Net Neutrality Rules Published, Lawsuits Soon to Follow

The FCC has finally officially published long-delayed rules prohibiting cable, DSL and wireless internet companies from blocking websites and requiring them to disclose how they slow down or throttle their networks.
The so-called Net Neutrality rules (.pdf), passed along party lines in late December last year in a 3-2 vote, were published in the Federal Register Friday and will go into effect on November 20.
The basic outlines of the rules, which differentiate between fixed broadband (e.g. cable, fiber and DSL) and mobile broadband (the connection to smartphones and mobile hotspot devices):

The Commission adopts three basic protections that are grounded in broadly accepted Internet norms, as well as our own prior decisions.
First, transparency: fixed and mobile broadband providers must disclose the network management practices, performance characteristics, and commercial terms of their broadband services.
Second, no blocking: fixed broadband providers may not block lawful content, applications, services, or non-harmful devices; mobile broadband providers may not block lawful websites, or block applications that compete with their voice or video telephony services.
Third, no unreasonable discrimination: fixed broadband providers may not unreasonably discriminate in transmitting lawful network traffic.

One of the more contentious debates, left unresolved to either side’s liking, is whether wireless companies should be forced to play by the same fairness rules as cable and DSL internet providers do. Online activists argue that in absence of such rules, wireless carriers will throttle innovative services — while the carriers maintain that their networks are more congested and that competition will prevent any unfair behavior on their part.
Verizon and MetroPCS filed suit in January to block the rules, but the suits were dismissed as being too early. Now that the rules have been officially published in the publication of the government’s business, telecoms are free to challenge the rules — which they almost certainly will do.
The Obama FCC, making good on Obama’s campaign promises, set out to strengthen rules established by the Bush FCC that guaranteed Americans the right to use the devices and online services of their choice online. But those “rules” were set up as the FCC chose to deregulate cable and DSL internet service providers — and were thrown out in court when the FCC tried to order Comcast to not block peer-to-peer file sharing.
The court found that by choosing to deregulate ISPs, the FCC lost the right to regulate ISPs.
The FCC then faced the choice of re-regulating ISPs by putting them back in the same regulatory bucket as phone service, which gives the FCC clear authority to require ISPs not to block services like Skype and to require them to let users connect to any website they like — the same as phone companies must let users call any number they like.
But that avenue turned out to be politically poisonous, with Republicans clamoring nonsensically that amounted to regulation of Internet content.
So instead the FCC says it found new authority to regulate ISPs that it has deregulated, though it’s not clear that the new authorities, which look cobbled together with Legos and Lincoln Logs, will hold up under scrutiny, especially if the telecoms get their way and have the suits heard by the same federal court that demolished the old rules.
In that case, the fights, lobbying and political posturing will start all over again.

Julian Assange's memoir should not have been published

AppId is over the quota AppId is over the quota  Julian Assange: The Unauthorised Autobiography on sale in London. Photograph: Facundo Arrizabalaga/AFP/Getty Images
The truth is out – or at least the "unauthorised autobiography". Opening with a dramatic scene in the back of a police van with "press photographers … scrabbling around the windows like crabs in a bucket", and ending in a Norfolk house that "was soon to become … [a] prison for the foreseeable future", the promised account of the "global struggle to force a new relationship between the people and their governments" hits bookshops today, after a cloak-and-dagger operation to prevent its subject from halting its publication.
But whose book is it? The subject, Julian Assange, disowns it, claiming in a statement on the Wikileaks website that his publisher, Canongate, is "profiteering from an unfinished and erroneous draft" which was never intended for publication, but was handed over "for viewing purposes only". According to the Independent, which has begun serialising the book today, ghostwriter Andrew O'Hagan became "increasingly uncomfortable about the furore", and appears only as an unnamed writer in the publisher's note describing the "more than 50 hours of taped interviews" on which the book is based. Perhaps the real author of the book is head of Canongate Jamie Byng, who splashed out on the Assange autobiography at the end of last year, presumably hoping that the man of the moment would deliver the kind of landslide publishing victory his house pulled off with Barack Obama.
But now, Canongate finds itself accused by Assange himself of "screwing people over to make a buck": he claims that the published version was in fact a draft, a "work in progress" and that he had promised to provide a new version of the book by the end of this year. According to Canongate the contract "still stands", since Assange had "already signed his advance over to his lawyers to settle his legal bills" before informing them he wanted to cancel the deal. They have "decided to honour it – and to publish" – but it's difficult to see where honour comes into this decision.
Canongate publishing director Nick Davies denies Assange's advance was the reported £500,000, but tells the Bookseller that the Independent was "left with no other option". Maybe you have sympathy with a small publisher straining under a "financial imperative", but isn't it just wrong to publish something against an author's wishes, even if that author is a little hard to work with? This autumn might have looked pretty bleak fior Canongate, without a book that has already shot to

