Comcast van. Source: Titanas on Flickr. License: CC BY-SA 2.0.

Ars Technica reports that Comcast has filed suit against the Federal Communications Commission over its ruling against the provider for Comcast’s use of throttling technology.

Almost a year ago, Comcast pledged that it would sue the Federal Communications Commission over its Order sanctioning the cable ISP for peer-to-peer throttling. Now, the company has filed its case with the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Although Comcast’s legal arguments are complex, the crux is simple: there were and still are no statutes or credible regulations that support the Commission’s authority to act on this matter, the company says.

“For the FCC to conclude that an entity has acted in violation of federal law and to take enforcement action for such a violation, there must have been ‘law’ to violate,” Comcast’s Opening Brief to the court contends. “Here, no such law existed.”

Well, it certainly took them long enough.

• Ars Technica
• Slashdot

net neutrality... to the power of you - Credit: markrabo on Flickr (CC BY)

Once again Network Neutrality has been brought back to the table in Congress, this is already the third time. But since we now have  a new President and a new FCC chairman it seems more likely that there will be a different outcome this time.

The war over network neutrality has been fought in the last two Congresses, and last week’s introduction of the “Internet Freedom Preservation Act of 2009” (PDF) means that legislators will duke it out a third time. Should the bill pass, Internet service providers will not be able to “block, interfere with, discriminate against, impair, or degrade” access to any lawful content from any lawful application or device.

I’m not really sure how I feel about this. I definitely support net neutrality and I think it’s extremely important but maybe a better approach to insure net neutrality is to increase ISP competition.

• ars technica
• Slashdot

Electronic Waste (Credit : takomabibelot on Flickr CC-BY)

Top mobile telephone suppliers have agreed to back an EU-wide harmonization of phone chargers, the European Commission said on Monday, hailing the pact as good news for consumers and the environment.

“People will not have to throw away their charger whenever they buy a new phone,” said EU Industry Commissioner Guenter Verheugen, estimating that unwanted phone accessories accounted for thousands of tons of waste in Europe each year.

What about the data transfer and headphone? Doesn’t every second mobile buyer buys/gets a headphone?

• Reuter
• Slashdot

Ars Technica reports that Jérôme Bourreau-Guggenheim, an employee of the French broadcast station TF1, was fired after his employer found that he had written to his MP (Member of Parliament) voicing opposition to the French “3-strikes” law. The termination was said to be because of “strategic differences” with TF1.

The bill is sometimes referred to as “HADOPI,” after the French acronym for the new administrative authority that the bill would create; HADOPI would be responsible for overseeing warnings and Internet disconnections for those who repeatedly infringe online copyrights. The idea is so unpopular that 88 percent of the European Parliament this week voted to ban the practice unless overseen by a judge.

After Bourreau-Guggenheim expressed his opposition to the law, he thought no more about it until he was called into his boss’ office and shown… an exact copy of his e-mail to Panafieu. According to his boss, the e-mail had been provided by the Ministry of Culture, where Minister Christine Albanel is the French government’s key backer of the Création et Internet law (and also a UMP member).

But why did the Ministry of Culture have Bourreau-Guggenheim’s e-mail? Because Panafieu’s office had passed the message from its constituent on to the Ministry, which then passed it to TF1, which also supports the new bill.

I don’t know how things work in France, but it sounds like that could be considered political discrimination. I would hardly call a private e-mail message to an MP a “strategic difference,” and the fact that he did not quit suggests that he probably still supports the company in some way. It isn’t like he was publicly campaigning against his employer and everything they stand for, or even criticizing the company at all.

• Ars Technica
• Digg

The UK Intellectual Property Office has drafted proposals for dealing with “persistent” copyright infringers, particularly filesharers, as part of a discussion of the scope of a proposed UK Digital Rights Agency. The guidelines involve ISPs restricting the access of repeat infringers:

The new discussion piece, while not going into much detail, has proposed two potential example solutions to the problem. UK ISPs could employ protocol blocking or bandwidth restrictions, in relation to persistent infringers. In other words, P2P services could be blocked or users might find their service speeds seriously restricted[...]

One particularly interesting aspect of the new proposals is that it would not be limited to tackling unlawful peer to peer activity. Instead the DRA would be geared towards finding effective ways of reducing the overall levels of online copyright infringement over time, allowing for changing behaviours and technologies (i.e. it might tackle Newsgroups, FTP and other services where illegal usage takes place on a users account).

[...]

Typically all of these proposals rest on ISPs being able to reach some kind of agreement with the creative industry. Should that fail then the “less attractive” option would be for tougher measures to be introduced through legislation. “This would be necessary if there were little prospect of an effective rights agency,” says the paper.

So, essentially, the UK IPO wants to impose a kind of “three strikes lite” on their citizens. Never mind, of course, that a filesharer may want to download (or seed) a new version of Linux or talk with friends over Ekiga or something. She’s a *gasp* filthy filesharer! She’s not fit to interact with others online!

Imposing social rules through legislation rarely works out well.

• ISPreview article
• Link to paper (PDF, 448 kB)

The FCC has ordered Comcast to stop throttling bittorrent.

Indeed, a recent study by the Max Planck Institute showed that the company had misinformed the FCC and their users. Comcast has always argued that BitTorrent upstream traffic was only blocked during periods of heavy network traffic, this turns out to be a lie, as the study showed that they blocked BitTorrent upstream traffic 24/7.

The FCC has announced that it will take appropriate action against Comcast, and the ISP will be ordered to stop interfering with BitTorrent traffic. Comcast has said before that it will invest in its network capacity and stop slowing down the traffic of their users, but these were all false promises.

And all the people say, “Hip, hip, hooray!”

• TorrentFreak
• Public Knowledge