Forget fast lanes. The real threat for net-neutrality is zero-rated content

Forget fast lanes. The real threat for net-neutrality is zero-rated content — Tech News and Analysis: "Mobile internet connectivity is different from fixed. Firstly, it requires the use of spectrum, which is a scarce public resource. It is one thing if telcos zero-rate their IPTV app over their cables, but quite another when they use a licensed, scarce public resource to foreclose the communication, media and cloud storage markets.

Secondly, contrary to fixed-lines, internet over smartphones and tablets comes with very restrictive volume caps in most markets. Moreover, in protected markets like the U.S. and Germany where incumbent telcos face no challengers, the gigabyte price of open internet access is prohibitively expensive. " 'via Blog this'

European Commission determined to weaken competition in broadband markets

The double whammy of specialized services - blocked by the European Parliament despite Kroes' best attempt to mislead - and very much weakened competition via the draft Recommendation on Relevant Markets is now close. The Recommendation is the Bible of Internet access regulation, and its review has been ongoing since 2012, to reform the 7 markets recommended in 2007.
The EC on 24 March told BEREC to provide a response, and BEREC has only a few days left. Many BEREC members - even Ofcom - are apparently outraged at the second draft, and it will be fascinating to see their consensus response. Will the Germans block a really robust response telling the Commission to get a grip?
Here is the standard analysis via VATM, an opinion that cuts through the technicalities for a less expert audience too: "the second draft has been improved in some aspects compared to the first proposal.... DG CNECT failed introducing essential changes within the new draft. The impression remains that DG CNECT is still pushing further its paradigm shift away from infrastructure-based services competition."
The Commissioner's caving in to incumbents is now so extreme that it calls to mind the last century and an infamous Commissioner's leaving of office. I hope I am incorrect...

3 Ways the FCC Chairman is Reversing the 2010 Rules: Marvin Ammori

3 Ways the FCC Chairman is Reversing the 2010 Rules | Marvin Ammori: "Generally, the Chairman is claiming that he is doing the same rules just on more solid authority. In fact, he’s actually using the same weak authority (it’s called Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act) and flat out reversing the rules.

It’s important to note that the Chairman is proposing reversing the good parts of the FCC’s 2010 rule, not the bad parts. Because the last FCC Chairman negotiated a compromise for the 2010 rule, there’s some good stuff in there and some terrible stuff. This Chairman is keeping the bad stuff." 'via Blog this'

TeleFrieden: Better Than Best Efforts Routing of Mission Critical Traffic and the FCC

TeleFrieden: Better Than Best Efforts Routing of Mission Critical Traffic and the FCC:

"It appears that the FCC will permit exceptions to the standard, plain vanilla best efforts routing standard for Internet traffic, such as the paid peering arrangement recently negotiated between Comcast and Netflix.  In both academic and applied papers I have supported this option, with several major conditions e.g., Net Bias and the Treatment of 'Mission-Critical' Bits.            

With no opposition that I have seen, companies like Akamai offer better than best efforts routing of “mission critical” traffic from content source to last mile, “retail” Internet Service Providers. This service improves the odds for congestion-free delivery of “mission critical” traffic, e.g., live video streaming.  It appears that the FCC intends to permit better than best efforts routing options for retail ISPs." 'via Blog this'

FCC defends new net neutrality proposal

FCC defends new net neutrality proposal | PCWorld: "Critics have said the new proposal, to be released Thursday, would gut net neutrality principles because it would allow some traffic management. But the proposed rulemaking will ask for public input about whether so-called pay-for-priority traffic agreements between broadband carriers and Web content providers are commercially reasonable, an FCC official said.

