February 2015

Net neutrality rules set level playing field for data-intense healthcare users

FCC commissioners at the public meeting said the rule will apply to both wired (cable or broadband) and wireless (mobile) networks. The latter category is crucial for some healthcare companies, American Well senior vice president Mike Putnam said. His video visits company has handled an increasing share of provider visits over mobile networks since releasing an app allowing patients to connect with doctors through the video functions on their phones. That makes ensuring high performance crucial to the business model, and Putnam said the FCC's net neutrality rules are the best way to do that. Industry observers generally agree that high-speed, high-quality data transmission is critical for healthcare. That's particularly true for services relying on video, but many other types of healthcare companies are interested in slinging data across the Web. And, given the importance of healthcare procedures and information, data typically needs to travel quickly. That means healthcare companies not only don't want to have to pay extra for fast speeds, but also that they need networks to be fast overall. Net neutrality advocates generally focus more strongly on the first proposition. Opponents, though, have countered that the regulations will slow the investments required to ensure high speeds.

Digital divide: Improving Internet access in the developing world through affordable services and diverse content

There are a number of ways to improve technology access and bring the benefits of a robust and open Internet to people around the world. By taking actions to reduce the gap between Internet users and nonusers, governments can work to maintain the freedom, openness, and diversity that are the cornerstones of the Internet. It is especially important to make progress on digital access, particularly in the cases of India and China.

In these countries, an estimated 2 to 4 billion people have no Internet access, comprising over half of the world's disconnected populace. Addressing barriers to connectivity in this part of the world will make it easier for the unconnected to use digital services, bring them into the technology era, and give them access to valuable tools for economic development and social integration. From this research, it is clear that zero rating programs -- waiving data caps for people who lack the financial resources for expensive data plans -- represent effective ways to expand access by bringing impoverished people into a diverse and competitive digital world and drive demand for local content and services. These approaches help to address the affordability challenges that exist, especially in many parts of the developing world.

Can Silicon Valley and Fort Meade work out their differences?

General Counsel at the Office of the Director of National Intelligence Robert Litt spoke at the Brookings Institution to discuss programs related to President Barack Obama's 2014 speech on American surveillance policies and ongoing transparency efforts. Litt addressed many issues during his speech, including the relationship between the US government and the tech sector.

On the issue of encryption and the private sector, Litt was hopeful that a technological solution that protects privacy and security is possible. He explained his belief that industry leaders will develop a technology “that enables both encryption to protect privacy and decryption under lawful authority to protect national security."

Privacy and cybersecurity get political legs

[Commentary] When I joined the Obama administration five years ago, I set out with like-minded colleagues at the Commerce Department to tackle key issues for the digital economy and protect the ecology of the Internet. At the top of the agenda were cybersecurity and consumer privacy. These efforts were empowered by the White House and bore fruit with the 2012 privacy blueprint that articulated the Consumer Privacy Bill of Rights and with the 2014 National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Cybersecurity Framework. Even so, these policy initiatives played supporting roles outside the spotlight. Seeing cybersecurity and privacy take center stage in recent months has been a striking turn.

Congress also has embraced these issues. The last days of the 113th Congress saw the surprise passage of four bills on cybersecurity addressing responsibilities of federal agencies, which President Obama promptly signed. The 114th Congress has picked up where its predecessor left off, with members introducing several bills and several committees scheduling early hearings on cybersecurity and privacy.

US Presses China on Technology Rules

US officials and business groups are objecting to a draft Chinese antiterrorism law that they say will serve as a new way for Beijing to acquire proprietary information or nudge foreign technology companies out of the vast market.

The proposed law is the latest challenge foreign tech companies face in China in the wake of disclosures about US intelligence-gathering activities and heightened mistrust over cybersecurity between Washington and Beijing. The draft law requires both foreign and domestic telecommunications and Internet service providers to create backdoors in their systems to give Chinese authorities surveillance access, hand over copies of their encryption codes and assist government agencies with decryption when asked, among other provisions. Companies will be required to store Chinese users’ data on servers in the Chinese mainland or they won’t be allowed to operate in China, it says. Business groups and industry insiders say they are worried about the draft law’s scope and whether they are able to carry out its requirements.

“US tech companies will be faced with a very difficult choice because they will have to decide whether they want to stay in China and basically submit to surveillance,” said Robert Atkinson, who heads the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, a Washington-based think tank.

The Battle for an Open Internet is Not Over

Congratulations on a hard-fought victory on net neutrality this week. Unfortunately, much hard work protecting the open Internet remains to be done. The longstanding fight to protect the Open Internet will continue to be hashed out in court rooms, on Capitol Hill and Federal Communications Commission over the next few years. We need to be diligent about staying on top of this issue, and ensure that the progress made is not lost.

