Aereo plans to expand to nearly two dozen cities in the coming year.

Viewers of NBC’s Nightly News with Brian Williams learned an upstart online streaming video competitor seeking to help Americans control their cable bills is probably an illegal pirate operation that doesn’t pay for the programming that parent company Comcast-NBC pays hundreds of millions to produce.

On Tuesday Aereo bypassed the network television gatekeepers suing to shut the service down and bought a full-page ad in the New York Times to remind the country it is winning its case in court:

“The broadcast networks have been granted free and valuable broadcast spectrum worth billions of dollars in exchange for their commitment to act in the public interest. It’s a sweet deal… Along the way, cable and satellite providers entered the picture.

In addition to free spectrum and advertising revenues, the networks got very lucrative retransmission fees from these providers. And so, for many, broadcast television is now offered in expensive fixed bundles or packages. Yet many millions of Americans continue to use antennas to get broadcast TV.”

Despite the corporate media firewall that keeps positive reports about the competition off the nightly news, the little streaming company that could is having an impact.

In the last two weeks, virtual hysteria has broken out among major network officials who are threatening to pull the plug on free over the air TV if their multi-billion dollar operations are not granted immediate protection from a startup that rents out dime-sized antennas in New York City to stream local television stations.

Chase Carey from Fox said he’ll put the Fox Network behind a pay wall if Aereo keeps it up.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Bloomberg Leo Hindery Calls Aereo Pissant 4-12-13.flv[/flv]

Leo Hindery who oversees a private equity firm and has a history with both cable and broadcast networks called Aereo tawdry and a “pissant little company” run by a man who helped launch the Fox Network and now threatens to ruin the broadcast television business model for everyone else. (Bloomberg News) (5 minutes)

Is media consolidation influencing the evening news?

A combination of networks and other big media interests are now preparing to take their battle to Congress, warning lawmakers the very concept of free over the air television is in peril if companies like Aereo are allowed to operate.

Why are they so threatened? Aereo effectively bypasses the “retransmission consent fees” that broadcasters now charge pay television providers for permission to carry their channels and networks. As advertising revenue declines from reduced viewing numbers and equipment that offers viewers a fast forward through ads, the broadcasters have found gold charging monthly fees to cable, satellite, and telephone company TV systems for each subscriber. Ultimately, consumers pay these fees through higher cable and satellite bills.

Aereo receives over the air signals from individual antennas and makes that programming available for online streaming. No retransmission consent fees are required, Aereo argues, because they are just serving as an antenna farm. Only one stream per antenna is allowed, they note, so the company is not mass-distributing programming.

The battle between broadcasters and Aereo is now turning up in news reports that have tried to walk a fine line between the positions of the executives at the networks suing Aereo and the streaming service itself. Not every news outlet is managing the balancing act successfully.

[flv width=”596″ height=”356″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/NBC News Aereo vs Broadcasters 4-9-13.flv[/flv]

NBC News aired this incomplete report about Aereo on its evening newscast on April 9th. What is missing? The fact courts have so far sided with Aereo and against the broadcasters’ claims the service is pirating content.  (3 minutes)

The Verge points out NBC News did not make it far before they fell solidly in line behind their corporate owners:

In its piece on Aereo, NBC News included a lengthy explanation of what TV has meant to Americans through the decades. Aereo’s CEO Chet Kanojia is quoted, but only about how the service functions, and there’s nothing from him about the controversy. In contrast, NBC’s story includes a quote from Carey calling Aereo “piracy.” The network news group also tossed in this line: “Aereo doesn’t pay networks for the content they spend hundreds of millions of dollars to produce.”

What NBC didn’t say was that, according to two separate federal courts, Aereo’s service is legal. The ruling by the appeals court upheld a district judge’s decision and was not insignificant. The court allowed Aereo and Kanojia (photographed at right) to continue operating until the lawsuit with the broadcasters is resolved, which could take years. “We were disappointed that NBC News didn’t include a mention about the court decisions,” Virginia Lam, an Aereo spokesperson, told The Verge. “All we ask are that the facts be reported.”

A spokesperson for NBC News disagreed. “The report was a fair and straightforward telling of how the service operates in the changing media environment. It fully explained why Aereo argues that the service is legal, and included an interview with Kanojia. In the interest of full disclosure, it also noted that NBCUniversal, the parent company of NBC News, has filed suit against the service.”

 [flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Bloomberg Broadcasters vs Aereo 4-15-13.flv[/flv]

Robert Prather, president of local station owner Gray Television, tells Bloomberg News station owners are still trying to figure out what Aereo means for their business models. (3 minutes)

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Bloomberg Aereo CEO Responds to Fox Threats 4-17-13.flv[/flv]

Aereo’s CEO responded today to threats from Fox to turn its network into a pay cable service, suggesting that if Fox wanted to abandon over the air service, someone else might make use of that spectrum.  (3 minutes)

NullCrew’s gorilla

A portion of Time Warner Cable’s website was replaced by hacktivists who defaced the support section with a picture of a gorilla accompanied by a message exposing key passwords and a list of employees authorized to get access to make changes to the website.

