Net Neutrality Goes To Washington

Should Congress pass a law guaranteeing Net Neutrality, the concept that all data should be treated equally on the Net?

That was the issue when the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee heard from Federal Communications Commission Chairman Kevin Martin April 22nd. Martin was testifying on Comcast Corp.’s "network management" practices.

Of course, "network management" is the official term for what Associated Press caught Comcast doing late last year when it proved the Internet service provider was hindering peer-to-peer file transfers. Initially denying that it interfered with its users’ activities, Comcast eventually copped to "network management" practices after being exposed.

But even though P2P is often blamed as a vehicle for massive copyright infringement, content piracy wasn’t Comcast’s concern when company computers began interrupting file transfers. Instead, Comcast said the issue was traffic congestion and the bandwidth P2P transfers often require.

However, claims that it only interrupted P2P transfers to ease network congestion may have been a bit misleading. During his Senate testimony, Martin said Comcast was hindering P2P actions even when there wasn’t any danger of network congestion.

"Contrary to some claims, it does not appear that this technique was used only to occasionally delay traffic at particular nodes suffering from network congestion at that time," Martin said in his written statement to the Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation. "Based on testimony we’ve received thus far, this equipment was typically deployed over a wider geographic area or system area and would therefore have impacted numerous nodes within a system simultaneously. Moreover, the equipment apparently used does not appear to have the ability to know when an individual cable segment is congested. It appears that this equipment blocks the uploads of at least a large portion of subscribers in that part of the network, regardless of the actual levels of congestion at that particular time."

Aside from pointing out that Comcast was practicing its network management when such management wasn’t warranted, Martin also said his agency had all the authority it needs to police ISPs for data discrimination, and that no new laws are needed.

Recent calls in favor of, or against, government regulation seemed to be split along party lines, with Democrats favoring legislation while Republicans opposed any new laws.

"It is a political division now and it’s getting more so," said Senator Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, the same senator who once described the Internet as a "series of tubes."

However, several reasons were also put forth supporting legislation protecting Net Neutrality.

"The idea of your site succeeding or failing based upon whether or not you paid the telecom companies enough to carry your material or allow quick access is appalling," said Justine Bateman, an actress and founding partner in a new online media company.

Another person testifying before the committee in favor of laws protecting Net Neutrality was Patric Verrone, president of the Writers Guild of America West. Verrone detailed how writers got their message to the public during the recent Hollywood writers strike, and worried how things might have been different if corporations controlled data flow on the Net.

"When your employers are the same companies that control the media, it’s hard to get your message out," Verrone said.

In addition to the pros and cons of Net Neutrality legislation, some even suggested that the issue wasn’t really an issue.

National Cable and Telecommunications Association president and CEO Kyle McSlarrow told the Senate committee that tens of millions of people use the Net every day and that "no one is being blocked." However, McSlarrow also said that if users were blocked, they were free to choose another ISP.

The cry to protect Net Neutrality isn’t about P2P transfers or having channels for distributing the various sides of a labor strike. It’s about the potential for ISPs controlling or blocking certain kinds of data for whatever reasons, including network congestion, censorship or whether the content provider has paid for a faster lane on the information superhighway. The current Net Neutrality issue isn’t going away anytime soon.

The current controversy over Comcast "network managing" P2P transfers just might be the ticket for encouraging people to think about Net Neutrality. After all, it’s better to bicker over Net Neutrality while it’s here, instead of arguing about it after it’s left the building.

 

Microsoft Pulls The Plug

A good song might last forever, but tunes purchased from MSN Music are only good for the next four months.

That’s the word from Microsoft, which shut down its MSN Music service in 2006 but has maintained servers verifying the songs’ digital rights management keys, thus allowing the music to keep on rocking.

All that stops on August 31st when Microsoft shuts down the MSN Music DRM servers, leaving MSN Music customers stuck with whichever devices they’re using to play the songs, reports the Washington Post.

But if customers upgrade their players or computers, then they’re up Bill Gates Creek without a paddle. By shutting down the servers, Microsoft prevents any future devices from playing the tunes.

To be fair, MSN Music wasn’t exactly the go-to place for online music, and the server shutdown will only affect a small number of consumers.

However, Microsoft’s server disconnect is another example of the inadequacies of DRM, which relies on servers to verify security keys before authorizing the play of copy-protected tracks purchased online.

In an interview with CNET’s News.com, MSN’s Rob Bennett defended Microsoft’s decision, saying that it was "impractical" for Microsoft to continue supporting the MSN tracks. Bennet also said MSN never wanted DRM in the first place.

"Had we had the ability to deliver DRM-free tracks at the time, we absolutely would have done that," Bennett said. "We talked to the labels at the time about that. As a company, we have continued to push for this."

 

Sony BMG ‘Comes With Music’

Sony BMG is the latest major record company to join Nokia’s "Comes With Music" service, which gives unlimited access to the label’s catalog for up to one year after purchasing specified Nokia mobile devices.

Sony BMG is the second label in Nokia’s master plan to dominate the music via mobile phones. Universal Music Group joined Nokia in December with the announcement of the "Comes With Music" service and up until now was the only major label involved.

"When you give consumers the key to the candy store without any limitations, there’s a lot more opportunity for discovering music that you might not have found before," said Thomas Hesse, Sony BMG’s president of global digital business and U.S. sales. "We think this will energize the discovery of music."

Purchasers of "Comes With Music" enabled Nokia devices can download as many songs as they want for one full year. Although songs cannot be burned onto CDs, the songs will play after the one-year time period.

However, unlike subscriptions where the music ceases to play as soon as the subscription is canceled, "Comes With Music" customers will be able to play the tunes forever. That is, as along as they have a Nokia "Comes With Music" device.

"It’s not like some other subscription services where you lose everything," said Tero Ojanpera, Nokia’s executive VP of entertainment and communities. "Here you can keep everything. This is like really getting access to a store where you can really now explore freely."