The online piracy blame game

Over the past few months, I have alternately been appalled, disgusted, saddened and ultimately bored at the degree to which naked self-interest is ruling the ongoing debate about how Australia will deal with the issue of online copyright infringement (internet piracy). Now, there is no doubt that the debate has been a vibrant one. There have been strong opinions from multiple sides with complicated legal, commercial and ethical arguments presented ad nauseum. There have been many speeches made, public discussion papers issued, off the cuff comments thrown into the ether and the overall entertainment factor has been extremely high; worthy, almost, of its own reality show on prime-time TV. However, what has been lacking from the debate at its core has been any real consideration for the underlying factors underpinning the growth of internet piracy and how they might be addressed. Unfortunately, but perhaps predictably, the major players in the debate — the ISPs,content industries and the government — appear to be almost purely engaging in this dialogue out of their own self-interests; nothing more, and nothing less. Let’s take last week’s release of a discussion paper by a number of Australia’s major ISPs and representative group, the Communications Alliance, on the issue. On the face of it, as many commenters agreed over the weekend, the paper sounds pretty good. It avoids unsavoury approaches to dealing with internet piracy such as disconnecting users’ broadband connections, includes significant avenues for appeal and independent oversight and works within the boundaries of Australia’s existing law on a predominantly education-based approach to dealing with the issue. However, when you dig a bit deeper into the rationale underpinning the paper, it becomes clear it has broader aims. Ask yourself: What does Australia’s ISP industry really think about the issue of internet piracy? Well, the answer to this question is clear: It wants the issue to go away. Australia’s ISPs want their users to continue to funnel money into their revenue trough for broadband connections with big quotas, and they don’t want to be on the receiving end of lawsuits such as AFACT’s action against iiNet while they’re doing it. Australia’s ISPs primarily see the issue of online copyright infringement as being one between content producers and content consumers; they want no part of the whole shebang. The discussion paper released last week reflects this belief. It positions ISPs as outside the cycle of online copyright infringement by having them passively pass on educational and warning notices to users whose activities will in turn be tracked by the content industry; then, when users don’t listen, the ISPs again step out of the way and pass their details back the other way. There’s also a limiting factor on how many notices they’ll pass on. It’s all quite neat and clean — and predictable. The response from the content industry (film, TV, video game and music studios and distributors) has also been predictable. Ask yourself: What does the content industry think about the issue of internet piracy? Well, the answer to this question is also clear: It wants to hold onto existing business models. The content industry wants its consumers to continue to funnel money into its revenue trough, forking out for pay television, DVDs, sitting through ever-increasing amounts of advertisements on free to air TV, buying video games at full prices, buying whole albums of music and more. The content industry has a whole superstructure set up which has been custom-designed to part you from your money, and it doesn’t want to migrate to a new system. Hence, the content industry primarily sees the issue of online copyright infringement as being one between users and ISPs. They can’t control what users download, but ISPs can, so they want ISPs to take responsibility for undercutting their existing business models. The content industry’s response to the ISPs’ discussion paper released last week reflects this belief. When the Australian Content Industry Group’s Vanessa Hutley says the proposal “falls short”, she means that there’s no responsibility in the ISPs’ model which would require them to take any enforcement action against their users. Then there’s the government. Governments are a complex beast. Beset by a thousand different competing political and bureaucratic demands, Ministers such as Federal Attorney-General Robert McClelland are positioned at the heart of a huge spider web with a thousand different cords pulling on them simultaneously. Consequently, they don’t pay attention to industry lobby groups such as the Internet Industry Association, Communications Alliance, Australian Information Industry Association, Australian Content Industry Group, Interactive Games & Entertainment Association and so on unless there is clearly an issue which the industry can’t resolve itself. When this happens — as it clearly has in the case of online copyright infringement — the government will normally order a public enquiry to get all sides of the story, and try to get the warring sides to sit down around a table to negotiate under its steely gaze. This is precisely what has occurred in this case as well. Closed door discussions about Internet piracy are being held by the Attorney-General’s Department, and a number of public consultations are under way about the issue of the Internet in general. The government primarily sees the issue of online copyright infringement as being one between ISPs and content owners. They want these two industries to sit down and work out the issue themselves. If this ultimately fails, the Government will be forced to devote resources to legislating on the matter — something which it wants to avoid. Now, have you noticed something about all of these approaches? In all three cases, the prime actors (the ISPs, the content industry and the government) have avoided taking any personal responsibility for the issue. None of the major three sides of Australia’s internet piracy debate fundamentally believe that the issue is theirs to resolve. They want someone else to do it for them. What this has meant for the debate is that it has constantly gone around in circles, with each side of this odious tri-pointed star constantly evading responsibility and passing the buck. In addition, they have each avoided discussing the real issues underlying internet piracy. Now, there are two further parties in the debate which have remained largely silent on the issue of internet piracy so far: Those who actually create the content — rather than distribute it — and those who consume it. I’m speaking, of course, about artists and the general public. I was struck recently by a comment which Greens Senator and Communications Spokesperson Scott Ludlam made on this issue in a post on Delimiter. Ludlam wrote: “This is a complex and opaque clash of commercial self-interest, with old media conglomerates seeking to retain their incumbency in a world which doesn’t need them as much as it used to. Amazing how little we hear from the artists and creative people themselves about how they’d like to be paid for their work.” That’s right — real artists! What a shocking concept! As Ludlam rightly points out, it is not film and TV directors, producers or actors, musicians, video game development houses or any other form of artist calling for the issue of internet piracy to be resolved. These people — artists — do not really care about the issue. Their main concern is that they are allowed to produce their art without gross commercial interference, and that art gets distributed to consumers in a way which allows consumers to get access to it and at a reasonable enough rate of return to allow them to continue making it and even profit a little. Art has other aims than just profit, although profit is usually mixed in there somewhere. Strange to hear this said out loud, isn’t it? It is a similar situation with the general public. All Joe Citizen wants is to be able to get whatever content they want, at the same time as everyone else, on whatever device they want to be able to view it on, and at a reasonable price that they can afford to pay. Sounds pretty simple, doesn’t it? The average Australian couldn’t give two hoots about content industry groups, record labels, film and TV distribution networks, television stations (pay TV or otherwise) or video game retailers. What they want is the content, plain and simple. I was struck by a comment by ABC managing director Mark Scott, who said (as reported by Mumbrella) in a recent speech that the ABC’s iView platform had demonstrated that there is a strong and growing online audience for “great content, well-curated and delivered in an accessible format”. “Our research suggests that when audiences discover iView, they love it — they use it, they keep coming back to it,” Scott added. Precisely. When the barriers to consuming content are taken away (as they have been on the ABC’s stellar iView app), content consumption explodes. I personally use iView almost every day — on my PC, on my media centre, on my laptop, on my iPad, on my iPhone — anywhere. Sometimes the content isn’t great, but it’s so readily available that I consume it anyway. Australia’s love affair with piracy is not an effort to gyp content creators of their rightful remuneration for that content — it’s a simple attempt to get at content which is too hard to consume otherwise. Once again, audiences want to be able to get whatever content they want, at the same time as everyone else, on whatever device they want to be able to view it on, and at a reasonable price. Now the thing to understand about both artists and consumers is that they are absolutely the key stakeholders in this debate — everyone else are just middlemen. In addition, they don’t have many linkages with the other three groups who are driving the debate. Content consumers primarily see their main relationship as being with artists directly — the film buff who follows a director’s career, the music fan who buys all of a band’s albums, the Gears of War fan who follows every comment Cliffy B makes in public. And on the flipside, the artists see their main relationship as being with their fans — talking to them, producing content for them, performing for them. Neither places ISPs, content industry groups or the Government as stakeholders of high importance in the way they consume content. And yet it is these middlemen who are driving the debate about online copyright infringement in Australia, who are negotiating behind closed doors on the issue, suing each other in court, and threatening to legislate about it. For self-interested reasons. When artists and consumers themselves get involved in the debate, a remarkable thing tends to happen: Self-interest largely disappears from the picture. Great art is never created from self-interest. It can only be created when an artist is driven by their creative impulse, and applies discipline to develop their talents. Great art is never consumed from a sense of self-advancement. It is consumed with wonder, for entertainment, to take oneself away from our normal lives. The commercial agenda is present but rarely the most important factor — it is usually the middlemen who tend to bring it into the picture — not the artists, nor the consumers of that art. Other things happen as well, when artists and consumers take the online piracy debate back into their own hands. Video game developers create their own publishing platforms which users prefer to piracy. Artists call for their fans to pirate their albums rather than buy them from greedy music labels — and then start publishing them online themselves, without the assistance of intermediaries. Internet video platforms arise to stream content when, where and how consumers want. And more. A direct connection is made between artists and consumers without middlemen. Now, I’m not saying every middleman in Australia’s online piracy debate is purely motivated by self-interest. Some ISP leaders, like iiNet’s Michael Malone and Internode’s Simon Hackett, also have altruistic motives and do care about their customers. And the same can be said of some figures within the Government and content industries. But what I am saying is that we are letting middlemen rule a debate which should be rightly ruled by Australian consumers and artists themselves. Let’s set self-interest aside from the issue of online copyright infringement and ask consumers and artists what they want. Now that would be the real definition of an “industry solution”.

