FCC Chair Ajit Pai Announces Bullshit Plan to Destroy Net Neutrality: "if Pai wants to enact a rule that will survive a legal challenge, he’ll have to show it isn’t an “arbitrary and capricious” reversal of policy, under the Administrative Procedure Act.
Or, as we outlined previously, it’s possible that Pai’s move to open rulemaking is intended to pressure Democrats on the Hill into making a bad deal on new net neutrality-related legislation.
If the threat of a rule change does bring Democrats to the bargaining table, that too is unlikely to result in strong regulation. Any deal that can pass a Republican majority in both houses and Trump in the White House would likely be favorable to ISPs and Philip Berenbroick, senior policy counsel at Public Knowledge, told Gizmodo that “a bad deal legislatively is the worst outcome here.”" 'via Blog this'
Thursday, April 27, 2017
5 Things to Know About the Next Battle Over Net Neutrality | Variety
5 Things to Know About the Next Battle Over Net Neutrality | Variety: "While Pai is in favor of the repeal of title II, what is unclear is what kind of rules would replace the current ones. He has reportedly looked at an approach in which ISPs would voluntarily agree to a set of guidelines, but that would fall far short of what longtime activists have sought. That’s why so many activists say that Pai’s attack on title II is an attack on net neutrality itself.
He plans to reveal the full proposal on Thursday, and the FCC would then vote on May 18 to officially kick off a proceeding to gather public comment. Pai indicated that a final vote would come later this year." 'via Blog this'
He plans to reveal the full proposal on Thursday, and the FCC would then vote on May 18 to officially kick off a proceeding to gather public comment. Pai indicated that a final vote would come later this year." 'via Blog this'
Net Neutrality Alive and Well in Canada: CRTC Crafts Full Code With Zero Rating Decision - Michael Geist
Net Neutrality Alive and Well in Canada: CRTC Crafts Full Code With Zero Rating Decision - Michael Geist: "The Commission established its first net neutrality policy response in 2009 with the Internet traffic management practices. The rules restrict content blocking or slowdowns and require ISPs to disclose how they manage their networks. T
he issue expanded into zero rating in 2013 when Ben Klass, a graduate student in telecommunications, filed a complaint with the CRTC over how Bell approach to its Mobile TV product.
In January 2015, the CRTC released its decision in the case, siding with Klass. The Commission expressed concern that the service “may end up inhibiting the introduction and growth of other mobile TV services accessed over the Internet, which reduces innovation and consumer choice.”
Today’s decision largely completes the process by providing a framework for examining future zero rating or differential pricing cases (and rejecting Videotron’s music service plan in an accompanying decision). The ruling opens by examining whether differential pricing (of which zero rating is a form) raises concerns regarding preferences or disadvantages. The Commission concludes that it often does" 'via Blog this'
he issue expanded into zero rating in 2013 when Ben Klass, a graduate student in telecommunications, filed a complaint with the CRTC over how Bell approach to its Mobile TV product.
In January 2015, the CRTC released its decision in the case, siding with Klass. The Commission expressed concern that the service “may end up inhibiting the introduction and growth of other mobile TV services accessed over the Internet, which reduces innovation and consumer choice.”
Today’s decision largely completes the process by providing a framework for examining future zero rating or differential pricing cases (and rejecting Videotron’s music service plan in an accompanying decision). The ruling opens by examining whether differential pricing (of which zero rating is a form) raises concerns regarding preferences or disadvantages. The Commission concludes that it often does" 'via Blog this'
Friday, April 21, 2017
Telecom Regulatory Policy CRTC 2017-104: Paras 126-129 on #zerorating
Telecom Regulatory Policy CRTC 2017-104 | CRTC: "Evaluation criteria
In the context of evaluating whether a differential pricing practice is compliant with subsection 27(2) of the Act, the Commission has established evaluation criteria that will provide all stakeholders, particularly ISPs, with a degree of predictability. The Commission will consider the following evaluation criteria in any future analysis of whether a differential pricing practice involves an undue or unreasonable preference or disadvantage:
The agnostic treatment of data. The Commission will consider the extent to which data traffic is priced or rated equally or agnostically by an ISP with regard to its customers’ retail Internet access services, while having regard to the amount of data involved. Offerings that rate or price data non-agnostically, such as by zero-rating data traffic from certain content providers (including affiliated entities), are likely to raise concerns under subsection 27(2). Differential pricing practices that treat data traffic agnostically (e.g. time-of-day offerings) are not likely to raise the same level of concern.