The new proposal, on the agenda during the FCC's May 15 meeting, will restore net neutrality rules after an appeals court struck down the agency's old rules in January, while following a roadmap to net neutrality regulation that the court set out, FCC officials said." 'via Blog this'

Brazil has net neutrality law: Senate Approves Civil Marco Internet

G1 - Senate Approves Civil Marco Internet - News in Politics: "Passed along in the project, network neutrality assumes that providers can not offer different connections, eg for access to only emails, videos, or social networks. The text establishes that principle is still regulated by the Executive Branch, to detail how it will be implemented and what are the exceptions.
This will be done after consultation with the National Telecommunications Agency (Anatel) and Internet Steering Committee (CGI). Exceptions will serve to ensure priority to "emergency services".
Critics say the neutrality principle restricts the freedom of providers to offer differentiated connections as specific demands of customers and their mandatory application can endear service for all without distinction. It does not prevent the provision of packages with different speed."
It's been debated since 2011, but this now moves to Presidential decree, which is certain as Dilma Roussef is today opening her own #NetMundial2014 conference in Sao Paolo. So Brazil joins Chile and Costa Rica in legislating for net neutrality in Latin America. 'via Blog this'
P.S. More details on horse-trading over net neutrality and data retention here.

Ofcom UK fixed-line broadband performance, Nov 2013

Ofcom | UK fixed-line broadband performance, November 2013 - The performance of fixed-line broadband delivered to UK residential consumers: "Our research found that the average actual speed for UK fixed-line residential broadband connections in November 2013 was 17.8Mbit/s (Figure 1.1).

The average actual speed of superfast fixed broadband connections (i.e. those with a headline speed of ‘up to’ 30Mbit/s or higher) was 47.0 Mbit/s, which was over five times the average actual speed of connections above ‘up to’ 10Mbit/s and less than ‘up to’ 30Mbit/s (8.4Mbit/s).

The average speed for connections above ‘up to’ 2Mbit/s up to and including 10Mbit/s was 3.3Mbit/s, less than a tenth of the average speed for superfast connections."

This is leading Ofcom to propose more incremental changes to the ISP 'voluntary' code of conduct to get them to lie less to their customers, specifically rural ADSL plain-vanilla ones. 'via Blog this'

Why did UK Labour MEP Arlene McCarthy fail to vote to protect vulnerable children?

Why did UK Labour MEP Arlene McCarthy fail to vote to protect vulnerable children? » EDRi: "She then left Brussels, failing to turn up for the vote. This was not very surprising, as she missed a total of 1880 votes in the last 5 years and has a voting record worse than 88% of Members of the European Parliament. If she actually believed what she was alleging, on the other hand, it would be surprising.

She explicitly attacked her own Socialist colleague, former French Culture Minister Catherine Trautmann, implicitly also accusing her colleagues from the Liberal, Green and GUE/NGL political groups that had signed those (or identical) amendments, of undermining the protection of children." 'via Blog this'

Kroes: no net neutrality talk in Brazil, please!

My thoughts on NETmundial and the Future of Internet Governance - European Commission: "I am not convinced, for example, that the outcome document should or indeed needs to touch upon issues such as "network neutrality" and the liability of Internet intermediaries. Both are certainly very important issues in the overall debate on an open Internet, but are the subject of detailed discussions elsewhere.

On Net Neutrality for example, legislators of the European Union are at this very moment engaged in a democratic debate on the "Connected Continent" proposal by the European Commission. I understand a similar debate is taking place in Brazil, on the "Marco Civil". We should not be seen as prejudging the outcome of a democratic procedure on such sensitive topics." This after she said the document was too vague!!! 'via Blog this'

House of Commons - Letter from Ed Vaizey of 30 January on net neutrality

House of Commons - Documents considered by the Committee on 5 February 2014 - European Scrutiny Committee: ""The main current risk has net neutrality as its locus where it is clear that UK is isolated in its position regarding the need for regulation in this area; the proposal enjoys strong support from both Council and EP. Whilst I remain convinced that self-regulation is most appropriate for the UK, this may not be true in the cases of the remaining 27 national markets. The current negotiating mandate indicates that whilst UK should resist the introduction of regulation, we are also required to consider what other options are open to us before reaching a final decision. Given the strong support for a regulation across the EP and the Council, I and my officials have begun to explore whether there are other options that will deliver the outcomes that the EP and Council are looking for in this area." 'via Blog this'

