Tesla's bundling of zero rated Spotify with a SIM card is a violation of the EU's net neutrality rules. Strand Consult submits complaint to two European telecom authorities

Tesla's bundling of zero rated Spotify with a SIM card is a violation of the EU's net neutrality rules. Strand Consult submits complaint to two European telecom authorities: "From many regulators’ perspectives, allowing zero rating harms the openness of the Internet.  It certainly harms the openness of competition and the viability of telecom law when telecom services are allowed to be sold with differing regulations, protections, and treatment.

 Going forward this issue will only become more complex with the Internet of Things and new providers of services, SIM cards and traffic. It seems that BEREC has attempted to isolate and favor new types of mobile providers from rules, but given their labyrinth of guidelines and the conflicting opinion across countries, it is likely that regulators will come under legal challenge for limiting the free flow of services across the European Union.

Notably American telecom authorities encourage zero rating and the Federal Communication Commission notes that it receives no complaints about free data from real consumers, only select activists.

Given that the EU continues to fall behind the US in investment and internet innovation, the ban on pricing flexibility and partnerships seems misguided and distortionary in a converging marketplace." 'via Blog this'

BBC licence payers deserve a strong, independent regulator

BBC licence payers deserve a strong, independent regulator: "Non-executive directors are all appointed by the secretary of state for culture, media and sport (DCMS). Of its current six, three have affiliations with the Conservative party. The deputy chair, Baroness Noakes, takes the Tory whip in the Lords. Graham Mather is a former Tory MEP. And the chair, Dame Patricia Hodgson, while not politically active, is a former head of the Conservatives’ Bow Group and featured in Charles Moore’s biography of Margaret Thatcher as her regular lunch companion.

The chair carries a double question-mark as she was a long-time senior executive at the BBC until she left in 2000. Dame Patricia will be wise to every trick in the BBC book, but at moments of political tension she is liable to face accusations that she is too familiar with the players to be a proper referee. 


That frontline referee may have to be Ofcom chief executive, Sharon White, who until 2015 was a second permanent secretary at the Treasury. Ms White has fine civil service values. But when fan and ordure meet, she will have to prove her detachment from government.

 Ms White’s caution, along with Dame Patricia’s BBC background, played a role during my time chairing the content board. I succeeded Tim Gardam, a former television executive, on the basis that Ofcom and the DCMS felt independence from the BBC could best be displayed by choosing a former print editor instead of an ex-BBC person.

Related article
BBC World Service to transmit radio show into North Korea
Broadcaster raises global ambitions despite increasing financial pressures

 The trouble with journalists, it transpired, is that they write. Perhaps alarmed by the febrile atmosphere surrounding the June 23 referendum, Ms White decided in May that for the chair of the content board to publish articles on matters of public policy could produce a conflict of interest should editorial complaints arise about such issues.

A legal opinion was produced to back this up, one which should, on the face of it, have ruled out my recruitment in the first place. Accordingly, Ofcom negotiated an amicable settlement for the early termination of my contract.

Four months later, DCMS secretary of state, Karen Bradley, overturned the settlement, alleging that three tweets, one Italian interview and an article about “Preparing for President Trump” amounted to “misconduct” and that Ofcom had no power to negotiate a deal.

 Suspicion of the establishment is running high. So it is crucial that the BBC should have regulators who are seen to be independent of mind and stiff of spine. Instead, the DCMS and Ofcom’s leadership appear to believe that having editorial regulation fronted by an independent writer is a greater risk than having the main board dominated by one party.

Contrary to Lord Patten, “ever more powerful” does not seem the main danger. Supine and too close to government represent bigger worries.  'via Blog this'

If Donald Trump builds a wall against the open Internet, will you pay for it?

When Donald Trump was inaugurated as 45^th President of the United States of America on 20^th January, he had one easy policy to implement and one person to pick as his Internet policy chief. Where Obama was the Google and Facebook President, Trump is the alt-right alternative-news Twitter President. He wants to build a paywall for his friends and supporters’ businesses on the Internet, and you the user may end up paying for it.

