CyberLaw Blog

Archive for the ‘Net Neutrality’ Category

European Commission begins legal action against countries that have still to implement telecoms laws: “Most EU countries have two months to explain why they have not yet implemented new telecoms laws, the European Commission has said.“

(Via OUT-LAW News.)

Business Insight | Infotech-Telecoms:

Europe seen needing regulation on Internet access
22 December, 2010

LONDON – Europe’s confidence that it need not follow the United States in adopting rules to ensure fair Internet access may be short-lived, as competition between mobile operators and service providers like Skype intensifies.

A debate over net neutrality — the principle that all Internet traffic be treated equally — has been heating up in the United States for years but has so far generated little public concern in Europe.

At stake is the ability of Internet service providers (ISPs) to ration access to their networks, allowing them to manage congestion but running the risk they will favour their own services or those who pay more, restricting consumer choice.

The US communications regulator on Tuesday adopted rules that banned high-speed Internet service providers from blocking lawful traffic but allowed them to ‘reasonably’ manage their networks.

In Europe, telecoms operators such as Deutsche Telekom, France Telecom or Telefonica — former state monopolies which typically have close relationships with national governments — still have the upper hand.

The European Commission has so far refrained from legislating to avert a looming conflict with the likes of Skype, Google or Facebook, which offer virtually free voice communications and messaging, striking at the heart of the carriers’ business.

But Internet service providers (ISPs) — mainly telcos in Europe — already actively manage traffic to make it more efficient, and the potential to do more to protect their own services or earn extra revenues may be too much to resist.

‘Mobile operators will be sorely tempted to do all they can to block the competition and stop them from cannibalising their revenue streams,’ says Bengt Nordstrom, chief executive of Nordic telecoms consultancy Northstream.

‘While operators have dodged the net neutrality bullet for now, they can expect further intrusion from the European Commission in the not-too-distant future,’ says Nordstrom, who predicts such intervention will come in 2012.

Europe’s competitive environment is different from that in the United States, with fiercer rivalry among more mobile carriers operating in smaller markets, and a less-developed cable infrastructure.

This has led some to argue that the need for legislation in Europe is far less, as competition between ISPs allows customers to easily switch to an alternative provider if they are not getting the services they want.

At the same time, the operators argue they need and deserve help to upgrade their networks, which have begun to creak under the weight of traffic generated by services like Google-owned YouTube, Facebook and the BBC iPlayer.

‘What is evident is that Internet search engines use our networks without paying for it. That’s real luck for them and a disgrace for us,’ Telefonica Chairman Cesar Alierta said this year. ‘We do everything. I mean, they just have algorithms.’

Bernstein analysts wrote in a recent research note: ‘In Europe, unlike the US, the net neutrality debate can, and we think will, be cast not as a battle for free speech but instead as a battle between aggressive over-reaching, freeriding US content companies and homegrown European infrastructure providers (that also happen to be the number two or three employer in each respective country).’

They said their stock preferences to play this state of affairs was for European telcos and US cable operators.

Vodafone Deutsche Telekom, France Telecom, Telefonica and Telecom Italia have all complained about Google, Facebook and Apple using their networks to deliver services without contributing to network investments.

So far the European Union has taken a wait-and-see attitude, having directed national governments to ensure ISPs adopt non-discriminatory and transparent policies — something they will have to put into practice by May 2011.

Meantime, it is consulting to determine whether traffic-management tools deployed by ISPs constitute a problem.

‘There is cognitive dissonance. The service providers say we’re not doing any of this, the likes of Skype say their services are being throttled,’ says one senior EU official. ‘It’s clear that you have to be vigilant about these issues.’

Who holds the balance of power in the delicate relationship between the telcos and the content providers is ‘the $64,000 question’, according to Andrew Bud, founder and chief strategy officer of mobile transmission and billing firm mBlox.

‘That power balance is continually shifting,’ said Bud, who has long argued companies that want to push their content and services through networks to consumers should pay. He sees Europe as past the need for a net-neutrality debate.

‘I can see events accelerating towards a new consensus,’ he said, citing most recently a speech by British Communications Minister Ed Vaizey in which he said it might make sense for content providers to pay for differing levels of service.

Northstream’s Nordstrom reckons that consolidation in the trillion-dollar telecoms industry will pick up pace, changing the status quo, and predicts that European regulators will step in to legislate in 2012.

He points to carriers’ past reluctance to self-regulate in the case of roaming charges for making mobile calls abroad — costs that were eventually slashed by the EU — saying operators tended to exploit favourable conditions for as long as possible.