Julian Assange autobiography: why he didn't want it published

AppId is over the quota AppId is over the quota  Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks, disowned his 'unauthorised' autobiography on its day of publication. Photograph: Leon Neal/AFP/Getty Images
It started out as a dream £1.2m publishing contract, with a vision of many millions to be made for all parties in worldwide book sales and film deals. But Julian Assange: the Unauthorised Autobiography – as the Canongate publishing director, Nick Davies, titled the book jacket – has turned out to be something of a nightmare, threatening the hoped-for profit bonanza.
There are not many autobiographies whose subject angrily disowns it on publication day, as Assange did, when he revealed that the manuscript had in fact been penned and handed over by someone else: in this case, ghostwriter Andrew O'Hagan, who had hoped to keep his role quiet. The founder of WikiLeaks upheld his reputation for 360-degree belligerence by claiming that he had been "screwed over to make a buck" by an opportunist publisher whom he had tried to injunct.
To complete the picture of acrimony, Assange went on to publicly denounce his former lawyers, claiming they were sitting on his publishers' advance of £412,000, which they were holding to cover their legal fees. Assange's allegations of "extreme overcharging" were rapidly denied by the London media firm of Finers, Stephens, Innocent (FSI).
The saga of Assange's memoirs began last year, when after co-operating with the Guardian and the New York Times to publish a series of huge electronic leaks he had obtained of US military material he was arrested in London, wanted for extradition and questioning by Swedish authorities about claims of sexual assault from two women in Stockholm.
A book deal was drawn up and clinched by the London literary agent Caroline Michel, under which Canongate, the innovative Scottish firm run by Jamie Byng, and the US publishers Knopf agreed to pay £600,000 and $800,000 respectively for the rights, with Knopf paying $250,000 (£162,000) in advance. Canongate also agreed to pay upfront O'Hagan's ghostwriting fee, believed to exceed £100,000.
Assange already seemed to have the possibility in mind that he might withdraw from the deal. Sources close to the Canongate negotiations say he demanded a deal that he could keep £125,000 of the advance whatever happened. Byng laughed this out of court, responding according to correspondence seen by the Guardian: "We cannot accept … the idea that regardless of whether Julian delivers (or regardless of what he delivers or regardless of when he delivers), he will keep £125,000."
Canongate also negotiated a crucial loophole in the contract, which it was eventually to invoke. It would pay Assange £250,000 immediately on signature of the deal, as the publisher's share of the first tranche of the advance.
But it said: "If … the manuscript has not been delivered by the prescribed date or its final form is not acceptable to the Publisher, the Publisher has the right to decide whether to continue to publish the Work. If the Publisher decides to continue to publish the Work the Proprietor agrees that all typescript or notes relevant to the said Work shall belong to the Publisher."
With this reassurance, the publishers on both sides of the Atlantic wrote Assange large cheques and O'Hagan set to work, recording hours of reminiscences from Assange, throughout the winter, at the chilly country premises of Captain Vaughn Smith, owner of the journalists' Frontline Club in London, who had guaranteed to supervise Assange while he was on bail.
The money went into the client account for the Assange defence fund, administered by solicitor Mark Stephens, who was conducting Assange's criminal defence. Assange now claims he thought he was getting the services of top QCs and solicitors pro bono. But FSI, which says only the initial advice tendered was free, eventually put in bills that in total are reported to exceed the advance. Stephens, who made spirited speeches on the courtroom steps in defence of Assange, says: "No single person at FSI believes that Julian was overcharged."
But the row over money appears to have played a crucial role in the implosion of the book project. All sources agree that O'Hagan did his job diligently and produced a draft manuscript by March, as required. But Assange refused to sign off on it. Some sources suggest that, after failing to sell the Hollywood film rights to his memoirs, Assange realised that all future payments on the book would be swallowed up by his lawyers. If, on the other hand, he had no visible assets, his legal representatives could whistle for their money.