Last mile providers were seeking to take maximum advantage of their dominance and market power, and were finally told they could no longer do so. That is great news. But as we solve this huge problem, we need to make sure that we protect the whole Internet ecosystem. We do that by standing up for an open Internet, but we also do that by teaching people how the Internet works -- because what we DON’T need is FCC jurisdiction and new regulation across the entire competitive Internet. Last mile access to the Internet isn’t like the rest of the Internet, and it must be treated consistent with its attributes. We also need to make sure that ‘interconnection’ isn’t a slippery slope that will ultimately add a FCC regulatory framework around the rest of the competitive Internet, and that’s going to take years of education and effort in courtrooms and in Congressional offices.

It's not really net neutrality

[Commentary] Net neutrality is a curious piece of regulation that has been spurred on by popular umbrage and letter-writing campaigns (or the modern social media equivalent), but which has been fashioned and will continue to be fashioned by a process of negotiation and defined by a language, wholly opaque to the public. There is no net neutrality, there are only the details of net neutrality, inevitably so fine and shaded and compromised that in the end such regulation might better be known as the "net self-Interest rules."

In effect, we have arrived at a moment in time in which we pass from a, relatively speaking, anything-goes Internet (the current model or standard of net neutrality) into a profoundly regulated and proscribed Internet. Of course, net neutrality advocates have been arguing that the Internet is increasingly controlled by big broadband holders like Comcast, and hence, to restore balance, it needs to be controlled by government regulation. That may well be true. But the larger and more important effect is not about balance or restoring the status quo, but that the Internet passes into some new, more formal arena wherein the powers that be -- all of them -- get to flex their muscles and try to beat the others.

Net Neutrality: A Victory for Digital Innovation

[Commentary] The competitiveness of the online world, the ability of startups to challenge the biggest of tech titans -- was under threat had net neutrality ended and new rules come into play that allowed Internet providers to charge for premium services. The Internet has been one of the greatest engines of progress and economic growth that we have known, but anything that threatens net neutrality will make the online world a far less democratic space.

A two-tiered service would bring this trend to a crashing halt and disadvantage online challengers. Were broadband providers able to charge for premium access, it would likely bring an end to the disruptive impact of startups, insulating incumbent Internet giants and paving the way for a world where monopolies become increasingly common. While today’s online world is a level playing field, any tampering with the status quo would only increase the barriers to entry. It would make it extremely difficult for online startups to compete, while allowing the establishment to grow bloated and cumbersome. In the end, this will only result in the consumer getting a raw deal. The net neutrality decision marked a milestone in preserving online integrity. Unless we have an open, neutral Internet we can rely on without worrying about what’s happening at the back door, we can’t hope for open government, good democracy, good health care, connected communities and diversity of culture.

[David Richards is the Co-Founder and CEO of WANdisco]

Net Neutrality Is Here -- Thanks To An Unprecedented Guerilla Activism Campaign

With the Federal Communications Commission voting to reclassify Internet access providers under Title II of the Communications Act, network neutrality rules are stronger than ever. The credit for such a seachange, say activists who agitated for the decision, belongs to a mix of online and traditional activism.

Three activist groups that strongly backed net neutrality -- Fight for the Future, Demand Progress, and Free Press -- on the morning of Feb 27 flew a victory lap, literally, around Comcast’s corporate headquarters in Philadelphia. A banner towed by an airplane mocked the corporate Internet service provider with a picture of Internet-famous feline “Grumpy Cat” and a message “Don’t Mess With The Internet. #SorryNotSorry.” Malkia Cyril, the executive director of the Center for Media Justice, stresses that the strength of the net neutrality movement relied on the diversity of its coalition. She says Color of Change, National Hispanic Media Coalition, immigrant rights’ groups, activists from Black Lives Matter and communities of color “took it to the streets, to the doorstep of the ISPs.”“What happened? The people happened, organizing happened,” Cyril says.

The net neutrality rules might not be available for weeks. That's ridiculous.

[Commentary] The Federal Communications Commission has established America's strongest network neutrality rules to date. The document, which reportedly weighed in at more than 300 pages, will transform how the nation's broadband services are regulated. But if you want to read it, you'll need to wait a few days. Or maybe weeks. That's ridiculous.

It's true that there's nothing unusual about the delay. Administrative agencies often keep drafts of their rules secret while they're working on them, and it's not uncommon for it to take a few weeks for rules to be published. The delay certainly isn't evidence that anything sinister is going on. But the FCC's secretive approach during rule drafting forces media to report on summaries, spin, and snippets. The result is less accurate and less comprehensive coverage. Meanwhile, the lack of transparency gives disproportionate influence to big players who can leverage their connections to insiders to find out what's really going on.

The FCC isn't alone. It and other government agencies can and should be more transparent. Publishing draft rules before they're voted on, and publishing final rules as soon as they're approved, will make it easier for voters to understand and influence the process, for the media to provide accurate and comprehensive coverage. It will also curb the unfair advantages of special interests.

Benton

Search