AT&T will begin sending out anti-piracy warning notices to subscribers caught downloading copyrighted content from torrent sites starting Nov. 28.

The new anti-piracy measures are part of a joint agreement between the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA), the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), and five major national ISPs to help curtail content theft.

TorrentFreak obtained internal AT&T training documents that outline how AT&T will deal with customers suspected of illicit downloading. After a series of warnings, AT&T intends to block access to websites suspected of copyright infringement until a customer successfully completes a course on online copyright law. Eventually, those caught repeatedly downloading pirated movies and music could face legal action after AT&T turns over the identities of suspect customers. Gone from early draft proposals are suggestions that ISPs will throttle or suspend service altogether for repeat violators.

Late reports indicate that other ISPs participating in the copyright enforcement action — Cablevision, Comcast, Time Warner Cable and Verizon — will also launch their own programs on the same date.

Most at risk are customers who frequent peer-to-peer file sharing sites. Tracking BitTorrent traffic is a priority for the newly-launched Center for Copyright Information (CCI) — a joint venture run by the ISPs in coordination with the MPAA and RIAA.

While not all peer-to-peer file traffic consists of illicit swapping of copyrighted works, some high profile torrent sites are among the first choices for consumers looking for free movies or music. CCI believes its Copyright Alert System (CAS) is primarily an educational tool for consumers who may not realize they are stealing copyrighted content. With its “six warnings” policy, CCI wants consumers to take action to protect themselves, their Internet accounts, and home networks well before any legal action is taken.

The latest implementation of the Copyright Alert System has watered down some of its earlier provisions, which could have put a customer’s Internet account at risk of being speed throttled or canceled. For now, consumers will receive six warnings about any suspected copyright infringement:

• The first three strikes carry no consequences and are intended to serve as informational warnings that the downloading of copyrighted content may be taking place;
• The fourth and fifth strikes will trigger forced browser redirects to a copyright education page and an online course on copyright law that must be successfully completed before the customer can once again visit suspect websites;
• Strike six means AT&T (and presumably other ISPs) will turn over the IP addresses of repeat offenders and comply with any subsequent court orders requesting the identity of the customer for possible legal action. AT&T does not say it will terminate the customer’s account, but does remind customers to be mindful of its Acceptable Use Policy, which does allow them to terminate service for illegal acts.

Edward Stroz

Consumers caught allegedly downloading copyrighted content can protest their innocence, but a $35 refundable filing fee is required to begin the arbitration process. If a consumer proves the files downloaded were not illegally obtained or that their account was flagged in error, they can have the warning canceled and get their filing fee refunded. But there are no penalties for CCI, its copyright tracking arm run by MarkMonitor, or the ISP if the copyright tracking system gets it wrong.

Critics of the copyright enforcement scheme claim it delivers too many benefits for CCI and its industry backers and insufficient protection for consumers misidentified during copyright infringement dragnets.

For-profit copyright tracking companies have made false allegations in the past, forcing CCI to hire an “independent and impartial technical expert” to verify the accuracy and security of the tracking technology used. CCI hired the firm of Stroz Friedberg as their expert.

Critics charge Stroz Friedberg is actually a recording industry lobbying firm, who worked with the RIAA for five years, earning $637,000.

Eric Friedberg

“It’s a disappointing choice, particularly in light of CCI’s professed desire to build public confidence in CAS and the fairness of its processes,” University of Idaho Law Professor Annemarie Bridy told TorrentFreak. “It would have been refreshing to see an academic computer scientist or some other truly independent party appointed to fill that important role.”

Bridy calls CCI’s Copyright Alert System lacking in transparency and stacked in favor of copyright holders, not consumers.

Stroz Friedberg’s appointment has also raised eyebrows among others that suggest their past lobbying violates the spirit of a Memorandum of Understanding signed by all parties requiring “independent and impartial” oversight.

“CCI’s choice of a former RIAA lobbying firm makes it clear that the copyright owner parties to the Memorandum of Understanding were more interested in appointing someone they trust than in appointing someone the public can trust,” Bridy adds.

