Verizon: We don't want to play copyright cop on our network
WASHINGTON--AT&T may be flirting with filters designed to ferret out pirated material on its network, but Verizon Communications isn't interested.
That's the message that company Executive Vice President Tom Tauke delivered during a luncheon discussion at an Internet policy conference here Wednesday.
Verizon Executive Vice President Tom Tauke
(Credit: Verizon)It's not that Verizon doesn't believe that it's vitally important to protect intellectual property, said Tauke, who heads the company's public affairs, policy, and communications department. Rather, the company is concerned that inspecting individual packets, as rival AT&T is currently testing, poses potential dangers to consumer privacy and opens up a host of other potential watchdog duties that Verizon isn't keen on undertaking.
"From a business perspective, we really don't want to assume the role of being police on the Internet," Tauke, a former Iowa Republican congressman, said in response to a question from Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.), who moderated discussion with the executive. "We are leery of using these technologies on our networks."
The way Tauke sees it, if the expectation develops that Internet service providers will actively police their networks for pirated content, that could morph into other new responsibilities, such as rooting out online pornography or illegal gambling Web sites.
Instead, Verizon prefers the existing legal framework established by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998, whereby service providers generally respond to requests that they take down pirated content but aren't obligated to play copyright cop.
The idea of ISPs' filtering traffic, which appears to be growing in popularity in Europe, is controversial for a number of reasons. To some legal experts, it seems contrary to the set-up established by the DMCA, for which many prominent ISPs fought hard. And consumer activists have said it raises serious privacy concerns.
In defending its filter experiment, AT&T has said it's trying to stem the flow of peer-to-peer traffic that clogs its networks and degrades its customers' surfing experiences. And there's clear pressure from some content owners, such as NBC, which have suggested that ISPs that do such policing stand the chance of brokering more favorable deals.
Drawing a smattering of applause from the lunching crowd, Tauke said Verizon's not prepared to join those ranks. "We don't want to get into the business of inspecting the bits and figuring out what is and is not appropriate traffic," he said.
Thanks Verizon!
I'll tell you why. They make more money keeping people in the dark. They make more money off the backs of lemmings who pay for a 3GB DSL line to check email and text message their friends than they would if the users were actually told how much bandwidth they were using and charged accordingly.
This sin't about metwork usage. If it were, they'd adopt a metered solution or simply invest just a tiny portion of their $11.951 BILLION in net profits for 2007 in a higher speed network.
(Look under Financials>Net Income>2007(Annual) at http://finance.google.com/finance?q=NYSE:T to see their ~$12 BILLION of *reported* profits for yourself.)
No...instead of innovating and investing some of their ~$12 BILLION net profit in higher bandwidth technologies and networks (like the 33GB common lines in homes in Japan) AT&T wants to cut service while maintaining rates.
Isn't there something illegal about selling me a 3GB DSL line, and then throttling it so that I am not getting the 3GB I am paying for?
I think it is. In fact, I am going to talk to some attorneys tomorrow and see if any of them are interested in looking into a class action lawsuit to stop this crap cold.
I can't be sure, but I'm sure at least one of them would jump at the chance to at least look into it.
What do ya think? ~$12 BILLION in profits, but the lines are overburdened? REALLY? And what will they want us to buy into next?
You can only get as much as 300 KB (300 kilobytes) per second of download speed. And upload rate is likely less that 512 kb/s, which gives you about 50 kilobytes/s. This is why it's called Asymmetric Digital Subscriber Link.
It's about time someone took a stand for privacy.
How would the public feel if every letter they received by poste was read before it was delivered?
All hell would break loose, and rightly so.
- Damn!
- by mikele11111 January 31, 2008 5:32 AM PST
- Now if they would just get the iPhone on their network!
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
(8 Comments)