Tagged: isp Toggle Comment Threads | Keyboard Shortcuts

  • isoc-ny 3:46 am on June 5, 2013 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , alfredo lopes, isp, may first/people link, , ,   

    VIDEO: Alfredo Lopez – How to Run a Progressive & Collaborative ISP #TA3M @OpenITP @OpenCUNY #netfreedom 

    ta3mAt the OpenITP Techno-Activism Third Monday on May 20, 2013 at CUNY Graduate Center NYC, OpenCUNY presented Alfredo Lopez, founder of May First/People Link (MF/PL), who shared his experience running a progressive and collaborative ISP. Video is below.


    View on YouTube: http://youtu.be/4UsGUUUHjtI
    Transcribe on AMARA: http://www.amara.org/en/videos/vGSG6kkQMdCM/
    Twitter: #TA3M

    May First/People Link is a membership-led and driven organization comprised of about 450 organizations and another 400 individuals making for a total of nearly 3,000 people in the organization. It is a politically progressive organization, democratically run, and organized in both the United States and Mexico

    Alfred explains:

    • Why you should care about what type of ISP you have (Hint: They can see and share your online traffic)
    • Why MF/PL was setup as a unique alternative Internet provider.
    • How their infra-structure is different than most ISPs (support, server maintenance, and staffing) and why.
    • How democracy works in MF/PL and the success and challenges they have had.
    • The political challenges they face including lack of diversity in technology.
    • How other movements, such as the Climate Change movement, interact and enrich the members of the collective.
     
  • isoc-ny 5:38 pm on June 26, 2011 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , california, , , isp, sonic.net   

    California ISP sonic.net rolls out 1Gbps double play for $69.95 #fiber #broadband #gigabit 

    sonic.netCalifornia ISP sonic.net has rolled out the first installs of it’s new gigabit service, which includes two phone lines, in Sebastopol, CA. Local newspaper The Press Democrat reports:

    The fiber optic network allows the company to offer Internet connections up to 1 gigabit per second, said Dane Jasper, co-founder and president of the company.

    “Speed will no longer be a factor,” Jasper said. “You’re completely connected.”

    The service will be available to about 60 homes on Florence Avenue in about a month, and will become available to an additional 640 homes by the end of the year, Jasper said.

    The fastest connection, which will be 1 gigabit per second, will cost $69.95 per month and include two phone lines and unlimited long distance calling. The company will also offer a 100 megabit per second connection for $39.95 monthly, which will include one phone line with unlimited long distance calling.

    Nate Anderson recently covered the story in Ars Technica:

    Jasper doesn’t think like a typical US Internet exec; in an interview last year, he made clear that his company tries to avoid artificial limits as a way to make more money. “The natural model when you have a simple duopoly capturing the majority of the market is segmentation: maximize ARPU [average revenue per user] by artificially limiting service in order to drive additional monthly spending. But fundamentally this is the wrong model for a service provider like us, and we have looked to Europe for inspiration… I believe that removing the artificial limits on speed, and including home phone with the product are both very exciting.”

     
    • joly 3:48 am on June 27, 2011 Permalink | Reply

      • Vint Cerf: What Can Gigabit Do for You? (FORA.tv)

  • isoc-ny 4:46 am on February 25, 2010 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , isp,   

    Movie studios appeal against iiNet piracy exoneration 

    The Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft AFACT today lodged an appeal against the legal judgment which found Australian Internet provider iiNet was not responsible for illegal movie downloads by its customers, arguing the Federal Court had erred on 15 grounds

    “The court found large scale copyright infringements proven, that iiNet knew they were occurring, that iiNet had the contractual and technical capacity to stop them and iiNet did nothing about them,” said Neil Gane, executive director of AFACT.”In line with previous case law, this would have amounted to authorisation of copyright infringement.”

    via Movie studios appeal against iiNet piracy ruling.

     
    • joly 5:32 pm on February 25, 2010 Permalink | Reply

      More details of AFACT’s grounds for appeal are here.