Network World columnist Steven Vaughan-Nichols worries this is just the beginning of another copyright enforcement overreach:

The name of their game is to monitor your network traffic, with the help of your friendly ISP. Their justification for this is the usual made-up “facts” that content theft leads to “more than 373,000 jobs, $16 billion in lost wages, and $2.6 billion in lost taxes.” Yeah, I’m also sure someone downloading copyrighted porn leads to cats and dogs living together.

One reason I can’t buy into all this is that, as TorrentFreak points out, the Center’s expert who vouches that this all works is none other than Stroz Friedberg, a former RIAA lobbyist. Oh yeah, he doesn’t have bias for paranoid copyright protection companies.

What this means for you is that if your ISP is AT&T, Cablevision, Comcast, Time Warner, or Verizon, they’ll be watching your use of BitTorrent and letting CCI decide if you deserve some warnings, an end to your Internet service, or a full-out lawsuit.

[…] The RIAA, the MPAA, and other copyright “protectors” have never done anything for content creators. They’re all about protecting the businesses stuck with old, broken, pre-digital business models. Even that wouldn’t be so bad, except historically they’ve always vastly over-reacted.

We all know the stories of some poor slob who’s been slammed with tens of thousands of damages for downloading a song. What you may not know is that all the powers that be have to do is to claim something is copyrighted, whether it is or not, and multiple websites can be closed in minutes or your entire digital library can be destroyed.

Does that sound like paranoid fantasy? I wish.

[…] Oh yeah, I feel really sure that the CCI and friends are going to do a good job. Welcome to the new copyright world, same as the old, where you’re always considered guilty rather than that quaint idea of being considered innocent before proven otherwise.

CCI admits sophisticated pirates will probably never get caught by its Copyright Alert System, because most of them are moving to secured Virtual Private Network (VPN) technology that effectively masks their identities. TorrentFreak notes sales for VPN’s are skyrocketing, many headquartered far away from the reach of the United States in exotic, subpoena-proof locations like Cyprus, the Seychelles, Romania, and Ukraine.

[flv width=”640″ height=”500″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/RT Thom Hartmann Copyright Alert System 3-20-12.flv[/flv]

RT’s Thom Hartmann presided over a debate about online copyright theft control measures proposed earlier this year by the entertainment industry and Internet Service Providers. Appearing with Hartmann are David Seltzer, Attorney & Mark Bledsoe. (March 20, 2012) (12 minutes)

McSlarrow

The former head of a cable industry lobbying group could become the next chairman of the Federal Communications Commission if Mitt Romney is elected president.

Multichannel News reports a source close to the Romney transition team tells the trade publication the former head of the National Cable & Telecommunications Association — Kyle McSlarrow — could be a possible candidate for the FCC chairmanship if Gov. Romney wants to look beyond current Republican commissioners Robert McDowell and Ajit Pai.

McSlarrow is an informal adviser for the Romney campaign on energy and telecommunications issues. Currently, McSlarrow serves as president of Comcast’s Washington, D.C. office, which lobbies lawmakers on behalf of America’s largest cable operator.

McSlarrow is a longtime Republican and served as a former deputy secretary at the Department of Energy and was the national chairman for the Quayle 2000 campaign.

A source close to McSlarrow said the rumors about the FCC chairmanship were “untrue.”

The Federal Communications Commission has granted cable operators permission to completely encrypt their television lineups, potentially requiring every subscriber to rent set top boxes or CableCARD technology to continue watching cable-TV.

The FCC voted last week 5-0 to allow total encryption, a reversal of an older rule that prohibited encryption of the basic tier, allowing cable customers to watch local stations and other community programming without the expense of extra equipment.

The cable industry said the decision is a victory against cable theft, claiming that nearly five percent of all cable television hookups are illegally stealing service, at a cost estimated at $5 billion in lost revenue annually.

But some third party companies offering alternatives to costly set top boxes with endless monthly rental fees claim the industry move towards encryption is more about protecting the cable monopoly than controlling signal theft.

Current licensing agreements do not allow third party set top manufacturers to support scrambled channels without an added-cost, cable company-supplied set top box or card. That means a would-be customer would have to invest in a third party set top box and a cable company-supplied set top box to manage scrambled channels. That may leave customers wondering why they need the third party box at all.

This presented a problem for Boxee, which manufactures third party set top boxes, some with DVR capability. If cable systems completely encrypt their lineups, Boxee customers will need to rent a cable box and work through a complicated procedure to get both to work together.

