The Internet Must Go

Time to Fight for Net Neutrality in the EU Subscribe to this blog About Author Glyn Moody's look at all levels of the enterprise open source stack. Contact Author Email Glyn Twitter Profile Linked-in Profile Net neutrality is one of those areas that most people are vaguely in favour of, without giving it much thought. That was particularly regrettable because already there were clear cases of UK operators undermining net neutrality. Although it's relatively short, and has plenty of easy-to-absorb graphs, there's a great summary of the findings from La Quadrature du Net, which has been following net neutrality closely (as well as playing a key role in helping to defeat ACTA in Europe): Some examples of special treatment for over-the-top traffic reported by fixed operators are prioritisation of certain kind of traffic or applications at peak times (such as HTTP, DNS, VoIP, gaming, instant messaging, etc.), and assigning lower priority to applications such as file downloading, P2P, etc.

2012 - who guards the network guardians? Monica Horten Published on 03 January 2012 Will the next corporate scandal involve the Internet? The Financial Times today* suggests that 2012 will be a pivotal year for the media. In 2011, we saw the apparent vindication of the Internet as an enabler of democracy, coupled with a massive growth in Internet traffic, ending the year with a huge spike on Xmas day as people downloaded apps on their new Smartphones. Why would one bring these apparently unrelated concepts together in a discussion of Internet policy? Millions of apps downloaded on smartphones signals a volume increase in mobile traffic not anticipated when the regulations were drawn up. Against that traffic increase, we have to consider the blocking demands from an increasing list of stakeholders. By ‘crunch’ I don’t necessarily mean a mirror of the credit crunch. The question is, what should policy-makers do? The trustworthiness of our regulators merits questioning.

New Flare-Up in Capitol Over 'Net Neutrality' Fiorina: Politicians don't care about Silicon Valley | Politics and Law ASPEN, Co.--Carly Fiorina, the former chief executive at Hewlett-Packard, on Monday promised a deregulatory approach toward technology if elected to the U.S. Senate, warning of governmental overreach on Net neutrality and saying that current politicians don't understand what's important to Silicon Valley. Fiorina, who won the Republican nomination in June, echoed what many technology executives have said for years: America's skilled-worker visa system is so badly broken that "we have to start from scratch," and that too many government policies push jobs overseas instead of making U.S. companies competitive against international rivals. "We have to put a huge emphasis on attracting the best and the brightest--this is a nation that has always led through immigration," Fiorina told the audience at the Technology Policy Institute's Aspen Forum here. "Our visa system for high skills workers is in disrepair." Here's what she had to say on those and related topics on Monday:

Verizon & Google Want to Kill the Open Internet -- Media Mogul Confirms Their Bad Intentions | Media and Culture August 20, 2010 | Like this article? Join our email list: Stay up to date with the latest headlines via email. "[Barry] Diller asserted that the Google-Verizon proposal "doesn't preserve 'net neutrality,' full stop, or anything like it." The Verizon-Google Net Neutrality Proposal begins by stating that "Google and Verizon have been working together to find ways to preserve the open Internet." Actually, you don't have to imagine it. Much of the coverage of the Verizon-Google Proposal has focused on only one of the proposal's many problems: the fact that the proposal allows wireless broadband carriers -- like, say, Verizon, for instance -- to discriminate in handling Internet traffic in any manner they choose. We've already seen examples of political censorship over mobile networks. But the Verizon-Google Proposal allows almost as much latitude to other internet carriers, like cable and DSL carriers. Furthermore, under the heading "Non-Discrimination Requirement" (that sounds promising!)

15 Facts About Net Neutrality [Infographic] Net neutrality has taken up a lot of headline space over the last two weeks. There was the Goggle and Verizon thing, and then something happened with the FCC and some Congress members, and the French may have been involved somehow... Admit it, your eyes are glazing over aren't they? Yes, it's true, net neutrality sometimes isn't the easiest thing to wrap your head around. But the artistic folks at Online MBA Programs are here to help with 15 facts you may not have known about what neutrality on the Internet actually means. [Source: Online MBA Programs] Embed this Image on Your Site: <a href=" class="embedded-Media-image img-caption-c "><img src=" style="" alt="" width="650" height="2650" /></span></a><br />[Via: <a href=" MBA Programs</a>]

After Google-Verizon fizzle, FCC should force Net neutrality THE “LEGISLATIVE framework proposal’’ on net neutrality released by and last week was a shock and a disappointment for those who had bought into Google’s motto of “Don’t be evil.’’ It’s a sad example of what happens when corporations are allowed to write regulatory rules — and why the Federal Communications Commission needs to re-seize the reins on broadband regulation. Net neutrality — the concept that Internet service providers shouldn’t be able to “shape’’ traffic, by, say, providing access to certain, popular sites at a speedier rate than newer, less popular ones — is one of the defining issues for the future of communications. Google had long been seen as an important ally of neutrality advocates, but its proposal with Verizon represents a troubling turnaround. The proposal suggests that all wirebound broadband Internet traffic should be treated neutrally, but then goes on to carve out a myriad of loopholes, most of them very broadly defined.

