Ever since I found out in a business magazine a few years ago that South Koreans enjoyed much faster Internet connections than in the U.S., and pay less than we do, I’ve been cursing my DSL service. I had dial-up up until relatively recently, and when I got my new DSL modem, I thought it was so cutting edge. Oh, was I naive. Knowing that there’s something better out there, I now feel like I’m operating in the technological Dark Ages.

Even factoring in faster cable modems, the U.S. is painfully behind other industrialized countries. The average connection speed in the U.S. is a tortoise-like 5.1 megabits per second (mpbs), compared with 20.4 mpbs in South Korea, according to Speed Matters, a group that advocates for more affordable broadband for all Americans. The U.S. is behind Japan, Sweden, the Netherlands, Germany and even some eastern European countries like Latvia, Lithuania and the Balkans. In other words, if you want to purchase and download your favorite summer blockbuster in high-definition, you’ll be waiting several hours, instead of minutes if you were living abroad. We’re still driving horses and buggies, while other countries are zipping around in Ferraris. For the country that invented the Internet and launched the computer age from Silicon Valley, this is embarrassing. I wonder if many Americans – living in a society that thinks it’s number one at everything – even know how far behind we are.

We’re at this point for a couple of reasons: not enough investment in upgrading our broadband infrastructure and the lack of a national policy that promotes high-speed broadband. But that’s changing. The change in administrations last January has brought a new makeup to the Federal Communications Commission. Julius Genachowski, the former technology executive who was sworn in as FCC chairman in June, says his goal is to boost America’s global competitiveness by improving the country’s broadband infrastructure. The FCC will be rolling out a National Broadband Plan in February 2010, and Genachowski says it will focus on three issues: deploying broadband in underserved communities such as rural areas; helping the approximately 40% of Americans who don’t use broadband adopt it; and developing a strategy to use broadband to make innovations in education, healthcare, energy and public safety. Genachowski says this policy will further economic growth and help create jobs. See below this recent interview with Genachowski discussing the new plan:

Having a faster Internet will not only make it easier to upload your favorite photos onto social networking sites, but will make it possible to take university classes online in real time via teleconferencing, allow medical providers to conduct procedures remotely, and let people stream high-definition video. The FCC’s plan sounds very exciting, but I’m also hoping the high cost of broadband in the U.S. will be addressed. At anywhere from $30 to upwards of $200 a month, broadband is unaffordable for those with low incomes. That just exacerbates the digital divide and leaves opportunities out of reach for many. It’s unfair to have to pay such high prices for slower service compared with other countries. The higher prices are a result of too little competition among telecommunications companies, as explained in this article from the New York Times.

Still, faster broadband means nothing if Internet service providers are allowed to choose what content can be accessed at the faster speeds. So it’s reassuring to hear Genachowski affirm his support for net neutrality - a free and open Internet that doesn’t discriminate. If you’d like to express your opinion about net neutrality, go to the FCC’s public comments page, OpenInternet.gov.

Click for a better look at comparing Google image results from China and non-China.  Good for Obama for advocating for a free internet during his visit to China.

Press release from La Quadrature Du net:

Paris, November 26th 2009 – La Quadrature is calling on European citizens to submit questions aimed at finding out where the next European Commission (2010-2014) stands on EU citizens’ fundamental freedoms on the Internet.

The Council of the European Union and the President of the European Commission, José Manuel Barroso, just agreed1 on a college of Commissioners designate. The Parliament will now conduct hearings2 before appointing the full college.

These hearings, which were introduced in 2001 (article 214 of the Nice Treaty), are an important feature of the emerging European democracy. They help the legislative branch evaluate the executive branch’s competence and commitment to serve human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law and respect for human rights3. It is also an opportunity for the Members of the European Parliament – who directly represent European citizens – to ask the Commissioners designate to take position on issues that are relevant to their occupation.

Internet regulation is high on the next Commission’s legislative agenda. This is why it is so important for citizens and civil society groups to step in the debate and question the next Commissioners about their vision for the future of the Internet. Do they want to protect the democratic nature of the this new essential mean of communications, or are they going be oblivious to its progressive potentialities and give in to special-interests asking for more control?

La Quadrature calls on citizens to help drafting a list of questions to be asked to Commissioners designate. Submitted questions should address various topics related to citizens rights and freedoms on the Internet, such as:

• The fight against filesharing;
• Net neutrality;
• Filtering of Internet content;
• Copyright law;
• Privacy;
• Other issues that you might find relevant.

Questions should be addressed to the Commissioners for: Information Society and Media, Justice and Home Affairs, Competition, Internal Market or Trade.

The complete questionnaire will be transmitted to the Members of the European Parliament before the auditions.

Ask what the next European Commission will do for our Freedoms!

There has been a great deal of concern about language in the recent FCC call for rule making on network neutrality.  The FCC notice is intended to developed a definition of net neutrality along the lines proposed in the rule making.  The concern is directed at language that would permit network operators (I always use the words network operators because these rules would apply to Internet and non-Internet networks) to conduct ‘reasonable network management.  The Ars Technica article makes one glaring error; there is nothing about ‘tiering‘ that violates net neutrality, but it is a bad idea for a lot of other reasons.   First, here are the principles the FCC has offered for public comment:

“Under the draft proposed rules, subject to reasonable network management, a provider of broadband Internet access service:

1. would not be allowed to prevent any of its users from sending or receiving the lawful content of the user’s choice over the Internet;

2. would not be allowed to prevent any of its users from running the lawful applications or using the lawful services of the user’s choice;

3. would not be allowed to prevent any of its users from connecting to and using on its network the user’s choice of lawful devices that do not harm the

network;

4. would not be allowed to deprive any of its users of the user’s entitlement to competition among network providers, application providers, service

providers, and content providers;

5. would be required to treat lawful content, applications, and services in a non-discriminatory manner; and

6. would be required to disclose such information concerning network management and other practices as is reasonably required for users and

content, application, and service providers to enjoy the protections specified in this rule making.”

Now first of all, let’s give the FCC a great big hand for doing such a fine job putting the definition of network neutrality into words, and going much further than most folks would have imagined.  Now, the way the FCC phrased it, they made all six principles subject to the prefatory phrase ‘reasonable network management.’  That is not the way I would do it.  Only principle 5 (OK maybe 4, too) needs to be made subject to reasonable network management, because none of the rest of the  principles implicate any kind of network management at all.  I would like to see the Commission simply take the phrase ’subject to reasonable network management’ and move it down to principle 5.  Then there would be no confusion that any of the other principles would somehow be compromised by allowing the network operators to ‘manage’ them.

If we can define network neutrality in six pithy phrases, I don’t see why we can’t take a whack at defining reasonable network management in a few pithy phrases also.  My framework for this is based on my research concerning comparative telecommunications laws, and specifically the European Union Framework Directive and Access Directive.  I’m not going to dissect the EU directives here, but I wanted to give some background.