Boxee officials suggest both an interim and long term solution to the dilemma — both requiring the goodwill of the cable industry to work out the details.

For now, Boxee and Comcast have agreed to work together on an HD digital transport adapter (DTA) with built-in Ethernet (E-DTA). A Boxee user would then access basic tier channels directly through an Ethernet connection and change channels remotely using their enhanced set top via a DLNA protocol.

A longer term solution would be to create a licensing path for an integrated DTA solution included inside third party set top boxes. This would eliminate the need for an added cost E-DTA box.

Cable operators planning to encrypt their entire television lineup will soon begin notifying customers of their plans. Under an agreement with the FCC, those with broadcast basic service will get up to two boxes for two years without charge (five years if the customer is on public assistance). Those who already have a cable box or DVR will get one box for two years at no charge. The cable company can impose monthly rental fees on additional boxes and begin charging for every box after two years.

Former FCC chairman Michael Powell, who now presides over the nation’s largest cable lobbying group, called the FCC decision “pro-consumer” despite the added expense and inconvenient many customers will experience.

“By permitting cable operators to join their competitors in encrypting the basic service tier, the commission has adopted a sensible, pro-consumer approach that will reduce overall in- home service calls,” said Powell, president of the National Cable and Telecommunications Association. “Encryption of the basic tier also enhances security of the network which reduces service theft that harms honest customers.”

Comcast is a leading proponent of total encryption, because it would allow them to start and stop service remotely, without having to schedule a service call to disconnect service. Cablevision already encrypts its entire lineup in certain areas under a previously-obtained waiver from the FCC. The company said it saved money reducing labor costs associated with service calls to physically connect and disconnect service.

Seattle residents are on edge thanks to incredibly aggressive Comcast contract workers who refuse to take no for an answer, pounding on doors demanding to be let in, and in some cases making repeated visits, even after police were called.

Valerie Bauman told KING News two men turned up at her apartment Friday flashing cards which they said gave them the right to go where they please.

“They said they were contractors for Comcast and had the authority to be there and showed me this card and I mean, I’ve got a deck of cards, I can pull out the queen but I’m not royalty,” Bauman told the station.

Sam Levine, another Seattle resident said Comcast salespeople pounded on his door demanding to be let in and simply will not take no for an answer.

“It’s not acceptable, it’s not cool, it’s not a way to treat your customers,” Levine said.

Bauman called police because she felt unsafe with the two men, especially after they came back.

Won’t take no for an answer.

“One of them smiled at me and said, ‘Are the police on their way ma’am?’” said Bauman.

Comcast told both customers they were powerless to help because the salesmen were contract workers not directly hired by Comcast and it would be hard to pinpoint who they were.

“You don’t have any right to put somebody in a position where you feel unsafe and threatened in your own home,” said Bauman.

After the media got involved, Steve Kipp, Comcast Washington Region vice president of communications issued this statement:

On behalf of Comcast, I want to offer my apologies to our customers. We are taking these complaints very seriously. As a policy, we do not tolerate overly aggressive, inappropriate behavior from the door to door sales people employed directly by Comcast or by our contractor companies and will take steps to ensure that incidents like this do not happen again. If anyone witnesses unacceptable behavior from any door to door sales person representing Comcast, we encourage you to call 1-800-COMCAST to lodge a complaint.

[flv width=”432″ height=”260″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/KING Seattle Pushy Comcast workers worry Capitol Hill residents 10-8-12.mp4[/flv]

KING in Seattle talks with local residents about Comcast’s highly aggressive sales force that pounds on doors and demands entry to sell cable service.  (2 minutes)

The Federal Cable-Protection Commission

Problem: Solved?

The Federal Communications Commission last Friday unanimously voted to free cable operators from their obligation to sell cable channels they own to rival satellite and phone companies.

In a bizarre justification, FCC chairman Julius Genachowski said ending the unambiguous rules would prevent anti-competitive activity in the market because the FCC would retain the right to review industry abuses on a case-by-case basis. Lawmakers called that an invitation for endless, time consuming litigation that will deprive consumers of competitive choice and favor the still-dominant cable television industry.

