Interesting People mailing list archives
Re Verizon Wireless confirms it throttled Netflix streams as part of traffic optimization trial
From: "Dave Farber" <farber () gmail com>
Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 18:57:00 -0400
Begin forwarded message:
From: Fred Wilf <fred () wilftek com> Date: July 22, 2017 at 11:40:37 AM EDT To: "David J. Farber" <dave () farber net>, Brett Glass <brett () lariat net>, Gordon Jacobson <gaj () portman com> Cc: ip <ip () listbox com> Subject: Re: [IP] Re Verizon Wireless confirms it throttled Netflix streams as part of traffic optimization trial Dave, Gordon, Brett, and All, Brett referenced the Communications Decency Act, 47 USC Sec. 230 ("CDA").Brett quotes 47 USC 230(b) and (f), which he says makes "Regulation of the Net" clearly illegal.47 USC 230(b) and (f) may be found at:https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230Would one of the IP list's Legal Eagle's like to explain how one could draw that conclusion from its text?The CDA is not about regulation of the net. It's about treating ISPs, website owners and other online providers of third party content by giving them a safe harbor. The key provisions are in subsection (c): 23(c)(1)Treatment of publisher or speaker No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider. 230(c)(2)Civil liabilityNo provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of— 230(c)(2)(A)any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected; or 230(c)(2)(B)any action taken to enable or make available to information content providers or others the technical means to restrict access to material described in paragraph (1). For those who may remember some decades ago, there were a number of lawsuits against ISPs and website owners alleging that they were liable for the defamatory comments of their users. Prodigy lost a case against a notorious brokerage house when the broker claimed that anonymous user statements on the Prodigy online service defamed the broker. Prodigy didn't help itself from a legal standpoint in that it claimed to have technology in place to monitor its content. The judge ruled that Prodigy was liable. The parties later settled and asked the judge to withdraw his opinion. To his credit, the judge refused to withdraw his opinion on the grounds that whether it was right or wrong, his opinion was one of the first opinions in this area of law. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratton_Oakmont,_Inc._v._Prodigy_Services_Co. and http://www.dmlp.org/threats/stratton-oakmont-v-prodigy . Of course, the anonymous comments were true; Stratton Oakmont was a bad place, as depicted "The Wolf of Wall Street". After the CDA was passed, it proved effective to provide a safe harbor for online services against all sorts of third party bad behavior. The approach of the CDA is similar to the safe harbor afforded publishers, who are potentially responsible for materials they create, but not responsible for third party materials they republish. A few cases to that effect: Zeran v. AOL. https://www.eff.org/files/zeran-v-aol.pdf Blumenthal v. Drudge. https://epic.org/free_speech/blumenthal_v_drudge.html Gentry v. eBay: https://www.eff.org/issues/cda230/cases/gentry-v-ebay-inc One example where the CDA did not protect an online service is the Roommates.com case, where the online service categorized potential roommates as part of its search engine. http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1592538.html The EFF maintains a web page regarding Section 230 at https://www.eff.org/issues/cda230 . Thank you, Fred _____________________________________________ Frederic M. Wilf, Managing Partner fred () wilftek com | 215 205 0059 ® Technology and Intellectual Property Law Wilftek LLC | wilftek.com PO Box 71, Worcester, PA 19490-0071, USA _____________________________________________On Sat, Jul 22, 2017 at 9:39 AM, Dave Farber <farber () gmail com> wrote: Begin forwarded message:From: Gordon Jacobson <gaj () portman com> Date: July 22, 2017 at 9:35:03 AM EDT To: dave () farber net Subject: Re: [IP] Re Verizon Wireless confirms it throttled Netflix streams as part of traffic optimization trial I am really not a fan of the Government having any control or say over the Internet and at the same time, I am not comfortable with the the major Carriers, Telcos and Cable Cos dominating any part of the marketplace for Internet Services. That being said, absent Congress actually telling everyone to keep their bloody great paws off of the Internet (and I really do not see that as likely to happen anytime soon), how else can we prevent total domination of the space by a relative handful of monopolists? Brett (and providers like him) are NOT the target of the public's ire. The majors are the target, mainly because they have the power and the lobbying clout to block the public interest - seemingly at will. I am not saying they will or won't act against the public's interest, but if I am to judge by past actions (the anti-competitive municipal and state legislation blocking local cities and towns across the country from building their own municipal networks just as a simple example), I would not be making any wagers taking the side of the likes of Verizon. Brett quotes 47 USC 230(b) and (f), which he says makes "Regulation of the Net" clearly illegal. 