‘Nothing happened until regulation came, and now it’s data. Operators are rather waiting to be regulated and trying to leverage the situation as much as they can,’ he says. ‘There’s a lot of money to be made before regulation comes in.’ – Reuters

Survey: Little Support for Net Regulation – TheStreet:

By Theresa McCabe 12/28/10 – 12:55 PM EST

NEW YORK (TheStreet) — Consumers aren’t in favor of the Federal Communications Commission regulating the Internet as it does radio and television.

In a survey conducted by Rasmussen following the FCC’s vote to pass new open Internet rules regarding net neutrality, only 21% of U.S. voters came out in favor of the FCC’s involvement.

On Dec. 21, the FCC passed a new set of net neutrality rules that prohibit broadband providers from blocking consumers from lawful Web sites or Internet traffic.
>>FCC Passes Net Neutrality Rules

Despite strong opposition from the two Republicans on the five-member commission, FCC chairman Julius Genachowski and his two fellow Democrats on the board passed the rules with a 3-2 vote.

In Rasmussen’s Dec. 23 telephone survey of 1,000 likely U.S. voters, 54% said they are opposed to the FCC’s regulation of the Internet. Only 21% said they were in favor and 25% said they are not sure.

By a 52% to 27% margin, voters believe free market competition would protect Internet users better than rules and regulation.

The survey also shows that voters fear imposed regulation by the FCC and other regulatory groups will be used to promote a political agenda. 56% of voters believe that the FCC will push a political agenda while 28% disagree and believe the commission would regulate in an unbiased manner.

Through the net neutrality regulations, Internet service providers will be required to treat all information traveling over broadband networks equally and wireless providers will be prohibited from unjustly discriminating in transmitting lawful traffic over a consumer’s wireline broadband Internet service.

The rules will prevent network operators from discriminatory pricing against Internet traffic that might offer competitive services. Internet carriers such as Comcast(CMCSA_) and Verizon(VZ_) will not be able to block consumers from using Netflix(NFLX_).

– Written by Theresa McCabe in Boston.

Feds please no one with first official net neut rules

By Cade Metz in San Francisco
Posted in Networks, 22nd December 2010 00:39 GMT

The US Federal Communications Commission has officially approved rules meant to ensure ‘net neutrality’. But it’s unclear whether the commission has the legal authority to back them up. And whether it does or not, just about everyone thinks the new rules are crap, including net neutrality zealots.

The rules demand that internet providers divulge their ‘network management’ practices, and they prohibit providers from blocking certain traffic. But they apply separate regulations to wireline and wireless outfits, and they don’t prevent providers from charging extra for prioritized traffic.

The FCC approved the new rules on Tuesday after a 3-2 vote, which split – predictably – along party lines. Democratic commissioners Michael Copps and Mignon Clyburn joined Democratic Chairman Julius Genachowski in supporting the rules, while Republican commissioners Robert McDowell and Meredith Attwell Baker voted against.

‘For the first time, the FCC is adopting rules to preserve basic Internet values,’ Genachowski said in a canned statement. ‘While the Commission had in the past pursued bipartisan enforcement of Open Internet principles, we have not had properly adopted rules. Now, for the first time, we’ll have enforceable, high-level rules of the road to preserve Internet freedom and openness.’

In August 2005, the FCC laid down a policy statement (PDF) meant to encourage a so-called open internet, but these policies never had the legal power the FCC would have liked. In April, a Federal appeals court unanimously vacated the 2008 FCC order that famously barred cable giant Comcast from busting BitTorrent traffic.

In September 2009, five months after he was installed by President Obama, Genachowski proposed formal net neutrality rules that would expand on the 2005 principles, and following months upon months of debate, the rules have arrived in a form few outside of Genachowski are pleased with. Even Coops and Clyburn concurred with the rules only in part. And net neutrality advocates are accusing President Obama of breaking his campaign promise to prevent corporate censorship on the interwebs.

The FCC’s rules begin by stipulating that both wireline and wireless net providers must be ‘transparent’ about how they manage their networks. ‘A person engaged in the provision of broadband Internet access service shall publicly disclose accurate information regarding the network management practices, performance, and commercial terms of its broadband Internet access services sufficient for consumers to make informed choices regarding use of such services and for content, application, service, and device providers to develop, market, and maintain Internet offerings,’ says rule number one.

The new rules also prohibit wireline providers from blocking internet traffic – subject to ‘reasonable network management’ – but they take a different approach to wireless. Wireline providers ’shall not block lawful content, applications, services, or non-harmful devices,’ while wireless providers are prohibited from blocking ‘consumers from accessing lawful websites.’ But wireless providers are specifically barred from blocking applications that compete with their voice or video telephony services.

