.  Unfortunately, Comcast's actions have forced the FCC to jump in and probably in a big way.

With all the changes in Washington in the next year everyone will be looking to make their mark - can you really make a bigger mark than the one you'd make by putting a giant like Comcast in their place?

Sun Microsystems missed the boat in a huge way. They ignored Linux until it wasn't cool to ignore Linux anymore, and by then they were almost as deep in as Silicon Graphics, which barely exists anymore. Remember them? I always wanted to own a SPARC or an O2, but Linux was so much better, and it ran on hardware that I could afford. We know where that battle ended.

McNealy still thinks he's smart, and so he says that telcos need to serve up content or die, as opposed to say, providing services in accordance with their FCC licenses issued under the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which amended the Telecommunications Act of 1934:

"I have explained to every telco that either you become a destination site, or the destination site will become a telco...I think the telcos have to make sure they don't get marginalized to just being bit providers and bandwidth providers"

Um...did he miss the FCC hearing Monday, when one of the Commissioners (I forget who) noted that if Comcast didn't offer Video on Demand service, that their restriction of Vuze's BitTorrent-based video content would have not been an issue?

Telcos have much to gain through R&D, competition, and being honest brokers. In fact, by law that's what they are. McNealy obviously knows very little about communications law, policy, or the history such concepts as the common carrier, Stratton-Oakmont v. Prodigy or the recent Net Neutrality debates.

Oh, yeah. Speaking of too-little, too-late:

"During a speech earlier in the day, McNealy slammed the U.S. government for not being interested in adopting open-source software. McNealy said the farther he gets from Washington, the more governments get interested in open source."

Thanks for finally jumping on the bandwagon, Scott. You recieve no points, and may god have mercy on your soul.

Two gems today before I head to the office. First is from B&C:

NBC is working with Pando Networks, a peer-to-peer content-delivery-technology company, to revamp its NBC Direct service...

...

The NBC Direct Service lets users download high-resolution, ad-supported versions of NBC shows including 30 Rock, The Office, Heroes, American Gladiators and Late Night with Conan O'Brien. The service -- currently only available for PCs using Internet Explorer -- uses P2P technology to quickly and efficiently download the shows, which are automatically deleted after viewing or after a viewing window has lapsed. Taking a cue from TiVo, the service lets users "subscribe" to their favorite shows, automatically downloading new episodes when available.

NBC will use Pando technology to improve the efficiency of its P2P-delivery system, as well as protecting it through encryption and digital-rights management, including "hash-matching, digital-fingerprinting and content-watermarking technologies," according to Pando.

If you read this space last week, you'd remember that NBC filed comments with the FCC against Vuse, making an uncited assertion that "at least 50% of broadband capacity is taken up by a small minority of users (about 5%) using peer-to-peer networks to traffic in pirated music, video and software." It is a bit interesting that so soon after Monday's hearing that they have announced their intention to use P2P technology to distribute their lawful content, presumably with the expectation that it will not be throttled or blocked by ISPs, especially ones with competing Video On Demand service.

I guess you need a network TV weatherman to know which way the FCC wind blows. Apologies to Bob Dylan.

Next up, the Senate joined their friends in the House of Representatives yesterday in passing legislation giving cable and VOIP providers like Vonage equal access to 911 systems, so that operators can determine the physical location of a call. To their credit, the differences between the bills should be easily fixable, according to House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman John Dingell (D-MI). In a statement yesterday, Dingell said:

"I am confident that we can resolve the minor differences between the House and Senate legislation in short order...and present a final measure to the president."

With GPS becoming more common on mobile phones, hopefully this will pave the way for more confidence in the 911 system, and faster responses to emergencies for all, no matter who you get your phone service from. Kudos to the FCC for leading the way, and to Congress for putting more teeth behind the initiative. Sometimes these guys really do get things right for the right reasons.

Apple invests $782,000,000 per year  into Research and Development, according to their annual report for 2007. This didn't include $75,000,000 for iPhone software development.

They also spent $467,000,000 on advertising in 2007.

What's missing?

Apple also understands that they need to deal with regulations. Quoth their Annual Report:

The Company is subject to risks associated with laws, regulations and industry-imposed standards related to mobile communications devices.