The basic principles for reasonable network management:

1.  The management must be directed to traffic on the network.  It must be directly related to a specific, identifiable traffic problem existing on the network.  If audited, the operator should be able to show what the problem was; it is an identified situation.  This excludes peremptory management, for example taking actions to prevent a traffic problem.  The correct action to peremptorily address traffic is to expand the capacity on the network.  The rule is addressed this way intentionally, so that a network operator will be forced to open or expand capacity to solve traffic congestion.   Network management must stop as soon as the congestion has cleared.

2.  The network operator cannot discriminate between one kind of data and another to management traffic congestion.  The operator must act to remove the congestion, not the data.

3.  To help improve service during periods of congestion, the operator can prioritize certain data.  For example, if an episode of congestion made it hard for voice data to travel over the network (thereby rendering some voice-over-IP apps inoperable), the operator could prioritize voice data.  But the operator cannot retard other data.  Actually, the scenario painted by US operators of slowing some data to somehow create some space (??) for other data to move faster, like on a freeway, just doesn’t make sense.  That is not how a data network works.  The analog between freeways and networks breaks down.

4.  The operator cannot act to improve the ‘user experience.’  Since the operator is handing data for all kinds of users, who are sending data as well as receiving it, the operator would have to pick and choose which users to improve their experience.  Obviously, this can’t be done because how do you choose?  This may also violate the rule against peremptory management.   Network management must occur on the network, not at the user.

5.  All management must be transparent.  Operators are limited to the use of management that meets the technical standards and specifications laid down by the Commission.   Operators must provide a complete description of the methodology they use for network management to anyone who asks.

6.  A network operator cannot refuse network access based on ‘reasonable network management grounds.’ “Where obligations are imposed on operators that require them to meet reasonable requests for access to and use of networks elements and associated facilities, such requests should only be refused on the basis of objective criteria such as technical feasibility or the need to maintain network integrity.”  (EU Access Directive)

7.  Network operators cannot manage the network in any way that distorts competition.  For example, they cannot refuse access or slow down access from some competitors, but not others’.  They cannot favor their own traffic over others’.

That is pretty much it.  If the FCC wants to define the terms of reasonable network management, I see no reason they cannot.  I strongly urge the Commission to regulate network management in a way that is consistent with the rest of the world.  There is no US Internet or EU Internet.  There is just an Internet, and network operators and users should be able to use it the same way wherever they are.

]]> http://connectedresearch.wordpress.com/2009/11/25/eu-telecoms-reform-package-approved-by-parliament/ Wed, 25 Nov 2009 18:17:34 +0000 Calvin http://connectedresearch.wordpress.com/2009/11/25/eu-telecoms-reform-package-approved-by-parliament/ http://michaeljung.wordpress.com/2009/11/25/the-death-sentence-for-phone-network-companies/ Wed, 25 Nov 2009 04:00:40 +0000 Michael Jung http://michaeljung.wordpress.com/2009/11/25/the-death-sentence-for-phone-network-companies/

Verizon, AT&T, T-Mobile, O2 and others face one and the same threat as mobile phones become more powerful, cheaper per unit produced, and wireless networks (EDGE, 2G, 3G, 4G) improving towards universal world-wide coverage. And the earthquake for existing businesses comes again from Google.

Apple (iPhone) said no to Google Voice, because they had a fiduciary responsibility towards its carrier who subsidises the iPhone 3G and 3GS at a huge price. Which they make up with pricey subscriptions. I use already Skype on Android when I call abroad or for longer calls in general. The threat (um, tsunami) for carriers is, that the Googlephone (GPhone) will handle its calls though 3G/2G as network and associated Google Voice only. The coming revolution that everything will go though the ‘Pipe’ in and out, should cause them having bad dreams.

For existing mobile phone carriers and their traditional business, counting calls by minutes, Google is a disruptor. And Google is moving fast. They (Google’s Eric Schmidt) said for years (publicly in interviews and speaking events) that the phone is the first device for people in developing countries, experiencing the internet (& Google). When a CEO is speaking so candidly about a thing, shouldn’t you pay attention? No, because according to the business textbooks, you should pay attention to big existing companies who are already competing in the same market as you. Verizon vs. AT&T vs. T-Mobile. Small companies can move quick and fast, but have it hard to gain traction. Guess what, Google is big and everywhere, but still moves considerably fast, is agile, and gets traction fast because it is everywhere. Now Google will use its operational size, employees smarts and brand name to come in as disruptor to the mobile phone business. What they need is just ONE carrier who give them access to their network only. Deal done for the coming revolution. I see especially China and India and other developing countries, who are building their cellular network, the most interesting target for Google, they could buy a stake into one of the many small phone carriers (compared to Verizon or AT&T) and support with quick and cheap cash the undergoing construction of networks, thus that their grand plan for the GooglePhone/GPhone can be realized. Carriers here in Europe or America won’t cannibalize their own business for sure. Google, again, is solving a customer problem with high impact. Something they are always aiming for when using their resources to develop products.

Second thought on this, my projection. In two to three years, when counting by minutes is dead, when counting by megabytes is norm (like now with the ‘internet’), Comcast and other broadband providers are competing for the same customers as AT&T, Verizon, T-Mobile, O2 et cetera. When they realize they can’t compete against the trend. Broadband providers have the land-line infrastructure, what they just need are the radio towers to distribute the signal through the air. My word, they will compete for the same customer. When the US economy up-ticks (should) again, we will see some big provider doing M&A, they will throw in the word synergy to make it tasty for shareholders, and employees will lose their jobs as usual. Speaking on the phone, having a conversation on the phone – will move onto the ‘Pipe’, and there is nothing you can do about it. It’s Economics again, technology, cost and leverage.

For us the consumer, it becomes cheaper to communicate. Existing businesses and associated businesses will change eventually. Mobile phone manufacturers will be doing business like any other PC/Laptop manufacturer. Developing a compelling product consumers want to buy. Consumers then are free to choose which network they want to use. Over will be the days that we can have only an Apple phone when we are willing to join AT&T’s world as well. Over are the days of subsidies. Yes, we may have to pay $150-$300 for a brand new phone, but it will be your main communicator for the future on the road, a very powerful one. It is called convergence (see computing and technology).