High Court upholds Senate power to probe airport, police officials

The Supreme Court (SC) has affirmed the power of the Senate to investigate airport and police officials allegedly involved in the disappearance in 2008 of Engineer Rodolfo Lozada, a principal witness in the shelved P16-billion government deal for a National Broadband Network (NBN) with Zhong Xing Telecommunications Equipment (ZTE) of China. Lozada decided to return to Manila on February 5, 2008 to air his testimonies in the now botched NBN deal. Upon arrival at the Ninoy Aquino International Airport (NAIA), however, airport and police personnel reportedly whisked him out of the airport and brought him to Laguna. Then senator, now President Benigno S. Aquino III, and members of the Senate’s office of the seargeantat-arms were to fetch Lozada. Lozada was returned to Manila when his disappearance gained prominence in the newspapers. Then Sen. Aquino delivered a privilege speech asking the Senate to look into the disappearance of Lozada. Lozada eventually testified in the Senate hearing conducted by the Committees on Blue Ribbon, Trade and Commerce, and National Defense and Security. The summon for airport and police officers to appear during the investigation was challenged before the SC. In resolving the issue, the SC said the power of Congress to conduct inquiries in aid of legislation “is broad” and “is essential and appropriate auxiliary to the legislative function.” It pointed out that the disappearance of a material witness to the investigation, which may be related to the anomalies being investigated is relevant to the inquiry.

Universal Service reform order targets 6 Mb/s broadband speed in certain cases

T-Mobile USA likes to talk up the capabilities of its souped-up 42 Mbps HSPA+ network, claiming it can rival even the new LTE networks deployed by Verizon Wireless(sVOD) and AT&T. Well, over the last few weeks, mobile network tester RootMetrics has been holding T-Mobile to its claims, pitting the carrier’s new 42 Mbps smartphones against their LTE equivalents in real-world environments. Root found T-Mobile’s network can support some truly astonishing speeds, but they still don’t match up to the raw bandwidth of LTE. Root tested the HTC Amaze 4G in five markets: Columbus, Ohio; Orlando, Fla.; Providence, R.I.; Richmond, Va.; and Tuscon, Ariz. Root found T-Mobile’s 42 Mbps HSPA+ network averaged download speeds between 6.2 Mbps and 7.7 Mbps and upload speeds between 1 Mbps and 1.4 Mbps. (You can see the full reports on Root’s website.) T-Mobile handily beat out AT&T’s HSPA and Sprint’s WiMAX services — in most cases more than doubling their speeds — though Root hasn’t yet tested Ma Bell’s recently released LTE smartphones. But in four of those markets (Verizon doesn’t yet offer LTE in Providence), Root pitted the Amaze against Verizon’s LTE HTC Thunderbolt, which averaged download speeds between 9.6 Mbps and 11.4 Mbps and upload speeds between 3.8 Mbps and 6.7 Mbps. It’s not hard to pick a winner. These tests are important, because they’re the first apples-to-apples comparisons of rivaling network technologies. To say LTE is inherently faster than HSPA+ based on older tests simply isn’t fair because LTE networks like those deployed by Verizon and AT&T are using double the spectral bandwidth – 10 MHz on both the downlink and uplink – compared to a typical HSPA+ network. T-Mobile’s new 42 Mbps network, however, bonds two 5 MHz-by-5 MHz HSPA+ carriers together. For the first time in the U.S., we’re able to compare two networks, megahertz for megahertz. That LTE still comes out on top may not seem like a surprise, but in truth, as an air interface, LTE is not that much more spectrally efficient than the latest generation HSPA technologies. The likely reason Verizon’s – and presumably AT&T’s – network is so much faster is the multiple input-multiple output (MIMO) smart antenna technologies used in LTE. MIMO sends two parallel data transmissions, allowing LTE in many cases to double up on capacity. HSPA+ can support MIMO as well, along with a host of other upgrades that can send its theoretical ceiling of 42 Mbps into the stratosphere. T-Mobile has simply elected not to deploy those upgrades – at least not yet.

Facebook, Zynga Prevail In Privacy Lawsuit

Handing Facebook and Zynga a victory, a federal judge has dismissed class-action lawsuits accusing them of “leaking” users' personal information to advertisers. The dismissal was with prejudice, which means that the case can't be refiled. U.S. District Court Judge James Ware in San Jose, Calif. ruled that consumers couldn't proceed with their claims because they couldn't show that they had been harmed by any disclosures. "Nominal damages and speculative harm do not suffice to show legally cognizable damage," Ware wrote. Facebook and gaming company Zynga were accused of breaking promises in their privacy policies by inadvertently passing along users' names to advertisers through the referrer headers. Those headers -- the URLs transmitted by publishers when users click on ads -- allegedly included users' Facebook IDs. Internet pioneer Tim Berners-Lee warned back in 1999 that referrer headers could leak information about Web users. But lawsuits about referrer headers didn't reach the courts until late last year, shortly after reports about the issue surfaced in the press. A similar lawsuit against LinkedIn was dismissed earlier this month. U.S. District Court Judge Lucy Koh in San Jose ruled that the user had not spelled out how he was injured by the alleged data leakage. Consumers suing Facebook and Zynga also argued that the companies violated a federal privacy law regulating electronic data. But Ware ruled that transmitting information to advertisers after users clicked on the ads wasn't illegal under that law. In the last year, numerous Web companies have been sued for allegedly violating users' privacy. While some companies -- including Quantcast, Specific Media and Metacafe -- have settled with users, many others have convinced judges to dismiss the lawsuits on the grounds that the users hadn't been injured. One exception occurred in a case against ad network Interclick, which allegedly used history-sniffing techniques to discover which sites users previously visited. U.S. District Court Judge Deborah Batts in New York ruled that consumers could proceed on claims that Interclick violated a New York law regarding deceptive business practices. Another involved a lawsuit against RockYou, which suffered a security breach that exposed users' email addresses and passwords. U.S. District Court Judge Phyllis Hamilton in the Northern District of California rejected RockYou's bid to dismiss the case at an early stage. That case recently settled.

County planners approve permits for Internet Cafes

The Richmond County Planning and Zoning Board of Adjustments approved an application for a Conditional Use Permit for two Internet Cafes in Richmond County recently. One Internet Cafe is being opened at 897 Highway 1 North, the other is planned for 1619 Highway 177 South. Two weeks ago, the Planning and Zoning Board held a public hearing to address the applicant when questions were raised about the legality of the proposed businesses. Sami Salah applied for the permits after learning he would need them to open his business on U.S. 1, outside of the Rockingham city limits, and at the second location. The Planning and Zoning Board agreed to continue the public hearing to last Tuesday due to a lack of the applicant’s documentation to support his statement that the computers he plans to use are legal. According to County Planner and GIS Director James Armstrong, “The board passed it and he got a CUP (Conditional Use Permit).” However, questions regarding the legality of the cafes came up again at the second meeting. “They had a lot of discussions on it,” said Armstrong. “They found that they couldn’t determine the legality of it,” he said of the board. According to Armstrong, whether the Internet Cafe is illegal or not will be left for law enforcement to decide. “The board took it on precedent of Guilford County,” said Armstrong, referring to the fact that the General Statute bans video poker in all 99 North Carolina Counties, except Guilford County, which overturned the law in 2010. Armstrong said Salah presented the final ruling of the Guilford County case as his supporting documents to show that his machines were within the law. “I’m not sure where it goes from here,” said Armstrong on Monday. Richmond County Sheriff James E. Clemmons said the state Attorney General’s office is still in the midst of lawsuits to determine the legality of the video game machines used in Internet Cafes. “Once there is a ruling by the North Carolina Supreme Court, and the Attorney General’s office has determined what the law is, then we will go from there,” Clemmons told the Daily Journal on Monday. He agreed that, until laws are in place that directly address the gaming machines, law enforcement is up in the air. Salah was excited about receiving his permits, and being able to move forward with his businesses. “I feel good,” he said. Salah added, “I didn’t have to get a permit or wait a month with the other places; I didn’t have to go through this process.” Salah owns Internet Cafes in Laurinburg and Pembroke. He lives in Maxton.

Self-interest is ruling Australia’s piracy debate

opinion Over the past few months, I have alternately been appalled, disgusted, saddened and ultimately bored at the degree to which naked self-interest is ruling the ongoing debate about how Australia will deal with the issue of online copyright infringement (Internet piracy). Now, there is no doubt that the debate has been a vibrant one. There have been strong opinions from multiple sides. There have been complicated legal, commercial and ethical arguments presented ad nauseum. There have been many speeches made, public discussion papers issued, off the cuff comments thrown into the ether and the overall entertainment factor has been extremely high; worthy, almost, of its own reality show on prime-time TV. However, what has been lacking from the debate at its core has been any real consideration for the underlying factors underpinning the growth of Internet piracy and how they might be addressed. Unfortunately, but perhaps predictably, the major players in the debate — the ISP and content industries and the Government — appear to be almost purely engaging in this dialogue out of their own self-interests; nothing more, and nothing less. Let’s take last week’s release of a discussion paper by a number of Australia’s major ISPs and representative group, the Communications Alliance, on the issue. On the face of it, as many commenters agreed over the weekend, the paper sounds pretty good. It avoids unsavoury approaches to dealing with Internet piracy such as disconnecting users’ broadband connections, includes significant avenues for appeal and independent oversight and works within the boundaries of Australia’s existing law on a predominantly education-based approach to dealing with the issue. However, when you dig a bit deeper into the rationale underpinning the paper, it becomes clear it has broader aims. Ask yourself: What does Australia’s ISP industry really think about the issue of Internet piracy? Well, the answer to this question is clear: It wants the issue to go away. Australia’s ISPs want their users to continue to funnel money into their revenue trough for broadband connections with big quotas, and they don’t want to be on the receiving end of lawsuits such as AFACT’s action against iiNet while they’re doing it. Australia’s ISPs primarily see the issue of online copyright infringement as being one between content producers and content consumers; they want no part of the whole shebang. The discussion paper released last week reflects this belief. It positions ISPs as outside the cycle of online copyright infringement by having them passively pass on educational and warning notices to users whose activities will in turn be tracked by the content industry; then, when users don’t listen, the ISPs again step out of the way and pass their details back the other way. There’s also a limiting factor on how many notices they’ll pass on. It’s all quite neat and clean — and predictable. The response from the content industry (film, TV, video game and music studios and distributors) has also been predictable. Ask yourself: What does the content industry think about the issue of Internet piracy? Well, the answer to this question is also clear: It wants to hold onto existing business models. The content industry wants its consumers to continue to funnel money into its revenue trough, forking out for pay television, DVDs, sitting through ever-increasing amounts of advertisements on free to air TV, buying video games at full prices, buying whole albums of music and more. The content industry has a whole superstructure set up which has been custom-designed to part you from your money, and it doesn’t want to migrate to a new system. Hence, the content industry primarily sees the issue of online copyright infringement as being one between users and ISPs. They can’t control what users download, but ISPs can, so they want ISPs to take responsibility for undercutting their existing business models. The content industry’s response to the ISPs’ discussion paper released last week reflects this belief. When the Australian Content Industry Group’s Vanessa Hutley says the proposal “falls short”, she means that there’s no responsibility in the ISPs’ model which would require them to take any enforcement action against their users. Then there’s the Government. Governments are a complex beast. Beset by a thousand different competing political and bureaucratic demands, Ministers such as Federal Attorney-General Robert McClelland are positioned at the heart of a huge spider web with a thousand different cords pulling on them simultaneously. Consequently, they don’t pay attention to industry lobby groups such as the Internet Industry Association, Communications Alliance, Australian Information Industry Association, Australian Content Industry Group, Interactive Games & Entertainment Association and so on unless there is clearly an issue which the industry can’t resolve itself. When this happens — as it clearly has in the case of online copyright infringement — the Government will normally order a public enquiry to get all sides of the story, and try to get the warring sides to sit down around a table to negotiate under its steely gaze. This is precisely what has occurred in this case as well. Closed door discussions about Internet piracy are being held by the Attorney-General’s Department, and a number of public consultations are under way about the issue of the Internet in general. The Government primarily sees the issue of online copyright infringement as being one between ISPs and content owners. They want these two industries to sit down and work out the issue themselves. If this ultimately fails, the Government will be forced to devote resources to legislating on the matter — something which it wants to avoid. Now, have you noticed something about all of these approaches? In all three cases, the prime actors (the ISPs, the content industry and the government) have avoided taking any personal responsibility for the issue. None of the major three sides of Australia’s Internet piracy debate fundamentally believe that the issue is theirs to resolve. They want someone else to do it for them. What this has meant for the debate is that it has constantly gone around in circles, with each side of this odious tri-pointed star constantly evading responsibility and passing the buck. In addition, they have each avoided discussing the real issues underlying Internet piracy. Now, there are two further parties in the debate which have remained largely silent on the issue of Internet piracy so far: Those who actually create the content — rather than distribute it — and those who consume it. I’m speaking, of course, about artists and the general public. I was struck recently by a comment which Greens Senator and Communications Spokesperson Scott Ludlam made on this issue in a post on Delimiter. Ludlam wrote: “This is a complex and opaque clash of commercial self-interest, with old media conglomerates seeking to retain their incumbency in a world which doesn’t need them as much as it used to. Amazing how little we hear from the artists and creative people themselves about how they’d like to be paid for their work.” That’s right — real artists! What a shocking concept! As Ludlam rightly points out, it is not film and TV directors, producers or actors, musicians, video game development houses or any other form of artist calling for the issue of Internet piracy to be resolved. These people — artists — do not really care about the issue. Their main concern is that they are allowed to produce their art without gross commercial interference, and that art gets distributed to consumers in a way which allows consumers to get access to it and at a reasonable enough rate of return to allow them to continue making it and even profit a little. Art has other aims than just profit, although profit is usually mixed in there somewhere. Strange to hear this said out loud, isn’t it? It is a similar situation with the general public. All Joe Citizen wants is to be able to get whatever content they want, at the same time as everyone else, on whatever device they want to be able to view it on, and at a reasonable price that they can afford to pay. Sounds pretty simple, doesn’t it? The average Australian couldn’t give two hoots about content industry groups, record labels, film and TV distribution networks, television stations (pay TV or otherwise) or video game retailers. What they want is the content, plain and simple. I was struck by a comment by ABC managing director Mark Scott, who said (as reported by Mumbrella) in a recent speech that the ABC’s iView platform had demonstrated that there is a strong and growing online audience for “great content, well-curated and delivered in an accessible format”. “Our research suggests that when audiences discover iView, they love it — they use it, they keep coming back to it,” Scott added. Precisely. When the barriers to consuming content are taken away (as they have been on the ABC’s stellar iView app), content consumption explodes. I personally use iView almost every day — on my PC, on my media centre, on my laptop, on my iPad, on my iPhone — anywhere. Sometimes the content isn’t great, but it’s so readily available that I consume it anyway. Australia’s love affair with piracy is not an effort to gyp content creators of their rightful remuneration for that content — it’s a simple attempt to get at content which is too hard to consume otherwise. Once again, audiences want to be able to get whatever content they want, at the same time as everyone else, on whatever device they want to be able to view it on, and at a reasonable price. Now the thing to understand about both artists and consumers is that they are absolutely the key stakeholders in this debate — everyone else are just middlemen. In addition, they don’t have many linkages with the other three groups who are driving the debate. Content consumers primarily see their main relationship as being with artists directly — the film buff who follows a director’s career, the music fan who buys all of a band’s albums, the Gears of War fan who follows every comment Cliffy B makes in public. And on the flipside, the artists see their main relationship as being with their fans — talking to them, producing content for them, performing for them. Neither places ISPs, content industry groups or the Government as stakeholders of high importance in the way they consume content. And yet it is these middlemen who are driving the debate about online copyright infringement in Australia, who are negotiating behind closed doors on the issue, suing each other in court, and threatening to legislate about it. For self-interested reasons. When artists and consumers themselves get involved in the debate, a remarkable thing tends to happen: Self-interest largely disappears from the picture. Great art is never created from self-interest. It can only be created when an artist is driven by their creative impulse, and applies discipline to develop their talents. Great art is never consumed from a sense of self-advancement. It is consumed with wonder, for entertainment, to take oneself away from our normal lives. The commercial agenda is present but rarely the most important factor — it is usually the middlemen who tend to bring it into the picture — not the artists, nor the consumers of that art. Other things happen as well, when artists and consumers take the online piracy debate back into their own hands. Video game developers create their own publishing platforms which users prefer to piracy. Artists call for their fans to pirate their albums rather than buy them from greedy music labels — and then start publishing them online themselves, without the assistance of intermediaries. Internet video platforms arise to stream content when, where and how consumers want. And more. A direct connection is made between artists and consumers without middlemen. Now, I’m not saying every middleman in Australia’s online piracy debate is purely motivated by self-interest. Some ISP leaders, like iiNet’s Michael Malone and Internode’s Simon Hackett, also have altruistic motives and do care about their customers. And the same can be said of some figures within the Government and content industries. But what I am saying is that we are letting middlemen rule a debate which should be rightly ruled by Australian consumers and artists themselves. Let’s set self-interest aside from the issue of online copyright infringement and ask consumers and artists what they want. Now that would be the real definition of an “industry solution”.

Sky trumps Virgin in customer service

Telecoms watchdog Ofcom has released a report into customer service figures which showed that satisfaction with broadband was lower at 58 per cent than mobile (69 per cent) and cable TV (68 per cent). In fixed broadband, Orange fell from the lead position while Virgin Media also fell. The report (PDF) conducted by GfK based on surveying 3,000 customers found that Sky was king for customer service. "Sky has higher than average satisfaction with its customer service and is rated above average for its willingness to resolve issues, taking issues seriously, and offering compensation," the report said. The report said that Virgin Media's customer service was "below average" including a lower rating for resolving issues to the customer's satisfaction. Virgin also had the dubious honor of being the provider that had the most number of subscribers needing to contact them about an issue. 19 per cent, compared to BT, Sky and TalkTalk's level of 14-15 per cent. Despite Virgin's efforts, Ofcom concluded that: "UK providers of landline, fixed broadband, mobile and pay TV services continue to provide a reasonably satisfactory contact experience in the majority of cases."

INTERNET LAW - State Privacy Torts

State privacy laws include the torts of public disclosure of private facts, false light and false intrusion. Each state has taken a different approach to these torts and whether or not there is a right to sue for the various theories of action. The components of a negligence which all must be proven to recover in civil action are: 1. Duty: A legal duty requiring D to conduct himself according to a certain standard, so as to avoid unreasonable risk to others; 2. Failure to conform: A failure by D to conform his conduct to this standard which can also be called carelessness. 3. Proximate cause: A sufficiently close causal link between D’s act of negligence and the harm suffered by P. 4. Actual damage: Actual damage suffered by P. (Compare this to most intentional torts, such as trespass, where P can recover nominal damages even without actual injury.) http://www.lexisnexis.com/lawschool/emanuel/web/torts/index.html The tort of the public disclosure of private facts can hold civil liability. The elements for this tort include The protection of privacy includes protection against the public disclosure of private facts where the facts disclosed are highly offensive and objectionable to a reasonable person of ordinary sensibilities. This protection includes the public disclosure of some kinds of public facts. Communication of this information to the public or to a sufficient amount of people that it is likely to reach the general public may prove to be valid grounds for a lawsuit. The argument that it is true information does not provide a valid defense to this tort unlike the defamation tort. The tort of false light also can hold civil liability. This tort involves the situation where a person wrongfully attributes views or characteristics to a person in ways that damage a person’s reputation. False light can be differentiated from the tort of defamation, because an action for placing someone in a false light can include statements that would not be considered defamatory. However, the wrongfully attributed facts must be highly offensive to a reasonable person in order to become the basis for a false light lawsuit. However the issues of newsworthiness and consent may apply to false light lawsuits as potential defenses. However, if the plaintiff is a public figure, then an action for false light can be made only if they can show that D knew the portrayal was false, or acted in reckless disregard of whether it was which is termed as “actual malice.” The case of New York Times v. Sullivan applies to false light actions by public figures. [Time, Inc. v. Hill] However, if a figure is private then they probably will not have to meet this "actual malice" standard. Lastly, the tort of wrongful intrusion can also occur on the Internet. A civil action can be brought when a person has been intruded on in their life whereas they had a reasonable expectation of freedom from this type of intrusion. However, the intrusion does not need to be a physical trespass. Reading someone’s electronic mail can involve wrongful intrusion or gaining access to another’s data or files could be considered to be actionable. Does the information on the public disclosure of facts have to be private in nature or can it be known already? There are limitations that are involved under the tort of public disclosure of private facts. Under this tort, there are certain conditions that must be met. The facts that are being disclosed must be private in nature. In order to determine if these facts are indeed private, these facts must not have been the subject of the previous publicity and may not already become matters of common knowledge. Additionally, public activities cannot be the basis for this type of lawsuit. There is another limitation on this tort which includes that the disclosure of these facts is made in the public interest or if the person involved is a public figure, there may be a potential defense to this action. However, the defense of consent can be argued. If the person that the private facts relate to had given their consent to this disclosure then no cause of action can arise. Even if the person revealed this information in strict confidence that this information should not be shared with others, there may still be a breach of confidentiality but this action would not qualify under the public disclosure of private facts. The rationale behind this policy is that there cannot be a cause of action for making these types of facts available to the public. Can the use of digitized images also cause liability? The fact that a widespread disclosure can involve spoken words can involve a message board or disseminating an electronic mail or posting on a website. However, the use of digitized images can also pose liability for example if they involve a compromising photo that has been disseminated through whatever means whether it be a bulletin board or through an electronic mail attachment. Can a system operator or an Internet Service Provider (ISP) face liability under the tort of wrongful intrusion of a person’s life? A sys op or an ISP can face civil liability if they “negligently” make it possible for someone to be able to intrude on another’s privacy including gaining access to their data or electronic mail. System operators that give other access levels may face liability if they are negligently performing their duties. Negligence occurs when D’s conduct imposes an unreasonable risk upon another, which results in injury to that other. However, unlike an intentional tort, under the theory of negligence, the tortfeasor’s mental state is irrelevant. The conduct is the necessary measure of the outcome.

EU court rejects web piracy filter

Internet service providers cannot be required by national courts to install filters that would prevent the illegal downloading of files, an EU court said today. The ruling is a blow to artists who had sought to have their intellectual property rights protected. “EU law precludes the imposition of an injunction by a national court which requires an internet service provider to install a filtering system with a view to preventing the illegal downloading of files,” the EU Court of Justice in Luxembourg said in a statement after today’s ruling. SABAM, a Belgian company representing writers, composers and editors, established in 2004 that users of an internet service provider called Scarlet Extended SA were illegally transferring files. A Belgian court last year sought the EU top tribunal’s guidance on whether forcing an ISP to stop illegal file sharing on its network is in line with the EU’s rules. But the Court of Justice of the European Union ruled today that this would require monitoring of all electronic communications of all of Scarlet’s customers, infringing on their rights, and violated EU law. The ruling may also have some impact in Ireland. In 2009, High Court judge Mr Justice Peter Charleton granted an injunction instructing Eircom to block controversial website Pirate Bay, which provides links to locations where copyrighted material such as music can be downloaded for free. Its activities have been the subject of numerous lawsuits. The injunction was part of a settlement with record labels that saw the telecoms operator implement a "three strikes" rule that would see persistent file sharers cut off from its broadband service. The Internet Providers Association of Ireland said the ruling set an "extremely important precedent" for ISPs, and would undoubtedly be seen as a landmark judgment. "This outcome is of particular importance for us since the Department of Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation in June tabled wording for a statutory instrument which would purportedly bring Ireland into line with its European obligations under the copyright and e-commerce directives," the group said in a statement. "The injunctions regime provided for in the broad wording of the proposal, however, could potentially encompass not only blocking but mass filtering obligations and furthermore, the eventual introduction of a graduated response system is not inconceivable in these conditions. Today’s ruling will certainly set limits on this."

AT&T Withdraws T-Mobile Deal Application at FCC

Hoping that the tryptophan roar of the Thansgiving holiday would take the public relations sting out of the move, AT&T and Deutsche Telekom this morning announced that AT&T would be withdrawing their application at the FCC to acquire T-Mobile. The move comes after the FCC this week announced they'd be holding a hearing on the merger, placing another deal hurdle in AT&T's already troubled path. According to the two companies press statement, they insist they're making the move to "consolidate their strength" in order to focus on their upcoming legal battle with the FCC: This formal step today is being undertaken by both companies to consolidate their strength and to focus their continuing efforts on obtaining antitrust clearance for the transaction from the Department of Justice. As soon as practical, Deutsche Telekom and AT&T intend to seek the necessary FCC approval. What's actually happening? Under generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP), AT&T has to record the $4 billion break up fee if their auditors believe their attempted takeover of T-Mobile has less than a 20% chance of success. With ongoing lawsuits against both the DOJ and Sprint, severe public backlash against the deal and growing opposition at the FCC, AT&T's number crunchers are clearly predicting the deal probably won't happen. If it does still occur, it's certainly not going to be in its current form, and AT&T still has a very steep mountain to climb to achieve their previous dreams of greater market dominance. AT&T's problems all stem from the fact that their repeated claims of deal benefits have been simply too unbelievable to swallow, even for factually-challenged politicians with often mindless loyalty to their wealthiest constituents. AT&T lobbyists have been using every sleazy trick in the lobbying book to try and convince the public, media, and regulators that the deal would create jobs, expand AT&T's wireless network and even help the nation's homeless puppies. However, history, AT&T's own public statements, and leaked documents clearly show that a T-Mobile deal would actually reduce overall network investment, result in significant redundant job reductions, and despite repeated breatheless claims by AT&T -- is absolutely unnecessary for AT&T to fully deploy next-gen wireless services. While the deal would provide AT&T with some useful assets (albeit the lion's share redundant), AT&T's real goal was the elimination of T-Mobile and the weakening of Sprint -- a move even the nation's pay-to-play government hasn't been able to ignore.

FCC Chair to Put AT&T/T-Mobile Merger on the Grill

The proposed AT&T/T-Mobile merger hit another obstacle Tuesday when the chairman of the FCC called the deal harmful to consumers. AT&T (NYSE: T) will have to prove otherwise if FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski gets his way. He's asked that the other commissioners approve an administrative hearing on the issue, expressing concern that the US$39 billion deal would create too much concentration in the wireless market, kill jobs and be overall detrimental to consumers. His appeal to the other commissioners is the first such request since 2002, when a potential deal between EchoStar (Nasdaq: SATS) and DirecTV (Nasdaq: DTV) was put under the microscope. Since AT&T's intention to buy smaller rival T-Mobile was announced in March, consumer groups and other wireless providers have warned the deal between the second- and fourth-largest U.S. carriers would create a duopoly and stifle competition in the industry. A Department of Justice lawsuit to block the deal in August further deterred the plan, and more lawsuits from several states' attorneys general followed. Weighing the Options Cutting its losses and abandoning the deal would be costly for AT&T. The carrier has agreed to pay Deutsche Telekom (NYSE: DT), the parent company of T-Mobile, $3 billion in fees and rights to acquire the company, an amount it promised even if the deal didn't go through. AT&T is also on the hook to shell out $3 billion to $4 billion to T-Mobile in assets if the merger doesn't work out. If the FCC presses the issue, the carriers will have to face federal opposition from both the FCC and the DoJ. Each argument will address slightly different topics. "The DoJ suit focuses on whether the merger as proposed by the parties is likely to have an adverse effect on competition among cellular service providers. FCC approval is required to transfer operating licenses, and its review focuses on whether individual license transfers are in the public interest," Craig Bachman, parter at Lane Powell PC, told the E-Commerce Times. Though AT&T would be granted the right to argue against claims that the license transfers aren't in the public interest, the two hurdles -- especially from the FCC, an organization that hasn't made that kind of move in nine years -- indicate the company will face an uphill battle. Possible Defense If the chairman's request goes through and the deal is reviewed, it probably won't start until after the DoJ trial against AT&T, scheduled to begin in February. If the company strikes a compromise with Justice to end that litigation, it would have to reevaluate the merger and present its case again before the FCC. Since the intended merger was announced, the companies have maintained that with its multibillion dollar play to expand broadband coverage to rural areas, it would create thousands of domestic jobs. It's a claim AT&T has highlighted more as opposition to the merger increases and unemployment problems in the U.S. persist. Following the FCC chairman's request, AT&T officials commented on missed opportunities to create jobs and spur innovation if the merger doesn't go through. Critics, however, aren't buying it. "The record clearly shows that, in no uncertain terms, this merger would result in a massive loss of U.S. jobs and investment," a senior FCC official told the E-Commerce Times in a statement provided by Neil Grace, press secretary in the office of the chairman at the FCC. AT&T countered that since so much of the merger is focused on expanding coverage, especially with speedier 4G LTE wireless technology, the deal would not only create jobs in the implementation of that network, but would also increase coverage nationwide. "Competition in the industry focuses on technology evolution, customer acquisition and customer retention. Revenue per user and average margin per user have been declining for both companies as users move to integrated devices such as smartphones and therefore use less voice and more data transmission," said Bachman. AT&T did not respond to the E-Commerce Times' requests for comment.

We’ve reached our suing altitude

A venture capital firm founded by one of Richmond’s most prominent businessmen is embroiled in yet another lawsuit over a funding deal gone sour. V-Ten Capital Partners, founded by Richard Sharp, the former chief executive of both Circuit City and CarMax, had already been battling litigation in federal court over the ownership of potentially lucrative ground-to-air broadband technology when it was sued again last week in Richmond Circuit Court related to same issue. V-Ten and several other parties, including an investment firm in Connecticut and German airline giant Lufthansa, were sued Nov. 14 by Wi-Sky Inflight Inc., an Atlanta company that claims it owns the rights to the technology in question. V-Ten at one point was working a deal to fund the company. Wi-Sky alleges in its suit that V-Ten and the other defendants conspired to develop the technology on their own while pushing it out of the picture. Making matters worse, V-Ten never actually funded the deal, and the technology has yet to be brought to market. “It’s a long and complicated story,” said Darren Penn, an attorney with Harris Penn Lowry DelCampo, an Atlanta law firm representing Wi-Sky. The legal fight boils down to who truly owns the technology, which allows high speed Internet access to be beamed from the ground to airliners in flight. V-Ten, which Sharp founded along with other former Circuit City executives, had offered to invest in Wi-Sky and help fund the development of its technology, according to the suit. Those discussions began in 2008, but the relationship fell apart because Wi-Sky’s shareholders rejected the deal. It was shortly thereafter, the suit alleges, that V-Ten, a man named Michael Leabman who had been contracted by Wi-Sky to build radios for the technology, and the other defendants began their alleged conspiracy. “What we have learned through all the pending [federal] litigation is that the discussions didn’t end after Wi-Sky rejected the deal,” Penn said. “Leabman started having his own discussions with V-Ten and others.” A message left for Sharp was not returned by press time. V-Ten’s attorney, Brian Pumphrey of McGuireWoods, spoke on behalf of Sharp’s firm. “Wi-Sky’s complaint is completely without merit,” Pumphrey said. “No one conspired to injure Wi-Sky. Wi-Sky never had an interest in the technology at issue.” Wi-Sky alleges several counts of civil conspiracy and is seeking an injunction to stop the defendants from using anything related to the technology. It has asked the court to award damages of $10 million. The same parties are fighting over ownership of the technology in federal court. The federal suit was filed by Lufthansa, which at one point allegedly was in final negotiations with Wi-Sky on a contract for the technology worth $100 million. That, too, fell through, Wi-Sky’s local suit claims, in part because Leabman, V-Ten and the others allegedly worked together to kill the deal. Because of its interest in the technology, Lufthansa filed the suit to get the court to quickly sort out the ownership issue. “It became clear to us that all of these parties on the other side had gotten together and conspired to file all these other lawsuits and pursue these other actions in attempt to take the property from Wi-Sky,” Penn said. Wi-Sky, which is listed on a German stock exchange, has filed for bankruptcy as it sorts out the mess. Pumphrey and McGuireWoods are representing V-Ten in the local and federal cases. They are also representing Wivest LLC, an entity affiliated with V-Ten that was allegedly created with the sole purpose of investing in Wi-Sky. Mark Dix, an attorney with Richmond-based Bucci & Dix, is also working on behalf of Wi-Sky. V-Ten, headquartered on Stony Point Parkway, invests in and funds startups, early-stage companies and those looking to grow. It focuses its efforts on technology, life sciences, health care, real estate and other areas. V-Ten and the other defendants have yet to file their response to the Wi-Sky suit. Penn said he expects the case to go to trial. “That’s the clearest way to flesh out all these issues and find out what the truth is.”

FCC chief signals opposition to AT&T-T-Mobile merger, seeks hearing

FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski has signaled disapproval of AT&T’s $39 billion bid to take over Bellevue-based T-Mobile USA. According to several media reports and information one carrier opposing the deal, Genachowski is circulating a draft order designating AT&T’s proposed acquisition of T-Mobile for a hearing before an administrative law judge. If a hearing were to be approved by the other four FCC commissioners, the administrative law judge would be asked to decide if the deal is good for consumers and for the industry, according to The Wall Street Journal. The move is another serious roadblock to AT&T gaining regulatory approval for the deal. In August, the Justice Department filed an antitrust lawsuit to block AT&T’s proposed takeover of T-Mobile. CNET says that it would be a rare move, and is an indication that the FCC does not believe the merger is in the public’s best interest. AT&T says the deal would speed up innovation, create more wireless spectrum and also expand broadband service to neglected small towns and rural areas. T-Mobile execs also have defended the proposed merger. The move to put the breaks on the deal was applauded by rivals, such as Sprint, which also has opposed the merger. “As Chairman Genachowski said in August when the Justice Department filed its antitrust lawsuit against AT&T, the record before the FCC presented, ‘serious concerns about the impact of the proposed transaction on competition,’” said Vonya McCann, Sprint’s senior vice president of government affairs, in a statement. “That record is complete and more than justifies moving this matter to an Administrative Law Judge for a hearing. We appreciate Chairman Genachowski’s leadership on this issue and look forward to the FCC moving quickly to adopt a strong hearing designation order.”

Sprint's Home-State Attorney General Blasts AT&T Deal

Kansas Attorney General Derek Schmidt, the top lawyer in Sprint Nextel Corp.'s (S) home state, filed objections to AT&T Inc.'s (T) proposed $39 billion takeover of Deutsche Telekom AG's (DTEGY, DTE.XE) T-Mobile USA. In a Nov. 21 letter to the Federal Communications Commission, Schmidt said the merger would "deal a blow to competition" and wouldn't facilitate expanded broadband coverage to rural areas, as AT&T has said. AT&T would have been forced to expand high-speed fourth-generation coverage because of Verizon Wireless' own efforts to build out a new network, Schmidt said. "AT&T has chosen to pay a premium to take an innovative competitor out of the market," said Schmidt, a Republican, in the letter. "More concentration is this area will only harm competition, reduce choice, raise prices, and thus harm the consumers we are charged with protecting." AT&T's merger hit an obstacle in August when the Justice Department sued to block it, citing antitrust concerns and the possibility that prices could rise. FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski said at the time that the merger raises "serious concerns." Further, the FCC will seek an administrative hearing on the merger proposal, likely at the conclusion of the Justice Department's suit, a person close to the matter said today. The hearing, before an administrative law judge, would present another obstacle for AT&T as well as an uncertain timeframe for completing the deal. Overland Park, Kan.-based Sprint has been a vocal opponent of the merger, filing its own suit and sending Chief Executive Dan Hesse to testify before Congress. Seven attorneys general have also filed suit against the deal and it is still facing a review by the Public Utilities Commission in California. "It is not unusual for state attorneys general to participate in merger review proceedings," said Brad Burns, an AT&T spokesman, noting that AT&T had received support for the deal from several top state attorneys, as well as other federal and local officials. A Sprint spokeswoman, Leigh Horner, said the carrier had held discussions with Schmidt and other attorneys general and was "pleased to see another expressing concern." The deal would catapult AT&T over Verizon Wireless as the largest U.S. wireless carrier by subscribers. Spokespeople from T-Mobile and the Kansas attorney general's office weren't immediately available for comment.

China nears internet monopoly settlement

Two government-owned Chinese telecom firms are close to a deal with authorities following a probe into claims they had a monopoly on internet broadband services, state media said on Tuesday. China's economic planner, the National Development and Reform Commission, has been investigating since earlier this year China Telecom and China Unicom for allegedly hindering other companies from entering the broadband market. For the government to publicly take on the two state-owned companies was unusual, sparking speculation Beijing is seeking to put more muscle behind a 2008 anti-monopoly law. The agency is now likely to agree to halt the probe if the two telecom giants "admit fault and correct it", the state-linked China Business News said. Firms under investigation for monopoly behaviour can ask for a halt in the investigation by telling the government details of the business, measures to eliminate monopolies and timetable for implementation, it said. However, China Telecom, the nation's largest fixed-line operator, said only that it was assisting in the investigation. "The company is currently fully co-operating with the relevant regulatory authorities on the investigation of alleged monopolistic conduct in the broadband access market," China Telecom said in a statement sent to AFP. A spokeswoman for China Unicom, the country's second largest mobile provider, said it had no further comment on the issue. China Unicom has previously said it offers Internet services with official authorisation and it was providing the government with information about pricing, volume and other areas of the business. The commission said it was probing the firms amid consumer dissatisfaction, while some analysts speculate smaller firms in the broadband services sector could be helping drive the investigation, but there is no confirmed link. The two companies are estimated to command two-thirds of internet access in China. The average speed of China's broadband services is less than one-tenth that of developed nations including the United States, Britain and Japan, a government think-tank has claimed. But fees charged by internet access service providers are as much as three to four times higher than those countries, according to the Advisory Committee for State Informatization, which operates under the State Council, or cabinet

Movie Rights Group website shut down, VP leaves

The website for controversial anti-piracy organisation Movie Rights Group has inexplicably vanished from the Internet and its vice president of sales and marketing has quit, leading to speculation that the organisation has been shut down for good. MRG is a new organisation which was set up in Australia last year with the aim of protecting the copyright rights of content owners in the film industry. In mid-October it was revealed that MRG had approached every major Australian ISP seeking information on users who had allegedly infringed copyright online, initially seeking the details of some 9,000 Australians who it claimed had downloaded the film Kill the Irishman. At that stage, the company’s then-vice president of sales and marketing Gordon Walker told Delimiter at the time, there were plans to broaden the company’s efforts to other films. Unlike the other major Australian organisation representing the film industry, the Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft, Movie Rights Group had planned to take a different approach to piracy. Instead of legally targeting ISPs for the actions of their users, it was planning to seek to subpoena customer information from the ISPs and contact those who had allegedly infringed its copyright directly, looking to settle the matter out of court or through legal action. The website had previously featured a prominent notice informing visitors that one of its chief services was settling lawsuits with Internet users who had allegedly infringed its clients’ copyright. However, Reddit users noted in the past several days that the organisation’s website had disappeared from the Internet. In addition, Walker, who had acted as the company’s only known spokesperson, has updated his LinkedIn profile to note that he no longer works for the company as at November and was now a small to medium business development business consultant based in Brisbane. Walker has not responded to an emailed request for comment on the issue. The disappearance of MRG’s website and Walker’s departure from the company have come after extensive press coverage on the company and its founders. In addition, national broadband provider Exetel has signalled it may modify its core business systems to make it more difficult for anti-piracy organisations such as Movie Rights Group to target its customers for allegedly illegally downloading content through platforms like BitTorrent.

British Invasion: TiVo Adds Net Subscribers For First Time In Four Years

After four years of continous subscriber losses, TiVo gained 117,000 net subs for the quarter ended Oct. 31 -- thanks entirely to the rollout of a TiVo-based box by the U.K.'s Virgin Media -- and beat revenue and net loss expectations. TiVo is hoping to keep the momentum going with other operators, noting that Charter Communications is expected to launch TiVo's Premiere digital video recorders shortly and that DirecTV will debut DVRs with its software next month in limited test markets. In addition, the company said, deployment rates at RCN and Suddenlink Communications are accelerating. "This was a great quarter and represented a significant step in our growth strategy," TiVo president and CEO Tom Rogers said in announcing the results. TiVo's total revenue for its fiscal third quarter 2012 climbed 27% in the quarter, to $64.8 million, versus the year-ago period. It posted a net loss of $24.5 million, compared with a net loss of $20.6 million in the same quarter last year; however, the company noted the net loss in the most recent quarter beat its previous guidance of a net loss of $27 million to $29 million. The company's service and technology revenue (which excludes hardware sales) was $51.8 million, up 25% year-over-year, exceeding TiVo's prior guidance of $49 million to $51 million. TiVo ended the period with 2.04 million total subscriptions, up 117,000 sequentially -- but still down 10% year-over-year, from 2.27 million a year ago. Moreover, "TiVo-owned" subscriptions from boxes sold at retail continued to fall, with the company dropping 30,000 in the quarter to stand at 1.14 million. TiVo's overall subscriber gains in the period were attributable to Virgin Media. The British cable operator had deployed its TiVo offering to more than 220,000 subscribers as of the end of October, up from 50,000 three months prior. About 40% of the MSO's TiVo subscribers are new to Virgin Media. "Our mass deployment efforts are proving successful and gaining momentum with pay-TV operators worldwide," Rogers said. "These operators... are increasingly turning to TiVo because of TiVo's proven advanced television solution that enables them to extract more value out of the television experience by joining traditional linear TV channels with broadband delivered content while vastly upgrading the user interface." Charter, Suddenlink, Grande Communications and Spain's ONO collectively represent more than 10 million homes "that we now have the ability to reach as an exclusive or primary [DVR] product offering," Rogers said. "Additionally, DirecTV has informed us that they intend to initiate the launch of the TiVo-DirecTV product in select markets in December with a nationwide rollout to follow early next year." TiVo has been steadily losing share as pay-TV operators roll out their own DVR offerings. In 1999, TiVo struck its original distribution deal with DirecTV but five years later the satellite TV operator said it would market its own DVR, developed by NDS -- leading to a steady erosion of DirecTV customers using TiVo boxes. Meanwhile, Comcast and Cox Communications abandoned plans to introduce TiVo-based DVRs. Instead, both are shifting to open their VOD services to retail TiVos. Touching on TiVo's pending patent litigation, Rogers said, "We are pleased with how our case against AT&T and Microsoft in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas is progressing after receiving what we believe is a positive claim construction and with trial currently scheduled to begin in January." TiVo also has lawsuits pending against Verizon Communications and Motorola. In May 2011, TiVo reached a $500 million settlement with Dish Network and EchoStar over a key DVR patent, seven years after TiVo originally filed suit. Of that, $300 million was paid immediately and the remaining $200 million will be paid out in annual installments through 2017 leading up to the expiration of TiVo's Time Warp patent in 2018. For the fourth quarter of fiscal 2012, TiVo expects service and technology revenues of $48 million to $50 million and a net loss of $31 million to $33 million. Included in the Q4 guidance is higher expected litigation expense relating to the AT&T/Microsoft case, "where significant activity is scheduled in December and January," as well as increased hard drive costs because of the effect of flooding in Thailand (which TiVo said it expects will be less than $1 million in the fourth quarter). TiVo added that it expects litigation expenses to be lower in both the first quarter and the full-year fiscal 2013.

For Net Neutrality Advocates, the Fight Continues

New rules aimed at preserving network neutrality -- that is, the free flow of content over the Internet -- go into effect this week. But some entrepreneurs, especially those in the mobile technology field, say more regulation is needed. For years, tech startups and Internet service providers have clashed over the issue of net neutrality. Without regulation, tech entrepreneurs fear that Verizon, Comcast, Time Warner Cable and other access providers will favor their highest-paying clients, offering them faster, more premium services, while ratcheting down service to small players. For their part, the Internet service providers maintain they should be free to manage their networks as they see fit. The Senate recently upheld a number of new Federal Communications Commission rules designed to keep the Internet open. Among other new regulations, wired broadband providers are banned from "unreasonable discrimination" and must provide equal service to all commercial sites. The same rules, however, don't apply to wireless providers -- something that tech entrepreneurs and open Internet advocates criticize. "It is disingenuous to have rules that exclude wireless service providers," says Bryan Hertz, CEO of Telcentris, a San Diego-based cloud communications provider. "Increasingly, information is being transmitted over wireless networks. When you take into account where the world is going, not including [wireless] is a mistake." In Boston's startup scene, entrepreneurs say looser standards for wireless providers could stifle innovation. "People would probably not want to pursue mobile app development for their company if they thought [it would] come with these extra headaches," says Jesse Waites, founder of mobile software development firm Beacon Hill Apps. He worries that weak regulation could impede his ability to gain market share. "If my apps look really bad and really slow, I'll never be able to compete with big companies like Google and Facebook to grow," he says. For their part, wired and wireless providers say they don't plan to make any immediate changes. On the wired side, "we've been living under these rules voluntarily for quite some time," says Ed McFadden, a spokesman for the New York-based Verizon. "We've never slowed down traffic and don't intend to." He adds that the company sees downshifting the speed of its network as anti-competitive. "We've said that consumers will vote with their feet." Still, the Verizon’s wireless network is managed differently than its wired network, says McFadden. The company says it doesn't have plans to charge businesses more for faster processing speeds. But McFadden left open the idea that the company could one day do so. "We're always looking for different kinds of ways to meet our customers' [needs for] products and services," he says. The FCC says it doesn’t need to regulate wireless service providers as much as wired broadband ones because there are more competitors in the marketplace, and customers have a variety of companies from which to choose. To be sure, some businesses like hardware manufacturers and systems developers don't believe regulations will help keep the Internet open. Instead, they say extra burdens on service providers could ultimately make things tougher for small businesses that work with them -- and may discourage future innovation in the industry. Though the U.S. Senate quashed the latest attempt to overturn the FCC's net neutrality regulations, a number of lawsuits filed on both sides of the argument could prolong the debate. Free Press, a nonprofit advocacy group in Florence, Mass., is suing the FCC, in part because the new neutrality rules also could give wireless providers the freedom to restrict or slow content on sites or blogs that they don’t like. (Wired providers are banned from doing such.) That could hurt free speech, says Craig Aaron, the group’s president and CEO. "The fight for real net neutrality continues," he said, in a statement after the Senate vote. "I hope policymakers can return to the actual priority here: strengthening these rules to protect all Internet users, no matter if they connect from their home computer or a mobile phone." In a separate lawsuit against the FCC, Verizon contends that the federal agency doesn’t have Congressional authority to make rules governing the Internet. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit will hear both challenges to the FCC’s rules, although no timeline has been set. In April 2010, the same court ruled against the FCC, finding that the agency had overstepped its authority when it attempted to penalize Comcast for allegedly slowing the download speeds of some subscribers. That ruling prompted the FCC to install its net neutrality regulations. Until the court takes up the challenges, there's little chance for any reforms to the FCC's net neutrality rules. "The FCC rules are now momentarily frozen in carbonite," says Sascha Meinrath, director of the open technology initiative at the New America Foundation, a nonpartisan think tank in Washington, D.C. "Depending on how the D.C. Circuit Court weighs in, the rules could get thrown out entirely or stand as they are."

