ReasonedResponse.com

Word out of the Wall Street Journal this morning is that the Recording Industry Association of America will cease its senseless strategy of suing its own customers and instead attempt to force ISPs to enforce the copyright laws for them.  Certain unnamed ISPs are said to already be discussing "cooperation" with them.

Ho-hum.

Let's be blunt here.  Being invited by copyright holders to discuss "cooperation" is like being invited to dinner by Hannibal Lecter.  Copyright holders aren't interested in cooperation.  They are interested in forcing ISPs to become copyright police.  They are interested in extorting as much cash as they can from every ISP worldwide.  And they are desperately interested in maintaining control of an entertainment industry whose business model died two decades ago.

Let's examine what the WSJ article purports.  First, the RIAA says it will stop suing people for allegedly downloading music in violation of the copyright laws.  Good idea, given that the RIAA has done such a sloppy job of the lawsuits that they have filed against geriatric grandmothers, toddlers and even dead people.  The RIAA should have abandoned the strategy years ago.

For the record, ISPs have always been interested in protecting copyrights and cooperating with the entertainment industry.  I've personally been part to at least five meetings to discuss "cooperation," none of which were productive because the copyright holders have virtually no idea what an ISP is or how the Internet industry really works.  Like petulant, screaming children, they cannot be reasoned with.  They want it their way or no way. 

As for the supposed "new plan" in which ISPs will take over punishing file sharers, it's drivel and nonsense.  There is no such plan, and no major ISPs have agreed to it.  To do so would require them to violate the Digitial Millennium Copyright Act, violate their own terms of service agreements, and then put themselves in jeopardy of a network neutrality complaint by throttling back the service of consumers.  What nitwit would agree to that?

What ISPs will do is to adhere to the law, as they have since the law was enacted.  That's the fair and legal thing to do. 

Meanwhile, in the spirit of "cooperation," the copyright community is said to be actively shopping for a small ISP they can sue in the US, as they did in Australia, in an effort to force changes in the law that they can't coerce Congress to change for them.

And they are pursuing a new global trade agreement that would force liability on ISPs.  ACTA is being pushed by the Office of the US Trade Representative at the behest of copyright holders in the US, including the entertainment industry, again because Congress has been smart enough not to give them their way under US laws.

The fact that the RIAA is dropping its vile lawsuits is good news for consumers -- though they didn't say they plan to give money back to the hundreds of consumers whose lives they have ruined in this decade of lawsuits.  The fact that they may be interested in working with ISPs may be good news, if they will let go of their obsessive need to punish their own customers and instead focus on ways the entertainment industry can thrive online.

I'm skeptical that they will do this.  Every time I hear about a new plan from the RIAA the words "fava beans" and "chianti" pop into my head.  It is true that there is a future for the music and film industries online, and it is true that they will need the support of ISPs to make that future.  But that future doesn't begin by asking ISPs to break the law and violate their own customer relationships on the whim of the RIAA.

The spin doctors behind the "network neutrality" movement have been in crisis mode for the past few days, trying furiously to cover the fact that Google isn't really interested in treating all packets on the Internet the same.  In fact, Google's support of "network neutrality" now appears to have been just another one of Google's shameless efforts at self-enrichment.

For those who have forgotten, "Network Neutrality" was a movement started by Google in late 2005 in order to ensure that they kept their dominant position in the content delivery market and that consumers would foot the bill.  While they wrapped it in fancier terms -- such as insisting that all data packets that travel across the Internet be treated exactly the same -- the reality is that Google never did believe in any such thing.  They just wanted to "game" public policy for the Internet in order to gain a competitive advantage.

What they were trying to do was to keep network operators from offering better tiers of service to those who could and wanted to pay for it.  They decried any such tiered services as unfair to small net entrepreneurs, though in reality Google was already using such tiered services offered by private companies such as Akamai.

The game is this.  Google and other large content providers use a service called "local caching."  This service takes content from the Internet, transfers it to a private network, holds it on local servers all over the world until it is called for by a consumer, then transfers it back to the Internet for delivery.  Google's content benefits from faster delivery to the cache, and fewer hops to the consumer.  Faster and more secure delivery for a 21st Century Internet, just as has always been the case with the Internet.

That's not a bad idea.  In fact, George Ou of the Internet Technology and Innovation Foundation pointed out the benefits of this and other facets of intelligent networking this month in a guide for policy makers, as did the US Internet Industry Association in September.  The problem for Google is that if such services are widely available, they would be less costly.  And would thus be affordable for every web site on the Internet.  Thus cutting Google's competitive edge and profits.

Thus was born "network neutrality" -- a campaign to ensure through deceit and "gaming" Internet policy that no one other than the largest content providers would have fast, secure delivery of their products.  While Microsoft and Yahoo briefly signed on to this scheme, they have since recanted.  Good for them.

Here's the problem that Google has now.  Since the Wall Street Journal article exposed their shenanigans (see Wall Street Journal, December 15, "Google Wants Its Own Fast Track On The Internet"), they have to protect their empire while avoiding the outrage of millions of consumers, Congress-persons, president-elects and left-of-center bloggers who foolishly believed that "network neutrality" was a real issue that demanded immediate regulation.  Here's how they are handling it:

     1)  Trash the Wall Street Journal.   To hear Google's paid character assassins today, the WSJ is some crackpot bunch of rogue journalists incapable of getting their facts right.  THey are working hard to kill the messenger as quickly as possible.

     2)  Lie, lie, and lie again.  The spin is that what Google wants is "only" local caching, and while that would be a violation of network neutrality and fairness if anyone else did it, it is not if Google does it.  Really.

     3)  Rally consumers to the cause.  Or bumper sticker.  Whatever the "network neutrality" movement has degenerated into by now.  The effort must be made to cover up Google's secret actions by keeping consumers focused on hating and fearing their own ISPs.  Trust only Google.  Do not think independently.

What's funny about all of this is that Google, in trying to defend itself, has outlined very neatly why "network neutrality" is a really bad idea that actually hurts consumers, content providers and the Internet.

If you read Rick Whitt's post on the Google public policy blog, you'll find a straightforward admission that Internet traffic is growing -- thanks in no small part to YouTube -- and that it costs money to deliver that traffic.  Further, there is a tacit admission that purchasing a higher tier of service -- such as buying transit from a private network off of the Internet and using local traffic -- is necessary to give consumers a quality Internet experience.

I am hoping this is one battle the spin-meisters behind "network neutrality" lose.  They should, because it makes no sense to claim that Google can make use of advanced network services but small content providers can't.  It makes no sense to force consumers to bear the burden of the cost of content delivery so that Google can be more profitable and powerful.

Google's hand caught in the cookie jar is no surprise to anyone who knows the Internet, and no surprise to the handful of journalists who have actually studied "network neutrality" and its wacky, constantly shifting, incoherent, fact-ignoring mantra of hatred for the "duopolies" of broadband.  It will surprise only the well-intentioned Americans who thought their support was going toward a real and just cause.