Friday, April 17, 2015

Mark Zuckerberg - I am a complete hypocrite on net neutrality

Mark Zuckerberg: "To give more people access to the internet, it is useful to offer some service for free. If someone can’t afford to pay for connectivity, it is always better to have some access than none at all...Arguments about net neutrality shouldn’t be used to prevent the most disadvantaged people in society from gaining access or to deprive people of opportunity."

He sounds as self-contradictory as any idiot politician? 'via Blog this'

Written question: Net neutrality, telemedicine and intelligent transportation - or what specialized services? E-004461/2015

Written question - Net neutrality, telemedicine and intelligent transportation systems - E-004461/2015: "In a debate of 5 March 2015, Commissioner Günther Oettinger referred to the demand for net neutrality as ‘Taliban-like’.

 Can the Commission specifically name the products (and their respective manufacturers) which currently exist in the European market and whose technical specifications rely on the absence of enforced net neutrality rules in the EU?

 Can it name specifically every single hospital in the EU and its specific telemedicine products and applications which rely on real-time broadband Internet connections, and whose technical specifications rely on the absence of enforced net neutrality rules in the EU?

 Can it name specifically every single intelligent transportation system — including, for example, car-mounted impact warning systems and vehicle and transportation security devices — whose performance relies on real-time Internet access and whose technical specifications rely on the absence of enforced net neutrality rules in the EU?" 'via Blog this'

We need better broadband but UK politicians can't deliver

We need better broadband but the politicians can't agree how to deliver it: "Commercial ISPs cannot be relied upon to connect rural areas, due to the high cost of laying infrastructure to supply only a few customers – a classic case of market failure, acknowledged by both parties. Labour’s claim that “all parts of the country” will “benefit from affordable, high-speed broadband by the end of the parliament” sounds – to put it kindly – optimistic. There’s no detail as to how this might be achieved in practice."

In fact, no broadband policy of note from either main party - it's the market failure stupid. They lack the vision thing - and net neutrality commitments. 'via Blog this'

Tuesday, April 14, 2015

Joint Statement for the 2015 EU-US Information Society Dialogue

Joint Statement for the 2015 EU-US Information Society Dialogue | Digital Agenda for Europe | European Commission: "The US delegation shared information about the recently adopted Open Internet Order by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), discussed key legal and policy challenges surrounding open Internet protections and how to ensure that the Internet remains open around the world. The EU discussed the recently introduced legislation on the Telecom Single Market that includes principles very similar to those that the FCC adopted.

The participants agreed that the underlying approach and intent in safeguarding the open Internet is the same in both cases, and agreed to enhance information sharing on open Internet related and other communications policy issues of mutual interest." 'via Blog this'

European Governments, Parliament Still Far Apart on Net Neutrality

European Governments, Parliament Still Far Apart on Net Neutrality - Real Time Brussels - WSJ: "In the European Parliament’s view, “specialized services” would not be subject to net neutrality rules. But defining what falls under these “specialized services” is tricky. “There are services that require higher speeds, but the question is to agree on them,” said one of the diplomats involved in the talks.

Others are worried that a multispeed internet will be a disadvantage for start-up enterprises.

“We need an open Internet to be able to challenge incumbents. The ability of start-ups to challenge big tech giants will be under threat if we allow for the creation of Internet fast lanes open only to those who can afford to buy access to them,” says Portugal’s EU affairs secretary, Bruno Macaes.

“I am not sure people understand how fundamental net neutrality is to a free, open society. All types of information need to be equally accessible. Imagine if some books were printed in normal font while others had to be read at great cost with a magnifying glass. If we have better quality for certain content on the Internet, that is more or less what we will have,” he added." 'via Blog this'

Wednesday, April 08, 2015

Net neutrality - 2011 analysis of Michael Geist's exposure of von Finckenstein's empty Canadian promise

Net neutrality highlights CRTC head's biggest failure - AlphaBeatic: "Anyone familiar with CRTC chairman Konrad von Finckenstein knows it’s one of his favourite subjects. He’s been complaining about the CRTC having a lack of AMP teeth for at least three years and he sang a similar chorus during his time at the Competition Bureau before that.

