September 2014

What’s next for network neutrality? 5 things we learned from the debate ahead of the FCC’s decision

[Commentary] Here are five important things we learned during the first phase of the Federal Communications Commission’s network neutrality process, and that will shape the endgame:

The American public does not want fast lanes – but may end up with them anyways
FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler is the wild card
The tech giants are sitting it out
Bet on new wireless rules
Title II is all that matters: The bottom line is that the FCC may impose new wireless rules or demand ISP’s increase broadband speeds but, for the purposes of net neutrality, none of that matters without Title II.

Mobile industry makes the pro-goodies case for non-neutral networks

Speaking at the GSMA Mobile 360 event in Atlanta, CTIA CEO Meredith Attwell Baker declared that mobile Internet service providers aren't backing away from the idea that key to surviving in the wireless marketplace is, increasingly, the digital bonuses they offer -- goodies that could be prohibited under strong network neutrality rules.

"Given the clear, competitive import of network management to retain and attract subscribers," she said, "I will never understand why the government would intervene now, and even contemplate hamstringing disruptive competitors or reducing the competitive energy around delivering the best network experience." In the mobile realm, such goodies are known in the developing world as zero-rated apps. In the United States, they are offered under the banner of "sponsored data" and under names like T-Mobile's Music Freedom.

Those apps raise questions about whether they favor some providers of digital at the expense of others, but Baker is hinting here at the idea that they'll only become more prevalent as cell phone service companies compete.

Telcos on Universal Service Reform: Contribution Base Must Be Addressed

Reforming how the universal service program is funded is critical at a time when a wide range of reforms have been made to how universal service funding is spent, said several telephone companies and telecommunications associations in comments filed with the House Commerce Committee.

The comments were made in response to a white paper issued by the committee asking a range of questions about the Universal Service Fund that is governed by the Federal Communications Commission and funded by the telecommunications industry. Traditionally the USF was voice-focused but the FCC is in the process of transitioning the program into the broadband-focused Connect America Fund. Several commenters suggested expanding the services upon which USF fees are based. Those advocating expanding the universal service contribution base will face opposition, although the extent of that opposition may not be apparent from comments filed with Congress.

Comcast to FCC: We already face enough competition, so let us buy TWC

Federal Communications Commission Chairman Tom Wheeler has made it clear he thinks there isn’t enough broadband competition in America, but Comcast is trying to convince the FCC that it faces enough competition right now.

Already the largest pay-TV and broadband company in the US, Comcast is seeking permission to buy Time Warner Cable. Comcast and Time Warner Cable don’t compete for customers in any city or town, despite being the nation’s two largest cable companies, which helps explain why US residents have so few viable options for cable and high-speed Internet service. But in response to merger-related questions from the FCC, a Comcast filing points to a broad range of competitors and says it’s easy to switch to a different provider (though a horde of angry customers might disagree). Comcast said it faces competition from municipal broadband networks, though the telecom industry has pushed state governments to pass laws that restrict municipal broadband growth. Comcast also described a competitive threat from phone companies, which are upgrading DSL to fiber and “appear well-positioned to offer highly competitive broadband speeds well into the future.” Additionally, “[c]able overbuilders, new entrants like Google fiber, municipal providers, fixed wireless providers, and satellite broadband providers also are competing vigorously,” Comcast wrote. “And well-capitalized and aggressive nationwide mobile broadband providers now offer services that provide speeds comparable to many of the fixed broadband services that consumers purchase.”

We know the password system is broken. So what’s next?

The password system itself is broken. The system places too much demand on the memories and patience of people who aren't trained to think about computer security all day.

Even when companies offer advanced options -- such as two-factor authentication, which sends people a second, onetime-use code to add to their log-in information -- many don't use it because it makes an already annoying process even more complicated. The point is not lost on technology companies, who are chipping away at methods to make it easier for users to sign into accounts by using their fingerprints, voices or faces, so that they won't have to memorize a million different passwords. Most of these options are centered on the smartphone, since that's increasingly the most common device people use. But as promising as some of these solutions are, they also carry their own problems.

