geekosystem

In a recent Facebook post from Reed Hastings, the CEO of Netflix, we get a bit of intimate view into the life of the man who brings great movies and TV into our homes for a reasonable price. For instance, we learn that he has an Xbox, and is (not surprisingly) a big fan of streaming video. We also find out that he's really angry at Comcast for how they count data towards his pre-set limit, accusing the Internet Service Provider of being anti-net neutrality.

A little while ago, Comcast announced that it'll be bringing its Xfinity On Demand streaming service to Xbox Live, allowing for streaming through the Xbox 360. Like competitors Netflix and Hulu, Xfinity On Demand will allow for Comcast users to watch their shows whenever they feel like it. The difference is that Xfinity On Demand on Xbox Live won't count against Comcast users' 250 gig data caps. The competitors' streaming, however, will. This is great news to anyone who has Comcast and an Xbox, but bad news to anyone who is a fan of a little thing we like to call "net neutrality."

When the FCC published and thereby finalized their rules about net neutrality, opening them up for lawsuits, everyone thought Verizon or MetroPCS -- two of the rules' biggest opponents -- would be the first to sue. Nope, the activist group Free Press beat them to it. The stinger? Free Press is staunchly pro-net neutrality.

Why file suit? Well, they certainly didn't find the rules to be too strong, that's for sure; they actually found the rules to be far too lax. While the new net neutrality rules do quite a bit to reign in wired (or fixed) Internet providers, they leave wireless providers with a bit of freedom, too much if you ask Free Press.

As part of a plan to get more involved in politics, Facebook created a political action committee it will be using to support politicians that might be able to help it get by in a world where social media is becoming increasingly important but also increasingly complicated. The PAC was incorporated on Monday right around the time that the domains Fbpac.org and Fbpac.us were registered. For the moment Facebook is remaining tight-lipped about the whole deal. One makes a PAC in order to support political campaigns, so Facebook is clearly planning on doing that but they've yet to say anything about who they might have their eyes on.

Facebook has been stepping up its Washington presence for years, so it's really not all that surprising they've incorporated a PAC. Back in 2007, Facebook hired its first Washington-based employee, now it has about a dozen, including four lobbyists. With all the patent-trolling going on and rising questions about software patents, in addition to increasing concern about net neutrality and online privacy, it's no wonder Facebook wants to have a foothold in Washington. It'll be interesting to see how they decide to go about this.

(via New York Times)

Ladies and gentlemen, the FCC has drafted its net neutrality rules and had them published. After being voted through at a 3 to 2 majority last year, they will go into effect November 20th, assuming they are not delayed by lawsuits. They will probably be delayed by lawsuits. Verizon and MetroPCS have been waiting in the wings, unable to file suit until the rules were finalized and made official so now is their time to pounce.

Despite the fact that no service provider would want to be bound to these rules, they actually seem pretty reasonable. The FCC's own summary describes them as follows:

First, transparency: fixed and mobile broadband providers must disclose the network management practices, performance characteristics, and commercial terms of their broadband services. Second, no blocking: fixed broadband providers may not block lawful content, applications, services, or non-harmful devices; mobile broadband providers may not block lawful websites, or block applications that compete with their voice or video telephony services. Third, no unreasonable discrimination: fixed broadband providers may not unreasonably discriminate in transmitting lawful network traffic.

Telecom companies in The Netherlands must be kicking themselves now as the small European country, home to 16.7 million people, prepares to enact net neutrality principles into law. Yesterday, the Dutch Parliament agreed in a nearly unanimous vote that going forward, carriers must equally guarantee access to all web content and applications. Though they lobbied vociferously against the new law, telcos arguably brought this fate upon themselves discriminating against applications like VoIP and videochat service Skype and web-based text messaging service WhatsApp, among others. As these directly competed with their pricier packages for voice and texting services but could be used by customers who had bought data-only packages, Dutch telecom companies were rumored to throttle or even block them specifically. But when one company openly charged for these services, it triggered a backlash that led to the new net neutrality law.

"It is a principle of free market. That's a Biblical principle, that's a historical principle. We have all these quotes from Ben Franklin and Jefferson and Washington and others on free market and how important that is to maintain. That is part of the reason we have prosperity. This is what the Pilgrims brought in, the Puritans brought in, this is free market mentality. Net Neutrality sounds really good, but it is socialism on the Internet." --Conservative radio host David Barton draws from some rather surprising historical examples in arguing against Net Neutrality. (via TechDirt)

Earlier this week Verizon and MetroPCS filed suits contesting the FCC's new net neutrality statues, the ones that aren't even as firm as most internet users would hope. The FCC is now requesting that the DC appeals court in which the suits were filed throw them out, on some solid but incredibly procedural grounds. In as nutty a nutshell as we can get, people aren't allowed to sue part of the government in front of the DC circuit court before the thing that they are suing about is published in the Federal Register by that part of the government.  The FCC's new rules have only been announced. Verizon countered by saying that since the new laws would affect their licenses, the suits fall under a law about licensing, which says that you can sue as soon as the law is announced. But it doesn't stop there.