This raises a few questions.

The first is, if the CRTC doesn’t have enforcement powers, why did von Finckenstein brag about Canada supposedly being a world leader in net neutrality? “Canada is the first country to develop and implement a comprehensive approach to internet traffic management practices,” he said in October, 2009. Given what is now known, it sure looks like the chairman wrote the proverbial cheque that the CRTC was not prepared to cash.

 More importantly, given that von Finckenstein has been beating the AMP drum for so long and the fact that the CRTC still doesn’t have this ability, significant doubts arise about the chairman’s personal effectiveness. Either von Finckenstein doesn’t have the clout to convince politicians to enable this power or telecom lobbyists have more clout in convincing them not to. Either way, the chairman has failed in getting the job done." 'via Blog this'

Tuesday, April 07, 2015

India and Brazil biggest zero-rating markets: Airtel flouting net neutrality

This graphic illustrates the problem for the 200m Brazilians and 1.3billion Indians of whom over 200m already have an Internet-enabled zero-rated smartphone:

Critics warn Airtel for flouting net neutrality; startups, others can offer apps for free on platform - The Economic Times: "Some experts pointed to the lack of guidelines which allow formation of an increasing number of such partnerships. In February, Reliance Communications tied up with Facebook to launch Internet. org in India, which provided access to 33 websites free of charge. In another instance, Uninor offered free usage of WhatsApp for Rs 1 a day and Rs 0.5 per hour for Facebook last year, and followed up with free Wikipedia for three months beginning April 1.

This was another way of offering zerorating plans, promoting unbridled access to the Internet, said a senior executive.

Another top industry executive said, "All these offerings seem to be violating the principle of net neutrality, but in the absence of any laws, what is to stop them for forming such partnerships."

The debate on net neutrality is set to heat up as the telecom regulator has sought comments from industry on a consultation paper floated recently on net neutrality in the Indian context."  'via Blog this'

Thursday, April 02, 2015

Seminár CGI/Proteste: Marco Civil da Internet - my speech at 1:09

Recent speech to CGI/proteste seminar in Sao Paolo - Brazil getting serious about #NetNeutrality? Not sure - certainly very shaky on zero-rating and specialized services so far! I will have to go back soon to examine more closely....

Boom Bust Boom: Terry Jones' evisceration of the economics academy

Because too many people believed the emperor's new clothes. As with the economy, so net neutrality...

Sunday, March 29, 2015

FCC Chair: Net Neutrality Is “Right Choice” Because Big ISPs Want “Unfettered Power”

FCC Chair: Net Neutrality Is “Right Choice” Because Big ISPs Want “Unfettered Power” – Consumerist: "“The true choice is between protecting the gatekeepers, or protecting consumers and insurgents,” Wheeler continued. “To understand the problem, it is necessary to understand the power of the biggest ISPs. Consider this simple fact: About three-fourths of American households have zero or one choice for highspeed, wired broadband to their homes. No choice or one choice,” he said, “does not make an attractive marketplace from a consumer’s perspective.”

After this understatement, Wheeler went on to remind the audience that the large incumbent ISPs, monopolies that they are, have both the ability and the incentive — the tools to act and the financially rewarding outcomes — to disadvantage both companies and consumers when it comes to transmitting content. And that, of course, is where a strong net neutrality rule comes in. If screwing with content and connections is made illegal, they probably won’t do it.

As for those lawsuits against the new rule (and the others likely to follow), Wheeler was confident." 'via Blog this'

Friday, March 27, 2015

Indian regulator consults on anti-net neutrality: "over the top" services

See document here - extremely biased in favour of mobiles of course, as India's fixed line penetration is pathetic: "Question 5: Do you agree that imbalances exist in the regulatory environment in the operation of OTT players? If so, what should be the framework to address these issues? How can the prevailing laws and regulations be applied to OTT players (who operate in the virtual world) and compliance enforced?
"Stakeholders are requested to send their comments preferably in electronic form by 24th April, 2015 and counter comments by 8th May 2015 on email id For any clarification/information, Shri A. Robert. J. Ravi, Advisor (TD & QoS)".