Hackers from the NullCrew Collective took credit for the breach, upset that Time Warner Cable, in conjunction with the entertainment industry, is participating in the controversial anti-piracy “six strikes” program, which will give broadband customers up to six warnings when caught downloading copyrighted content. Customers found participating in peer-to-peer file transfers that involve certain software, movies and music may have their Internet access suspended until they agree to a conversation with the cable operator about illicit downloading.

The hacktivist group’s breach did not affect all of Time Warner’s website, but was enough to attract attention. The group also publicized that Time Warner’s web administrators never bothered to change certain default login information, including a core password still listed as: changeme. The attack also exposed one of the system’s SSL-key passwords.

“LOL FAIL, learn to change default passwords,” came an admonishment from the group.

NullCrew was founded in 2012 and has been credited with several high-profile computer attacks that target corporations and government agencies it deems corrupt.

[Thanks to Stop the Cap! reader Paul for sharing details.]

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)

On important issues for the online community, there are some substantial differences between the Democratic and Republican parties, particularly regarding Net Neutrality.

A review of the yas and nays in both party platforms (and past history in Congress) shows your vote can make a difference when Washington ultimately deals with privacy, network traffic, piracy, cybersecurity, and broadband expansion.

Net Neutrality – “Preserving the free and open Internet”: Prohibits providers from discriminating against different types of network traffic for profit or control

• Democrats: Yas
• Republicans: Nay

While the Democratic platform specifically states, “President Obama is strongly committed to protecting an open Internet,” one “that fosters investment, innovation, creativity, consumer choice, and free speech,” Republicans have treated Net Neutrality as anathema to the free market. Although virtually every Republican member of Congress has voted against Net Neutrality or publicly opposed the concept, some Democrats have as well, particularly those who have received significant financial contributions from the largest phone and cable companies lobbying against the policy.

Net Neutrality has not proved to be a major issue in Congress this year, with most of the recent battles taking place at the Federal Communications Commission. FCC chairman Julius Genachowski applauded a ‘third way’ for Net Neutrality, staking out a middle-of-the-road policy that pleased few outside of the FCC. It largely leaves the concept a “suggestion” for wireless carriers. Replete with loopholes and enforcement issues, even wired providers like Comcast have run around the policy for their own benefit.

Network Privacy – Full disclosure when websites track your browsing habits, and how online companies protect your private information

• Democrats: Yas, provisionally
• Republicans: Yas, provisionally

Net privacy is a topic many consumers hear about the most when a website gets hacked and private customer information is stolen in the process. But a growing number of consumers are also concerned about what websites are doing with their information and how their web visits are being tracked for advertising purposes. Large online companies like Facebook and Google have a vested interest in keeping this space as unregulated as possible to maintain lucrative revenue earned selling demographic information to advertisers. But consumers may not want advertisers to know the websites they visit, and members of both political parties have expressed growing interest in taming who gets their hands on your private stuff. Republicans are primarily concerned about tracking by government agencies, Democrats are more concerned with for-profit use of customer data.

The Republican platform abhors government intrusion into private liberty — primarily a reference to certain forms of surveillance. But the GOP platform is silent on enhancing privacy rights of consumers. The Obama Administration has been calling for a “Privacy Bill of Rights” that permits consumers to opt out of web tracking cookies and other tracking technology. Democrats separately want companies to do a better job disclosing and explaining how private information is being used. But Congress, under heavy lobbying to avoid the issue, never acted on the administration’s request.

Expanding Broadband: Finding New Wireless Spectrum and Improved Rural Access

• Democrats: Yas on both
• Republicans: Yas on one, vacillating  on the other

While neither party fully embraces their respective platforms while governing, their stated positions often reflect political positioning when new laws are contemplated.

The Democrats tout both their National Broadband Plan and the Obama Administration’s commitment to find Internet access for 98 percent of the country and expand spectrum available to meet the growing demands for wireless data. The Democratic platform touted President Obama’s proposal to promote wireless broadband as a possible rural Internet solution.

Gantman

The entertainment industry is getting nervous about efforts like Google’s 1Gbps fiber network that will deliver blazing fast broadband connections to American consumers.  Why?  Because they will use those networks to steal movies, of course.

The Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) devotes a lot of its day fretting about copyright infringement issues, so the thought of a broadband network capable of moving the contents of a DVD in less than one minute has them worried.

Howard Gantman, an MPAA spokesman, warned South Korea’s super speed networks “decimated” the home entertainment marketplace thanks to widespread piracy.

Gantman, speaking to Bloomberg News, believes faster speeds make content theft easier, creating an almost on-demand experience that slower file swapping networks never delivered.

But there is no evidence the handful of gigabit broadband networks now operating in the United States are hotbeds of copyright theft.  Google itself stresses they are not getting into the triple-play broadband, phone, and cable TV business in Kansas City to embolden movie thieves.

In fact, Google thinks faster broadband speeds will only fuel growth in the authorized content business, where consumers can get access to higher quality movies and TV shows without buffering or reducing video quality to stream effectively on slower networks.