Amazon Workers Walk Off the Job in Germany Over Wage Dispute

Amazon employees in Germany, frustrated by the company’s refusal to hold wage talks, walked off their jobs in a coordinated strike at four of the company’s distribution centers. A total of 2,000 workers refused to show up for their shifts on Monday in an effort to force the company to accept an agreement in line with other retailers.

Exploring New Ideas for Protecting and Promoting the Open Internet

It is worth noting some of the ideas in the record that the Federal Communications Commission’s staff has identified as adding to the potential ways that an Open Internet can be preserved.

Commenters have suggested how Section 706 could be used. For example, AOL supports reclassification under Title II with substantive rules promulgated under Section 706. And AT&T has suggested paid prioritization could be banned under Section 706. At the same time, the FCC has been presented with a number of variants on the use of Title II. Tim Wu and Tejas Narechania have made an important proposal of this kind, as has the Mozilla Foundation, which suggested in its reply comments that Title II be used to create a presumption that all paid prioritization arrangements are unlawful. Some parties also have spoken positively of the benefits of both Section 706 and Title II. For example, a coalition of library and higher-education institutions has made proposals that build on these sources of legal authority -- suggesting, among other ideas, a finding that paid prioritization arrangements presumptively violate the law under a standard of “Internet reasonableness.”

How airlines explain network neutrality

How are Internet fast lanes any different from paying more to "sit up front in the big seats on an airline"? If you want better service, maybe you should pay for it. The fact that folks are naturally turning to airlines to understand net neutrality suggests the air travel industry may have something to teach us.

So let's unpack this analogy a bit. I'll tackle this in two parts: One will address how describing it as "paying for the big seats" doesn't adequately capture the net neutrality problem, and the second will tweak that analogy to try to help put the net neutrality issue in more concrete terms. Paying Internet service providers for the right to serve consumers faster and more smoothly — a concept known as "paid prioritization" — is not like being a customer on an airline. For starters, while you can pay for better treatment on an airplane, everyone on the plane gets to their destination at the same time, whether they're flying in coach or business class. Paid prioritization is different in that it would actually speed up some types of Internet traffic. So for the airline analogy to hold, the first-class section would have to detach from the rest of the plane in mid-flight and go supersonic. Planes don't tend to do that.

Google, Yahoo fighting on both sides of municipal broadband debate (updated)

[Commentary] The Internet Association urged the Federal Communications Commission to intervene in state-level laws that seek to prohibit municipalities from deploying and maintaining their own broadband networks. The Internet Association is essentially a lobbying organization that says it is “dedicated to advancing public policy solutions to strengthen and protect internet freedom, foster innovation and economic growth and empower users.” It supports net neutrality, patent reforms that could eradicate patent trolls, and the protection of privacy of internet users, among many other causes in the technology industry. The group boasts a long list of very high-profile technology companies, including Google, Amazon, Yahoo, Reddit, and PayPal. But a Daily Beast report from August 2013 outed Google as a member of ALEC’s Communications and Technology Task Force, alongside several other tech companies, including Yahoo and Yelp. All three are also members of the Internet Association, whose stances on net neutrality and broadband are the polar opposite of ALEC's. After the Daily Beast article unveiled Google’s affiliation with ALEC, dozens of activist groups pointed out the paradox in a public letter calling for the company to leave the organization. Google's only response came in a reply to Ars Technica’s request for comment: "we aren't going to be commenting on this letter."

[Neagle manages NetworkWorld’s blogs]

Update:

On Sept 22 Google said it doesn't plan on funding the conservative American Legislative Exchange Council in the future due to the organization's climate change skepticism.

CAF Speed Target Could Create New Winners and Losers

If the Federal Communications Commission gets its way, high speed Internet access might be defined as a minimum of between 10 Mbps to 25 Mbps.

The definition matters for any number of reasons, not least of all that universal access funding, which now has shifted from voice services to Internet access services as part of the Connect America Fund, will use the FCC’s definition. Recipients of CAF funding would have to build access networks operating at the higher minimum speeds. The biggest impact arguably would be felt in rural areas, since most urban and suburban networks already offer standard speeds of 10 Mbps or faster.

Benton

Search