The exclusiveness of the offering. The Commission will consider the extent to which a differential pricing practice is exclusive to a particular class or group of subscribers, or to a particular content provider or class or group of content providers, while also having regard to the number of subscribers or content providers affected. For example, differential pricing practices that are exclusive to subscribers to a particular data plan are likely to raise concerns under subsection 27(2).
The impact on Internet openness and innovation. The Commission will consider the extent to which a differential pricing practice inhibits or compromises the openness of the Internet for Canadians and the choices available to Canadians. In particular, this analysis will consider (a) whether a differential pricing practice affects the ability of content providers or innovators to enter the market by creating barriers to entry, and (b) the extent to which a differential pricing practice affects innovation. For example, differential pricing practices that require content providers to conform to administrative and technical requirements that are burdensome, costly, or time-consuming to meet are likely to raise concerns under subsection 27(2). Differential pricing practices that favour large, established content providers over smaller ones and new entrants are also likely to raise concerns.
Whether there is financial compensation involved. The Commission will consider whether a differential pricing practice results in financial compensation or other financial benefits between a content provider and an ISP or third-party sponsor (including affiliated entities), having regard to the amount of compensation involved and the extent of the financial interest with any affiliated entity. For example, sponsored data arrangements, where an ISP receives payment from a content provider in exchange for zero-rating the data traffic to and from that provider, are likely to raise concerns under subsection 27(2).
In applying these criteria, the Commission will give primary consideration to the agnostic treatment of data, since differential pricing practices that favour certain content at the expense of other content have the greatest potential for harm. The Commission will look to the other three criteria as additional considerations in any evaluation of a differential pricing practice.
None of the four evaluation criteria will necessarily be determinative on its own, as each assessment of a differential pricing practice will be fact-specific. The weight given to each criterion may also vary from case to case, depending on the circumstances.
Finally, the Commission will consider whether there are exceptional circumstances that demonstrate clear benefits to the public interest and/or minimal harm associated with a differential pricing practice. For example, the Commission may consider whether there are privacy-related, technological, administrative, or other factors that would impact its analysis under subsection 27(2) such that the benefits of allowing a specific differential pricing practice would clearly outweigh any harms." 'via Blog this'
In the context of evaluating whether a differential pricing practice is compliant with subsection 27(2) of the Act, the Commission has established evaluation criteria that will provide all stakeholders, particularly ISPs, with a degree of predictability. The Commission will consider the following evaluation criteria in any future analysis of whether a differential pricing practice involves an undue or unreasonable preference or disadvantage:
The agnostic treatment of data. The Commission will consider the extent to which data traffic is priced or rated equally or agnostically by an ISP with regard to its customers’ retail Internet access services, while having regard to the amount of data involved. Offerings that rate or price data non-agnostically, such as by zero-rating data traffic from certain content providers (including affiliated entities), are likely to raise concerns under subsection 27(2). Differential pricing practices that treat data traffic agnostically (e.g. time-of-day offerings) are not likely to raise the same level of concern.
The exclusiveness of the offering. The Commission will consider the extent to which a differential pricing practice is exclusive to a particular class or group of subscribers, or to a particular content provider or class or group of content providers, while also having regard to the number of subscribers or content providers affected. For example, differential pricing practices that are exclusive to subscribers to a particular data plan are likely to raise concerns under subsection 27(2).
The impact on Internet openness and innovation. The Commission will consider the extent to which a differential pricing practice inhibits or compromises the openness of the Internet for Canadians and the choices available to Canadians. In particular, this analysis will consider (a) whether a differential pricing practice affects the ability of content providers or innovators to enter the market by creating barriers to entry, and (b) the extent to which a differential pricing practice affects innovation. For example, differential pricing practices that require content providers to conform to administrative and technical requirements that are burdensome, costly, or time-consuming to meet are likely to raise concerns under subsection 27(2). Differential pricing practices that favour large, established content providers over smaller ones and new entrants are also likely to raise concerns.
Whether there is financial compensation involved. The Commission will consider whether a differential pricing practice results in financial compensation or other financial benefits between a content provider and an ISP or third-party sponsor (including affiliated entities), having regard to the amount of compensation involved and the extent of the financial interest with any affiliated entity. For example, sponsored data arrangements, where an ISP receives payment from a content provider in exchange for zero-rating the data traffic to and from that provider, are likely to raise concerns under subsection 27(2).
In applying these criteria, the Commission will give primary consideration to the agnostic treatment of data, since differential pricing practices that favour certain content at the expense of other content have the greatest potential for harm. The Commission will look to the other three criteria as additional considerations in any evaluation of a differential pricing practice.
None of the four evaluation criteria will necessarily be determinative on its own, as each assessment of a differential pricing practice will be fact-specific. The weight given to each criterion may also vary from case to case, depending on the circumstances.
Finally, the Commission will consider whether there are exceptional circumstances that demonstrate clear benefits to the public interest and/or minimal harm associated with a differential pricing practice. For example, the Commission may consider whether there are privacy-related, technological, administrative, or other factors that would impact its analysis under subsection 27(2) such that the benefits of allowing a specific differential pricing practice would clearly outweigh any harms." 'via Blog this'
Wednesday, April 19, 2017
ACM SIGCOMM Workshop (2016) on Hot Topics in Middleboxes and Network Function Virtualization (HotMiddlebox 2016) - ACM SIGCOMM 2016
ACM SIGCOMM Workshop on Hot Topics in Middleboxes and Network Function Virtualization (HotMiddlebox 2016) - ACM SIGCOMM 2016: "Modern networks heavily rely on advanced in network processing for a wide spectrum of crucial functions ranging from security through traffic management, all the way to Voice over IP (just to name few). Until recently, these network functions were implemented in dedicated hardware "middleboxes" spread within the network. However, the strive to reduce cost and increase agility is motivating a major shift to a paradigm where software-based processing is done over virtualized, shared platforms built on commodity hardware servers, switches, and storage.
This trend towards virtualized middleboxes, called Network Function Virtualization, NFV, with the use of Software Defined Networks, SDN to control the network flows is gaining popularity in the telecommunication industry as well as in academia. Yet, this paradigm shift is at a very early stage and many interesting questions remain open in this regard. " 'via Blog this'
This trend towards virtualized middleboxes, called Network Function Virtualization, NFV, with the use of Software Defined Networks, SDN to control the network flows is gaining popularity in the telecommunication industry as well as in academia. Yet, this paradigm shift is at a very early stage and many interesting questions remain open in this regard. " 'via Blog this'
Monday, April 17, 2017
Private Eye Media News: Sky Q degrading BBC iPlayer?
Private Eye Media News: "BOULTON WONDERER…
Sky’s Adam Boulton blames the Beeb when he can’t find an interview with the PM on iPlayer – but his access problems have more to do with Sky’s whizzy new Q box." 'via Blog this'
Sky’s Adam Boulton blames the Beeb when he can’t find an interview with the PM on iPlayer – but his access problems have more to do with Sky’s whizzy new Q box." 'via Blog this'
BBC should NOT necessarily occupy top EPG spot - Elstein
BBC should NOT necessarily occupy top EPG spot |: "Elstein says Purnell’s answer is to ask the UK parliament to force on-demand services to provide “due prominence” for public service catch-up offerings “like iPlayer”.
“This “like” is another weaselly formulation, as the only catch-up service from the designated public service broadcasters (BBC, ITV1, Channel 4 and Five) that provides exclusively public service content is – the iPlayer.
The equivalent services from ITV, Channel 4 and Five all include an array of programmes that never appeared on their public service channels: content from ITV2, ITV3, ITV4, E4, More4, 5USA and so on that are nothing to do with public service television, including all the programmes acquired from abroad that are not even British (which is true of the iPlayer, too). Why should any platform be forced to give these services ‘due prominence’” asks Elstein.
Elstein concludes by saying it is highly unlikely that today’s Culture, Media & Sport ministry will demand changes to the current status quo. “The Digital Economy Bill is likely to pass with no such encumbrances. But that has never stopped the BBC asking,” states Elstein." 'via Blog this'
“This “like” is another weaselly formulation, as the only catch-up service from the designated public service broadcasters (BBC, ITV1, Channel 4 and Five) that provides exclusively public service content is – the iPlayer.
The equivalent services from ITV, Channel 4 and Five all include an array of programmes that never appeared on their public service channels: content from ITV2, ITV3, ITV4, E4, More4, 5USA and so on that are nothing to do with public service television, including all the programmes acquired from abroad that are not even British (which is true of the iPlayer, too). Why should any platform be forced to give these services ‘due prominence’” asks Elstein.
Elstein concludes by saying it is highly unlikely that today’s Culture, Media & Sport ministry will demand changes to the current status quo. “The Digital Economy Bill is likely to pass with no such encumbrances. But that has never stopped the BBC asking,” states Elstein." 'via Blog this'
‘Nobody’s got to use the Internet’: A GOP lawmaker’s response to concerns about Web privacy - The Washington Post
‘Nobody’s got to use the Internet’: A GOP lawmaker’s response to concerns about Web privacy - The Washington Post: "Sensenbrenner’s statement has since drawn criticism from social-media users. Some accused the 73-year-old congressman of being out of touch in the digital age, when something as basic as paying the bills, buying clothes or finding a job is done online.
“Nobody has to use indoor plumbing or electricity. They can just use outhouses and kerosene lamps. They have a choice, right?” one Twitter user wrote.
“Nobody has to use the Internet? Many jobs require it. Schools require it. Take his office Internet away, maybe?” said another." 'via Blog this'
“Nobody has to use indoor plumbing or electricity. They can just use outhouses and kerosene lamps. They have a choice, right?” one Twitter user wrote.
“Nobody has to use the Internet? Many jobs require it. Schools require it. Take his office Internet away, maybe?” said another." 'via Blog this'
Wednesday, April 12, 2017
Net neutrality: We are interested in Aadhaar and Make in India: Sebastien Soriano, Chairman, Berec
Net neutrality: We are interested in Aadhaar and Make in India: Sebastien Soriano, Chairman, Berec, Technology News, ETtech: "Is BEREC likely to take a similar decision as India on zero rating or Free Basics?
In the European framework, zero rating is not banned in itself. Our regulation is quite new, and now one-third of us in Europe are concretely looking at practices of zero rating. Some of us have taken decisions, others are still in process, and so we will see the outcome.
Some practices will be banned, others will be cleared.
The idea is that we will make a panorama of this at the end of this year. BEREC will issue a report on how the net neutrality regulation has been implemented.
How do you view India’s telecom sector?
Something that I found interesting, which is close to what we are trying to do in Europe, is what Trai is doing with MySpeed app. The Austrian regulator is doing exactly the same thing.
When prices are low, it’s important to give the ability to the consumer that gives more importance to quality. If the end user has the right information about the best network, then they will subscribe to that network, which in turn will make more money for the operator, which he can invest into the networks." 'via Blog this'
In the European framework, zero rating is not banned in itself. Our regulation is quite new, and now one-third of us in Europe are concretely looking at practices of zero rating. Some of us have taken decisions, others are still in process, and so we will see the outcome.
Some practices will be banned, others will be cleared.
The idea is that we will make a panorama of this at the end of this year. BEREC will issue a report on how the net neutrality regulation has been implemented.
How do you view India’s telecom sector?
Something that I found interesting, which is close to what we are trying to do in Europe, is what Trai is doing with MySpeed app. The Austrian regulator is doing exactly the same thing.