The marital spat between Netflix and the Internet service providers (ISPs) that support the popular video streaming and rental service has been strained for some time. Maybe Netflix hadn't been doing the dishes, or they were having some trouble in the bedroom, but ISPs took it to another level when they accused Netflix of clogging up the Internet with their instant view streaming service. Netflix has now responded by vowing to release the information it gathers on ISP speeds every month from their blog. It's the equivalent of your significant other announcing that they have compiled a list of everything you have done wrong, and will be telling all your friends. What this means to consumers is that they finally have a carefully compiled report card for their ISPs, who do not generally release this kind of information. While everyday Internet users like you and me can use online tools to find out their individual speeds, that data has never been available in such a comprehensive manner, nor from so large a data set. Of course, it all comes back to money. Netflix and a middleman company Level 3 are currently being asked to pay quite a bit more to push data through to customers, which Netflix believes is violating the spirit of Net Neutrality.  In addition to the passive aggressive move of posting this information, Netflix has also aired their grievances with ISPs in a letter to the company's shareholders. From the Washington Post:

On Wednesday night, Netflix CEO Reed Hastings waded into the debate for the first time, writing in a letter to shareholders that it is "inappropriate" for ISPs to charge more for traffic to reach customers. Hastings said that even if 20 percent of all peak bandwidth is used by Netflix streaming video, the firm is paying for its traffic to reach ISPs who then deliver traffic to homes. Cable and telecom firms are using their exclusive access to customers to unfairly charge networking partners more, the firms said.

Right now, Netflix looks like the underdog. Consumers love paying next to nothing to watch movies whenever they want, and hate to pay through the nose to their ISPs. It's a bold move on Netflix's part to play to that discontent and give users information on exactly how well their ISPs are performing. Of course, Netflix stands to make a lot of money by keeping their operating costs low, and avoiding having to raise user costs. Whether a sincere devotion to the free and open premise of Net Neutrality is really at work here is yet to be seen. Now if you'll excuse me, I need to watch Cool World on Netflix. Just because I can. (via Lifehacker and CNN Money)

Despite the murmurings that the FCC's new net neutrality rules were basically a reiteration of Google's and Verizon's proposal allowing leeway for a second, paid Internet, Verizon is contesting the ruling, saying that the FCC is overreaching. Verizon's statement:

Verizon Communications on Thursday (Jan. 20) filed an appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, challenging the Federal Communications Commission's Report and Order on rules dealing with the issue of net neutrality. The following statement should be attributed to Michael E. Glover, Verizon senior vice president and deputy general counsel: "Verizon has long been committed to preserving an open Internet and meeting the needs of our customers. We have worked extensively with all players in the Internet and communications space to shape policies that ensure an open Internet and encourage investment, innovation and collaboration with content providers and others to meet the needs of consumers. "Today's filing is the result of a careful review of the FCC's order. We are deeply concerned by the FCC's assertion of broad authority for sweeping new regulation of broadband networks and the Internet itself. We believe this assertion of authority goes well beyond any authority provided by Congress, and creates uncertainty for the communications industry, innovators, investors and consumers."

(via Brian Stelter)

This afternoon, the FCC voted to approve a new set of rules governing online communications, its first enforceable rules on net neutrality, by a vote of 3-2. As Wired points out, the only group that seems to be especially happy about the rules as approved by the FCC is the telecom companies: Whereas many conservatives see any net neutrality ruling as a federal overreach and liberals denounce this particular set of rules as "woefully inadequate to protect the public from the predations of an industry keen on turning the internet into a cyber-version of cable TV, with tiers and premium packages affordable by the wealthy," the proposal as it currently stands is similar enough to Google's and Verizon's Internet proposal leaked over the summer in that it reserves the possibility for phone companies to charge more for certain kinds of high-speed traffic -- so-called "paid prioritization." Considering that mobile carriers' plans have recently leaked exploring different rates for Facebook, YouTube, Skype, etc, this is not purely an academic fear. In his remarks prepared to be delivered this afternoon (via NYT media reporter Brian Stelter), FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski defends the compromise: "As we stand here now, the freedom and openness of the Internet are unprotected. No rules on the books to protect basic Internet values. No process for monitoring Internet openness as technology and business models evolve. No recourse for innovators, consumers, or speakers harmed by improper practices. And no predictability for Internet service providers, so that they can effectively manage and invest in broadband networks. That will change once we vote to approve this strong and balanced order." His full remarks below:

When "net neutrality" is a matter of defending highfalutin open Internet principles and P2P sites, it's hard to get average people too excited about it: But threaten their cheap Netflix, and matters get serious. The New York Times reports that Netflix partner Level 3 Communications, which delivers Netflix's streaming video to customers' computers, will have to pay recurring additional fees to ISP Comcast for continued carriage of their content. Level 3 is not too happy about this, and says it constitutes an assault on the open Internet and net neutrality.

Before Tuesday's midterm elections, 95 House and Senate candidates took a pledge called the Net Neutrality Protector's Pledge [website], which consisted of a promise to stand "against any attempt by big corporations to control the Internet and eliminate the Internet's level playing field ... to protect Net Neutrality for the entire Internet - wired and wireless -- and make sure big corporations aren’t allowed to take control of free speech online." All 95 of those candidates lost on Tuesday. All 95. To say the least, this is not very encouraging news for net neutrality.

The Introductory Cataclysm Patch is Live For WoW Player Testing (WoW.com) The ESA's Brief to the Supreme Court in Videogames Violence Trial (TheESA.com) Rainn Wilson is Kick-Ass, Kinda (Blastr) Did Internet Founders Intend Net Neutrality? (Spoiler Warning: YES.) (Wired) Disney Princesses As Superheroes, Again (Brodie H. Brockie) How Not To Make A Fire Tornado (flashmodin) You Can Get Stem Cells From Wisdom Teeth (Medical Daily) (image via Geeks Are Sexy.)

The EFF on Google/Verizon net neutrality proposal (EFF)

Man travels the country correcting typos (NPR)

Philippines inmates escape when guard is distracted by Plants vs. Zombies (Manila Inquirer)

Spider-Man: Turn Off The Dark unveils dates, casting and synopsis (Coventry Telegraph)

Sesame Street joins Tumblr (sesamestreet.tumblr.com)

Wii Goldeneye's golden controller (Kotaku)

Song lyrics as Google Maps directions (BuzzFeed via @pbump)

Bonus video: Zach Galifianakis crashes Scott Pilgrim interview: