Verizon

Broadband industry to American public: “Who needs open Internet rules when you can just take our word for it?”

Hundreds of thousands of concerned citizens recently asked the FCC to protect the open Internet, but broadband providers filed comments that are the hundreds of pages equivalent of “take our word for it, everything will be fine” or “move along, nothing to see here.” In preparing our reply comments to the FCC’s open Internet proceeding, we’ve been examining the most recent comments of the big fixed and mobile broadband providers like Comcast, Verizon, and AT&T.

What we found could be striking or completely obvious, but is probably both at the same time. Broadband providers primarily occupy themselves with aggressive posturing and finger-pointing aimed at content providers like Netflix and backbone providers like Cogent and Level 3. The big industry players’ comments also make clear that the big broadband providers apparently do live in an alternate universe to most Americans.  In this universe, the vast majority of Americans can easily switch between an ample number of broadband providers on a whim, and where any real rules to protect the open Internet as we know it are unnecessary because… well, because… just take our word for it.

Did you receive an errant copyright notice for Liberty Media Holding LLC v James March et al (10-cv-1809)?

Did you receive an errant copyright notice for Liberty Media Holding LLC v James March et al (10-cv-1809)? If you received any notice relating to this case, please email us at support@newmediarights.org or call us at 619-591-8870.

We recently spoke to an individual whose IP address was apparently identified in Liberty Media Holding LLC v James March et al (10-cv-1809), who contacted us when he received a notice from Verizon that his identity had been subpoenaed by Liberty Media Holdings.  The letter stated,
 
"The Plaintiffs have filed a lawsuit alleging that various people have perhaps infringed their copyright by illegally download and/or distributing a movie."  
 
The problem is, this case didn't have anything to do with copyright infringement related to illegal filesharing, and the defendant had received notice errantly.  Learn more and then contact us to share your story.