Assange himself, according to the statements he put out, denies this. He claims he was "not in a position to dedicate my full attention to a book" in view of his upcoming fight against extradition. He also claims that he was willing to renegotiate a delivery date. Canongate firmly rejects these claims, insisting that Assange would never confirm in writing his agreement to any new delivery date. The publisher says that even a week before it put out the unauthorised version, it gave Assange a final chance to fulfil his side of the bargain.
Both Canongate and Knopf were in a painful position. Knopf has now cancelled its contract, and the Assange camp will not respond to claims that Knopf wants its $250,000 back, other than to say it is sitting in the FSI legal account. Canongate, £350,000 out of pocket on the advance and the ghostwriter fees, had intended to recoup all its money and more besides, by sales deals with 38 foreign publishers. Had it not published, there would have been a large hole in its finances. As it is, many of the foreign deals are now in jeopardy and will have to be renegotiated. Only two are reported to have firmly signed up so far to the new "unauthorised" book. One publishing source says: "The economic climate of the deal has certainly altered for Canongate." One benefit for the publisher, however, is that under the get-out clause in the contract it will no longer be obliged to pay the second and third tranche of the advance – a saving of £350,000. Canongate has, however, promised to pay Assange any royalties he is due after the paid-out advances have been recouped.
One of the problems Canongate faces in this extraordinary literary imbroglio is that the book it has put out will be criticised for its inadequacy and, in some cases, the manuscript's errors. Owing to the secrecy with which copies were dumped out to bookshops, there appears to have been only a limited process of factchecking. The book appears to stop abruptly late last year, before Assange had even published his final batch of leaks in the form of the US diplomatic cables. It does not deal with major aspects of Assange's career, such as his breach with his former partner at WikiLeaks, Daniel Domscheit-Berg. Assange himself is criticising it on the sidelines for being an erroneous and unchecked manuscript. Canongate themselves describe it as a "draft" rather than a completed work.
Some observers still believe that Assange stands to make a small fortune from his eventual royalties. The book itself will certainly find a sale among WikiLeaks aficionados around the world. Its account of the Swedish sex allegations against him, still to be resolved, contains new hints that the young women who complained about him were "neurotic", "vague" or had a mysterious hostile agenda. His references to the "hardcore feminism" he suffered from in Sweden will ignite controversy again, weeks before British appeal judges are due to rule on his continued attempt to fight extradition.
A sizeable proportion of the manuscript is devoted to attacks on media organisations with which he formerly co-operated, including the Guardian. These too, are accused of "double-crossing" him. Guardian reporters are characterised as "weaklings with a crush" rather than "men of action and principle", and on one occasion are described as "lily-livered gits in glass offices".
The former editor of the New York Times, Bill Keller, is the target of special ire for his allegedly unco-operative attitude, described as "a moral pygmy with a self-justifying streak the size of the San Andreas fault". Assange writes: "The cock crowed three times and Bill Keller shamelessly denied us."
Assange denies the disclosure made in the Guardian's previously published book, that he once said US informants in Afghanistan "deserved to die". He now maintains he was merely quoting an attitude held by some unnamed others. He is silent on accusations made against him that he associates with antisemitic propagandists. He is also silent on some of the details of the sex allegations, particularly the accusation that he had sex without a condom against a woman's wishes. He does admit, however, that he may be seen as "cold" and a "chauvinist pig" by some people.
It is likely that this week's publication will represent a unique publishing melodrama. But it is yet to be seen whether Canongate can turn it into adequate sums of cash.