————————

Further Readings:

• The New World of Wireless: How to Compete in the 4G Revolution
• Mobileopportunity Blog: The mobile data apocalypse, and what it means to you
• Video – Web 2.0 Expo 2007, Eric Schmidt talking about the mobil space
• Timesonline.co.uk – The Googlephone: Google gears up for attack on mobile-phone market

So last time I talked about how I’ve jumped on the podcast and netbook bandwagon since coming to London. In part two of my series on tech in the UK, I’m going to talk a little about my observations of the tech industry and tech usage in London. In general, I would say consumer adoption of new technologies is at about the same level if not slightly higher than in the U.S. However, institutional or systematic adoption seems to lag behind the States. Here are some examples to illustrate my point:

The mobile industry here is quite possibly better than in the U.S. I can’t speak to 3G coverage here because I don’t have a smartphone, but regular call services are definitely superior to the U.S. First off, there are more carriers than back home so the industry is much more competitive. The major carriers are Vodafone (parent of Verizon), O2 and Orange, but there are also second tier carriers like T-Mobile and 3 and smaller players like Lyca Mobile. Unlike the duopoly that AT&T and Verizon have in the U.S., these carriers all have about equal market share so they all have very strong networks and consumer-friendly deals. I’m currently on a recurring 30 day contract with Vodafone (who, no surprise, have the best coverage here) with 100 minutes and 500 texts per month for just £10 a month ($16). What’s better is that you don’t pay to receive incoming calls and texts. Therefore, I essentially get 200 minutes and 1,000 texts assuming my incoming and outcoming usage are about equal. There also seems to be a greater selection of fancy phones here outside of the iPhone and Blackberry (although most study abroad students just get a cheap basic phone). The iPhone is going to be on multiple carriers soon (Vodafone and Orange are introducing it early next year) and

Android phones seem to be more popular (although that could change with the Droid). Overall, the competitive landscape of the mobile industry here seems to be a big gain for consumers.

Other technologies are on a similar level to the U.S. as well. At LSE, I see an equal amount of PCs and Macs, although Macs are not officially supported by IT services here. TV is a little different because they don’t really have cable here. Everything is either broadcast (which you need to pay a TV license for) or satellite (Sky box, which gets you lots of American shows and even some American sports). There are some things that they don’t have here, namely the Kindle. It’s also annoying that I can’t access things like Hulu or ESPN360 because of broadcast restrictions. A small aside here: I think going subscription is a horrible mistake for Hulu. If my situation right now is any indication, there’s always a way around if content isn’t easily accessible through legal channels. Any sensible businessman would realize that some revenue is better than no revenue.

One interesting site they do have here that’s not in the U.S. is Spotify. I first heard about it on This Week in Tech; it’s basically a legal, ad-supported peer to peer streaming service. It lets you listen to as many songs as you want on your computer and mobile app and then links you to traditional music stores if you want to purchase the song. Right now, its invite only for free use or you can pay for the premium subscription. Unfortunately, Spotify seems just as bad as Google Wave when it comes to giving out invites, as I still have not received mine for either. This thing sounds more innovative from a technical aspect than a consumer aspect. From what I can tell it sounds a lot like any other streaming service.

I also want to comment briefly on Internet here especially in light of the net neutrality debate that’s been going on recently in Congress. Publicly, there are plenty of wi-fi hotspots around London and the ethernet connections (at least at LSE) aren’t bad. However, I don’t think the UK has net neutrality. LSE’s website, for example, actually states that it prioritizes school related content over “social” sites (although Facebook has worked fine). I’m not sure how exactly they differentiate this or how much this is actually implemented, but I’ve definitely experienced more problems with Internet here. For example, for the first few weeks here I couldn’t get CNN or ESPN videos to buffer at any reasonable rate. Then magically they started working fine. Of course this could be because these are American sites and it has nothing to do with net neutrality. However, I’m still a little skeptical of this whole situation.

The disparity in institutional tech adoption is much wider. LSE definitely weaves less tech into its infrastructure than BC. For example, LSE doesn’t have an equivalent of Eaglebucks or any type of electronic currency. Everything in the dining halls is paid for in cash. Also, if you thought class registration at BC was bad, its a lot worse here. Some universities, such as King’s, don’t even have electronic course selection. LSE does let you add/drop online, but I’m pretty sure the actual adding/dropping is done manually by a person because it only updates about once a day. There’s no Laundryview here (although they have a version of it for computers on campus) and the machines are the old models we had at BC which were replaced this year.

There are a few things they do well here as a school. The library has these cool self-checkout kiosks where you can just pop the book on a scanner and it automatically senses what the book is and checks it out for you. The NHS also uses a touchscreen self check-in system for appointments, thus freeing up receptionists to do other things. Believe it or not they actually do some things efficiently. And like a lot of countries I’ve seen around Europe, the credit and debit cards here have a little chip in them so you can stick it into the machine instead of swiping it. I’m not really sure what the advantage of this is because any time you save from the physical motion is negated by the few seconds you have to keep the card in to verify it, but it looks kind of cool.

I’m sure more observations and comments will come up over the next few months. I will also be doing a post on entrepreneurship here so keep an eye out for that. I’ll try to get back to the strictly travel/London related posts too, but I honestly haven’t been anywhere the past few weeks so there’s not much to say.

John McCain is the senator for my area and unfortunately is not a supporter of Net Neutrality. I sent him the following letter:

Senator,

Consider for a moment the freedoms that you have fought for, and that many other Arizonans have also fought for. Stand up for Net Neutrality. Do not allow communications companies to turn Arizona into China or Iran. Free people, free press, free internet.

Whatever else we have to say about McCain, at least he acknowledges. I’ve written to him plenty of times and his staffers have sent his snail mail form letter replies on several occasions. That’s far more than most politicians. I doubt he will change his mind on Net Neutrality though; one web site says he has received more than 800K in contributions from communications companies. That much money is probably very persuasive.

The New York City Council Committee on Technology in Government held an public hearing  on Friday, November 20, 2009  at the Council Chambers of City Hall in New York City.  Council Member Gale A. Brewer and the Committee considered a pending Resolution 712A-2007 that recommends the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to codify stronger net neutrality rules to preserve the open Internet.  More details on hearing can be found here.

John McCain is a whore.  Ivan Seidenberg is his pimp.  I’ve got to give McCain the benefit of the doubt in this situation, he probably has no idea that the political position he’s taken on the Internet threatens our freedom as we know it.  He probably doesn’t even know how to program his Tivo, much less pick apart something as technologically complex as the Internet, and then take a stance on it’s implementation.  But I digress…

There’s been all this talk recently about Net Neutrality.  Most people probably don’t know much about net neutrality and default to what they hear from dolts like Glenn Beck and other corporate puppets who wouldn’t know what net neutrality is if it bit them in the dick.  In essence, net neutrality is a philosophy that is in practice today whereby all information (or packets) that traverses the Internet is treated equally by backbone routers (the things that make sure the Internet works).  This means that no one can control whether you are able visit CNN or Fox News.  No one can control the speed at which you download Firefox, Google Chrome, or Adobe Acrobat Reader (even though the latter is a piece of bloatware shit).  No one can deem a website acceptable or unacceptable; making the Internet the last bastion of free speech in our modern society.  But just like Bush fucked us with the Patriot Act, clueless members of Congress, idiots on right-wing TV shows and radio programs, and big corporations positioned to profit are trying to shove the big dick of corporate corruption and greed in our shit holes again by abolishing this freedom.