Lastly, a third rule bars wireline providers from discriminating against network traffic. ‘A person engaged in the provision of fixed broadband Internet access service, insofar as such person is so engaged, shall not unreasonably discriminate in transmitting lawful network traffic over a consumer’s broadband Internet access service. Reasonable network management shall not constitute unreasonable discrimination,’ it reads. It does not address wireless networks.

In his prepared statement, Copps said that although he voted for the new rules, he’s concerned that they don’t prohibit providers from charging extra for prioritized traffic. ‘I would have preferred a general ban to discourage broadband providers from engaging in ‘pay for priority’ —prioritizing the traffic of those with deep pockets while consigning the rest of us to a slower, second-class Internet,’ he wrote. He also wanted complete parity for wireline and wireless.

‘After all, the Internet is the Internet, no matter how you access it, and the millions of citizens going mobile nowadays for their Internet and the entrepreneurs creating innovative wireless content, applications and services should have the same freedoms and protections as those in the wired context,’ he said.

The world’s net neutrality zealots are making similar noises. ‘Chairman Genachowski ignored President Obama’s promise to the American people to take a ‘back seat to no one’ on Net Neutrality,’ reads a statement from Free Press managing director Craig Aaron.

‘He ignored the 2 million voices who petitioned for real Net Neutrality and the hundreds who came to public hearings across the country to ask him to protect the open Internet. And he ignored policymakers who urged him to protect consumers and maintain the Internet as a platform for innovation. It’s unfortunate that the only voices he chose to listen to were those coming from the very industry he’s charged with overseeing.’

And he was not alone. ‘The rules passed today by Obama FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski absurdly create different corporate censorship rules for wired and wireless Internet, allowing big corporations like Comcast to block websites they don’t like on your phone – a clear failure to fulfill Net Neutrality and put you, the consumer, in control of what you can and can’t do online,’ reads one online petition seeking to hold President Obama accountable for his campaign promises.

Copps also seems to question whether the new rules have the proper legal muscle behind them. The Democratic commissioner advocated the reclassification of broadband traffic as telephony under Title II of the Telecommunications Act to ensure FCC authority, but this had yet to happen. ‘I continue to believe that a reassertion of our Title II authority would have provided the surest foundation for future Commission action,’ Copps said. ‘And I note with interest that the Commission’s Reclassification docket will remain open.’

Republican commissioners Robert McDowell and Meredith Attwell Baker believe that if the FCC attempts to enforce the rules, it will just wind up in court. Again.”

EU – Net neutrality – the way forward: “(RAPID)
Neelie Kroes, European Commission Vice-President for the Digital Agenda, Speech at European Commission and European Parliament Summit on ‘The Open Internet and Net Neutrality in Europe’, Brussels, 11 November 2010. I say to those people who are currently cut off from Skype: vote with your feet and leave your mobile provider. see also UK to ISPs: Prioritize away! (so long as you tell users) (Ars Technica) and speech on net neutrality by Ed Vaizey, UK Minister for Culture, Communications and Creative Industries.

(Via QuickLinks Update.)

Commission urged to force transparency on network traffic shaping: “The European Commission has been told that it should force companies to define themselves either as neutral internet service providers or as ‘managed services’ that give priority to content providers that they are in a business relationship with.“

(Via OUT-LAW News.)

No need for net neutrality action, says UK regulator | Pinsent Masons LLP: “No need for net neutrality action, says UK regulator

OUT-LAW News, 28/06/2010

SNIPPET: While US telcos, politicians, user rights activists and big media companies have spent the past three years wrangling, tussling, lobbying and shouting about net neutrality, the issue has never caused much trouble elsewhere.

Now UK telecoms and media regulator Ofcom has made it official: net neutrality is not a cause for worry. Yet.

Net neutrality demands that ISPs treat all traffic the same. Some US telcos are of the view that they should be able to favour the traffic of media companies that pay them. Opponents say this fundamentally undermines the open internet.

Ofcom has produced a report (68-page / 595KB PDF) into the issue which says that we shouldn’t be concerned: it has had no serious complaints about the issue and thinks there are no grounds for issuing blanket demands about traffic shaping yet.

It said that consumers don’t have much to worry about, though it says that there is a danger they might be confused by various firms’ traffic management policies.

