Total Pageviews

Thursday, June 16, 2016

Net Neutrality and Control of the Internet: MIT Press

Net Neutrality and Control of the Internet | The MIT Press: "Net neutrality is the private censorship of our communications by our IAPs—for instance Verizon or AT&T, Comcast or T-Mobile. It is regulated by the FCC through merger conditions placed on those giant companies since 2005, and to a far lesser extent by Open Internet Orders which are continually appealed through the federal courts. In Europe, similar rules have been put in place by some countries (Netherlands, Slovenia, Finland, Norway) though not for mergers, but it took until October 2015 for the European Union to pass a Regulation enforcing common rules in the 30 European Economic Area nations—partly because big nations such as Germany and the United Kingdom refused to enforce weaker 2009 rules. These nations are home to Vodafone (part-owner of Verizon Wireless until 2014) and Deutsche Telekom, owner of T-Mobile. US regulation is intimately tied into that in Europe through such corporate cross-holdings.

 Net neutrality also involves privacy intrusion—an IAP can only block your access to for instance Instant Messaging services Skype or WhatsApp if it examines your Internet traffic. Such pervasive ‘traffic management’ is highly controversial both because the IAP is trying to block your choice of rival cheaper services, and because it means the IAP is viewing your traffic, looking over your shoulder as you browse, even if you are a journalist or lawyer or elected politican. Though IAPs claim that such traffic monitoring is automatic and does not amount to direct censorship, the increased intelligence of such monitoring led us to title the net neutrality chapter ‘Smart Pipes’—whereas the Internet was once seen to be a ‘dumb pipe.’" 'via Blog this'

TeleFrieden: Preliminary Summary of Network Neutrality Decision

TeleFrieden: Preliminary Summary of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals Network Neutrality Decision: "The partial dissent chided the FCC for poor economic analysis and its failure to provide adequate notice to affected parties, citing F.C.C. v. Fox Television Stations, Inc., 556 U.S. 502, 515 (2009).  Additionally, the partial dissent took an activist posture suggesting that the FCC wrongly applied common carriage obligations on a market that the FCC wrongly considered to evidence monopoly characteristics. [5]

With unexpected uniformity, the court majority rejected claims that the FCC lacked legal authority to reclassify broadband internet access as a common carrier telecommunications service provided via either fixed or mobile carriers.  The court noted that, while the FCC previously had deemed broadband access an information service, it did reserve the option to revisit its classification [6] and had good reason to do so. [7]

Additionally the court did not consider it a fatal flaw that the FCC extended its telecommunications service jurisdiction to include the upstream links from so-called last mile Internet Service Providers to content providers and distributors.  The court noted that in the Supreme Court’s Brand X review of the FCC’s determination that last mile access fit within the information service classification, the case applied the Chevron Doctrine analysis and determined that the definitions of telecommunications service and information service were ambiguous and the FCC’s interpretation and policy prescriptions were reasonable.[8]" 'via Blog this'

Slow Walk to High Court Best Tactic for Net Neutrality Foes - Bloomberg Politics

Slow Walk to High Court Best Tactic for Net Neutrality Foes - Bloomberg Politics: "The court decided all major points in the FCC’s favor, leaving lawmakers less likely to act, said Matthew Schettenhelm, a Bloomberg Intelligence analyst.

“Democrats and President Obama have little incentive to permit legislation that cuts back on the FCC’s authority,” Schettenhelm said. “The industry’s best chance now is a Donald Trump White House.”

 GOP candidate Trump has tweeted he’d seek to reverse rules. Democrat Hillary Clinton in a tweet Tuesday called the court ruling “a big win for consumers, innovation, and freedom of expression on the internet.”" 'via Blog this'

After net neutrality loss, ISPs get ready to take case to Supreme Court | Ars Technica

After net neutrality loss, ISPs get ready to take case to Supreme Court | Ars Technica: "The Supreme Court can pick and choose what cases it wants to hear, so there's no guarantee ISPs would even get in front of the justices.

Law professors interviewed by Bloomberg said chances of a high court review are so slim that ISPs would be best served by asking for an en banc review first. The fact that it was a 2-1 decision instead of 3-0 may increase the chances of an en banc review, but there's no reliable way to predict how it will turn out.

 Even if ISPs take the interim step of seeking an en banc review,  AT&T does not expect it to be the last phase of the battle. “We have always expected this issue to be decided by the Supreme Court, and we look forward to participating in that appeal," AT&T general counsel David McAfee said." 'via Blog this'

Wednesday, June 15, 2016

#CRTC extends deadline for interventions on #netneutrality #zerorating #Halloween consultation

Reference : 2016-192 Ottawa, 3 June 2016 File number: 1011-NOC-2016-0192 Notice of hearing 31 October 2016 Gatineau, Quebec: Examination of differential pricing practices related to Internet data plans Revised deadline for submission of interventions: 28 June 2016:

Tuesday, June 14, 2016

Zero rating in the US: no news

"The Commission announced in the Order that it would allow companies to obtain an advisory
opinion concerning any “proposed conduct that may implicate the rules,” in order to “enable companies to seek guidance on the propriety of certain open Internet practices before implementing them.” 2015 Open Internet Order, 30 FCC Rcd. at 5706 ¶¶ 229–30.
The opinions will be issued by the Enforcement Bureau and “will be publicly available.” Id. at
5706–07 ¶¶ 229, 231. As a result, although the Commission did not reach a definitive resolution during the rulemaking process as to the permissibility under the General Conduct Rule of practices such as zero-rating and usage caps, see id. at 5666–67 ¶ 151, companies that seek to pursue those sorts of practices may petition for an advisory opinion and thereby avoid an inadvertent infraction. The opportunity to obtain prospective guidance thus provides regulated entities with “relief from [remaining] uncertainty.” DiCola, 77 F.3d at 509; see also Hoffman, 455 U.S. at 498."
P104 in the judgment, so it's still up to Wheeler's FCC to decide whether to impose rules in Obama's last 6 months.