Let me paint a picture of the future without net neutrality, actually, let me point you to the words of linear (www.phonelosers.net) from the Spring 2009 issue of 2600 (www.2600.com) – by the way, ISP stands for Internet service provider:

“One day in the not-so-distant future, you’ll fire up your DSL connection, open your web browser (well, the browser of choice as determined by your ISP) and start browsing the net – but unfortunately, there’s not much browsing to be had.  Your ISP, acting as a gatekeeper to the Internet, has determined which sites and services are going to be available to you.  Maybe you want to catch up on the latest news and find out what’s happening around the world; Fox Entertainment has paid a hefty sum to your ISP, making Fox News the exclusive provider of news to all subscribers of your ISP.  Don’t want your news delivered by Fox?  Better shop around for a new ISP that has been paid off by a different news organization…” “It doesn’t stop at just news, but every potential service you’re looking for.  The search engine you use, your email provider, image/multimedia sharing community, social network, etc. will all be determined by your ISP.”

The implications go further.  If your ISP is unfortunate enough to be one of many ISPs that serve your market (and you’d be surprised how few there are), they may have to try to compete by offering tiered services to keep you from shopping around.  For example, if Windstream and Comcast both have services available in your market, then they might both offer packages that charge you for content.  If you want to go to CNN or MSNBC, but Fox News is the only news web site they offer in their basic package, you’ll have to pay a premium.  If you like gaming and want to play World of Warcraft, you’ll have to pay a premium for that too.  Like Facebook?  Well, MySpace paid both companies to block Facebook, so you’ll have to pay a premium for that too.

These are examples of the residential market impact of the dissolution of net neutrality.  Imagine the business implications.  Let’s say I’m a new start up offering kits for residents in Tampa, FL to install solar panels and remove themselves from the power grid.  Florida Power and Light found out about my new company and paid Brighthouse and Verizon big bucks to block access to my website.  Now, since my primary customer base can’t get to my page, I’m screwed.

All of these scenarios will be reality if we allow net neutrality to slip through our hands.  The douchebags on Fox News, the Republicans in Congress like John McCain, and the fire-breathing executives at massive telecom companies like Verizon and AT&T want you to believe that dissolving net neutrality will result in better performance of applications and content.  That’s true – the applications and content that they choose to offer to you.  Let’s just hope your preferences and those of your ISP match because if not, you’re going to pay.

The Internet Freedom Act of 2009, introduced by John McCain (and his telecom puppet masters) to quietly fuck America in it’s digital ass, is designed to take away the individual’s freedoms and put them in the hands of giant corporations so that those corporations can manipulate the media, spy on their users, and censor content that they don’t like.  It is in essence, another attempt at Corporate Totalitarianism.

Do your research, ask your favorite IT guy – if net neutrality is dissolved, the Internet as you know it today will be dead.  Freedom is the only way, support Net Neutrality and those fighting to keep it alive!

www.openinternetcoalition.com

www.savetheinternet.com

www.google.com/help/netneutrality.html (Fuck! Even Google supports Net Neutrality!)

http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2009/10/fcc-net-neutrality/ (A little more on what’s going on with the FCC and Net Neutrality)

Tell your congressmen and representatives that when Net Neutrality dies, so do our freedoms!

Sempre più vivi e accesi i dibattiti e le polemiche sulla necessità di una governance di Internet. Due i partiti: da un lato i negazionisti che affermano che il problema della governance non esiste – sembra quasi dannonso anche il solo parlarne –  perchè la rete è un vasto insieme di reti e di fonti di informazioni eterogenee che condividono solo una comune tecnologia (il protocollo IP): non vi possono essere quindi forme di autogoverno. Dall’altro lato chi, come il ministro per la Pubblica Amministrazione e l’Innovazione Renato Brunetta, ne sostiene la necessità. ‘Parlare di regole non deve essere un tabù a patto di rispettare lo spirito che ha consentito lo sviluppo della rete’ – afferma Brunetta. Da che parte sta la ragione? Internet è il non terrorio per eccellenza,  anche solo capire chi siano gli attori che dovrebbero essere sottoposti alla Governance risulta difficile. Dall’altra parte però il web è assimilabile ai cosiddetti ‘commons’ , beni pubblici di accesso non limitato, che generalmente sono sottoposti a regole di utilizzo comunemente riconosciute.  Non credo sia corretto regolamentare la rete dal punto di vista della banda, la cosiddetta net neutrality è l’obiettivo verso cui idealmente dovrebbero tendere tutti gli operatori. Dall’altra parte però per una rete che garantisca efficacia, qualità e valore sociale occorre una governance dei servizi presenti online che, specie nel caso di prodotti complessi, necessitano di professionalità e trasparenza nella gestione, elaborazione e produzione delle informazioni, nonché nella fase di erogazione del prodotto. Purtroppo in alcuni casi domina l’assenza di chiarezza, invece un servizio competente e serio potrebbe garantire vantaggi tangibili  e concreti per l’utente.

Since 1996, the United States Congress has been attempting and passing laws involving the Internet. The big push is now for “Net Neutrality laws,” may have just gotten a boost thanks to Britain.

Many people believe that the new Internet Law that just passed is bad, very bad. The Digital Economy Bill consists of penalties for people who seem to upset the entertainment industries. They have a “Three Strikes” rule that would allow your entire family to be severed from the internet, if anyone has been accused of copyright infringement…with or WITHOUT proof, evidence, or even trial.

Those people accused of copyright infringement can expect a fine of $82,383.30. It even goes to say that ISP’s are required to monitor and report their customers activities, if they refuse they can expect a fine of $411,916.00.

They even went as far as to state that a single individual would be responsible for making up as many new penalties and enforcement systems that they desire. Peter Mandelson the unelected “Business Secretary,” said that he plans to appoint private “militias,” that are financed by rightholders groups. These militia’s would be capable to spy on your internet use, block websites, remove files, and even kick you off the Internet. The Internet Czar will be able to invent any penalty, even including jail time for any incident that they decided your guilty.

The law doesn’t go to stimulate the digital economy in anyway what so ever. It doesn’t allow/mandate nationwide WiFi or even any fair practices for ISP companys.

The Open Rights Group (a lobbyist organization) released a statement about the new law that just passed and it reads:

“This plan won’t stop copyright infringement and with a simple accusation could see you and your family disconnected from the internet – unable to engage in everyday activities like shopping and socializing,” it said.

Damn You Britain…Damn Yous!