Protection of Intellectual Property: The Core of the Net Neutrality Debate It didn't take long for criticism of the Verizon/Google net neutrality proposal to start pouring in. "[I]nterest groups, bloggers, and even Google fanboys [have started] discrediting the plan" according to one trade publication. Although most of the commentary simply echoes various groups' long-held positions, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the nation's foremost cyber-rights watchdog, provided a crucial insight about the plan that goes to the core of the net neutrality issue. EFF found merit with some aspects of the proposal, particularly with regard to limiting the FCC"s regulatory authority. The most significant element of EFF's critique, however, is their objection to limiting net neutrality to "lawful" content. Whether or not to permit network management practices that discriminate against unlawful content is the crux of the net neutrality debate. Until the FCC's error in the Comcast decision is corrected, a responsible net neutrality framework cannot be developed.

Google : sa stratégie à long terme, et la neutralité du Net Après avoir révélé la proposition de régulation de l'Internet que l'entreprise a élaboré avec Verizon, et étant maintenant attaqué par Oracle sur son utilisation de Java dans Android, plusieurs réactions de Google par la voix de son PDG Eric Schmidt sont à signaler. Surtout, l’entretien accordé hier au Wall Street Journal (dont nous avons déjà parlé) permet de mieux comprendre la stratégie et les idéaux que veut défendre le géant du Web. La neutralité du Net Eric Schmidt avait réagi lors de la conférence Techonomy la semaine dernière sur les critiques dont son entreprise fait l’objet depuis la publication de sa proposition de régulation du Net élaborée avec Verizon. Il explique : « ce que nous voulons dire [par neutralité] est que si vous avez un type de données, par exemple de la vidéo, vous ne faites pas de préférence en faveur des vidéos d’une personne au lieu de celles d’une autre personne. La stratégie de Google

Jonathan Zittrain asks why Google made a pact with Verizon at all | Technology Jonathan Zittrain offers a typically rational, insightful analysis of the Google-Verizon net neutrality pact on Newsweek, as interviewed by Dan Lyons. Professor of internet law at Harvard, and co-director of the Berkman Centre for Internet & Society, Zittrain asks why Google is party to the agreement at all. How the internet might look without net neutrality Is it involved because of its role as a content provider, or as a potential provider of internet access? "The practical answer may be that Google has argued fiercely against any perceived attempt by telecoms carriers to charge for acceleration (or delivery at all) of Google's content to those carriers' subscribers, and their part of the deal is to climb down from public conflict with the carriers and declare what would suit it," he says, saying Google can be expected not to do much more than represent its own interests.

Ashurst Following public concerns over the use of Phorm, Inc.'s behavioural advertising technology by UK internet service providers (ISPs), the European Commission has issued proceedings to address what it perceives as structural problems in the UK's implementation of European privacy Directives relevant to electronic communications. In particular, the Commission considers that the absence of active user consent may be insufficient to ensure the confidentiality of public electronic communications. Phorm's controversial "Webwise" product Webwise, the brand name of a behavioural advertising system developed by Phorm, has recently raised concerns at the Commission, due to its potential to allow internet use to be monitored. Phorm has already announced its discussions for the use of Webwise with several UK ISPs, including, most controversially, BT, as discussed below. The Commission views UK law as inadequate The extent of UK law: a question of consent Public concerns over Webwise

The Google/Verizon framework I’ve been trying to figure out what the Google / Verizon announcement means. It’s not easy to do, in large part because the announcement doesn’t precisely announce anything. It’s titled a “legislative framework proposal.” That is, on its own terms it’s not an agreement between two companies — neither is bound to do anything by it, which I guess is how they could deny last week’s New York Times report about a “deal on web pay tiers” — but it does represent a meeting of the minds between them about what ought to happen in the world, in particular what American (and presumably others’) law should become here. That kind of mental-but-not-legal agreement can get away with being far more vague than a typical contract. Here’s my own take so far — I figured it might be useful to share my own process in working this through rather than writing (yet) a firm advocacy piece for one view over another. So, what does that commitment look like? First, the ground rules. The wireless section says: