Own initiative investigation into Hutchinson 3G UK Limited (Three)’s compliance with the net neutrality and roaming regulations - Ofcom

Own initiative investigation into Hutchinson 3G UK Limited (Three)’s compliance with the net neutrality and roaming regulations - Ofcom: "Update note 8 May 2018

 We have revised the scope of this investigation to include the Roaming Regulation and the related CIR in addition to the EU Open Internet Access Regulation. The investigation will examine Three’s practices of:

 Traffic management practices such as ‘throttling’ or intentionally slowing down particular categories of traffic (e.g. video traffic, Peer-to-Peer and Virtual Private Network traffic) when customers are roaming;

Restricting tethering – the practice of using one device to connect another one to the internet – on certain plans offered by Three, including when customers are roaming;

and
Imposing restrictions on the devices in which a SIM can be used – e.g. where a SIM purchased for a mobile phone cannot be used in a tablet.

We are aiming to complete our evidence gathering phase in this investigation by July 2018." 'via Blog this'

Digital Economy Act 2017 s.103 - Code of Practice for social media platforms

Digital Economy Act 2017: "103 Code of practice for providers of online social media platforms

(1)The Secretary of State must issue a code of practice giving guidance to persons who provide online social media platforms for use by persons in the United Kingdom (“social media providers”).

(2)The guidance to be given is guidance about action it may be appropriate for providers to take against the use of the platforms they provide for conduct to which subsection (3) applies." 'via Blog this'

Wetmachine » Yes, the 2017 Net Neutrality Repeal Is A “Rule” Under the CRA.

Wetmachine » Tales of the Sausage Factory » Yes, the 2017 Net Neutrality Repeal Is A “Rule” Under the CRA.: "I agree it is an uphill fight to get the CRA passed and signed by President Trump. But hey, it was always supposed to be impossible to get actual net neutrality rules the court would sustain, and it was always supposed to be impossible to get broadband declared Title II. Then it was supposed to be impossible for the Title II decision to survive judicial review.

As I often say, if I limited my advocacy to what was “possible” I’d never get anything done. But if it actually does pass, and get signed, then the 2017 Net Neutrality Repeal Order goes bye-bye like a bad dream." 'via Blog this'

Wetmachine » Tales of the Sausage Factory » UPDATE: Why Tech Freedom Are Totally Wrong About The CRA.

Wetmachine » Tales of the Sausage Factory » UPDATE: Why Tech Freedom Are Totally Wrong About The CRA.: "Last week, I wrote this blog post addressing the argument that the Markey resolution under the Congressional Review Act would not actually restore the 2015 net neutrality rules. Since then, my opposite numbers at Tech Freedom have put together this 8-page letter saying otherwise. To save myself the trouble of repeating myself, I will update my previous blog post to explain why Tech Freedom specifically is utterly and completely wrong.

 As I explained last time, the CRA defines a “rule” as meaning anything defined as a “rule” by 5 U.S.C. 551(4) (excluding agency actions relating to personnel or applying only to a single company, like a tariff filing). Or, in other words, anything generally subject to the Administrative Procedures Act (APA), regardless of what you call it, counts as a “rule” for CRA purposes." 'via Blog this'

Net Neutrality and Internet Regulation: What Needs to Change: Nina Cummins

Net Neutrality and Internet Regulation: What Needs to Change: "With net neutrality being a hot topic, what do you expect to occur in the next year regarding the debate into this area?

 I see the next year being characterised by national telecoms regulators and businesses each pushing to gain a better understanding of how individual provisions in Regulation 2015/2012 (sic: 2021) (the “EU Net Neutrality Regulation“) and the associated BEREC Net Neutrality Guidelines apply to specific business proposals and new offers they are seeking to launch.

Despite the intense debates, many operators and consumers have not experienced the ‘big bang’ effect some predicted. However, many businesses are still unclear about where parameters lie under the new neutrality rules especially with regards to new types of services or offers they are seeking to launch.

In some cases, consumers are missing out, as operators don’t have sufficient regulatory certainty as to how new offers will be received by the relevant regulators and don’t want to become the first test case in the area.

 Some of these uncertainties may be resolved through the recent consultation launched by BEREC (the body of European telecoms regulators)." 'via Blog this'

BEREC’s net neutrality process is a black box - Strand

BEREC’s net neutrality process is a black box: "Strand Consult finds BEREC’s views of “stakeholders” highly suspect, as the criteria for their selection is not public. More to the point, Strand Consult’s research uncovered that 6 of 14 BEREC’s official “stakeholders” had Google funding, including 3 of the 4 civil society organizations had funding from Google. The law allows the rejection of a freedom of information request to be overridden when it is in the public interest.

 Of BEREC’s 43 net neutrality meetings that Strand Consult could identify during the period, 3 were public and 40 were secret. Of the 40 secret meetings, Strand Consult could obtain some minimal amount of information for 30 meeting. Information for the other 10 secret meetings was flatly denied on the basis that is wished to protect the identities of the participants and that disclosure would undermine BEREC’s decision-making process. This claim strikes at the heart of Strand Consult’s critique of BEREC over the years: it selects experts without providing transparent criteria; it makes decisions based on expert’s testimony without making the testimony public; and it claims net neutrality is vital and necessary without providing any academic evidence, cost-benefit analysis, or regulatory impact assessment."

I thought they were better than that.... 'via Blog this'