Not the Average Ninja

privacy

• Egy igen kiváló kiáltvány privacy témában. Terjesszétek!
• Az EU konzultációt tart a személyes adatok védelméhez szükséges alapvető jogok meghatározására, az év végéig válaszolhatunk.
• Swift egyezmény: az eu megengedné az amerikaiaknak, hogy a banki tranzakciónkról szóló adatokhoz (nevek,címek,számlaszámok, igazolvány számok, egyéb személyes adatok) hozzáférjenek. A német kormány egyelőre nem járul hozzá ehhez a megállapodáshoz.
• Google privacy dashboard: fene tudja, már ez is ijesztő. Szerintem ez még kevés, mutassák a google-ads/analitics által rögzített a neten bejárt utamat is, és tegyék általam ellenőrizhetővé.
• Németországban a Quelle csomagküldő szolgálat a válság áldozatává vált, csődbe ment. Most a teljes címlistáját akarják a felszámolóbiztosok elárverezni. A családban rendelt vki valaha a Quellétől?
• Németországban a szórakoztató ipar – nem tudom másképp megfogalmazni – szimpátiáját fejezte ki a “készenléti adattárolás” mellett. A szórakoztató ipar nem férhet ezekhez az adatokhoz, de nyilván mindenre képes, hogy közelebb férkőzzön. sicc!
• A briteknél a T-Mobile munkatársai személyes adatokat adtak el a versenytársaknak.
• A bankok lázasan cserélnek le Spanyolországot megjárt hitelkártyákat, valami csalást emlegetnek.
• Osztrák szomszédainknál most zajlik a “készenléti adattárolás” vitája, a magyarországi 2 év egy hónappal ellentétben a minimum 6 hónapot javasolják, de mindenféle plusz kiváltságot is be akarnak csempészni.
• Gonosz intelligens villanyórák megtámadták a privátszférát. Komolyan, ezekkel az órákkal sokkal pontosabban lehet mérni, és ezáltal egyes elektromos készülékek működése felismerhető. Ha nem védjük meg ezeket az adatokat, akkor a távolról való megfigyelés nagyban leegyszerűsödik.

net

• Az EU Bizottság az analóg TV spektrum jövőbeli hasznosításán gondolkozik. Az openspectrum.eu-é a leghasznosabb ötlet!
• Az európai bizottság állást foglalt – az ACTA egyezmény szellemében – a hálósemlegességgel szemben, a La Quadrature du Net azonnal tiltakozott.
• Az új EUs külügyminiszter legnagyobb eddigi eredménye a Dél Koreai kereskedelmi egyezmény aláírása volt, ugye emlékszünk ez részben hasonlít az ACTA egyezményre is.
• A briteknél nagy vihart kavart a Digital Economy Bill törvény javaslat. Ez lehetővé teszi, hogy szerzői jogi kérdésekben az egyik miniszter saját hatáskörében és parlamentáris vagy más demokratikus kontroll nélkül új törvényeket hozhat. Így még az ACTA egyezménynél drákóibb rendelkezések is lehetővé válnának. Az EFF szerint az olyan szolgáltatások mint az Apple MobileMe iDisk, Amazon S3, Dropbox, Ubuntu One is a törvényjavaslat célpontjaivá válhatnak.
• amerikában a verizon is kiveszi a részét a pereskedési üzletből, mostantól együtt fog működni a zene és filmipari lobbi peres hadjárataiban, nagyjából a “fokozatos válasz” önkéntes alkalmazásáról van szó.
• Az FCC új hálósemlegességi szabályai mind így kezdődnek: “Subject to reasonable network management, a provider of broadband Internet access service”. Reasonable – ésszerű, Ed Felten aggódik, sok minden függ ennek a definíciójától, értelmezésétől.
• A brit titkosszolgálat, az MI5 is tiltakozik a drákói “fokozatos válasz” bevezetése ellen. Attól tartanak, hogy sokan kezdik el majd titkosítani minden kommunikációjukat és így az ő dolguk is nehezebb lesz. hm.

copyfight

• Joss Stone megmondja: Lilly allen azért nem érti a copyright problémát, mert a szórakoztató ipar terméke. Szórakoztató ipar nélkül Lilly művészként nem tudna helyt állni.
• maroy.ákos a szerzői jogi vitáról, érdemes elolvasni – tök jó lenne, ha a többi párt is csatlakozna a kalózokhoz.
• A szórakoztató ipar vs oktatás, győri egyetem.
• A google könyvkiadókkal való megegyezésének következményeit boncolgatja az EFF.

tech

• Az intelt európában idén már elítélték antitröszt ügyben, most New Yorkban indítottak ellenük eljárást. Ráadásul még a kereskedelmi bizottság (Federal Trade Commission) is rájuk mozdult.
• Németországban felmerült, hogy forkolják a wikipedia.de-t, mert túl sok cikket törölnek a németesen bürokrata adminok, amivel sokan nem értenek egyet. a vita már hetek óta tart, nagyon szórakoztató. A kedvenc fejleményem, hogy a wikipedia platformot es a git-et össze akarják házasítani, mindenkinek saját checkoutja lehet a wikipediából, ez lenne a megafork.
• Az oracle nekitámadt az eu bizottságnak, a sun felvásárlása kapcsán.
• \o/, az enlightenment ablakkezelőt felkarolta a Samsung, hamarosan várhatunk e17-et futattó Samsungos készülékeket, az e17 fut a gumstix-emen is. lehet, hogy vissza kellene rá szokni xmonadról?

világ

• Megjelent az éves korrupció index (nyers adatokkal, google spreadsheetben, bravó!). magyarország 5.1 (1-10) és egy helyet javítva 46. a világranglistán.
• Brit abszurd: a pedofiloktól való félelem miatt ki lettek tiltva a szülők a játszóterekről.
• Afganisztán: a “választások” előtt eltűnt több tízmillió dollár, a választási bizottság “vesztette el”. Elötte már kiderült a választásokról, hogy jelentős választási csalás történt. Aztán az elnök egyik volt munkatársa lett az elnök ellenfele, aki rövid idő múltán visszalép, mondván nem statisztál tovább.
• Egy milánói bíróság 22 CIA ügynököt ítélt el távollétében.
• Litvániában állítólag megtalálták az egyik titkos CIA börtönt, ez segítette be őket a cikk szerint a Natóba.
• A német választások után eltűnt pár oktatási anyag a környezetvédelmi minisztérium webportáljáról – az egésznek erősen cenzúra szaga volt, a végén kínos magyarázkodás közepette visszaállították őket.

http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2005/11/vint-cerf-speaks-out-on-net-neutrality.html

Maybe I am behind the times or a visionary, but if my web developing skills were of a level where I could design a search engine,  I would.  I would a design a search engine specific to the laws of the land.  Then, individuals like you and I who are literate with access to the internet could go to my search engine and research all things law-related.  You could look up the legal code governing our financial industry to the different criteria required to constitute a felony in California versus that of New York.  You could compare tenant law in New York City to tenant rights’ law in Berkeley.  Or you could simply enter your address and look at the relevant legal code protecting the rivers in your jurisdiction.  And, then you could look up the layman’s interpretation of those laws you just looked up.  And then, you could look up stuff like bar exams, law reviews, articles about the law, video of cases to follow in real-time (imagine following Judge Sotomayor’s first year!) or the archived video, blogs about the law like Glenn Greenwald’s on Salon.com, and the case-law that created that particular legislation:  ”Oh, so that’s why we can’t walk across Route 9 with an open container!”  And, there would be a section for military law.