47 USC 230(b) and (f) may be found at: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230 Would one of the IP list's Legal Eagle's like to explain how one could draw that conclusion from its text? --Gordon Jacobson At 09:49 PM 7/21/2017, you wrote:Begin forwarded message:From: Brett Glass <brett () lariat net> Date: July 21, 2017 at 10:42:19 PM EDT To: dave () farber net Subject: Re: [IP] Verizon Wireless confirms it throttled Netflix streams as part of traffic optimization trial Dave, and everyone: Even an HD video stream -- much less one that exceeds the resolution of a mobile phone -- does not take 10 Mbps. Thus, the fact that a "speed test" -- a site which does not in fact test capacity but instead conducts a denial of service attack and reports the throughput when the connection fails as the "speed" -- indicates 10 Mbps does not indicate a problem. In fact, it may well indicate that Verizon is doing good management of its network, protecting it against DoS attacks while generously allowing more video bandwidth than any legitimate user would consume. Of late, corporate interests pushing for illegal, harmful, innovation-killing regulation of the Internet have been seizing upon any attempt by ISPs to manage their networks' resources as an attack on consumers. Exactly the opposite is the case.... In fact, when my users recently found their connections saturated and nearly crippled by overly aggressive Microsoft Windows updates, some actually asked me to rein this traffic in (which I did for them). While Microsoft or some other edge provider may find it to be in its interests to monopolize an Internet user's connection, the user may (and, usually will!) disagree. It's the ISP's job to give the user the best possible experience, and I strive to do this. It's time to curb the hateful "fake news" and anti-ISP rhetoric. ISPs like myself sweat, work evenings and weekends, and even risk life and limb to provide Internet users with good service. Regulation of the Net -- which is clearly illegal under 47 USC 230(b) and (f) -- harms network performance, raises bills, deters investment, slows deployment, and limits consumer choice by making it impossible for new market entrants to raise capital. It's time to debunk the many false claims about so-called "network neutrality" regulations, exposing them as inconsistent with the founding principles of the Internet and harmful to all but the large corporations that lobby for them. --Brett Glass At 03:39 PM 7/21/2017, you wrote:Begin forwarded message:From: the keyboard of geoff goodfellow <geoff () iconia com> Date: July 21, 2017 at 4:59:53 PM EDT To: Dave Farber <dave () farber net>, Dewayne Hendricks <dewayne () warpspeed com > Cc: ip <ip () listbox com>, "Peter G. Neumann" <neumann () csl sri com> Subject: Verizon Wireless confirms it throttled Netflix streams as part of traffic optimization trial Verizon Wireless has been throttling video feeds from Netflix over the course of this week, with the carrier claiming it is part of a temporary trial of system to optimize traffic from video streaming services without impacting quality, though customer reports seem to suggest it is a bandwidth cap on Netflix content. On Thursday, Reddit users were complaining about speed issues when using Verizon to watch video on Netflix and YouTube, reports Ars Technica. Some users were finding that they were limited to speeds of around 10 megabits per second when using Netflix's Fast.com speed testing tool, despite other speed testing sites reporting the same connections as offering speeds multiple times faster. The phenomena was also noted on the HowardForums, with user GusHerb94 noting that YouTube was running at 1,250 kilobytes per second according to its "stats for nerds" feature, which is approximately the same as 10 megabits per second. When the user connected to YouTube via a VPN, the speed "tripled" compared to not using the VPN. Another user responded noting their 1440p video stream was "throttled at a constant 9.59Mbps," adding that the speed was so low "it wasn't even able to keep up and buffered a few times." Verizon advised in a statement "We've been doing network testing over the past few days to optimize the performance of video applications on our network. The testing should be completed shortly. The customer video experience was not affected." It could be said that Verizon's testing goes against general net neutrality principles, which typically require Internet providers to treat all traffic equally, regardless of source and content, though Title II does permit some exceptions to allow Verizon to manage its network traffic. Capping the speed of one or more specific services could be seen as giving an advantage to another that doesn't have the same restrictions... [SNIP] http://appleinsider.com/articles/17/07/21/verizon-wireless-confirms-it-throttled-netflix-streams-as-part-of-traffic-optimization-trial -- Geoff.Goodfellow () iconia com living as The Truth is True http://geoff.livejournal.comArchives | Modify Your Subscription | Unsubscribe NowArchives | Modify Your Subscription | Unsubscribe NowArchives | Modify Your Subscription | Unsubscribe Now
------------------------------------------- Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/18849915-ae8fa580 Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=18849915&id_secret=18849915-aa268125 Unsubscribe Now: https://www.listbox.com/unsubscribe/?member_id=18849915&id_secret=18849915-32545cb4&post_id=20170722185709:14F7DA1C-6F31-11E7-BC11-93BC8B2FA41B Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Current thread:
- Re Verizon Wireless confirms it throttled Netflix streams as part of traffic optimization trial Dave Farber (Jul 22)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re Verizon Wireless confirms it throttled Netflix streams as part of traffic optimization trial Dave Farber (Jul 22)
- Re Verizon Wireless confirms it throttled Netflix streams as part of traffic optimization trial Dave Farber (Jul 22)
- Re Verizon Wireless confirms it throttled Netflix streams as part of traffic optimization trial Dave Farber (Jul 22)
- Re Verizon Wireless confirms it throttled Netflix streams as part of traffic optimization trial Dave Farber (Jul 22)