UK Parliament: All Party Communications Group to investigate DPI

Amongst other things...

we would particularly like to learn how these five specific questions should be answered:
#1 Can we distinguish circumstances when ISPs should be forced to act to deal with some type of bad traffic? When should we insist that ISPs should not be forced into dealing with a problem, and that the solution must be found elsewhere?
#2 Should the Government be intervening over behavioural advertising services, either to encourage or discourage their deployment; or is this entirely a matter for individual users, ISPs and websites?
#3 Is there a need for new initiatives to deal with online privacy, and if so, what should be done?
#4 Is the current global approach to dealing with child sexual abuse images working effectively? If not, then how should it be improved?
#5 Who should be paying for the transmission of Internet traffic? Would it be appropriate to enshrine any of the various notions of Network Neutrality in statute?

Responses due by 22 May...

Mobile Takes the Fifth? VON calls for VOIP

Not a chance in Europe, but nice try by Skype et al in advance of the EP 2nd Reading (which is likely to now be delayed until 5 May)- the mobile pigopoly won't let this happen!

Monica Horten directs to an interview with a Danish MEP who has responded to this and T-Mobile's contempt for Skype by suggesting the incorporation of the Four Freedoms in the Second Reading. Good luck!

Michael Copps launches 5th FCC Principle: enforcement

By George, the interim FCC Chair has repeated the radical idea that Michael Powell's Four Internet Freedoms lacked an important fifth - enforcing the four against ISPs who do a Comcast! But he wants new Chair Genachowski to implement the idea. ""These are evolving technologies and sometimes the line between reasonable network management and outright discrimination can be less than crystal clear But that’s why we need a for-sure enforcement process, to sift through complaints, to make the judgment calls, and, over time, to compile some case law and precedent so things become clearer."

In Brussels, the usual suspects are asking the European Parliament to do the same - by overturning the Committee votes last week....

Monica Horten provides the new text on Universal Service

As ever, its really up to the NRAs to decide how much they want to introduce transparency and police ISP information, with references put in on co- and self-regulation, but this is apparently what the law will look like (red represents amendments by IMCO Committee):

Article 20.1

1. Member States shall ensure that, when subscribing to services providing connection

to a public communications network and/or publicly available electronic

communications services, consumers, and other end-users so requesting, have a right

to a contract with an undertaking or undertakings providing such connection and/or

services. The contract shall specify in a clear, comprehensive and easily accessible

form at least:

(b)

- information on any other conditions limiting access to and/or use of services

and applications, where such conditions are allowed under national law in

accordance with Community law,

- the minimum service quality levels offered, namely the time for the initial

connection and, where appropriate, other quality of service parameters, as

defined by the national regulatory authorities,

- information on any procedures put in place by the provider in order to

measure and shape traffic so as to avoid filling or overfilling a network link,

and on how these may impact on service quality,

Member States may also require that the contract include any information which may

be provided by the relevant public authorities for this purpose on the use of electronic

communications networks and services to engage in unlawful activities or to

disseminate harmful content, and on the means of protection against risks to personal

security, privacy and personal data, referred to in Article 21(4)(a) and relevant to the

service provided.

CA5

Article 21.3

3. Member States shall ensure that national regulatory authorities are able to oblige

undertakings providing public electronic communications network and/or publicly

available electronic communications services to inter alia:

(b) inform subscribers of any change to the conditions limiting access to

and/or use of services and applications, where such conditions are allowed

under national law in accordane with Community law,

(c) information on any procedures put in place by the provider in order to

measure and shape traffic so as to avoid filling or overfilling a network link,

and on how these may impact on service quality,

If deemed appropriate, national regulatory authorities may promote self- or

co-regulatory measures prior to imposing any obligation.