Oh yeeeah.

And, there would be an international section!  International Law of the Seas, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, everything one would need to know about the Nuremberg trials, or Mexican legal code and explanations about the differences between them, or why Venezuela has had 20+ constitutions since its inception and copies of all those, etc.  And, the history of all that, and much more!  It would be a monumental project, but incredibly informative and necessary to be a responsible enfranchised citizen.  And, transparent.  The government would never be able to slip anything by us, ever.  We, citizens, would be empowered.

It would be beautiful because it would be true democracy.

In the meantime, Google has some version of my long-held vision (Just one more reason why I am positive my phone calls are tapped and my house is bugged because all my wonderful ideas suddenly appear after I voice them aloud).  I don’t know how long it’s been there or hasn’t been there, but it’s there.  Under, the Google Scholar link, there’s an announcement of the new beta version of their blog that has instructions to finding the laws that govern us.  Basically, you can search using a topic (ex: prostitution) or the case name (, and then click the button at the bottom that says legal opinions and journals and you’re off!

Awesome, right?

Google is out to save us all.

Twitter founder Biz Stone challenged media owner mogul Rupert Murdoch’s accusations that websites like Google are stealing content from his News Corp congolomerate and reposting it on the Internet. Murdoch has plans to set up a paywall next spring in order to block stories from being linked by sites like Google.

Stone suggested that Murdoch take a deeper look into linking his content with Google and “find out how to make a ton of money out of being radically open rather than some money by being ridiculously closed.”

In a time of radical change, Murdoch seems to be holding on to traditional volumes of news and communication. It’s obvious that he is not on board with the current media revolution. Charging users to see his content seems to be counterproductive–he’s closing out his audience and making the Internet, which for now is free from any barriers, an exclusive space limited to those who are willing to pay the fee.

Stone says he’d “love to see what happens“ if Murdoch begins to charge users to read the news. He also was interviewed by the BBC and told them that the”future is openness, not closed.”

Wow. That really really sounds familiar. Arianna Huffington anyone? Rich Lowry possibly? Matt Taibbi, Kate Sheppard, Josh Marshall, Glenn Greenwald? You think that men like Murdoch would learn from people who have seen success while doing things differently. This brings us back to the issue of net neutrality. If it doesn’t harm other people and doesn’t have an affect on internet providers or other people’s services, what is the big deal? Is it because there is a big bad scary world out there with a ton of ideas that are different from the norm?

Rupert Murdoch’s Tweet from 11.20: I want to control the world.

kayBEE

p.s.- I used Google News to look up the articles for this post. HAHA!

This week’s broadcast includes:

In House, many spoke with one voice: lobbyists’
Iran rejects UN-proposed nuclear deal
“Gray Lady of Bagram” to boycott her terrorism trial
Forest people may lose home in Kenya
Challenging 500 years of globalization
20-year-old letterhead points to Israeli forgery in Francop affair
Nation’s largest gay newspaper publisher closes
Telecom experts worry about Net neutrality rules
Troops sue KBR over toxic waste in Iraq, Afghanistan
Wall Street job losses are surprisingly low, and firms eye record profits
Iraqi court ruling against Guardian seen as part of crackdown on media
IMF head eyes global currency change, presses on yuan
Peace activists, nuke supporters plead their case at Y-12 hearings
Obama picks pesticide lobbyist for agri-trade
British soldiers sexually abused us, claim Iraqis
The 40 million children who just didn’t exist
US unveils extended Bagram prison

In the last post we discussed the surreal approach used by the FCC in initiating its action on Net Neutrality. We also reviewed the technical issues that make networks, particularly wireless networks, not neutral to every application.

Today, let’s take a look a the mythical problem the FCC is trying to solve.

The concern appears to be, despite an appalling lack of evidence, that carriers will allow some applications to run efficiently over their networks while intentionally degrading other applications. Why would carriers do such a horrible  thing, have they no shame? Are they just evil, as the Department of Justice and Julius G would suggest? We discussed last time the instances where carriers have tried to manage or block some applications on their networks because these applications hog bandwidth and degrade service for all subscribers. Good examples are wireless carriers keeping the video application Slingbox off of their networks or cable companies warning or cutting off users of heavy download and file sharing applications. If this was the FCC’s only concern  I don’t think we’d have the heated debate. You could look at the network stats and see which apps who screwing things up for everyone else and then charge their providers or users more. Metered billing or peak capacity billing would solve the problem.

Thus we have the very public cooperation between Google and Verizon.  They can find common ground on this and a few other things.

Of course the “Internet Must be Free” crowd will never be satisfied. Many of them use or create bandwidth hogging applications. And they want to make sure their own telecom costs are as low as possible. Remember we discussed the sub text for these folks: they want net access to continue to be cheap and flat rate (all you can eat). This is what makes their business models work; this is what makes their downloading affordable. And if this tramples on the profitability and return on investment of the telecom carriers, so what; “they don’t get the web, dude” (translated: they aren’t as hip as I am and they aren’t as politically popular as I am, heck I work at a start up and I was profiled in Wired).

The FCC’s other purported concern, is that carriers will provide better net access service to the carrier’s own applications or applications in which the carrier has a financial interest. Include here the concern that some application providers will pay the telco more in order to ensure that their application will perform (paying to upgrade to first class).  This is much more sensitive issue.  It dives right into the “dumb pipe” concern of the telecom carriers.  Given the competition in broadband between cable and telcos, VOIP etc.  carriers are concerned that in the near future the model will be: “customers will pay $X per month flat rate to send and receive bits to and from the Web, no matter what the bits are.”  And that’s all the revenue the carriers receive.  No usage, no differentiation between voice, data, and video, nada.  Very concerning to carriers, doesn’t this sound like the death spiral?  Vicious competition in the no growth access business, a competitive requirement to continually invest to keep the network state of the art, and no upside from all of the wonderful applications being used by consumers.

So many a carrier strategist’s fancy turns to applications (programming).  The most extreme example of this is Comcast’s attempted acquisition of NBC Universal.  Despite all of the history that tells us that combining content and access doesn’t help either business (content wants to find as many distribution outlets as possible: making your content exclusive to your access business sub-optimizes the value of the content).  It is interesting to read all of the rationales put forth by analysts to support this deal.  Such as using NBC Universal content to blast through traditional distribution windows or making more compelling pay per view content for Comcast.  Especially given that Comcast only serve around 30% of US cable households, all of these potential strategies behind the deal mostly come down to “let’s overpay for a programming/content business and then throw that business in front of the bus to save the access business!”  The more compelling argument stated by wiser analysts seems to be legacy building by the Roberts family (and the chance to get invited to much better parties).