Sue GMA for NBN-ZTE deal, Ombudsman urged

A congressman and two other complainants in the case involving the controversial $329-million national broadband network (NBN) deal urged the Ombudsman’s office yesterday to file a case against former President and Pampanga Rep. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo. Bayan Muna Rep. Teddy Casiño, former Rep. Liza Maza of Gabriela and university professor Carol Araullo appealed to the Ombudsman to file the charges at the Sandiganbayan against Arroyo. Casiño said the complaint involving the NBN contract that was awarded to the Chinese firm ZTE Corp. has long been pending with the Ombudsman. “It would be best for the Ombudsman and the Department of Justice (DOJ) to file as many cases against GMA at the swiftest possible time and without violating due process. The momentum for accountability has started and it should not stop until justice is fully served,” he said. Casiño, Maza and Araullo went to the Ombudsman’s office yesterday to oppose the extension of time for Arroyo to file an answer to their complaint. They said the former president has already been given enough time to respond to the charges. They said Arroyo’s failure to comply with the Ombudsman’s directive to file a counter-affidavit means that she is waiving her right to answer the complaint. They added that the Ombudsman should now resolve the case and file charges against Arroyo with the Sandiganbayan. The complainants claimed the former president favored ZTE Corp. and had an undue interest in the NBN contract. Arroyo and her husband Jose Miguel played golf in Shenzhen, China with ZTE officials two months before her administration gave the contract to the Chinese firm, they said. She even flew to Boao, China to witness the contract signing while her husband was recuperating in a hospital from a serious heart surgery, they said. Casiño said aside from the NBN-ZTE case, Bayan Muna and its allies have filed a separate plunder case against Arroyo and former Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office (PCSO) general manager Rosario Uriarte in connection with the alleged diversion of PCSO’s charity funds to the agency’s intelligence budget. He noted that there is another plunder case, filed by former Solicitor General Francisco Chavez, that is pending with the Ombudsman’s office. Chavez’s complaint is in connection with the P728-million fertilizer scam. Two Senate investigation reports have held then President Arroyo liable for misuse of the money. Casiño lauded the DOJ and the Commission on Elections for filing an election sabotage complaint against Arroyo last Friday. At the same time, he commended Pasay City Regional Trial Court Judge Jesus Mupas for promptly acting on the complaint by ordering the arrest of the former president. “But the work has just begun. Arroyo’s camp will try to sabotage the DOJ-Comelec complaint. Already, they are questioning the court’s jurisdiction, claiming it should be the Sandiganbayan that should handle the case,” he said. Thus, the need for plunder cases to be filed with the Sandiganbayan, he stressed. Casiño said Arroyo was ordered to answer the complaint on Oct. 12, 2011 but she filed a motion asking for a 30-day extension on Oct. 21, 2011 that the Office of the Ombudsman granted. He explained that he and his fellow complainants did not file any opposition to the motion for extension “with the good faith expectation that said motion was not intended for delay and that the same would be filed on the promised date.” Casiño said Arroyo should not be allowed to again ask for an extension because this would be “an abuse of the rules and intended for delay.” He said that for many years during her presidency, Arroyo merely dismissed any investigation on the NBN-ZTE deal by her general denial of any accountability and by merely asserting that she has evidence to prove her innocence. “This undue delay is inimical not only to the prosecution of this case, but also to the entire attempt of the Filipino people to obtain justice from other criminal and civil cases filed against (Arroyo),” he stressed.

ISPs versus SOPA: Anti-piracy bill could force severe privacy-invading measures

Internet service providers in recent weeks have spoken out publicly against the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA), which threatens the very free and open nature of the web as we know it. With the daunting realisation that the Act may actually go through, web providers are desperately adding their voice to the collective of civil rights campaigners, Internet privacy rights groups and major web-based giants from social networks to search engines. But it is not in a bid to forego the moral objection that the rest of the U.S. will feel once the law does all but inevitably pass through. Instead, it falls down to cost and infrastructure, and the corporate resistance to change. (Image source: ZDNet) SOPA could force web providers to “prevent access by its subscribers located within the United States”, which will block access to alleged copyright infringing websites. But as sister site CNET reports, the wording has somewhat changed from the earlier Senate bill, known as the Protect IP Act, that now suggests AT&T, Verizon, Comcast and other web providers could block their customers from accessing certain sites. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce supports the anti-piracy bill, including the Record Industry Association of America (RIAA) and the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA), who represent some of the largest names in the U.S. film and music industries. This could not only include the blocking of a website in its entirety, through existing processes for domain name seizures, but the Act could force net service providers to block IP addresses also. As warned by Markham Erickson, head of NetCoalition, which counts Amazon, Google and Yahoo, amongst many others as part of its anti-SOPA efforts, these measures could also include the controversial deep packet inspection. In a guest column for CNET, Cary Sherman, the RIAA’s chief, suggested that SOPA could not be as wide-ranging as people thought, asking Americans to “take a deep breath”: “Cutting off funding or access to only the illegal part of the site while leaving the rest of the site intact promotes legitimate expression.” But while domain name seizing from a top-level-down perspective will block the vast majority from accessing the website, IP blocking will mean the affected user will not be able to bypass the domain name block by entering in the website’s IP address. Deep packet inspection (DPI), however, is a technology designed to monitor each and every bit and byte sent across a network, and has been heavily criticised as a targeted, privacy-invading approach to anti-piracy. DPI would instantly inspect packets of data sent and received by the customer to determine whether the content is infringing copyright. It would be deep-level wiretapping, that would enable web providers to collect every shred of data the customer sends and receives, which could then be filtered or blocked if the content was deemed unlawful. The data could, in line with data retention policies, be used against the customer if wide-ranging court orders were granted to seek access to that data. Seeing as cell networks in some cases hold your browsing data for years, imagine the content that could be used against you over a similar period of your home broadband account? Some smaller ISPs are particularly critical of SOPA, as it would result in the complete re-engineering and re-deployment of their networks, which could result in the closure of many smaller web providers. The change in language from the Senate to the House version sheds light on why so many Internet companies and web service providers are so opposed to the bill. Not only would it infringe the web on a civil and social level, the blocks that would need to be put in place would have to be paid for by the web providers themselves. And, as often as is the case, it will be the customer having to pay for the ‘privilege’ of having restricted web service. SOPA is designed to counter the rise of ‘rogue’ piracy infringing websites, often based outside the United States but use U.S. controlled domain names, such as .com, .org and .net top-level domains. It will allow the U.S. government to censor U.S. web users from accessing websites based on copyright claims, which could be rogue applications in their own nature. This could lead to widespread blocking of popular websites — many of which oppose the bill, including Facebook, Google and photo-sharing site Flickr — as well as a rise in abuse of the system from competitors or those out to make a quick buck. One of the key problems with SOPA is that the bill, currently going through the U.S. House of Representatives, is laden with vague and seemingly wide-ranging language and can — and probably will — be misinterpreted by the judiciary of whom will have the final say of whether a website is blocked. This is currently the case in the UK for example, where websites can be blocked under the equally vague Digital Economy Act under a non-juried court order. Having said that, the non-specific language used in the bill could allow a certain level of allowance for smaller ISPs, which either do not have the funding or the resources to carry out deep packet inspection on its networks, to attempt other blocking mechanisms instead: Section 102 (c.2.A.i) says that service providers shall: “…take technically feasible and reasonable measures designed to prevent access by its subscribers located within the United States to the foreign infringing site (or portion thereof) that is subject to the order, including measures designed to prevent the domain name of the foreign infringing site (or portion thereof) from resolving to that domain name’s Internet Protocol address. Such actions shall be taken as expeditiously as possible, but in any case within 5 days after being served with a copy of the order, or within such time as the court may order. The RIAA argues that SOPA is a “flexible” bill, and even more so than the more-specific Senate bill. But as it could trigger the mass exodus from larger web providers to the smaller, lesser-known suppliers that only carry out domain blocks or IP blocks, it would no doubt result in larger web providers in asking for a ‘one size fits all’ approach, which in itself would be seen as an anti-competitive move. Nobody can win, in effect. But it does make one wonder. Whether or not a website has had its commonly-used domain name seized, or whether the website’s servers have had its IP address blocked, or whether deep packet inspection on a minute level blocks access to a site, it makes little to no difference. For the vast majority, as most web users will not have the technical skill to bypass the blocks in place, SOPA will turn the United States — seemingly the land of the free — despite what one Democrat says, into a state of online oppression that would rival the controlled nature of the web in many Middle Eastern countries.

Are you receiving a substandard ULL ADSL2+ connection from your ISP?