4. Member States may require that undertakings referred to in paragraph 3 distribute

public interest information free of charge to existing and new subscribers, where

appropriate, through the same means as those ordinarily used by undertakings for their

communications with subscribers and free of charge. In such a case, that information

shall be provided by the relevant public authorities in a standardised format and shall,

inter alia, cover the following topics:

(a) the most common uses of electronic communications services to engage in

unlawful activities or to disseminate harmful content, particularly where it

may prejudice respect for the rights and freedoms of others, including

infringements of copyright and related rights, and their legal consequences;

Canada consults the end-user on traffic management

Whether they listen more than Ofcom with its terribly dull blogs, we will see - but its a promising start!

EC compromise jettisons net neutrality

Well, what did you expect? The EC has a quasi-regulator with a quasi-veto (or "binding recommendation", lawyers will enjoy that wording!), quasi-broadband universal service but UK wording on net neutrality, it seems. The Commissioner got most of what she wanted.

I like the Svensson amendment which it seems has failed:

Amendment 135 +++

• Article 1 – point 13 amending Directive 2002/22/EC Article 22 – paragraph 1 tabled by Eva-Britt SVENSSON, GUE/NGL, SE
• Net Neutrality/Discrimination

1. Member States shall ensure that national regulatory authorities are, after taking account of the views of interested parties, able to require undertakings that provide publicly available electronic communications networks and/or services to publish equivalent, adequate and up-todate information for end-users on the quality of their services and measures taken to ensure comparable access for disabled end-users and to disclose traffic management policies. That information shall, on request,be supplied to the national regulatory authority in advance of its publication. 

Member States shall ensure that national regulatory authorities are able to take appropriate measures in cases where operators fail to disclose their traffic management policies or where the traffic management policy does not respect the rights of users to access the content, applications and services of their choice. National regulatory authorities shall additionally ensure that there is a facility in place by which users can monitor and identify any problems created by traffic management policies in cases where disputes may arise.

Abuse of process as MEPs didn't know what they were voting on? Well, yes, but that's not unusual - in any case, the devil is in the detail as we will see in the EP vote on agreed texts on 22 April.

Network Management Guide by George Ou

I have been alerted to a paper on network management written for Washington that is now circulating in Brussels, by journalist Ou, written in his role at the ITIF, from which the excellent Weiser/Atkinson paper emerged in 2006.

This paper trashes net neutrality extremists (what The Register calls "freetards") in a way that I find unhelpful in both tone and substance as they're not the only NN proponents, but nevertheless generally its not a bad document - but be very aware of several items that are much more related to the Washington debate:

[1] the proponents of NN in general DO NOT want to entirely outlaw all network management - at least not in my experience. He is generalising from the lunatic fringe.
[2] for reasons I don't understand, he talks about network management ensuring users always get more than their ISP's minimum promise: "If a network can be built to guarantee 1 megabit per second (Mbps) of performance for each user, for example, it can just as easily offer the customer 1 Mbps of guaranteed performance and up to 20 Mbps of unguaranteed performance."
BUT in the UK and elsewhere in Europe, ISPs advertise misleading claims based on maximum THEORETICAL speeds - so their dishonesty means that they ALWAYS over-promise and under-deliver.
[3] He acknowledges three incumbent-paid technical experts - including the excellent Bob Briscoe from BT.

However, he is calling for significantly MORE regulation of ISPs if you read closely, and this I agree with:
"the FCC should oversee broadband providers and ensure that ISP network management practices are open, transparent and not anti-competitive. And the ISP industry should continue its efforts to develop and abide by industry codes of good conduct regarding network management that include, but are not limited to, fuller and more transparent disclosure to consumers of network management practices."

However, he drops it in at the end of both his executive summary and the paper itself, so I assume this is an after-thought as a result of editing/comments by someone else. That's a pity, as it offers balance and shows just how little information ISPs are willing voluntarily to give their customers.

If I can add some information that is actually useful to make that information regulation actually effective, then I would offer the Norwegian solution here. Now that's effective co-regulation of traffic management to ensure transparency and non-discrimination - not just lip service to consumer demands;-)