House of Commons 17 Dec 2013 - EU Council outcome

House of Commons Hansard Ministerial Statements for 17 Dec 2013 (pt 0001): Ed Vaizey: "Opinion was mixed regarding the net neutrality proposal. Spain and Hungary supported the draft proposal, while UK and Latvia did not. Similarly, member states views on the consumer protection elements of the package were also mixed. They were supported by Spain, Portugal, Hungary, Luxembourg and UK, while Germany Austria and Ireland were concerned that the current draft would erode their currently high-level of domestic consumer protection. France added that the proposals did not add any value to their domestic regime and were opposed on this basis" 'via Blog this'

Radical banker to run British broadband policy

Sajid Javid: the man who thinks big - Telegraph: "As soon as he entered Parliament, he joined the Free Enterprise Group of MPs urging radical policies on the Government. George Osborne would listen to them, and took Javid under his wing – first as parliamentary aide, then as a Treasury minister." He also is anti-European and highly free market. Interesting times ahead?
UPDATE: here is the most he has said in the Commons on broadband - in his previous role as Financial secretary. He must have some clue, in that case. But expect he and Ed Vaizey to try their best to water down the net neutrality elements of the Regulation in Council - even if they are totally isolated:

@EDRi_org @accessnow #Netneutrality #EUCouncil "it is clear that UK is isolated in its position" @edvaizey 30/1/2014 http://t.co/HyqaPabhko
— Chris Marsden (@ChrisTMarsden) April 11, 2014

 'via Blog this'

D-day for European Net Neutrality - Frode Sorensen

D-day for European Net Neutrality - npt: "First of all, the general principle of a net neutrality service model is supported. This focuses the upcoming discussion on clarifying how to apply the model. To this end, it is important to ensure regulatory certainty when the model is used.

 Regarding the definition of specialised services, it is important to ensure that such services are separated from Internet access services at the network layer. Is this really clear from the current wording “logically distinct capacity” and “strict admission control”? BEREC’s guidelines propose that specialised services and Internet access services “are provided over distinct networks”.

 Regarding the definition of Internet access services, this seems very idealistic in its current version. But imagine an Internet service provider offering a service that gives access to a limited part of the Internet, e.g. Facebook only, or some combination of websites. To which of the two definitions would that fit? None of them? If the latter is correct, will it then be exempted from the whole regulation?" 'via Blog this'

Forget Dogs, the Net-Neutrality Debate Is Full of Ostriches

Letters to the Editor: Forget Dogs, the Net-Neutrality Debate Is Full of Ostriches - WSJ.com: "One way or another, all three operators [in Hungary] prohibit or block applications such as Skype or WhatsApp. At the same time—and this is the really alarming part—telecom firms have started advertising their own so-called "zero-rated" media services. "Zero-rated" in telecom jargon means the services are not consuming the users' open-Internet volume allowance at all.

 The situation is similar in the EU's largest market, Germany (where users pay €6, €6, €5 and €3 per incremental gigabyte to Deutsche Telekom, Vodafone, Telefonica and KPN, respectively). Open mobile-Internet quotas are very low in Germany, and telecoms have started luring consumers away from the free Internet to their own walled-garden Internet. A good example is the "joyn" app, a kind of WhatsApp replacement, which was jointly developed by members of the industry's GSM Association. For some operators in Germany, the key selling point of "joyn" is that its heavy file and media-transfer traffic is not counted against open-Internet consumption quotas. Is this a level playing field?" 'via Blog this'

Why not “Go Dutch” and Protect Net Neutrality without Defining Specialised Services?