One of the most significant changes to the New Zealand telecommunications sector in recent years was the unbundling of the local loop (ULL) in 2007. ULL allowed carriers other than Telecom to install their own equipment in Telecom exchanges or roadside cabinets, and lease the copper cable that runs to your premises to deliver their products and services. In the real world it has meant that carriers have been able to offer xDSL and phone services to end customers without needing to use any of Telecom's hardware. Around the same time that ULL legislation was introduced, Telecom also agreed to a Government mandated plan to deliver improved broadband speeds to homes and businesses. The cornerstone of this plan was the deployment of a Fibre To The Node (FTTN) network by Chorus, who planned to install around 3500 fibre optic cable fed roadside cabinets nationwide as part of a project known as "cabinetisation". Delivering minimum connection speed of 10Mbps to 80% of New Zealand households and businesses, these cabinets have fibre optic cable linking back into the Telecom network, and contain an Alcatel Lucent 7302 ISAM to provide xDSL services. The architecture of these cabinets is relatively straight forward - the existing copper feeder cable that runs from the Telecom exchange is terminated in the new cabinet on a new Master Distribution Frame (MDF), and existing cabling that runs to local homes and businesses is also terminated on another MDF inside the cabinet. Each line is then connected to the xDSL linecard in the ISAM in the cabinet, meaning that at the press of a few keys xDSL service can be enabled or disabled on a customer's line. Voice services are still provided by Telecom's NEAX switch located in the nearby exchange, and are carried over the copper feeder cable that connects the exchange and cabinet. In some cases where it's been deemed that the copper feeder cable is at, or is approaching the end of it's serviceable life, VMUX hardware is fitted to carry voice calls over IP using the fibre backhaul to the exchange, rather than over the copper cable. The installation of these cabinets means that the distance of the local loop (the copper cable that runs between the exchange and the premises) was reduced significantly, with close to 50% of premises being less than 500m from a cabinet, and 80% within 1km of a cabinet. Because xDSL performance is dependent on the distance the end user is from the equipment, the shorter the local loop, the better xDSL performance will be. By the end of 2011 when the cabinetisation project is complete, around 80% of the premises in NZ should have an average theoretical DSL sync speed of around 12Mbps to 14Mbps. Homes within 500m of a cabinet or exchange should be seeing ADSL2+ internet speeds of around 15Mbps. As part of the industry consultation process before the rollout of the cabinetisation project, Chorus warned of the impact the cabinetisation project would have on ULL providers due to an issue known as midpoint injection - an issue which is now causing significant impact to many consumers who eagerly signed up to ULL internet plans over the past couple of years. DSL signals use frequency bands of the radio spectrum that aren't used by voice, allowing voice calls to coexist on the same copper pair with ADSL/ADSL2+ and VDSL signals. Because copper cables used in the network infrastructure typically carry many pairs bundled together, it's possible for signals from nearby pairs to cause interference with each other, something known as crosstalk. Because the ADSL signals transmitted from the new ISAM in the cabinet are a lot stronger than the signals that's have had to travel from the ULL gear in the exchange, the DSL signal from the exchange is in in effect drowned out, resulting in a significant degradation of the xDSL signal, and ultimately slower internet speeds from the ULL connection. Even if the crosstalk had minimal impact, the distance the xDSL signal has had to travel from the exchange means it will always deliver slower speeds than a xDSL signal from the cabinet. When carriers such as Orcon, Slingshot and Vodafone started installing their own equipment in Telecom exchanges across Auckland they received plenty of media attention and were keen to tell anybody who was keen to listen how great this move was. Competition had come they exclaimed, promising in some cases to offer better, cheaper broadband and phone services to end users. What is unclear is whether these providers clearly understood the implications of the cabinetisation project, and more importantly the effects of midpoint injection that Chorus had warned of in their industry briefings. Move forward to now, and their eagerness to sign up customers is arguably resulting in many of their customers receiving a substandard service, with many being unaware of the problem, or the solution. In the last couple of months Chorus have been busy completing the last stages of their cabinetisation project, which has included the installation of several hundred new cabinets in the Auckland region. Many of these new cabinets are connected to exchanges serving customers that are currently on ULL connections, and the immediate result for most of these customers is a line with increased attenuation, which will result in a degraded DSL service with slower speeds. The solution to the problem is straight forward, the ISP simply needs to migrate these users from their own ULL gear in the exchange and connect them to the Chorus ISAM in the cabinet using a Telecom Wholesale UBA connection. In the real world however, the business case for such a move isn't quite so simple. Because DSL services offered by Telecom Wholesale are a regulated product with pricing set by the Commerce Commission, the net cost to the ISP increases significantly as the cost of these wholesale connections is significantly more than the cost of delivering a ULL connection. Because some ISP's used a marketing ploy of cheaper pricing for customers using their ULL network compared to those customers who were connected to Telecom Wholesale connections, many end users may be faced with a price increase for their internet and phone services if they are to move from a ULL connection back to Telecom Wholesale. How do I tell if I could be affected? The simplest way to establish the quality of your DSL connection is to look at the Telecom Wholesale website - www.telecomwholesale.co.nz/maps and enter your address. You will instantly see whether you're served from an exchange or cabinet, and whether your home is covered by ADSL+ and/or VDSL2 services. The next step is to log into your modem and look at your connection stats. Providing exact details of how to do this is beyond the scope of this post, but in most modems these details should be fairly easy to access. What you are looking for are stats like the following: If you are within the footprint of a cabinet you should realistically be seeing a DSL sync rate in your modem of at least 10000kbps, with a good connection showing stats of up to 18000kbps. If you are on a Telecom Wholesale connection you should see a noise margin of around 12dB reported by your modem. If you are on a ULL connection you will potentially see a noise margin of around 6dB, as providers such as Orcon have chosen to use a more aggressive noise margin for their xDSL connections. If the Telecom Wholesale map shows you as being serviced from a cabinet, and your modem reports a noise margin of around 6dB you are potentially receiving a substandard connection. The router screenshot example used above is a friend's Orcon ULL connection taken last month, with an attenuation of 54 dBm which is exceptionally poor. His DSL sync speed was 880000, which meant his internet speeds could be a maximum of 800 kbps per second. Telecom Wholesale provide a provisioning tool that any ISP can access that will show an approximate estimate of the attenuation and sync speeds at any address on their network - his address showed he should be seeing sync speeds of between 15000 kbps and 16000 kbps from the connection to his local cabinet. Within days of requesting a chance Orcon had moved him to a Telecom Wholesale connection and his connection was now around 20x faster than it used to be. There have been a growing number of threads on Geekzone discussing this issue over the past couple of months and all with similar end results, so his story is anything but unique. The vast majority of ULL gear was installed in exchanges in the Auckland region so there are potentially hundreds, if not thousands, of internet users receiving sub standard speeds from their ISP. The cabinet migration schedule isn't a secret, and some ISP's have actively migrated ULL users across to Telecom Wholesale connections before cabinets have been installed, however others have chosen not to do this. If you know you are on a ULL connection and unhappy with your performance some basic checks such as those above could greatly improve your internet speeds!

Palace hopes Ombudsman will file other cases vs GMA

Malacañang is hoping that the filing of other cases against former President and now Pampanga Rep. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo would be forthcoming after she was slapped with electoral sabotage raps last week. “Arrest in (the) first case is the beginning of the process. We are hopeful the filing of other cases being reviewed by the Ombudsman will also be forthcoming,” Presidential Communications Operations Office Secretary Herminio Coloma Jr. told The STAR. Coloma was reacting to questions about whether President Aquino’s statement last Saturday that the “process has just started” means that more cases would be filed against Arroyo. Upon arriving from Bali, Indonesia last Saturday, Aquino said the process that Arroyo has to go through in facing the charges against her has begun. “Let me stress that the process has just started. It’s heartening to know that even if we are just starting and even if I am out of the country, you are behind me especially in this issue. I know that I am not alone,” he said. Deputy presidential spokesperson Abigail Valte said it remains uncertain if the cases against Arroyo would be resolved within Aquino’s term. “The Executive is not the only one involved in this case. We have another branch of government that is in play and that is the judge handling the case,” she added. Arroyo is now facing at least six plunder raps before the Office of the Ombudsman and the Justice department, which were filed by different groups since she stepped down from Malacañang last year. These cases were connected to the supposedly anomalous $329-million national broadband network (NBN) deal with China’s ZTE Corp., the alleged misuse of funds of the Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office (PCSO), and the fertilizer fund scam which involved the channeling of P730 million in state funds to Arroyo’s presidential campaign in 2004. Cases were also filed in connection with the supposed diversion of P550 million kept by the Overseas Workers Welfare Administration (OWWA) to PhilHealth during the 2004 election campaign and the Arroyo administration’s alleged failure to remit the P72-million capital gains tax from the sale of the old Iloilo City airport to Megaworld. Legal battles Anticipating a tough legal grind after it was reported that Arroyo’s camp will question the constitutionality of the Department of Justice (DOJ)-Commission on Elections (Comelec) joint panel at the Supreme Court, Bayan Muna Rep. Teddy Casiño urged the Ombudsman’s office to already file a plunder case with the Sandiganbayan. He also urged the Ombudsman to reject Arroyo’s motion to be given more time to answer the charges in connection with the $329-million NBN-ZTE deal. He said they would file an urgent motion asking the Ombudsman’s office to now resolve the case and file charges against Arroyo with the Sandiganbayan. “The Filipino people have waited long enough. In fact, the Ombudsman already allowed GMA an extension to file her counter-affidavit due to her illness but that should be sufficient time already,” he said. Casiño noted that there is another plunder case, filed by former Solicitor General Francisco Chavez, that is pending with the Ombudsman’s office. Chavez’s complaint is in connection with the P728-million fertilizer scam. Two Senate investigation reports have held then President Arroyo liable for misuse of the money. Casiño lauded the DOJ and the Comelec for filing an election sabotage complaint against Arroyo last Friday. “But the work has just begun. Arroyo’s camp will try to sabotage the DOJ-Comelec complaint. Already, they are questioning the court’s jurisdiction, claiming it should be the Sandiganbayan that should handle the case,” he said. To expel or not to expel Casiño added that he and his militant colleagues would seek the expulsion of Rep. Arroyo from the House the moment she is convicted of or pleads guilty to the crime of electoral sabotage. He said the House should consider withdrawing the travel authority it gave Arroyo. But Rep. Walden Bello of Akbayan said he would want the House to immediately expel the former president even without conviction. However, Speaker Feliciano Belmonte Jr. said Arroyo would keep her seat, as well as the perks and privileges of her office, in the House of Representatives while being tried for alleged electoral sabotage. Palace mum on GMA’s place of detention Malacañang also refused to comment on where to detain Arroyo, saying this would have to be decided on by the courts. Arroyo was ordered arrested last Friday by the Pasay Regional Trial Court in relation to her poll sabotage case. Valte said it’s up to the lawyers of the former leader to decide whether they would ask the court to place the former president under hospital arrest. She has been confined at the St. Luke’s Medical Center in Taguig City since Tuesday. “The representation of the former President will have to seek the approval of the regional trial court on the matter of the hospital arrest,” she said. Militant groups trooped to St. Luke’s yesterday to urge authorities to detain Arroyo in a jail facility so she would not receive special treatment. The protesters said they want the former leader jailed so she would experience the plight of those who were illegally detained under her term. Senate President Pro-Tempore Jinggoy Estrada, on the other hand, said Arroyo should be confined in a government hospital. Estrada said an accused “who has committed grave misdeeds” should not be allowed to dictate where he or she wants to be detained. The Southern Police District has prepared an air-conditioned detention facility for Arroyo in case the court orders her transfer from the hospital. Senior Superintendent James Bucayu said he has already asked the district’s office for police community relations to be converted into a detention cell to accommodate the former president. Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines-Episcopal Commission on Prison Pastoral Care executive secretary Rodolfo Diamante said he does not object to the former President being placed under hospital arrest or even house arrest because of her medical condition. But he said Arroyo should not be the only one who should receive “special treatment,” since there are several inmates who have grave health problems and in need of medical care. Palace officials were also mum on whether Arroyo’s mug shots should be made public. “We have not discussed that,” presidential spokesman Edwin Lacierda said in a text message. Coloma said they would leave the matter to the court. “According to PNP (Philippine National Police) chief (Director General Nicanor) Bartolome, the proper procedure is for PNP to turn over the mug shots and booking documents to the court. We will leave it to the court’s sound discretion to decide on the proper action,” he said. In 2001, the mug shots of deposed President Joseph Estrada, who was charged with plunder, was made public.