Laws and regulations related to mobile communications devices in the many jurisdictions in which the Company operates are extensive and subject to change. Such changes, which could include but are not limited to restrictions on production, manufacture, distribution, and use of the device, locking the device to a carrier's network, or mandating the use of the device on more than one carrier's network, may have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial condition and operating results.

Mobile communication devices, such as iPhone, are subject to certification and regulation by governmental and standardization bodies, as well as by cellular network carriers for use on their networks. These certification processes are extensive and time consuming, and could result in additional testing requirements, product modifications or delays in product shipment dates, which may have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial condition and operating results.

They also get the whole "DRM" thing:

The Company relies on third-party digital content, which may not be available to the Company on commercially reasonable terms or at all.

The Company contracts with third parties to offer their digital content through the Company's iTunes Store. The Company pays substantial fees to obtain the rights to this content. The Company's licensing arrangements with these third parties are short-term and do not guarantee the continuation or renewal of these arrangements on reasonable terms, if at all. Some third-party content providers currently or may in the future offer competing products and services, and could take action to make it more difficult or impossible for the Company to license their content in the future. Other content owners, providers or distributors may seek to limit the Company's access to, or increase the total cost of, such content. If the Company is unable to continue to offer a wide variety of content at reasonable prices with acceptable usage rules, or continue to expand its geographic reach, the Company's financial condition and operating results may be materially adversely affected.

Many third-party content providers require that the Company provide certain digital rights management ("DRM") and other security solutions. If these requirements change, the Company may have to develop or license new technology to provide these solutions. There is no assurance the Company will be able to develop or license such solutions at a reasonable cost and in a timely manner. In addition, certain countries have passed or may propose legislation that would force the Company to license its DRM, which could lessen the protection of content and subject it to piracy and could also affect arrangements with the Company's content providers.

Notice something missing here? Apple operates the largest music and video download service in the world. Their ability to provide that service is dependent on the willingness of network operators to not interfere with Apple's customers who rent their movies on their AppleTV instead of say, using their Digital Cable or Satellite Set Top Box. 

In other words, while they admit they're dependent on third-party content, they refuse to acknowledge their reliance on "third-party bandwidth."

Meanwhile, tomorrow the FCC will meet to hear about net neutrality issues, again. Apple, and in particular Steve Jobs, has shown an ability to move entire industries to make more consumer-friendly choices. You can get most TV shows and movies on iTunes now. Who would have imagined that even 4 years ago?

Yet, Apple's continued ability to innovate is completely tied to the goodwill of say, Verizon, who may want to save more bandwidth for their own VoD "rental" service, or another network operator using some kind of "reasonable management" when iTunes downloads reach a critical mass, especially once more people start renting or buying HD content.

Which brings me to the most shocking number of all:

$20,000.

That's how little Apple has spent on lobbyists in Washington during the 2nd half of 2007. What's more shocking, is despite launching iPhone, and making preparations to launch the improved AppleTV last month, here's what they spent their $20k on:

H.R. 1908/S.1145, The Patent Reform Act of 2007; Section 115 of the U.S. Copyright Act: Compulsory Licensing of EU Copyright Directive.

That's from their year-end 2007 Lobbying Disclosure Act report. They didn't so much as make a single contact with the FCC during the last half of 2007.

Last January, Apple Computer became just "Apple," because they were starting to sell more than computers. You would think they would be interested in protecting their new revenue streams, and the networks that allow them to be such innovators in content distribution to all consumers.

Time to ante up, Steve.

...as I look through the various petitions and briefs in the Vuze proceeding which the FCC is set to consider tomorrow (but not vote on) in Cambridge, MA. 

As usual, Ars does it better than I could on short notice:

Just about every big phone company has filed a statement challenging the FCC's authority to deal with this problem. AT&T, Verizon, and Qwest all submitted lengthy remarks on February 13th, the last day for comments on the proceeding (parties can still reply to comments through the 28th).

In addition, the RIAA and NBC-Universal also submitted fillings, which included praise of French President Nicholas Sarkozy's attempts to have French ISPs disconnect "suspected copyright infringers."