      Central to the appeal is an argument that the judge applied an incorrect test for whether iiNet “authorised” the copyright infringement.

      Also AFACT will:

      • seek to overturn the ruling that iiNet had a repeat infringer policy that allowed it to claim safe harbour under the Copyright Act.

        • challenge Justice Cowdroy over his reasons for rejecting evidence.
        • raise further questions over what could be inferred from iiNet’s choice of witnesses. The film industry had questioned in the trial why staff with more intimate technical knowledge of the iiNet network were not called on to give evidence.
      • question the number of infringements, which was a contentious issue in the case.
    • joly 3:45 am on February 26, 2010 Permalink | Reply

      I thank Paul Brooks for the following info:

      Five ways AFACT lost-the-iiNet case

      I won’t quote the whole article, but one section jumped out to me as being of special relevence to this group (emphasis added by me):

      2. The time didn’t fit the crime

      AFACT put forward an argument that because iiNet had failed to stop users infringing copyright on its network, it had “failed to take reasonable steps” to gain protection under safe harbour provisions of the Copyright Act.

      But as John Fairbairn, partner at Clayton Utz points out, AFACT “held out” on defining what reasonable steps would have been beyond disconnection of a customer.

      As such, there were “no other reasonable steps” the judge could focus on.

      The Court found that iiNet’s only power to prevent infringement – to terminate users – was not a relevant power under the Copyright Act.

      Justice Cowdroy then found that cutting off access was not a reasonable step.

      “The Court does not consider that warning and termination of subscriber accounts on the basis of AFACT Notices is a reasonable step,” Cowdroy’s judgement said, as it would “also prevent that person or persons from using the internet for all the non-infringing uses.”

      In doing so, Cowdroy gave full appreciation to the significance of internet access and what it means to Australians, and the role of the courts in determining infringement.
      …and later…

      “AFACT’s notices were found to be defective because they did not establish copyright infringement as AFACT kept its methodology secret, they did not have any assurance of their veracity or indemnify iiNet for reliance, and they did not make clear AFACT’s right to give them on behalf of copyright owners,” said Australian Digital Alliance’s Dawes.

      “Thus, iiNet was entitled to be sceptical about the claims being made. Therefore it had no ‘knowledge’ of the alleged infringements by its users.”

      Determinations of infringement are complex, Cowdroy’s judgement said, and should only be made by a court. To do otherwise, he said, would be “highly problematic.”

      P.

    • joly 5:18 pm on March 18, 2010 Permalink | Reply

      News comes today that iiNet have filed a notice of contention in the appeal

      http://www.zdnet.com.au/iinet-contests-cooper-copyright-judgement-339301882.htm

      The first issue iiNet is contending relates to Section 112E of the Copyright Act 1968, which states that a carriage service provider that “facilitates … a communication is not taken to have authorised any infringement of copyright in an audio-visual item merely because another person uses the facilities”.

      Cowdroy had said in his decision that he was bound to rule in line with the 2006 case, Universal Music Australia versus Cooper copyright case, in which the Full Court — on appeal — decided a critical factor was whether the service provider had knowledge of copyright breaches occurring on its facilities.

      The judge found that iiNet did have knowledge that infringements were occurring on its facilities, therefore the protections under 112E “ceased to have operation”.

      Cowdroy’s overarching decision was that iiNet had not authorised its customers’ infringements, which meant in terms of his final decision the point was moot. Yet it may come into play in the upcoming appeal process in which the legal teams of both sides will contest iiNet’s alleged authorisation of its customers’ breaches.

      The second point of contention was Cowdroy’s decision that privacy provisions under the Telecommunications Act did not prevent iiNet from using its customer information to assist AFACT’s investigations. The question here was whether iiNet had the power to prevent infringements on its network and whether it took “reasonable” steps to prevent this from occurring.

  • isoc-ny 9:05 pm on February 3, 2010 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , isp,   

    Australian court absolves ISP from copyright policing 

    http://tinyurl.com/y9puvds

    The studios had hired an online investigator firm to intercept
    BitTorrent traffic over 59 weeks and record instances of iiNet users
    downloading pirated movies.