It might seem anti-climactic compared to the US hysteria, but if it keeps UK politicians from proposing some of the ham-fisted laws mandating exactly how ISPs can and can’t behave that the US could face, I’ll take anti-climactic any time.

Telecoms – Regulatory Framework: “Public consultation on the open internet and net neutrality
Deadline: Thursday 30 September 2010

DG Information Society and Media has launched a public consultation on key questions arising from the issue of net neutrality. European Commission Vice-President for the Digital Agenda, Neelie Kroes, announced in April 2010 her intention to launch this consultation in order to take forward Europe’s net neutrality debate. The consultation is part of the Commission’s follow-up to its commitment – one of the prerequisites for the successful conclusion of the 2009 EU telecoms reform package – to scrutinise closely the open and neutral nature of the internet and to report on the state of play to the European Parliament and the Council of Ministers.

The consultation covers such issues as whether internet providers should be allowed to adopt certain traffic management practices, prioritising one kind of internet traffic over another; whether such traffic management practices may create problems and have unfair effects for users; whether the level of competition between different internet service providers and the transparency requirements of the new telecom framework may be sufficient to avoid potential problems by allowing consumers’ choice; and whether the EU needs to act further to ensure fairness in the internet market, or whether industry should take the lead. All interested parties – service and content providers, consumers, businesses and researchers – are invited to respond to the consultation by 30 September 2010. The consultation will feed into a Commission report on net neutrality, which should be presented by the end of this year.

* Press release: Digital Agenda: Commission launches consultation on open internet and net neutrality (IP/10/860)
* Consultation document: Questionnaire for the public consultation on the open internet and net neutrality in Europe pdf – 20 KB
Specific Privacy Statement pdf - 20 KB

US telco watchdog finds new legal basis for regulating ISPs: “The US telecoms regulator has redefined internet access in order to assert its authority to regulate the provision of broadband access there. The regulator recently suffered a legal defeat when a court ruled that it did not have the authority it claimed.“

(Via OUT-LAW News.)

Introducing Measurement Lab: “Posted by Vint Cerf, Chief Internet Evangelist, and Stephen Stuart, Principal Engineer

(Cross-posted from the Official Google Blog)

When an Internet application doesn’t work as expected or your connection seems flaky, how can you tell whether there is a problem caused by your broadband ISP, the application, your PC, or something else? It can be difficult for experts, let alone average Internet users, to address this sort of question today.

Last year we asked a small group of academics about ways to advance network research and provide users with tools to test their broadband connections. Today Google, the New America Foundation’s Open Technology Institute, the PlanetLab Consortium, and academic researchers are taking the wraps off of Measurement Lab (M-Lab), an open platform that researchers can use to deploy Internet measurement tools.

Researchers are already developing tools that allow users to, among other things, measure the speed of their connection, run diagnostics, and attempt to discern if their ISP is blocking or throttling particular applications. These tools generate and send some data back-and-forth between the user’s computer and a server elsewhere on the Internet. Unfortunately, researchers lack widely-distributed servers with ample connectivity. This poses a barrier to the accuracy and scalability of these tools. Researchers also have trouble sharing data with one another.

M-Lab aims to address these problems. Over the course of early 2009, Google will provide researchers with 36 servers in 12 locations in the U.S. and Europe. All data collected via M-Lab will be made publicly available for other researchers to build on. M-Lab is intended to be a truly community-based effort, and we welcome the support of other companies, institutions, researchers, and users that want to provide servers, tools, or other resources that can help the platform flourish.

Today, M-Lab is at the beginning of its development. To start, three tools running on servers near Google’s headquarters are available to help users attempt to diagnose common problems that might impair their broadband speed, as well as determine whether BitTorrent is being blocked or throttled by their ISPs. These tools were created by the individual researchers who helped found M-Lab. By running these tools, users will get information about their connection and provide researchers with valuable aggregate data. Like M-Lab itself these tools are still in development, and they will only support a limited number of simultaneous users at this initial stage.

At Google, we care deeply about sustaining the Internet as an open platform for consumer choice and innovation. No matter your views on net neutrality and ISP network management practices, everyone can agree that Internet users deserve to be well-informed about what they’re getting when they sign up for broadband, and good data is the bedrock of sound policy. Transparency has always been crucial to the success of the Internet, and, by advancing network research in this area, M-Lab aims to help sustain a healthy, innovative Internet.

You can learn more at the M-Lab website. If you’re a researcher who’d like to deploy a tool, or a company or institution that is interested in providing technical resources, we invite you to get involved.

UPDATE: Check out the video from the launch event at the New America Foundation:

(Via Google Public Policy Blog.)