His policy – to dismantle President Obama’s main Internet policy of ensuring network (‘net’) neutrality – also known as the ‘Open Internet’ principle. His pick: the most vocal Republican critic of the outgoing administration’s policies. His time scale: THREE days. On 23 January, Ajit Pai was confirmed as Chair of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), the largest and most powerful Internet regulatory body in the world. On 24 January, he appointed his staff to dismantle the Obama policy. On 31 January, he closed the inquiry that had tried to implement Obama’s policy. He is highly unlikely to agree to another one. Expect loud protests against his new policy inside and outside the first Trump era FCC Open Meeting on 23 February.

Thus begins the ‘Third Age’ of net neutrality regulation. The first was the preparation and policy formation, largely prior to legal enforcement, from 1999 to 2009 (which I documented in the first book on the topic). The second was the growing international consensus on net neutrality in 2009-2016, not just in Obama’s US but also in Europe with laws passed in both 2009 and 2015, in Latin America with new laws in Chile, Brazil, Mexico, Colombia and Costa Rica, and India, which outlawed zero rating in 2016. My new book explains that seven year passage to regulatory implementation. But now we enter the new Trumpian era for net neutrality.

So what is net neutrality, and what is zero rating? Net neutrality is the principle, elaborated by US law professors Mark Lemley, Lawrence Lessig, and then Tim Wu (who coined the term in 2003), that access providers that connect you to the Internet should not block, throttle and otherwise discriminate between content you choose when you use the ‘Net. (There are narrow exceptions for security against viruses, spam, law enforcement and temporary congestion.)

Take an example: your mobile phone company should not degrade your use of WhatsApp, Skype or YouTube evne though they have their  services in a bundle they want you to use instead. Remember when phones were mainly used for texting and calling? Mobile operators admitted they tried to stop this happening, degrading independent services Skype and WhatsApp connections in the 2000s, leading in 2011 to the first European net neutrality law when Netherlands consumers – and politicians – were outraged that mobile companies were tracking their phone use and blocking WhatsApp. Mobile operators have now agreed in many countries not to block your connections, and the laws that ensure your freedom to connect are slowly being implemented in detailed regulation.

Zero rating is the alternative to that now-illegal blocking and throttling. Mobile and even fixed line operators want to give you a bundle of ‘preferred’ affiliated content, like bundling basic cable TV services. These “sponsored data” plans allow you to use certain services without dipping into your data allowance, with other companies picking up the bill – you pay indirectly through their ‘sponsorship’. The giant companies like Facebook (which bought WhatsApp in 2014), Microsoft (which bought Skype in 2011), and Google (which bought YouTube in 2006) can afford to negotiate ‘sponsored data’ to zero rate, with the telecoms and mobile companies. A new rival to Facebook, WhatsApp – such as Signal – or YouTube could not. Wikipedia could not, the BBC could not.

Regulating to create an open Internet was still a work in progress in 2016, with opposition from big telecoms and cable corporations in the courts, that meant it took six years of Obama’s Presidency to begin effective implementation. I wrote three years ago in The Conversation that the litigation was wrapping up the policy in knots, but six months ago that litigation failed, vindicating the FCC in part. Only five months ago, the European regulators created their own detailed rules – all seemed settled on both sides of the Atlantic. Hungary, Netherlands, Sweden (and in a perverse manner Slovenia) were all implementing zero rating rules.

As recently as 11 January, Obama’s FCC declared the zero rating plans of the giant telecoms companies Verizon and AT&T to be against the open Internet rules – with bitter opposition from then-Minority Commissioner Pai. It accused AT&T of treating its own DirecTV better than its rival services, making the system uncompetitive be favouring its own subsidiary. Smaller rival T-Mobile’s BingeOn video service, was permitted as it “charges all providers the same zero rate for participating”. FCC had already warned both AT&T and Verizon about its offers in separate letters – but that it is now history. The Wireless Bureau author of that declaration, and Obama’s FCC Chairman, have both ‘moved onto other responsiblities’.