Wait a minute...I thought we didn't want to be like the French...

On the other hand, Sony, the National Association of Realtors, Vonage, the National Public Safety Telecommunications Council, and the American Library Association have come out against the Telcos/Comcast in one way or another. This could get fun.

What's happening is we're seeing the Net Neutrality battle the FCC didn't want to take up, and Congress won't touch, being forced to the front by Comcast's heavy-handedness. I'm not convinced that the Commission is going to be reflexively against Vuze or in favor of the Telcos, especially with the widespread support that Vuze appears to be getting from many sides. Remember, the last day to submit comments is the 28th, and most of the big boys have weighed in. The people with stakes in this who have yet to comment are more "Web 2.0" entrepreneurs,  alternative content providers, etc. I'm surprised that Google hasn't submitted a comment, considering they own YouTube.

Where is Facebook, the largest photo sharing site on the 'net? What about Yahoo!, or anyone who wants to serve up their own content?

I'm actually rather surprised the RIAA and MPAA are being so shortsighted on this. The way things are going, they should want to be able to figure out new ways to get their content distributed. Without some kind of limitation on what the Telcos can and can't do, they could monopolize all distribution rights throguh "network management."

Oh, where in the name of Steve is APPLE? iTunes is growing, and uses more and more bandwidth every day. With the arrival of HD content, it's going to use more. You think Comcast isn't going to want to "manage" that?

What if Comcast started their own music and video download service and "managed" all the others' off their network?

Think about that one for a while...

I'll read the various filings and have some remarks later as they come in and the picture becomes more fully formed.

We wrote in this space at length previously about Comcast's zealous, if not a bit lengthly, hair-splitting and Clintonian defense of their "network management" techniques which they use to throttle (legitimate) Bittorrent traffic from reaching their cable customers by forging reset packets. 

Vuze, Inc. ("Vuze") hereby requests the Commission to commence a rulemaking 

proceeding to determine the parameters of "reasonable network management" by 

broadband network operators and to establish that such network management does not 

permit network operators to block, degrade, or unreasonably discriminate against 

lawful Internet applications, content or technologies. 

Sounds reasonable enough to me, right? If Comcast wants to use "reasonable network management," reasonable people can agree on what reasonable is, right? If I'm a network guy, I want my network to be stable and allow my users to "get things done." But, as always the devil is in the details. Comcast wants to decide what "things" should "get done" when online videos are concerned. When your company's "thing" is pretty unique and special, you tend to want people to get access to it. That's the point of the Internet, right? 

Vuze is one of the fastest growing platforms for delivery of high-resolution 

digital content over the Internet.  Consumers can use Vuze's desktop application to 

download and view licensed and self-published DVD-quality and High Definition 

("HD") content from a variety of sources, ranging from "traditional" networks such as 

A&E, The History Channel, National Geographic, BBC and PBS, to newer sources that, 

until now, have lacked an effective means of finding viewers and efficiently delivering 

content to them.  Vuze also provides access to a growing number of licensed video 

game software applications.  Put simply, Vuze delivers on the promise of the Internet to 

serve as an outlet for a richer and wider array of content than is available through 

traditional distribution mechanisms.  Vuze is powered by an award-winning peer-to- 

peer ("P2P") client that enables consumers to download large files conveniently and 

efficiently. 

As described in greater detail below, Vuze is aware that at least one major 

broadband network operator, Comcast, is attempting deliberately to degrade and, at 

times, block content from Vuze and other Internet companies that use similar P2P 

technology.  Vuze believes that other broadband network operators are engaging in 

similar tactics.  Such arbitrary discrimination against traffic carried on their networks 

runs counter to the Commission's policy of "preserv[ing] and promot[ing] the open and 

interconnected nature of the public Internet."1  The deliberate degrading and blocking 

of content also calls into question whether consumers are effectively able to "access the 

lawful Internet content of their choice," "run applications and use services of their 

choice," and benefit fully from "competition among network providers, application and 

service providers, and content providers," again as required by Commission policy.2

------

1 

 Appropriate Framework for Broadband Access to the Internet over Wireline Facilities, Policy 

Statement, CC Docket No. 02-33, FCC 05-151, at 3 ("Broadband Policy Statement"). 

