NetworkNeutrality
Latest
Verizon starts 'optimizing' (read: throttling) network for the most data hungry users
We can't say we weren't warned, since Verizon updated its data policy way back in February, but it's still a punch in the gut to hear its "network optimization" plan went into effect yesterday. A new policy page pointed out by Droid-Life explains how the policy will affect only the "top 5 percent of data users with 3G devices on unlimited data plans" (LTE and tiered data users are in the clear) by managing their speeds when connected to towers it has deemed are congested. Those conditions, termed network intelligence by Big Red, are what it feels separates this scheme from mere data throttling since it will only affect a few users (those consuming 2GB or more of data per month) at certain times and places, but it's hard to see it any other way. If you're one of those affected, expect a message on your bill or My Verizon account, although you may go into and out of the affected group depending on your usage. Hit the source link below for all the details -- anyone else think it's not a coincidence this policy popped up just before the iPhone 4 came to Verizon and is being implemented only weeks before the next iThing is expected to arrive?
Al Franken calls net neutrality the 'free speech issue of our time,' proposes stricter FCC regulations
We hate to see something we hold as dear to our hearts as the internet become so deeply mired in politics, but this whole net neutrality thing is serious business. The FCC released its full rules just before running home to sip some eggnog but still it didn't take long for companies like Verizon to register their discontent. Now senators Maria Cantwell and Al Franken are voicing their own dissent, saying that the FCC "does not do nearly enough to protect consumers" and that the pair's "Internet Freedom, Broadband Promotion, and Consumer Protection Act of 2011" will. Among other things it explicitly prevents the creation of "fast lanes" for premium content, keeping ISPs from charging extra for content they like or slowing down stuff they don't. The full details are in the PDF on the other end of the source link, and if you're wondering what happens next we have a dramatization embedded below.
AT&T likes Google & Verizon's wired-only net neutrality stance, Time Warner Cable doesn't
Network neutrality is the battle to keep companies from filtering your access to whatever you want on those great, united internets. But, as we explored in depth last week, Google and Verizon think they should only have to play nice when it comes to wired broadband -- that wireless should be exempt from neutrality-related FCC regulation. The FCC wasn't too pleased with that sentiment, but we found someone who is: AT&T VP Joan Marsh, who posted a lengthy statement entitled: "Wireless is Different." In it she continues the theme of explaining how meeting demand on a wireless network is much more difficult than on wired, even going so far as to place some of the blame on local communities: We are constantly striving to increase the efficiency of our spectrum resources, but the amount of available spectrum in any given market is finite. And while we regularly split cell sectors and add additional cell towers, there are very real limits placed on cell site construction by zoning and local approval boards. This is surely a real problem, but what we haven't heard yet is just how letting companies like Verizon and AT&T create premium tiers for wireless content will do anything other than allow them to make more money while still complaining about the same 'ol problems. Meanwhile, a company that has virtually no skin in the wireless game, Time Warner Cable, isn't so keen on this stance regarding traditional, wired broadband. CEO Glenn Britt says his company would never throttle content in a way that would violate net neutrality, but still doesn't want more rules put in place that would prevent them from doing so. Funny how everyone likes net neutrality until it threatens to cramp their style, isn't it?
Google and Verizon publish joint policy proposal for 'an open internet'
UPDATE: We've done a full breakdown of the proposal right here -- go check it out! Back in October of last year, Google and Verizon came together in order to provide an intense amount of corporate support for the FCC's then-fledgling net neutrality push. Today, said push has turned into quite the monster, with a recent court ruling asserting that the FCC doesn't actually have the authority to impose net neutrality. Since then, a cadre of telecommunications firms have banded together in one form or another to attempt a compromise (and slyly get what each of them really want), and today the Big G and Big Red have taken the stage together in order to publicize a well-thought out policy proposal for "an open internet." Both firms seem to agree that web users "should choose what content, applications, or devices they use," and they both want "enforceable prohibition against discriminatory practices" -- and yeah, that definitely includes prioritization and blocking of internet traffic, including paid prioritization. In an odd twist, what seems to be happening here is that both Google and Verizon are actually in favor of more government oversight on the internet, but they want that oversight to be beneficial to consumers. In other words, more regulations from the feds to enforce fewer regulations imposed on you from your ISP. Get all that? Where things really get interesting is when they touch on the wireless angle; essentially, they're admitting that the very proposals they are putting forth for wireline shouldn't apply to wireless just yet (aside from the whole "transparency" thing). It seems that the prevailing logic is that there's simply not enough spectrum for this idyllic "play fair" scenario to truly work, so fewer restrictions would be necessary for the wireless internet space to blossom as the wireless side already has. Moreover, we get the impression that these guys feel the wireless space as a whole is simply too competitive right now to withstand any red tape. The proposal also mentions that, if passed into law, the FCC would have the ability to fine "bad actors" (read: misbehaving ISPs) up to $2 million for breaking any of these "open internet" stipulations, and naturally, both outfits are highly in favor of the National Broadband Plan taking hold, moving forward and getting broadband to places that are currently using a strange mixture of used canisters and rope to check their inbox.
Google and Verizon announcing something policy-related at 1:30PM ET -- we're liveblogging right here
It was super short notice, but Google CEO Eric Schmidt and Verizon Communications CEO Ivan Seidenberg are holding a joint press call at 1:30PM EST to announce what we can only surmise is something related to those recent rumors of a net-neutrality-related "deal" -- we'll be liveblogging as fast as we can, so keep it locked right here.
