ReadWriteWeb

What keeps Internet service providers from being responsible for, and perhaps prosecuted for, the content trafficked over their networks is a provision of a law that Web advocates ironically opposed while it was being argued in 1998: the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. As long as ISPs do not take interest in the nature or technical breakdown of that content, then its creators and publishers can't hold them liable for intellectual property theft - this is the "safe harbor" provision.

That law isn't going away any time soon. Meanwhile, the recording and publishing industries - stymied by the ineffectiveness of prosecuting individual IP violators - know that the ISP is the one remaining place where they can attack the problem of IP theft. (Certainly they can't prosecute themselves and their own partners for ineffective security.)

After Comcast was caught throttling Bit Torrent traffic on its networks in 2007, the company caught quite a lot of heat and voluntarily stopped doing so. The practice, which was then ruled by the FCC to be illegal, struck at the heart of the ongoing and contentious issue of net neutrality.

True to its word, Comcast has indeed backed off from throttling Bit Torrent traffic, as new data from Measurement Lab demonstrates. Three years ago, the company interfered with about half of all Bit Torrent traffic on its networks. Today, that number is down to 3%.

Last week's issuance by the Federal Communications Commission of rules to protect what some still call "net neutrality" was destined to be legally challenged by someone, on some grounds - that's the nature of regulatory government. (In a pre-emptive strike, Verizon filed its challenge last January.) But in the first of what will probably be several challenges since the order, the advocacy group Free Press makes one and only one argument.

It cuts to the quick, and then stops: The FCC can't adopt two sets of rules for a "mobile Internet" and a "fixed Internet," while pretending to uphold "one Internet" to the public.

Cellular data usage has become subject of contention among consumers, carriers and federal regulators. Consumers want more data with less restrictions at manageable prices. The carriers want the opposite. The federal government is left to balance consumers' rights with spectrum allocation, bandwidth requirements, net neutrality and mergers that may disrupt the ecosystem.

There are a lot of balls in the air. It is likely that there will not be any type of compromise between the interests of these groups any time soon. Carriers are starting to set bandwidth limits into their data plans and throttling users who exceed those limits. The data plan needs to evolve.

At the eG8, 20th century ideas clashed with the 21st century economy. The inaugural eG8 forum, held in Paris before the G-8 summit of global leaders, showed that online innovation and freedom of expression still need strong defenders. As Nancy Scola reported at techPresident, at the eG8, civil society groups re-staked their claim to the 'Net.

Prior to the forum, organizations concerned with human rights, liberties and civil society released a statement to the eG8 and G8 that advocated "expanding Internet access for all, combating digital censorship and surveillance, limiting online intermediary liability, and upholding principles of net neutrality."

The Federal Trade Commission has approved the controversial sale of a majority share of NBC Universal by General Electric to Comcast, leaving only Justice Department approval for a deal that could define the changing landscape of national power. (Update, it's all approved now, by the Justice Dept. as well.) Critics used to call into question the relationship between NBC, a leading provider of news and analysis regarding current events, and its owners General Electric, a leading provider of big weapons that made those current events go boom.

Now we live in a different world, a post-Cold War information age. Power used to hinge in large part over who had the biggest bomb stockpile. In the future it may be a question of whose voice and content gets delivered through the tubes. If this deal goes through, the many tubes that belong to Comcast will have a vested interest in getting NBC content to customers fast. Other content, not as much. Into that breach may come legislation. The openness of the Web will be hotly debated.

MetroPCS, the 5th largest wireless carrier in the United States, has announced a new pricing structure that requires customers to pay extra to access video services other than YouTube, audio including Pandora or any VOIP service, over their mobile devices. GigaOm's Ryan Kim says the move raises "the specter of consumers paying more for certain kinds of content and the potential for a fractured Internet experience, where users may not be free to jump easily from one site to another."

This could be a key move in the struggle over network neutrality or tiered pricing by content type.

If, as some say, a deal can only be called successful when everyone involved leaves the table unsatisfied, then the net neutrality rules approved at a meeting this morning by the Federal Communications Commission may be a success.

Under the rules, two years in the making, no provider may block another company's traffic, however, it may offer "faster" access to companies willing to pay more.

After months of debate and legal setbacks, the FCC has placed a vote on net neutrality rules on the tentative agenda for its December 21 meeting. According to the agenda, the Open Internet Order involves "adopting basic rules of the road to preserve the open Internet as a platform for innovation, investment, competition, and free expression. These rules would protect consumers' and innovators' right to know basic information about broadband service, right to send and receive lawful Internet traffic, and right to a level playing field, while providing broadband Internet access providers with the flexibility to reasonably manage their networks."

The British Communications Minister Ed Valzey said in a speech today that Internet service providers should be free to prioritize users' access to certain content providers, a move that would effectively end net neutrality in the UK. As long as customers were informed of the actions, said Valzey, ISPs should be able to manage Internet traffic in such a way that certain sites are favored in terms of speed and bandwidth.

This move could allow sites to pay ISPs to ensure that their content gets priority, making it very hard, for example, for new companies to compete with the deeper pockets of more established businesses, the latter of whom would have websites that were faster and more responsive.