2 

 Id. 

Really, they're paraphrasing TV's Judge Judy, who famously wrote a book entitled Don't Piss on my Leg and Tell Me it's Raining. 

Comcast's actions starkly raise the issue of whether broadband network 

operators should be permitted the unfettered discretion to restrict or block traffic 

carried on their networks and to censor legal content or discriminate against 

applications and services that they may perceive as competing with their offerings. 

Even major copyright holders have embraced the utility of torrent technology for distributing large video and software files efficiently and rapidly. In addition to Vuze, other legal video sources that use torrent technology include companies that together distribute content from sources such as CBS, MTV, Paramount, 20th Century Fox, the Discovery Channel, BET, Dow Jones, Sony Pictures Television, Sports Illustrated, and sports leagues such as the NHL and 

MLB.  

You may have heard of those guys. They use it, too, and they're getting blocked while Comcast's Video on Demand service flies right on by. Does that make the picture any clearer?

While the Comcast example most vividly exemplifies the betrayal of the 

Commission's open Internet principles by a large network operator, there have been 

other recent actions by network operators that should give policymakers cause for 

concern.  Recently, it was reported that Verizon refused to allow opt-in text messages 

from NARAL, a large pro-choice advocacy group -- a decision which it quickly reversed following a story in the New York Times and subsequent outcry.14  Within the 

last few weeks, Rebtel, a VoIP company offering low-cost international calls on mobile 

phones, was denied access to wireless networks by Verizon Wireless, T-Mobile, and 

Alltel.15  A few months ago, AT&T was in the news for allegedly censoring comments 

critical of President Bush during a webcast of a concert by Pearl Jam.16  Finally, at least 

two major broadband network operators, Verizon and AT&T, include clauses in their 

Terms of Service that allow them to terminate the service contracts of subscribers who 

criticize the network operators or their business partners.

The common thread in the above examples is that network operators exert 

unfettered control over their users' ability to communicate (including engaging in 

political speech) and over providers of Internet applications, content and technologies 

that seek to reach their subscribers.  The public interest is harmed whenever network 

operators restrict innovation and access to content, censor political speech, or 

unreasonably discriminate against or frustrate the legitimate efforts of their 

competitors.

If you read the Communications Act of 1934 and the Communications Act of 1996, the FCC is given the responsibility of acting to protect the public interest. Vuze isn't even asking for some nanny-statish over-regulation. They even seal the deal with an appeal to let the market work:

Vuze and a growing number of content  distribution companies are distributing legal content using a particular lawful  technology -- a technology that it now finds is being discriminated against by at least  one of the major broadband network operators.  While network operators certainly  should have the ability to engage in reasonable network management, without clear 

rules and greater transparency, Vuze and other content distribution companies will 

have no assurance that a redesigned distribution mechanism will be acceptable to 

network operators.  While some uncertainty -- technical and otherwise -- is part of any 

Internet business, the uncertainty in this case stems from the whims of network 

operators rather than the effects of the free market.  

Not only that, but they'd like the FCC to keep the fox from guarding the henhouse.

Third, while Comcast asserts that its actions amount to nothing more than 

"reasonable network management," such characterizations must be met with a degree 

of skepticism when the content they are degrading is likely perceived as a threat to their 

dominance in the market for electronic distribution of video content.  As discussed

above, Vuze is a rapidly growing source of legal downloads of high quality video 

content from a variety of traditional and new sources. Distribution of such video 

content is no doubt looked upon with apprehension by network operators who would 

prefer to restrict their subscribers to content in which the network operator has a 

financial interest.   Indeed, by degrading the high-quality video content by which Vuze 

differentiates itself in the marketplace, network operators can seek a competitive edge.  

Network operators must not be allowed to undermine the promise of the Internet as a 

means for distributing diverse content and satisfying actual consumer demand for 

particular content.

Free markets? Consumer demand? Sounds good to me. 
In addition to Vuze,  Comcast and Free Press have also filed comments with the FCC, and they're joined by the Center for Democracy & Technology, the ITIF, and the Progress & Freedom Foundation. I don't have time for all of them now, but they should make for some interesting reading later. Watch this space.