    The barrister for the studios, Tony Bannon, said that iiNet failed to
    take any ‘‘reasonable steps’’ to combat copyright infringement.

    He said iiNet’s practice of forwarding infringement notices to police
    and stating in its terms and conditions that illegal downloading was
    not permitted – while not enforcing this rule – did not constitute
    reasonable steps.

    However, iiNet’s legal counsel, Richard Cobden, said privacy
    provisions in the Telecommunications Act prevented it from forwarding
    the studios’ infringement notices to customers.

    Cobden said the studios were trying to place an ‘‘unreasonable
    burden’’ on ISPs and that ‘‘we will not take on the rights holders’
    outsourcing of their rights enforcement’’.

    iiNet argued that it was not required by law to act on ‘‘mere
    allegations’’ of copyright infringement, that customers were innocent
    until proven guilty in court, and that the case was like suing the
    electricity company for things people do with their electricity.

    In a summary of his 200-page judgment read out in court this morning,
    Justice Cowdroy said the evidence established that iiNet had done no
    more than to provide an internet service to its users.

    He found that, while iiNet had knowledge of infringements occurring
    and did not act to stop them, such findings did not necessitate a
    finding of authorisation.

    He said an ISP such as iiNet provided a legitimate communication
    facility, which was neither intended nor designed to infringe
    copyright.

    “iiNet is not responsible if an iiNet user uses that system to bring
    about copyright infringement … the law recognises no positive
    obligation on any person to protect the copyright of another,” Justice
    Cowdroy said.

     
    • joly 11:13 pm on February 3, 2010 Permalink | Reply

      ISOC Australia has issued a media release applauding the ruling:

      ISOC-AU applauds today’s decision of the Australian Federal Court in
      the case of Roadshow Films Pty Limited v iiNET Limited. The Court
      found that iiNet, by failing to take any steps to stop infringing conduct,
      did not ‘authorise’ copyright infringement by certain iiNet users.. iiNet
      did not sanction, approve or countenance copyright infringement; they
      did no more than provide an Internet service to their customers.

      ISOC-AU believes the Internet is for everyone. ‘The Internet is an
      essential part of how Australians live, work and play‘, said Narelle
      Clark, Vice President of the Internet Society of Australia (ISOC-AU) ‘and
      the Court has confirmed that ISPs are not required to be the
      gatekeepers of Internet use‘.

      ISOC-AU also welcomes the finding of the Court that, because iiNet did
      have a repeat infringer policy, they would have been entitled to the
      protection offered by the ‘safe harbour’ provisions of the copyright
      legislation.

      ISOC-AU recognises that people should be rewarded for their creative
      endeavours and that other models may need to be used or developed to
      reward content creation and distribution. We also support the right of
      all to due process under law, particularly to ensure that Internet users
      are not arbitrarily cut off from Internet access.

      and also a couple of links:

    • Full text of the judgement
    • iiNet’s response
    • the film industry’s response
  • joly 9:43 am on February 4, 2010 Permalink | Reply

    Business Week

    “The ruling will serve as a reference to similar cases in other jurisdictions,” said Charles Mok, chairman of the Internet Society’s Hong Kong division. “This case shows that if an Internet service provider can demonstrate it has put in place a mechanism for dealing with complaints from content owners, then the law will afford an adequate safeguard.”

  • Joly 1:10 am on February 8, 2010 Permalink | Reply

    A post courtroom interview with iiNet CEO Michael Malone, refers to conciliatory comments he had just made where he suggested that the movie companies work with him to find ways for his customers to legally download their works.

    It is to be noted that iiNet, which has bandwidth caps for customers, already operates a ‘freezone’ of locally hosted content that can accessed without limit – adding a PPV section would be no great leap.

  • c
    Compose new post
    j
    Next post/Next comment
    k
    Previous post/Previous comment
    r
    Reply
    e
    Edit
    o
    Show/Hide comments
    t
    Go to top
    l
    Go to login
    h
    Show/Hide help
    shift + esc
    Cancel