Why not “Go Dutch” and Protect Net Neutrality without Defining Specialised Services? | LSE Media Policy Project: "The Dutch net neutrality legislation , that is comparable to the Slovenian regulatory framework, does not define or even mention the concept of specialised services. Instead, the Dutch legislator has made clear that the net neutrality rules only apply to services or applications on the internet. As a result, services that are not offered via the public internet but through the closed network of the ISP automatically fall outside the scope of the regulatory framework. Examples of such truly distinct and non-internet based services are IP-based television, data- intensive cloud computing and healthcare services like telemedicine. The prioritisation of traffic from these services does not undermine net neutrality and are rightfully excluded from the scope of application of the net neutrality rules." 'via Blog this'

Gambardella: Populism and the 'Cynical Puppy Effect'

Luigi Gambardella: Digital Regulation and the 'Puppy Effect' - WSJ.com: "Thus ahead of the May elections, a cynical puppy effect among European politicians risks jeopardizing not only the objectives of the Connected Continent regulation, but also the sustainability of the Internet as we know it today. People advocating for such restrictive measures claim they love puppies—er, the "open Internet.""

I love this guy - he enters rooms dressed in a multicoloured perm wig, red nose, metre-long shoes and in a clown car that has the wheels fall off. Hysterical, great entertainment! Unfortunately he also hates populist puppies,.

But he also shows very clearly that the monopolists had every intention of using 'specialised services' as an enormous Trojan Hose to kill net neutrality, as we had always suspected. 'via Blog this'

Commissioner Kroes can Skype her grandchildren's mobiles in retirement?

On the morning of 3rd April 2014, the European Parliament did what it said it would do five years ago - enforce minimum standards on Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to stop them blocking YouTube, BBC iPlayer, Skype, Whats App and the other social media that European consumers enjoy. Specifically, it voted at First Reading to amend the European Commission-proposed ‘Connected Continent’ Regulation. Those European consumers are voters who matter - particularly given the European elections were less than 50 days away and Parliamentarians returned to Brussels to vote as the campaign starts to heat up.

But if Parliament thought it stopped discrimination by ISPs five years ago, why has it had to revisit the issue and when will net neutrality happen? The answers are both legal and political.

First, the law that was passed in 2009 allowed governments to impose net neutrality but did not ban blocking and throttling of services the ISPs dislike, unlike US regulator actions in that period (I wrote about US net neutrality for TheConversation here). As a result, many ISPs – particularly 3G mobile operators – blocked access to Skype and Whats App. They did this via surveillance of their users using techniques such as Deep Packet Inspection (DPI). This was both illegal and highly intrusive of their users’ privacy. Separate this from the truly shocking revelations by National Security Agency whistle blower Edward Snowden in the summer of 2013: this was not spying on their users on behalf of government, but spying on their users for their own commercial benefit. That benefit was to block content that competed with their own, following which they could then begin to market a ‘specialised service’ unblocked lane to companies such as Skype that might pay for the extra service. More on that later.

The political answer is that the net neutrality law of 2009 was the last act of Viviane Reding, who after 2009 became the Commissioner for Fundamental Rights – including privacy but not net neutrality. Her replacement was Neelie Kroes, who had a reputation as a tough economically literate pro-competition politician, largely because she finally got Microsoft to agree to allow a choice of browsers to PC users. That is why many choose Firefox or Chrome instead of Internet Explorer, Microsoft’s browser that killed off Netscape. You will have made your choice in the browser you are using to read this article. Contrast her success with the ridiculous efforts of her replacement Joaquin Almunia to regulate Google’s monopoly.

‘Steely’ Neelie (UK tabloid speak even reaches Brussels) was therefore experienced in fighting technology companies to give consumers choices. But she has taken five years to reach this point of strengthening net neutrality laws. Why? Take your pick of four plausible and partial explanations. First, the law passed in 2009 was only implemented in 2011 and had very little support from the member states and their regulators (such as Ofcom in the UK), whose regulated ISPs complained long and loud about it. There was not much appetite to take action. Second, the moaning to the Commission contained a germ of truth, that there was some competition amongst ISPs (for instance Virgin, BT, Sky, TalkTalk in the UK) and broadband speeds were increasing. Third, some users were downloading as much as they could, and some services were ‘bandwidth hogs’ using up a lot of the network – NetFlix is the US prime example, BBC iPlayer a good UK equivalent. Neither paid the end user’s ISP, though both paid handsomely for other parts of the network that they use.