When prices are low, it’s important to give the ability to the consumer that gives more importance to quality. If the end user has the right information about the best network, then they will subscribe to that network, which in turn will make more money for the operator, which he can invest into the networks." 'via Blog this'
BEREC seeks common understanding on net neutrality with India
BEREC seeks common understanding on net neutrality with India: "BEREC Chair Sebastien Soriano (Arcep) took this opportunity to emphasise that European regulators followed with great interest the Indian regulator’s move to ban Free Basics. He also expressed BEREC’s interest in the Indian industry’s dynamism, notably the impact of Reliance Jio on the market, the cost-sharing model through tower companies and the digital enabler Aadhaar.
This meeting was the occasion for BEREC Chair and Vice-Chairs to engage a discussion with their Indian counterpart to find the points where they have a common understanding about net neutrality. “India is the most important democracy in the world; Europe is the second one. So, as net neutrality is a democratic issue, it’s really important that the most important democracies stick together to see if we are considering this the same way.”
In this regard, BEREC Chair informed the Indian regulator that BEREC intends to dedicate an important of its work to net neutrality this year.
In particular, a BEREC report on implementation of the net neutrality rules in the EU is to be issued this year. It is also envisaged that, in 2017, BEREC experts will elaborate a tool kit for quality of service measurements" 'via Blog this'
This meeting was the occasion for BEREC Chair and Vice-Chairs to engage a discussion with their Indian counterpart to find the points where they have a common understanding about net neutrality. “India is the most important democracy in the world; Europe is the second one. So, as net neutrality is a democratic issue, it’s really important that the most important democracies stick together to see if we are considering this the same way.”
In this regard, BEREC Chair informed the Indian regulator that BEREC intends to dedicate an important of its work to net neutrality this year.
In particular, a BEREC report on implementation of the net neutrality rules in the EU is to be issued this year. It is also envisaged that, in 2017, BEREC experts will elaborate a tool kit for quality of service measurements" 'via Blog this'
Friday, April 07, 2017
DT flirts with net neutrality controversy | Telecoms.com
DT flirts with net neutrality controversy | Telecoms.com: "Apple Music, Amazon’s Music Unlimited and Prime Video, napster, Netflix and Sky Go are a number of the services on offer currently, though there is potential for this list to expand substantially. A new partner programme has also been launched which doesn’t seem to have many limitations for the moment, presumably if you are prepared to pay Deutsche Telekom for the privilege.
“There’s no restriction: any provider of legal audio and video content can become a partner,” said Michael Hagspihl, Head of Consumer. “The StreamOn partnership is open to any interested party.”
It’s an interesting move from a country which would usually be associated with conservativism, as the jury is still out on whether zero-rating offers are contradictory or complimentary to competition in the telco market. While there are valid arguments on both sides of the debate, the move from Deutsche Telekom could certainly prompt intervention from German regulators, known to be one of the strictest worldwide." 'via Blog this'
“There’s no restriction: any provider of legal audio and video content can become a partner,” said Michael Hagspihl, Head of Consumer. “The StreamOn partnership is open to any interested party.”
It’s an interesting move from a country which would usually be associated with conservativism, as the jury is still out on whether zero-rating offers are contradictory or complimentary to competition in the telco market. While there are valid arguments on both sides of the debate, the move from Deutsche Telekom could certainly prompt intervention from German regulators, known to be one of the strictest worldwide." 'via Blog this'
Tuesday, April 04, 2017
National Media and Infocommunications Authority • NMHH decision on non-discriminatory Internet
National Media and Infocommunications Authority • NMHH decision on non-discriminatory Internet: "The point of EU’s net neutrality rules is that internet service providers shall not block, slow down, alter, restrict, interfere with, degrade or discriminate between specific content, applications or services. The Hungarian Telekom’s TV GO service infringed these provisions, since other similar OTT- and video sharing services were only available for the subscribers’ data traffic package expense. The net neutrality provisions ensure the subscribers right to access and distribute information and content, use and provide applications and services of their choice, without discrimination not restricted by service providers or by third parties without any legal basis." 'via Blog this'