How can you affect open Internet rules? Academics study the law, the policy, the technology, the business economics, the privacy and human rights implications, the civil society protests when net neutrality is infringed, all around the world. Some of us advise governments on the implications of different forms of net neutrality regulation (I have done so for a decade now). Millions have responded to the US and Indian consultations, over half a million to the European guidelines. One professor went further.

Lawrence Lessig, one of the ‘fathers’ of net neutrality regulation, taught at the University of Chicago Law School with Obama – and was so worried about Trump, and billionaires’ corruption of politics, that he ran for President in 2015. Unlike his fellow lawyers Obama and the Clintons, he did not get very far. His open Internet idea was Obama regulatory policy – how long will it be before Ajit Pai and his President Trump consign that freedom to connect to history? If net neutrality fails, expect more sponsored data plans inside the paywall, and more difficulty in accessing higher cost data if you want to leave the ‘bubble’.

What Happens If Net Neutrality Goes Away? MIT Tech Pol. Rev.

What Happens If Net Neutrality Goes Away?: "That’s not to say startups and smaller companies don’t need protections against discriminatory practices, though, says Singer, who worries that the Trump administration might go too far in weakening the FCC’s regulatory power. Members of the transition team have advocated for removing all of the agency’s authority to police unfair business practices by the ISPs and put that in the hands of the Federal Trade Commission. Singer and others are concerned that without a new mandate from Congress the FTC does not have enough authority to protect independent content providers adequately." 'via Blog this'

New FCC chair lays down line on net neutrality - Axios

New FCC chair lays down line on net neutrality - Axios: "The rub: The new chairman declined to say how he would revisit the 2015 net neutrality rules beloved by consumer activists and opposed by major internet service providers. He wouldn't comment on whether the agency would continue to enforce the rules' prohibitions on blocking, throttling and fast lanes — but did note Republican plans not to apply certain parts of the order to smaller internet providers.

 The bottom line: This debate is just getting started. The battle over net neutrality is likely to involve public commenters on both sides of the issue and be closely watched in both the tech and telecom sectors. The most significant fight will be over the so-called "Title II" approach taken by former FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler, which expanded the agency's regulatory power over broadband providers. " 'via Blog this'

Telenor Hungary joins Telekom on the net neutrality naughty step - Telegeography

Telenor Hungary joins Telekom on the net neutrality naughty step: "Hungary’s National Media & Infocommunications Authority (NMHH) has invoked the EU net neutrality framework rules once more, in a judgement against cellco Telenor Hungary. The regulator ruled that Telenor violated the EU net neutrality principles by distinguishing between specific content types, including its ‘MyChat’ instant messaging application and other social media apps, and between its ‘MyMusic’ service and online radio stations. The practices are disadvantageous to competing services, the watchdog stated in a decision which can be appealed by Telenor.

CommsUpdate reported last month that the NMHH invoked the EU net neutrality framework rules to order Hungary’s largest fixed and mobile operator Magyar Telekom to cease ‘zero rating’ selected over-the-top (OTT) internet video services for its mobile users (i.e. giving subscribers access to the services without registering any data volume usage)." 'via Blog this'

Trump’s Internet and How to Stop It - Lawfare

Trump’s Internet and How to Stop It - Lawfare: "Section 606 has never been applied to the internet, but there is nothing in the law that explicitly says it cannot be.  The question is whether the government’s statutory authority over traditional telecommunications under 606 extends to the internet.

The issue is similar to the question of whether the FCC can use its regulatory authority to impose “net neutrality” rules under other provisions of the statute.  In June 2016, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit upheld the FCC’s power to impose “net neutrality” rules.

 If Trump wants to “close that internet up,” all he will need is an opinion from his Attorney General that section 606 gives him authority to do so, and that the threat of terrorism is compelling enough to override any First Amendment concerns.  It is critically important that a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee ask Trump’s nominee, Senator Jeff Sessions, what he thinks about this issue.

 We already know what Trump thinks.  Immediately after suggesting internet filtering, Trump said, "Somebody will say, 'Oh, freedom of speech, freedom of speech.'  These are foolish people."" 'via Blog this'