December 2011

Improving traffic management transparency: Ofcom sets out steps for ISPs to take

Ofcom set out the steps it expects Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to take to ensure customers are aware of how internet traffic is being managed on their networks.

Traffic management is used by ISPs – fixed and mobile – to deal with congestion by slowing down or accelerating the flow of traffic over the internet. In general it is beneficial, and is used for example to protect safety-critical traffic such as calls to the emergency services. But it can cause concern, if for example it is used by ISPs to target competing services, in a manner which is not visible to consumers.

Although ISPs already provide some consumer information on their use of traffic management, Ofcom believes it currently does not go far enough and needs to be made clearer and easier to understand.

If improvements are not made, Ofcom may use its powers to introduce a minimum level of consumer information under the revised European framework. This framework was implemented into UK law in May 2011 and it contains a new policy objective to promote Network Neutrality.

Ofcom has set out a basic level of information which ISPs should provide to their customers at the point of sale including:

  • Average speed information that indicates the level of service consumers can expect to receive;
  • Information about the impact of any traffic management that is used on specific types of services, such as reduced download speeds during peak times for peer-to-peer software; and
  • Information on any specific services that are blocked, resulting in consumers being unable to run the services and applications of their choice.

Phone 'Rootkit' Maker Carrier IQ May Have Violated Wiretap Law In Millions Of Cases

A piece of keystroke-sniffing software called Carrier IQ has been embedded so deeply in millions of Nokia, Android, and RIM devices that it’s tough to spot and nearly impossible to remove, as 25-year old Connecticut systems administrator Trevor Eckhart revealed in a video. That’s not just creepy, says Paul Ohm, a former Justice Department prosecutor and law professor at the University of Colorado Law School. He thinks it’s also likely grounds for a class action lawsuit based on a federal wiretapping law.

“If CarrierIQ has gotten the handset manufactures to install secret software that records keystrokes intended for text messaging and the Internet and are sending some of that information back somewhere, this is very likely a federal wiretap.” he says. “And that gives the people wiretapped the right to sue and provides for significant monetary damages.” Specifically, Ohm points to changes made to the Wiretap Act under the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 that forbid acquiring the contents of communications without the users’ consent. “Because this happens with text messages as they’re being sent, a quintessentially streaming form of communication, it seems like exactly the kind of thing the wiretap act is meant to prevent,” he says. ”When I was at the Justice Department, we definitely prosecuted people for installing software with these kinds of capabilities on personal computers.”

Sen. Franken asks Carrier IQ for answers

Sen. Al Franken (D-MN) has sent a letter to Carrier IQ asking the company to explain what its software records are and what they contain, how files are transmitted, and how the data is protected.

“Consumers need to know that their safety and privacy are being protected by the companies they trust with their sensitive information,” said Sen Franken. “The revelation that the locations and other sensitive data of millions of Americans are being secretly recorded and possibly transmitted is deeply troubling. This news underscores the need for Congress to act swiftly to protect the location information and private, sensitive information of consumers. But right now, Carrier IQ has a lot of questions to answer.” He asked Carrier IQ to explain the seeming contradiction between its own statements saying they do not record keystrokes or provide tracking tools. He said that some of the company’s actions may violate federal privacy laws and is “potentially a very serious matter.” Sen Franken asked the company to respond to his questions by Dec. 14.

Who’s using Carrier IQ and for what purpose?

Wireless carriers and handset makers have slowly been clarifying how they use Carrier IQ, the software program that can record information from cellphones.

Carrier IQ’s program is meant to collect user data to “assist operators and device manufacturers in delivering high-quality products and services to their customers.” But the average user can’t see or agree to this data collection, which is what’s caused such outrage. Verizon spokesman Jeffrey Nelson said on his Twitter account that the company does not use Carrier IQ on its phones. AT&T and Sprint have both released statements saying that they use Carrier IQ for network monitoring and maintenance purposes. “In-line with our privacy policy, we solely use CIQ software data to improve wireless network and service performance,” said AT&T spokesman Mark Siegel. Sprint, the carrier that was featured in security researcher Troy Eckhart’s videos showing the program’s activities, also said that it uses the program to monitor connection problems, but does not and cannot look at or record the contents of text messages.

Is Carrier IQ controversy the perfect storm to destroy operator trust?

The mobile industry certainly isn’t the first to be hit with complaints about privacy intrusions. But the impact on a company’s – or an entire sector’s – reputation can be hard to overcome.

Truth is, blame for the Carrier IQ controversy falls equally across a number of players – including device makers, OS providers, operators and Carrier IQ itself. So it’s not fair to single out mobile operators here, especially when it appears that at least in some cases, individual operators can honestly distance themselves from the problem. That said, what will this do to consumer trust? Mobile users seem to be willing to suffer a loss of privacy if they can gain some value in return, from a just-in-time coupon to a personalized service or recommendation. And that’s just the start of this trust-for-value exchange, as the mobile ecosystem is just beginning to bloom and emerge. Indeed, you just can’t stop some users (bloggers, or heavy Facebookers, or Twitter spammers) from telling the world more about themselves than anyone would ever care to know. That said, consumers will make decisions about who to trust with their most trusted data, including identity, presence and location information. They have options. They could opt to keep it to themselves, and demand that it not be shared at all. Alternatively, they could share it directly with Web or mobile app or retail players. They could also choose to share it with middleman “brokers,” which might allow them to simplify how they share data and gain added value from that sharing. Who might play that broker role? Think Google, perhaps. Or banks or other trusted financial institutions. And certainly their mobile operator. That is if the “hysteria moment” that is the ongoing Carrier IQ controversy doesn’t convince them – fairly or unfairly – otherwise. The impact of the loss of that trust relationship for mobile operators would be huge, far-reaching and difficult if not impossible to counteract.

