——

We live in a society that has mostly agreed on what is right and what is wrong.  We have coined the term, Common Values in order to build communities where we can agree on what is acceptable behaviour.  To enforce our safe communal living, we turned these common values into laws.  As a society, we have set up governments to enforce the laws (common values) and protect us from those who would harm us.

As members of society, I think we’re all in agreement that theft is a bad thing.  No matter what country you are from, it’s pretty much a given that stealing is frowned upon.  It’s a pretty common value, maybe even sacrosanct.

As an individual living in a society with common values, government is the enforcer of the laws and government prosecutes suspected thefts.  What is interesting is that if an individual is convicted of theft, they receive a punishment based on the severity of the crime, and that punishment is roughly agreed upon by the COMMUNITY.  As a defendant, you have rights of due process and would be able to defend yourself according to the law of the land.  Further, in this country a defendant is protected from the Government, as the Government must also follow the law of the land.

Let’s flip it around.  As a society, we have agreed that if you are the victim of a crime, you will take your grievance to the government and file a claim in court.  As a plaintiff, you also are protected by the laws of the land and due process.  This is how even a single individual can take on a corporation and win.  There is DUE PROCESS for each side, Plaintiff and Defendant that as a society, we have all agreed upon using.

The process of using the governmental courts to settle disputes is what our society has agreed upon for longer than I know without Googling it.   If you feel like an individual or a corporation or even the government has wronged you, you must take your claim to court.

So why are corporations looking to ISP’s to become the enforcers of copyright law? The Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement is being manipulated into a Copyright enforcement act.  But isn’t the enforcement of violated law the job of Government?

If you feel your copyright has been violated, file a claim in court!

There is a push for ISP’s to become the monitor, the snitch, and the enforcer.  That’s not what we’re good at.  I hate to say this, but isn’t that the job of Government?

Lions and tigers and bears!  Oh My!

This is my 4th post to this blog and I am seeing a recurring theme.  I feel like the future of the Internet is at stake.  I don’t know what the outcome of this treaty will be, but I’m hoping that some smart people start looking at this issue RIGHT AWAY and make sure EVERYONE is required to follow due process.

Peace.

-Bil

Peer-to-peer applications, including BitTorrent, the most well-known, give Internet users the ability to view and share high-quality video. The FCC found that Comcast’s network management practices were inconsistent with the concept of an open and accessible network and had significant effects on their customers. These effects were made worst by the fact that Comcast tried to hide what it was doing. It changed its story more than once and only admitted the extent to which it was blocking traffic when confronted by solid third-party data.

The FCC was particularly concerned with how this secrecy interacted with the anti-competitive nature of Comcast’s blocking policies; stating that:

The Commission also concluded that the anticompetitive harms caused by Comcast’s conduct have been compounded by the company’s unacceptable failure to disclose its practices to consumers.  Because Comcast did not provide its customers with notice of the fact that it interfered with customers’ use of peer-to-peer applications, customers had no way of knowing when Comcast was interfering with their connections.  As a result, the Commission found that many consumers experiencing difficulty using only certain applications would not place blame on Comcast, where it belonged, but rather on the applications themselves, thus further disadvantaging those applications in the competitive marketplace.     

It is not surprising that Comcast attempted to block traffic.  In fact, Bil MacLeslie, ipHouse’s CEO, predicted in a StarTribune Op Ed piece in 1999 that providers would eventually begin to preferentially filter content.

Comcast has new plans for how to manage the traffic on their network. They are now planning on selectively limiting bandwidth to high bandwidth users. The New York Times had a good article on the new bandwidth restrictions back in June.

In its official ruling, the FCC reiterated that while providers need to allow consumers to access legal Internet content, ISP’s can still block unlawful content such as child pornography, pirated music or videos.