The fourth reason is the most coherent and irrefutable. The first Barroso Commission of 2004-9 had worked in a rapidly declining European economy. The second worked in an apocalyptic economy which their actions only worsened. Much of Europe has been broke for much of the last five years, and one of the few bright spots for consumers has been cheap and improving broadband and computing. Information technology drives new business formation and productivity increases for all businesses from micro- (home workers and individuals) to macro- (multinationals depending on executive 24/7 connectivity). Broadband is a success story of sorts, but it has been bought on the cheap with limited functionality. The Asian Tigers have fibre to the building, Europe has fibre to the neighbourhood or perhaps only the town centre. If broadband ISPs need more money to invest in more fibre, that serves the macro-economic needs of recovering from the great Euro-depression. If the Barroso 2 Commission is to leave office with any dignity, then broadband and the ‘Digital Agenda’ is a large part of that.

So for all these reasons, until late 2013 there was little appetite amongst most member states or the Commissioner to enforce proper net neutrality. The option of action was ignored by all but two member states: Slovenia and deliciously the Netherlands, Kroes’ own country. Citizens and consequently Parliamentarians in the Netherlands had been furious at the former monopoly KPN spying on users with DPI, then blocking access to the virtually free Whats App (ask a teenager or student about this texting/voice application for mobiles). They passed a net neutrality and privacy law in 2012, implemented in 2013. Kroes actually threatened to take legal action against the Netherlands government for daring to protect net neutrality rights for its citizens.

Then in summer 2013, she pretended to have a conversion on the Euro-political road to not bombing Damascus. She would abolish international roaming – a crowd-pleasing policy that was also handed down by her predecessor Reding – and enforce a ban on blocking or throttling apps like Skype, Whats App and the iPlayer. But – and it is a huge but – she planned a quid pro quo for the big former monopoly ISPs. She would allow them to partition the Internet into a ‘specialised service’ lane and a slower lane. Imagine dial-up as a dead-slow-and-stop country lane, basic broadband as a dual carriageway or trunk road with many periods of congestion, and fibre as the autobahn with no speed limits. The idea was that to bring the autobahn to most users, the services that clogged up the trunk roads would be relegated to the slow lane on the autobahn unless they paid the ISPs.

It is this that caused most of the controversy in Parliament on 3 April 2014. The Green/Pirate and socialist groups voted to restrict the ‘specialised service’ definition to real separate services. The Liberals eventually joined them, with Netherlands Liberals in D66 overcoming Denmark Liberal objections. Huge lobbying took place on both sides, with consumer groups and content owners (such as broadcasters and Google) lobbying for this restrictive definition, and ISPs of all flavours lobbying against, the Commission joining the ISPs in that lobbying. (The UK had a strange local issue with many MEPs voting with the telecoms lobby, because they worried about extra-legal censorship of foreign child pornography sites by the Internet Watch Foundation would be forced onto a proper legal footing by the amendments).

The ISP lobby lost on 3 April. That does not mean there is a new law, though many journalists and Twitterati thought that. It means that the First Reading vote imposed the restriction on this great ‘specialised service’ loophole. The ISP lobby reacted furiously, claiming that they would overturn the restriction or otherwise would not build the autobahn: “We are confident that the upcoming work of the EU decision makers will acknowledge such risk and will embrace the spirit of the Commission’s original proposal, confirming that the EU seeks solutions for growth, and not populist measures”. They claimed that “far-reaching restrictions on traffic management, which would make an efficient management of the network almost impossible, resulting in a lower quality internet for all.”