House Communications Subcommittee OK's Spectrum Auction Bill

The House Communications Subcommittee approved in a 17 to 6 vote along party lines a Republican version of a spectrum incentive auction bill that would give the Federal Communications Commission the authority to pay broadcasters for voluntarily exiting the spectrum to be auctioned for broadband use, and set aside as much as $3 billion to compensate broadcasters left behind for moving or sharing channels. That $3 billion is three times as much as Democrats were proposing in their version and was the subject of some debate, as were a number of issues.

The House's Jumpstarting Opportunity with Broadband Spectrum (JOBS) Act of 2011 would require the FCC to do its best to preserve the coverage areas and interference protections of broadcasters who do not give up spectrum, compensates cable operators for any costs of picking up reconfigured broadcast signals, and prevents the FCC from forcing stations on UHF channels to move to VHF, which is not as robust for DTV. The bill allocates the D block of spectrum, rather than auctioning it, a Republican concession that Democrats on the committee praised.

The bill was amended to prevent the FCC from imposing network neutrality or wholesale conditions on the spectrum being reclaimed for auction, as well as to require the FCC to resolve broadcaster spectrum coordination issues with Canada and Mexico, to set aside money for e-911 call centers, and to prevent security risks from building out the emergency interoperable broadband communications network.

The bill will now go to full committee for markup, where Democrats said they hoped they could negotiate compromises, though they got no promises from the Republican majority. The auction is projected to return at least $15 billion to the US Treasury for deficit reduction after paying broadcasters and for the care and feeding of an interoperable emergency communications network. A separate Senate bill has passed the Commerce Committee and is awaiting a floor vote.

Rep Waxman: Network neutrality amendment is 'poison' that could kill spectrum bill

Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) warned that a controversial anti-network-neutrality amendment from Republicans could sink a popular spectrum bill that both parties are fighting to get into law.

The amendment from Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) would restrict the Federal Communications Commission's ability to impose network neutrality conditions on wireless companies that purchase spectrum leases at auction. The FCC adopted network neutrality rules last year that prohibit Internet providers from slowing down or blocking access to legitimate websites. Democrats say the rules protect consumers and promote competition, but Republicans say they are an unnecessary burden on businesses and amount to government control of the Internet. Rep Waxman said Republicans had agreed during negotiations over the spectrum bill to drop the network neutrality provision to attract Democratic support. Waxman warned that adding Blackburn's amendment could derail the legislation, calling it "poison."

Lawmakers: ITC should regulate online infringement

Addressing the thorny issue of how the United States should address online infringement, lawmakers have introduced a bipartisan, bicameral proposal that would give the International Trade Commission the authority to launch investigations into digital imports, or downloads, of counterfeit goods.

The ITC can currently issue orders excluding foreign counterfeit goods from entering the country, and the draft would extend that jurisdiction to the Web. Under the proposal, the ITC would have the authority to issue a cease-and-desist order against foreign Web sites that “primarily” and “willfully” engage in infringing U.S. copyrights or enabling imports of counterfeit goods. The commission would be able to tell U.S. companies to stop dealing with foreign companies that import counterfeit goods. Those orders would ultimately be enforceable by the US attorney general. The public would be notified of investigations, and final determinations could be appealed in a US court. Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR), who helped draft the discussion document, said that the transparency and narrow scope of the ITC process make this approach preferable to those laid out in the Protect IP Act.

MMTC Backs PROTECT IP, SOPA Piracy Bills

The Minority Media & Telecommunications Council endorsed the Senate PROTECT IP ACT and House Stop Online Piracy Act. MMTC argues that the economic hit from piracy is especially hard on minority digital entrepreneurs. Because of wealth gap, those entrepreneurs seldom have extensive hard capital assets -- like real estate -- to collateralize. With the intellectual property generally the only significant asset, MMTC argues, decreasing its value makes it harder to raise capital and stay in business. MMTC said the IP theft problem is pressing, and that both the House and Senate should move quickly to pass the bills.

The FCC and Consumer Protection

[Commentary] Both the public and the Congress have expectations that the Federal Communications Commission will operate as a sort of consumer protection agency in the telecom space. I personally agree that it makes sense for the FCC to have such a role. But the agency’s underlying statutes are not designed for that. Instead, the laws are largely intended to police a now-vanished Bell System monopoly by protecting Company A against misconduct by Company B instead of simply protecting consumers against misconduct by any company. This creates a disconnect between the demands on the agency and the legal authority it has to meet those demands. This dilemma has occasionally caused the FCC to look for ways to do what Congress and the public clearly want despite a lack of clarity in the law. The proper answer is for Congress to reexamine the Telecom Act, including what the mission of the FCC should be in the 21st century, and then provide them with the legislative tools to perform that mission.