It’s funny you mention that, it’s exactly how large hosts often handle DMCA notices, by simply routing traffic to offending domains to a special page. If a large host doesn’t have the capability to physically remove the content, which is often the case with domain hosts, they just route traffic away from it. It’s a common technique I’ve referred to in the past as the “Nuclear Option”.

In a non-neutral environment, telecoms would have the ability to respond to DMCA notices, not to mention all of those other laws that aren’t being discussed here. Since their pass on the DMCA was based upon them not having the ability and on being neutral, it seems likely that they will be forced to, if nothing else, adhere to it. If they can route based upon IPs and URLs, a requirement of such an environment, they have the power to filter out offending links.

You are probably right about the DMCA being low on the radar, but other laws probably aren’t. What happens if the U.S. Government starts forcing telecoms to filter out lists of child porn, classified material or just about anything else that is illegal on the Web? The DMCA is only a jump away.

Once they openly admit and use the power to filter URLs and IPs, It’s pretty much a given that the government is going to put that to other uses.

Oh, and as far as format goes, I was talking more about protocols such as Bittorrent and VOIP. In my rush I wasn’t using correct terminology.

It’s funny you mention that, it’s exactly how large hosts often handle DMCA notices, by simply routing traffic to offending domains to a special page. If a large host doesn’t have the capability to physically remove the content, which is often the case with domain hosts, they just route traffic away from it. It’s a common technique I’ve referred to in the past as the “Nuclear Option”.

In a non-neutral environment, telecoms would have the ability to respond to DMCA notices, not to mention all of those other laws that aren’t being discussed here. Since their pass on the DMCA was based upon them not having the ability and on being neutral, it seems likely that they will be forced to, if nothing else, adhere to it. If they can route based upon IPs and URLs, a requirement of such an environment, they have the power to filter out offending links.

You are probably right about the DMCA being low on the radar, but other laws probably aren’t. What happens if the U.S. Government starts forcing telecoms to filter out lists of child porn, classified material or just about anything else that is illegal on the Web? The DMCA is only a jump away.

Once they openly admit and use the power to filter URLs and IPs, It’s pretty much a given that the government is going to put that to other uses.

Oh, and as far as format goes, I was talking more about protocols such as Bittorrent and VOIP. In my rush I wasn’t using correct terminology.

I think we’re defining “content” differently. IP is a very abstract protocol, capable of supporting just about any content and higher level protocols tunneled in it. To break net neutrality, you only have to look at the information in the lowest level header in the IP packet. If cnn.com paid, and foxnews.com didn’t, then, you simply route from all the cnn.com-owned IP addresses over one line and foxnews.com owned IP addresses over another (or, more likely, artificially hold the foxnews.com packet while you let the cnn.com packets go forward).

In either a neutral routing operation or a non-neutral routing operation, the content (which is all encoded inside the higher level structure of the packet) was never touched by the routing software.

I’m not sure what you mean by “format.” As far as I know, IP routing currently doesn’t favor one higher level protocol over another (that would break net neutrality). On the low level, all IP packets are the same format.

Still, I think we do agree, this is a huge unknown and that is what should scare the telecoms.

I’d suspect that it’s pretty low on their radar compared to the definite potential profits from double-charging for Internet access (once for the bandwidth, which is paid for by the ISPs and by customers, and once for a “fast lane,” paid by hosts or ISPs, then by customers).

The DMCA argument just seems like too much of a stretch, and *would* take years of litigation with a monied enough plaintiff to fight the telcos (or explicit legislation) to become a problem for them.

I think we’re defining “content” differently. IP is a very abstract protocol, capable of supporting just about any content and higher level protocols tunneled in it. To break net neutrality, you only have to look at the information in the lowest level header in the IP packet. If cnn.com paid, and foxnews.com didn’t, then, you simply route from all the cnn.com-owned IP addresses over one line and foxnews.com owned IP addresses over another (or, more likely, artificially hold the foxnews.com packet while you let the cnn.com packets go forward).