So what happens next? The law as voted upon will be presented to the governments in the Council of Ministers, the European Commission will refine their answers, and there will need to be an agreed text for a Second Reading vote in the European Parliament and possibly a Conciliation Committee between the governments and new Parliament in late 2014 or early 2015. This happened back in 2009, as well. The Barroso Commission may still be around until March 2015, because the decision to replace it has to await a new President of the European Parliament, and that may be politically contentious. Then, if the institutions do finally agree, the new law will need implementing in 2015 and national regulators such as Ofcom will need to report back on their progress in 2016/17.

So what does that mean for ISP users, if all this comes to pass? It means that there may be net neutrality law next year or the year after that. It should mean that Skype and Whats App cannot be blocked by ISPs such as Vodafone and they cannot charge more to unblock them, as currently happens in several countries. It means that small innovators (tomorrow’s Facebook, Google, Skype or WhatsApp) can be reassured that they will be able to reach their users and grow as rapidly as they did in the past. It also means the autobahn builders will have to find the money from somewhere else than charging content providers for the high speed lane. They might charge users more, they might stop spending billions on football rights.

Will this law happen at all? Yes, it is now very likely, but the restriction on partitioning the open Internet into a slow and fast lane might not survive. First, the governments in Council are not enthusiastic for this type of real net neutrality. They will agree to stop blocking of Whats App and Skype, but they may try to remove the language that stops the autobahn charge controls. Britain and Germany will lead the way judging by their activities last time. Second, the law as amended will then go back to the newly elected European Parliament, which is generally agreed to change significantly with many more fringe MEPs. Will they understand the issues and vote for consumers, as the Pirate MEP Amelia Andersdotter has done? If there are 20 or 25 UKIP MEPs, will they vote for extra-legal censorship as British MEPs did on 3 April? British legislators have not covered themselves in glory on free speech issues in the year since Snowden started his whistleblowing, quite the opposite.

The idea of an open Internet won a battle on 3 April, but it is a long war, and that vote marked only the end of the beginning. Mrs Kroes’ grandchildren who leave the net-neutral Netherlands may be blocked from talking to her on Skype long after she retires.

10 British Euro Labour MPs voted against net neutrality today

This is the list: Cashman, Honeyball, Howitt, Hughes, McAvan, Moraes, Skinner, Stihler, Vaughan, Willmot. I suspect it is because of a kiddie porn scare story put about by the absentee MEP Arlene McCarthy and by the Internet Watch Foundation through Vicky Ford MEP. These people as well as a prominent Conservative are likely to be re-elected in the May 2014 poll due to the falling apart of the Coalition vote...scary. The need for a legal basis for blocking should be clear?
P.S. Comment below makes clear what Euro-watchers know very well: the ALDE Liberal group and ECR rightwing group in the EP have VERY different politics, unlike the marriage of unequals in the UK coalition government. By 'falling apart', I refer to the fact that the Con-Dem vote will be butchered in the Euro-elections, with consequent election of UKIP and Labour MEPs.
PPS. Extremely cool votewatch graphic shows that these were the only 10 members of their political grouping to vote against net neutrality.

First vote closed specialised service loopholes - now it goes to governments, EC and back to 'new' Parliament

There has been a lot of rejoicing by net neutrality advocates about the votes on amendments this morning. This is just the start of the negotiation - and governments are generally hostile to neutrality, particularly on specialised services. So watch this space because it is going to get rough. How rough? ETNO, the monopolists' club, immediately put the hurt on the Council of Ministers:
"We are confident that the upcoming work of the EU decision makers will acknowledge such risk and will embrace the spirit of the Commission’s original proposal, confirming that the EU seeks solutions for growth, and not populist measures”. They mean democracy is dangerous.
ETNO is “very concerned by amendments mandating a complete separation of specialized services and requiring that they have no influence at all on the capacity which is made available to other Internet services… would introduce far-reaching restrictions on traffic management, which would make an efficient management of the network almost impossible, resulting in a lower quality internet for all.” That's a threat to take their ball home with them.

This will run and run...

European parliament votes on net neutrality in about 50min. Video throttled?

Amusingly, someone is throttling their Internet connection and the livestream of the debate is down!