Most other carriers are not this bold or desperate for party invitations.  Their strategies seem to be:  “Hey, we can have an applications store and we can include some of our own special cool applications for extra bucks.”  This gets you back in the game; you get a nice slice of the revenue on all applications and a bigger piece of the applications you create (or partner for).  Exciting applications might even give your access business a competitive advantage.  Moreover, Apple with iTunes has demonstrated the model works, at least to sell phones at fat margins.

But here’s where things get sticky. If a carrier owns or creates programming or applications, doesn’t that carrier have the incentive to do nefarious things, like deny the goodies to competing carriers or degrade the functioning of competing applications (or improve the relative performance of their own applications)?  The FCC has already put the muddy boot of regulation into this pristine pond: attempting to prevent cable operators from denying sweets like regional cable sports networks to other carriers.  Of course, the courts have been none to keen on this sort of regulation (heck there is a First Amendment out there somewhere even if no one in Washington has read it) but that  hasn’t slowed the commission down.  Look for them to come up with all sort of provisions and provisos to limit Comcast if they do land NBC Universal.

More conceptually, what we have is a conflict between two different models of how applications will be marketed and discovered by customers in a web-centric world.  The two different models produce very different sets of winners and losers.  With its net neutrality fiddling, the FCC is actually picking a model and choosing the winners and losers.

Let’s use the grocery business for our analogy.  The first model is the traditional grocery store.  It is a model most favored by the existing telecom carriers.  In the grocery business, what determines what products get on the shelves?  And what products are in the key spots for shoppers to find: eye level on the shelves or in the end of the aisles?  Why the grocer (carrier) does.  And how do they determine this?  Popular items, that customers’ must have (based on strong brands, big ad spending or great quality) get good shelf space.  Or producers pay the grocers for good spots in the store: so-called slotting fees.  Moreover, to keep the producers in line, the grocers create their own house brand products: products with higher margins they can promote and put in the best spots in the store if the packaged good companies get too greedy.  For example, Ol” Roy dog food on the shelf at Walmart right next to the Dog Chow.

In this model, the grocer is very powerful, controlling shelf space and thus controlling producer access to customers.   Of course, consumer packaged goods companies are not helpless. They can build such strong products and powerful brands that the stores have to carry them;  e.g. woe betide the grocer that doesn’t have Bud Light right before big football weekends: the Bud brand is so strong that it can demand shelf space.   If the thirsty masses don’t find it at one grocery, they’ll quickly move on to another.  Now of course how do brands get this strong?  Through product characteristics (maybe not so much in the beer example but in other categories)  and promotion (mostly advertising).

To summarize: in this model the grocery store is the telecom carrier’s application store. If I want my product (application in our telecom world) to get in front of consumers I’ve either got to play ball with the carrier (grocer) or I’ve got to build a big honking brand.  And the carrier (grocer) can have its own products (applications) right on the shelf next to the big brands; carriers can even give pride of place to their own applications.  Sounds like an attractive model if you are a telecom carrier.  You get a strong degree of control and get to share in the upside of the proliferation of applications.

Now of course, as a sagacious friend of mine points out, this model might not so good for the little brands, the more obscure products.  They may be tasty and nutritious but if they don’t have the dollars and/or patience to play ball with the grocers/carriers or to advertise to consumers they’ll likely remain small.

The second model in our groceries as applications world we’ll call the search model.  It, theoretically, has a much different type of grocery store. In this grocery, the customers don’t push their carts around the aisles grabbing goodies off the shelves with their choices based on position on the shelves, subconscious brand images, or the catchy tune on the sound system.  Instead, customers stand at the front of the store at a computer screen. They type in what they want, say beer, into a search engine and a list of all beers on offer appears on the screen.  Bud, Miller, Coors, Foster’s, even the obscure,  say Hophead Ale et al, all appear on the screen.  The customer clicks on their choice and the suds are delivered.   Oh but wait, there’s one other little subtlety: also appearing on the very top of the screen in neat colored print with a nice contrasting background is a special choice, the sponsored beer, Mountain View Lager.  Now the key question, as in the first grocery model is: who decides how the products are presented to the customer?  Which brand is presented first?  And who decided that Mountain View Lager should appear right up at the top?  Why the owners of the search engine decide.   They manage the algorithm that determines which beers show up in what order and they get paid to add the sponsored beer to the top of the list. They determine where the sponsored beer shows up relative to the other choices and put in nice pictures of the can of the sponsored beer.  This puts the power in the hands of the search engine.  And thus why Google has a market cap of $180.7 billion (according to Yahoo Finance 11/20/09) and why Larry and Sergey fly around in their own 767.

But this model is not so attractive to telecom carriers.  In this model, the carriers just get to push the shopping carts around.  Not very attractive, especially when there are lots of cart pushers jostling for the job.

Now back to my sagacious friend.  Doesn’t this latter model make things better for the small provider of obscure applications?  I can get my application onto the search engine just like everyone else.  But remember, what drives the search engine and the presentation on the page: Google.  If the engine sorts applications based  on the number of consumer clicks on the application, the small provider is still in a bind: how do I get clicks without massive promotion and brand building? Being cool and viral will only go so far.  And to get into the sponsored link section I have to pay a fee to Google.  In either model, the small and the obscure are still hosed, it is just a question of who gets the  dollars as the small fry try to buy their way out.

Either of the models are efficient for consumers and each are equally as efficient for applications providers assuming that there is competition amongst application stores in the first instance or amongst search engines in the second.  If there is competition, if consumers or application providers are feeling hard done by, they can move to the competitive application store or use (advertise on) the competing search engine.  The problem arises if you don’t believe that there is competition.  Clearly the FCC doesn’t believe that there is sufficient competition amongst the carriers or they would have a hard time making the case for fooling around with net neutrality. But with five wireless carriers in almost every market, how can you say wireless is not competitive?  And even landline is becoming competitive with the cable companies and telcos slugging it out and the potential substitute WiMax (Clearwire) taking off the robe, putting in the mouthpiece and getting into the ring.

In its Net Neutrality meanderings, the FCC, egged on by “the Web Must be Free Crowd” and the beneficiaries of the search engine model of applications discovery have a solution seeking a problem.  Basically they are making a political decision to favor one set of industry players over another; a politically popular group over a politically unpopular one.  They are favoring one model of the world: the search engine model, and picking winners: Google et al over the telecom carriers.  Let’s hope in their thrashing about Julius G and Co. don’t end up killing the investment needed to keep our telecom networks growing.

Alig nyugodtak meg a kedélyek az internet szabadságát veszélyeztető EU-s Telekom csomag tárgyalása legutolsó fordulója után, máris felbukkan ugyanez a téma immár globális szinten. Ezúttal mindenféle parlamentáris és bármilyen más beavatkozást ellehetetlenítő nemzetbiztonsági okokból titkos kereskedelmi egyezmény segítségével próbálják meg elavult üzleti modellű cégek visszafordítani a technológia fejlődése okozta változásokat.

