Total Pageviews

Tuesday, February 27, 2018

Rupert Murdoch's Sky bid challenged by Comcast - BBC News

Rupert Murdoch's Sky bid challenged by Comcast - BBC News: "Fox's Sky bid has not been viewed favourably by the UK's competition authority, which in January provisionally found that it would not be in the public interest.

 The Competition and Markets Authority is concerned that if the deal went through, the Murdoch Family Trust would have too much influence over public opinion and the political agenda.

Last week, 21st Century Fox said it would keep Sky News running for at least 10 years, with a fully independent board for the channel, to try to make the proposed deal more attractive to regulators.

 The picture was made more complicated in December of last year when Walt Disney agreed to buy the bulk of 21st Century Fox's business, including its 39% Sky stake.

If that acquisition goes through, it could lessen the Murdoch family's UK influence. 

Mr Roberts said that Comcast was prepared to co-own Sky with either Fox or Disney, as long as Comcast held a majority stake." 'via Blog this'

Sunday, February 25, 2018

AT&T didn’t waste any time abandoning net neutrality – BGR

AT&T didn’t waste any time abandoning net neutrality – BGR: "As of right now, the only three services using AT&T’s sponsored data program are DirecTV, UVerse, and Fullscreen. By a huge coincidence, those are three video services owned by AT&T. “Now your plan includes sponsored data. This means, for example, that customers who have DirecTV or U-verse TV can now stream movies and shows … without it counting against their plan data,” AT&T told customers in a text message earlier today.

This flies directly in the face of a statement AT&T made just last year, when it was trying to persuade consumers that the FCC’s net neutrality repeal wouldn’t be the end of a free and open internet. “AT&T intends to operate its network the same way AT&T operates its network today: in an open and transparent manner. We will not block websites, we will not throttle or degrade internet traffic based on content, and we will not unfairly discriminate in our treatment of internet traffic,” executive Bob Quinn said at the time.

By any definition, offering paid fast lanes to companies constitutes “discriminating” against internet traffic. I’d say that only prioritizing traffic from AT&T-owned companies, or companies willing to pay up, constitutes unfair discrimination, but then again I’m not an AT&T lawyer." 'via Blog this'

Thursday, February 22, 2018

T-Mobile treats everyone equally unequally - EDRi

T-Mobile treats everyone equally unequally - EDRi: "On 8 February 2018, the regulatory authority published its decision on our objection to its decision on our request for enforcement action against T-Mobile’s service “Data-free Music”.

This service was launched shortly after the new European net neutrality rules were introduced. “Data-free Music” allows users to listen to a selection of online music services without using any data from their data plan. This sounds better than it is – and below we explain why.

Bits of Freedom asked ACM to enforce the rules because with this service, T-Mobile gives some services preferential treatment. The regulatory authority did not agree with Bits of Freedom. Now, it has also dismissed Bits of Freedoms’ objection to this decision." 'via Blog this'

Thursday, February 08, 2018

Activists Plan 'Operation: One More Vote' to Save Net Neutrality

Activists Plan 'Operation: One More Vote' to Save Net Neutrality: "Several internet rights groups are planning to push lawmakers into becoming the final vote needed in the Senate to support a Congressional Review Act (CRA) resolution that would ignite an attempt to save net neutrality.

 Last month lawmakers said they needed just one more Republican vote in the Senate in order to have the votes needed to pass a CRA resolution that would overturn the Federal Communication Commission‘s (FCC) decision to rescind net neutrality rules, which ensured that internet service providers (ISPs) treat all internet traffic equally.

If the Senate is successful, a similar bill would need to pass through the House of Representatives before reaching President Donald Trump‘s desk to sign into law." ENDS! 'via Blog this'

California Senate defies FCC, approves net neutrality law | Ars Technica

California Senate defies FCC, approves net neutrality law | Ars Technica: "ISPs would be forbidden from using deceptive or misleading marketing practices "that misrepresent the treatment of Internet traffic or content to its customers."

Violations would be punishable under the state's existing consumer protection laws, which allow for injunctions and financial damages.

The California bill would also prohibit state agencies from buying Internet service from an ISP "unless that provider certifies, under penalty of perjury, that it will not engage in" the activities banned by the bill.

 The Montana and New York executive orders focus exclusively on the purchasing requirements for state agencies instead of imposing requirements directly on ISPs. The California bill is a more direct challenge to the FCC's preemption order because it requires all ISPs to follow net neutrality rules regardless of whether they provide Internet service to state agencies." 'via Blog this'

Net neutrality fight returns to D.C. - The Boston Globe

Net neutrality fight returns to D.C. - The Boston Globe: "Now, Democrats hope to turn this into an important election-year issue.

Senator Ed Markey is gathering votes for a Senate bill that would overturn the FCC decision. Think of it as a reversal of a reversal. Markey can’t file the bill until the ruling is listed in the Federal Register, something that’s expected any day now.

Markey has all 49 Democrats on board, and one Republican (Susan Collins of Maine). He needs one more colleague." 'via Blog this'