Fyi;
The core points of this article are lifted, sequentially, from Verizon's
own press-release found at
<http://newscenter.verizon.com/press-releases/verizon/2008/test-signals-breakthrough-to.html>.
This isn't necessarily a bad thing but, under the circumstances, it ends
up being an uncritical regurgitation. A couple of points:
My Name re-posted:
(In the US at least) there is a long-standing legal tension in the role
that ISP's play. Are they more like a telephone (or water) company that
simply provides a pipe or, are they more like a newspaper that provides
a forum for voices of the community.
If the former, then the company accepts no liability for pernicious
"content" passing through its "pipes." If the latter, their "liability
exposure" would be significant.
Up until the Digital Millennium Copyright Act in 1998, they argued the
former. After passage of the DMCA, they still argued the former but
they were starting to lose the legal ground around the argument: i.e.
ISP's can trace bootlegging Grandmothers ...
In short, Verizon's legal department has consistently hewed to the line
that Verizon, /the ISP/, is a utility and not a newspaper. "Verizon
does not accept the role of network police agency," sounds like the
stirring of free speech w/in the ranks of a good corporate citizen but,
it's not. Verizon simply continues to minimize potential liability.
Above lays out the two most important [imho] facts about this whole
development:
1) Verizon's p2p-related costs will drop significantly (profit margins
increase) &
2) Customers will remain on Verizon circuits more often (making the
network more valuable when negotiating distribution contracts w/Big
Media(tm). Think "Nielsen Ratings."
In the end though, editors at the CSM let slip through a blatant press
release that has precious little to do with a company's apparent
aversion to netcopping.
fwiw,
-Craig