Vegyük észre, hogy nemzeti, eus és globális szinten is ugyanezek a kérdések bukkanak fel:

• a HENT a “fokozatos válasz” magyarországi bevezetésről tartott tavasszal kerekasztalt,
• Franciaországban és az Egyesült királyságban szintén idén lángolt fel ugyanez a vita. /* ide betünként lehetne más linket rakni */
• Az EUs telekom csomagra is vetült a “fokozatos válasz” árnyéka, amelyet most a bírósági felügyelet hivatott enyhíteni.
• Szintén idevág, hogy a német Zensursula is folytatódik, yippie! Most az Interpol szeretné, ha inkább szürögethetne a tettesek bíróságra állítása helyett.
• Pár hete az EU és Dél-Korea kötött egy kereskedelmi megállapodást, ahol már büntető ügyet faragnak az engedély nélküli másolásból, ez az egyezmény szintén nagyban hasonlított az USA és Dél-Korea egyezményére. Pont ez az egyezmény szolgál részben tervrajzként az új Hamisítás Ellenes Kereskedelmi Egyezmény (ACTA) esetén.

A hamisításról összekeveredik a márkahamisítás az engedély nélküli másolással, ehhez társul még a gyógyszeripar szabadalmainak nemzetközi szintü érvényre juttatása. Sokan vannak akik még mindig nem értik mi a különbség és mi az eredeti célja a védjegynek, a szabadalomnak és a szerzői jognak. Az is érdekes, hogy a szórakoztató ipar, hogyan került bele ebbe az egyezménybe, ha meggondoljuk, hogy a telekom és technológiai ipar mellett eltörpül a szórakoztató ipar. Mégis utóbbiak karácsonyi kívánságlistája valósul meg ebben az egyezményben.

Aki a részletekben akar elmerülni, annak érdemes az FFII elemzésével és a Laquadrature dossziéjával kezdeni.

Az egyezményben részt vállaló államok, az USA, az EU, Svájc, Japán, Dél Korea, Ausztrália, Kanada, Mexikó, Új Zéland, Marokkó és Szingapúr. Az egyezmény tárgyalófelei között nincsenek ott a márkahamisításban és gyógyszer szabadalmak által leginkább érintett országok, Brazília, Oroszország, Kína és India. Az európai kormányok sem részesei a tárgyalásoknak, mivel felhatalmazták a bizottságot a kizárólagos képviseletre.

A tervezetet jobban őrzik a kiszivárgás ellen, mint sok más államtitkot.Nemzetközileg csak úgy lehetett betekintést nyerni a vázlatba, hogy egy speciálisan vízjelzett nyomtatott példányt jutattak el az adott ország amerikai nagykövetségére, ahol el lehetett olvasni. Ennek ellenére mégis történnek szivárgások. Egy korábban kiszivárgott dokumentumot arra hivatkozva hiteltelenítettek el, hogy a szóbanforgó dokumentum nagyon régi változata került napvilágra, azóta már sok minden átírásra került. Ennek ellenére kiderült, hogy az USA-EU-Dél Koreai egyezmény szolgál alapul az új egyezményhez is.

Ha ez az egyezmény azt is jelenti, hogy itt szűrni és elemezni is szükséges a forgalmat, akkor ez egy csomó hardver beszerzését és üzemeltetését is jelenti. Egy ilyen infrastruktúrát vagy a saját zsebünkből, közpénzből vagy megintcsak a saját zsebünkből a megnövekedett előfizetői díjakból fogjuk fedezni.

A pár hete Dél Koreában tárgyalt – Jápán és Egyesült Államok által fogalmazott – internet fejezet (a kiszivárgott jelentés pdf-ben) büntethetővé teszi a nem kereskedelmi célú zene, film és szoftverek másolását. Továbbá megváltoztatná azt, hogy az internet szolgáltatók nem perelhetők a rajtuk átfolyó forgalom miatt. Pont ennek megvédése mellett foglalt határozottan állást az európai parlament.

Az internet fejezetről a HVG így kezdi a cikkét:

Az amerikai döntéshozók által felvázolt fejezetek értelmében az illegális letöltőket leszakítják a netről, felügyelik a netezők által közzétett tartalmakat, amire pedig valaki azt mondja, jogsértő, bizonyíték nélkül, azonnal törlik.

Az Egyesült Államokban petícióban kérik Obamát, hogy tegyen a transzparencia érdekében és hozza nyilvánosságra az egyezmény tervezetét. Az amerikai elnök a napokban Kínában emigyen nyilatkozott:

“In a town-hall-style Q&A with (hand-picked) Chinese students in Shanghai, President Obama made several statements knocking China’s firewall and censorship. Quoting: ‘I am a big believer in technology and I’m a big believer in openness when it comes to the flow of information. I think that the more freely information flows, the stronger the society becomes, because then citizens of countries around the world can hold their own governments accountable. They can begin to think for themselves. That generates new ideas. It encourages creativity. And so I’ve always been a strong supporter of open Internet use. I’m a big supporter of non-censorship. This is part of the tradition of the United States that I discussed before, and I recognize that different countries have different traditions. I can tell you that in the United States, the fact that we have free Internet — or unrestricted Internet access — is a source of strength, and I think should be encouraged.’

ez jó hír, akkor már csak szólni kell neki, hogy otthon is és a vilagban is ez kell és minden megoldódik.

Michael Geist professzor szerint a szöuli tárgyalások utolsó napján megoszlott az ACTA tárgyaló partnerek vélemenye arról, publikálják-e mégis az egyezmény szövegét.

Az FFII kérte az ACTA dokumentokhoz a hozzáférését az EU illetékes intézményétől. Ezt visszautasították, így most ők is az Obama petíció aláíróihoz csatlakoztak. Közben újra beadtak egy második betekintési kérvényt. Ez azért is érdekes, mert a liszaboni szerződés életbelépésével a transzparencia-szabályok is szigorodnak.

A La Quadrature du Net szintén élesen bírálja az ACTA egyezményt, felveti többek között azt is, hogy a hálózati forgalmat ezentúl részletesen elemezni fogják a szolgáltatók.

Az EFF  kifejti, hogy a “szellemi jogok” védelme az innováció-politika kontextusa nélkül óriási károkat okozhat a tudásalapú társadalomban. Mindemellett az EFF mozgósítja az amerikai állampolgárokat is, követeljék a választott képviselőiken az egyezmény megnyitását.

még egy pár link: rövid angol összefoglaló, még egy, kicsit részletesebb sok linkkel, az EFF elemzése, és még egy jó érvelés

A végére hagytam Michael Geist professzor 20 perces videóját az ACTA egyezményről:

ez az egész mekkora megafnord, mi? skandalum!!1!

As promised -

You can check out John Stewart’s point of view here.

Find Glenn Beck’s point of view here. (scroll down just a bit to find the video)

Find the actual bill in support of net neutrality here.

Find John McCain’s bill here.