“The sunset of the program access rules could lead to a new dawn of less choice and higher prices for consumers,” said Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), one of the original authors of the rules. “If we do not extend the program access rules, the largest cable companies could withhold popular sports and entertainment programming from their competitors, reducing the competition and choice that has benefited consumers. I urge Chairman Genachowski and the FCC commissioners to extend the program access rules that have helped to level the playing field in the paid television marketplace.”

The FCC’s decision could have profound implications on would-be competitors, particularly start-ups like Google Fiber that could find itself without access to popular cable networks at any price.

At a time when cable companies and programmers are constantly pitted against each other in contract/carriage disputes, the deregulatory spirit at the FCC is likely to irritate consumers even more.

Phillip “How nice of the FCC to think about poor cable companies” Dampier

The FCC claims it will continue to protect sports programming from exclusive carriage agreements — a potentially critical concession considering the history of “exclusive, only on cable” programming contracts was largely focused on regional sports channel PRISM.

Comcast successfully kept the popular Philadelphia-based network (today known as Comcast SportsNet Philadephia) off competing satellite services and cable operators by only distributing the network terrestrially. A controversial FCC rule (known as the “terrestrial exception”) states that a television channel does not have to make its shows available to satellite companies if it does not use satellites to transmit its programs. Cox Cable has its own implementation of that loophole running in San Diego.

Derek Chang, executive vice-president of DirecTV, says Comcast’s local market share dominance is a direct consequence of SportsNet. More importantly, Chang believes even if Comcast says it will sell the network to competitors, it is free to set prices for SportsNet as high as it wants.

“They win either way,” Chang said. “They’re either going to gouge our customers, or they’re going to withhold it from our customers.”

Verizon FiOS has secured the right to carry the channel on its system, but won’t say how much it pays.

The PRISM case is today’s best evidence that exclusive agreements do hamper competition — Philadelphia is hardly a hotbed of satellite dishes, with a 40-50% reduced satellite subscriber rate attributable to the lack of popular regional sports on satellite.

FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski’s cowardly lion act is back. Will anyone at the FCC stand up to Big Telecom companies while busy watering down pro-competitive policies?

Historically, satellite dish owners and wireless cable customers were the most likely victims of exclusive or predatory programming contracts, with some cable networks refusing to sell their programming to competing technologies at any price.  Others charged enormous, unjustified mark-ups that made the technology non-competitive. Today, wireless cable television is mostly defunct and home satellite dish service has largely been replaced with direct broadcast satellite providers DirecTV and Dish.

Today’s programming landscape is more complicated. The FCC would argue that unlike in the 1980s, most cable programmers are no longer directly controlled by yesteryear’s Tele-Communications, Inc. (TCI) and Time Warner (Time Warner Cable was spun off into an independent, unaffiliated entity in March, 2009), which collectively controlled dozens of popular cable networks. But programmers’ know their best customers remain cable operators which maintain a dominant market share in every major American city.

Friday’s ruling has implications for telco-TV providers and satellite dish companies that may find programming negotiations more complicated than ever. AT&T U-verse and Verizon FiOS may find access to cable-owned programming difficult or even impossible to obtain if cable operators decide their unwanted competition is harmful to their business interests.

But an even larger challenge looms for the next generation of video competition: Google Fiber TV and “over the top” online video.

Nobody is complaining about Google’s robust gigabit broadband offering, but Kansas City residents originally expressed concern about the company’s proposed television lineup. As originally announced, Google Fiber TV was missing HBO and ESPN.

A competing cable system without ESPN is dead in the water for sports enthusiasts.

Google has since managed to sign agreements that expand their channel lineup (although it is still missing HBO). But nothing prevents channel owners from dramatically raising the price at renewal. That is a concern for smaller cable operators as well, who want protection from discriminatory pricing that awards the best prices to giant multi-system operators like Comcast and Time Warner Cable.

The most important impact of the FCC’s decision may be for those waiting to launch virtual cable systems delivering online programming to customers who want to pick and choose from a list of networks.

The FCC’s “new rules” give programmers who depend on tens of millions of cable subscribers even more ammunition to kill competing distribution models like over the top video. Start-up providers who cannot obtain reasonable and fair access to cable programming will have to depend on the vague policies the FCC claims it will enforce to prevent egregious abuse. But the FCC is not known for its speed and start-up companies may face enormous legal fees fighting for fair access that is now open to subjective interpretation.