In either a neutral routing operation or a non-neutral routing operation, the content (which is all encoded inside the higher level structure of the packet) was never touched by the routing software.

I’m not sure what you mean by “format.” As far as I know, IP routing currently doesn’t favor one higher level protocol over another (that would break net neutrality). On the low level, all IP packets are the same format.

Still, I think we do agree, this is a huge unknown and that is what should scare the telecoms.

I’d suspect that it’s pretty low on their radar compared to the definite potential profits from double-charging for Internet access (once for the bandwidth, which is paid for by the ISPs and by customers, and once for a “fast lane,” paid by hosts or ISPs, then by customers).

The DMCA argument just seems like too much of a stretch, and *would* take years of litigation with a monied enough plaintiff to fight the telcos (or explicit legislation) to become a problem for them.

That is the crux of the problem. If they start routing data based upon content, they will have direct control. They are able to route data based upon format, but not content. This means that CNN and Fox News arrive the same way to the computer. The minute that changes is the minute that they can route all kinds of infringing material away from prying eyes.

The whole niche for telecoms in the DMCA was passed because they had no control over the content that passed. If they prove that they do have control and are using it, they have a real problem.

It’s not just the DMCA that ISPs took a walk on, there are other laws based upon content that they slid on because of the lack of control. If they take control, especially for the purpose of profit, lawmakers are likely to find that they also have a responsibility.

They might skate on this too, their power is great, but the risk is very powerful. If lawmakers refuse to let them have their cake and eat it too, they could be in for a world of trouble and given how unpopular telecoms are with voters right now, I’d imagine their leeway is limited.

Still, I think we do agree, this is a huge unknown and that is what should scare the telecoms. Big corporations don’t excel at gambling.

That is the crux of the problem. If they start routing data based upon content, they will have direct control. They are able to route data based upon format, but not content. This means that CNN and Fox News arrive the same way to the computer. The minute that changes is the minute that they can route all kinds of infringing material away from prying eyes.

The whole niche for telecoms in the DMCA was passed because they had no control over the content that passed. If they prove that they do have control and are using it, they have a real problem.

It’s not just the DMCA that ISPs took a walk on, there are other laws based upon content that they slid on because of the lack of control. If they take control, especially for the purpose of profit, lawmakers are likely to find that they also have a responsibility.

They might skate on this too, their power is great, but the risk is very powerful. If lawmakers refuse to let them have their cake and eat it too, they could be in for a world of trouble and given how unpopular telecoms are with voters right now, I’d imagine their leeway is limited.

Still, I think we do agree, this is a huge unknown and that is what should scare the telecoms. Big corporations don’t excel at gambling.

It’s not the same. Web hosts actually have the data on their machines, and thus have direct control over what’s served. ISPs are a little more directly involved, because the web host actually has an account directly with the ISP, but, the analogy of telcos/Internet backbone providers to ISPs is a lot closer than that of web hosts to telcos/IBPs.

Even on a neutral Internet, ISPs and backbone providers already do filter (in a content independent way) to some extent based on the headers in the process of routing: they send data over different paths depending on its destination.

I would suspect that the telcos will want to “have it both ways,” and the only way we will see which argument wins is if a DMCA takedown notice is sent to a telco and challenged in court.

It’s not the same. Web hosts actually have the data on their machines, and thus have direct control over what’s served. ISPs are a little more directly involved, because the web host actually has an account directly with the ISP, but, the analogy of telcos/Internet backbone providers to ISPs is a lot closer than that of web hosts to telcos/IBPs.

Even on a neutral Internet, ISPs and backbone providers already do filter (in a content independent way) to some extent based on the headers in the process of routing: they send data over different paths depending on its destination.

I would suspect that the telcos will want to “have it both ways,” and the only way we will see which argument wins is if a DMCA takedown notice is sent to a telco and challenged in court.