Chile becomes first country to guarantee net neutrality, we start thinking about moving
Net neutrality: you want it, we want it, ISPs pretty much hate it. Chilean politicians? Those guys love the stuff! The Board of the Chamber of Deputies voted almost unanimously to pass Bulletin 4915 which, among other things, forces an ISP to: ...ensure access to all types of content, services or applications available on the network and offer a service that does not distinguish content, applications or services, based on the source of it or their property. There are other provisions as well forcing ISPs to protect user's privacy and the integrity of their systems, but it's the network neutrality bit we're really digging here. However, the cynics among us are wondering how long until ISPs start claiming that bandwidth-hogging sites pose a risk to user's systems. We're sure they just don't want your tubes to get backed up.
Google, Verizon, Comcast, and more band together to form tech (and policy) advisory group
BITAG doesn't exactly roll off the tongue, as far as spoken acronyms go, but the Broadband Internet Technical Advisory Group (also goes by TAG, for short) is looking to make (radio) waves. Facilitated by former FCC Chief Technologist (and University of Colorado at Boulder Adjunct Professor) Dale Hatfield, the group aims to "develop consensus on broadband network management practices and other related technical issues that can affect users' experience," which largely leads to addressing technical issues and making suggestions to policymakers. The group runs the gamut of major players in the broadband industry, including AT&T, Cisco, Comcast, DISH, EchoStar, Google, Intel, Level 3, Microsoft, Time Warner Cable, and Verizon. Naturally, the aforementioned companies already on board are lauding the move, and for its part the NCTA is happy to see a forum for tech and engineering experts to openly discuss issues and policies. Providing the counterargument would be the folks at DSL Reports, who show reserve that this may end up being nothing more than "policy dog and pony show" to avoid stricter government regulations on network neutrality. At this point that remains to be seen, as this organization doesn't seem to have even hit infancy yet. Expect more in the coming weeks as it continues to form and attempts to organize. We submit for your perusal the press release, just after the break.
FCC to re-regulate internet in order to enforce net neutrality
Just as we predicted, the FCC is getting ready to take major steps to overcome that court decision ruling the agency doesn't currently have the ability to impose net neutrality under the agency's internet regulatory framework: the Wall Street Journal reports that FCC chairman Julius Genachowski has decided to "reregulate" internet service, thereby giving the agency the specific authority it needs to impose and enforce net neutrality. It's not clear exactly how the FCC will do that at this point; the easiest option would be to simply reclassify ISP as "common carriers" just like phone services, but we've heard that Genachowski has been searching for a "third way" in the past few weeks, and the WSJ says the current proposal will only enforce parts of the common carriage regulations to ISPs. We'll see what happens.
Possible new FCC chair could focus on net neutrality, not cable pricing
Make no mistake, we have all ideas that Julius Genachowski is very much concerned with cable pricing, but according to analysts, putting pressure on operators isn't apt to be his focus. Jules, as he's known around the Engadget offices, is expected to be named the next chairman of the Federal Communications Commission. His primary concern? Network neutrality. As with most things in politics, the appointment is likely to be a double-edged sword for consumers; on one hand, we'll greatly benefit from a higher-up pushing open internet development and increased deployment, but on the other, we can pretty much kiss any faint hopes of à la carte pay-TV arrangements goodbye. Of course, before he tackles any of that, he'll first have to deal with the impending digital TV transition, which should be immensely riveting to watch from the sidelines.
Comcast cool with FCC ruling, will just slow all of your traffic now
First off, you've got to be kidding us. Okay, now that we've got that out, get a load of this. After the FCC told Comcast earlier this month that its data discrimination tactics weren't kosher, the provider has decided to react by simply slowing all internet traffic on its heaviest users. More specifically, Mitch Bowling, Comcast's senior vice president and general manager of online services, stated in a recent interview that the top internet speeds for "targeted customers will be reduced for periods lasting 10 minutes to 20 minutes, keeping service to other users flowing." Right now, this may not affect you one iota, but what's to happen when your kid spends his summer sucking down content on the VUDU / Hulu / etc.? We can think of quite a few reasons to legitimately use a huge chunk of bandwidth, and having Big Provider keep watch and determine when enough is enough frightens us just a wee bit.[Via CrunchGear, image courtesy of Kansas]
FCC rules against Comcast, now what?
The FCC finally acted on Comcast's "data management", finding against the company because it had arbitrarily decided which applications subscribers would have access to. Of course, the judgement did not include a fine, and while it enforced a policy for open access to the internet, it doesn't seem to do much for possible bandwidth caps. Comcast does have stop its blocking practice by the end of the year, and provide details to the commission on what exactly it's done so far, and to customers on whatever it plans to do in the future. With online video distribution growing more ubiquitous and even Comcast working with BitTorrent-style technologies like GridNetworks on how to deliver HD over the internet, we're sure we haven't heard the last of this.Read - Commission Orders Comcast to End Discriminatory Network Management Practices (Warning: PDF link)Read - Comcast Statement on FCC Internet Regulation DecisionRead - Verizon Statement on FCC's Comcast Decision
FCC chief supports sanctions against Comcast for data discrimination
You may not remember so vividly the fiasco surrounding Comcast's data meddling ways unless you were directly affected, but FCC chief Kevin J. Martin is looking out for us all by backing sanctions against the carrier in a stand for net neutrality. Essentially, Mr. Martin isn't asking that Comcast be fined; rather, he wants the provider to "change its practices and give the commission more details on what it did in the past." Essentially, he's aiming to establish a standard that will "make it difficult for an ISP to discriminate against users based on what they want to do online," which we couldn't possibly support more. Of course, there's nothing saying that sanctions will indeed be levied against Comcast, but whatever happens, we'd love to see a precedent set that forbids providers from tampering with those 1s and 0s.[Thanks, Matt]
