net neutrality
Latest
Google, Amazon, Facebook and more confirmed as members of the Internet Association
Pitching itself as the first trade alliance to represent the concerns of the online economy, the Internet Association lobbying group has just confirmed its member companies and policy platform. As suspected Amazon, Facebook, eBay, and Google are joined by other large tech firms, under the leadership of Capitol Hill advisor Michael Beckerman, to form the umbrella public policy organization. Citing its three main areas of focus as protecting internet freedom, fostering innovation and economic growth, and empowering users, the Internet Association will represent regulatory and political interests of its member companies, and their employees. There is no word on what the first freedom or innovation to benefit from the associations collaborative-clout will be, but while we wait to find out, you can lobby on the source link for the Mission- and Purpose-statement containing press release.
Advocacy groups notify AT&T of net neutrality complaint with the FCC over FaceTime restrictions
Public advocacy groups aren't all that impressed with AT&T's justifications for limiting FaceTime access over 3G and 4G to those who spring for its costlier Mobile Share plans. Free Press, Public Knowledge and the Open Technology Institute have served formal notice to AT&T that they plan to file a net neutrality complaint with the FCC within 10 days. It's not hard to understand why, given the groups' existing pro-neutrality stances: the Free Press' policy lead Matt Wood argues that the carrier is unfairly pushing iOS users into plans they don't need, a particularly sore point for iPad-only customers that have no AT&T phones to share. We've reached out to AT&T for comment, although we're not expecting a change from its position that allowing app use over WiFi makes its restrictions okay. As for the FCC? It's mum on the current situation. A literal reading of its net neutrality rules, however, doesn't include a WiFi exemption and might not favor AT&T when Skype video is allowed and Verizon has no problems with unrestricted access.
AT&T responds to FaceTime criticism, says you should be happy just to have apps at all
In a move that will surprise no one, AT&T released a statement regarding FaceTime on its cellular network. Apple announced FaceTime over cellular at WWDC, but AT&T this month was quick to point out that only its Mobile Share customers will be able to use Apple's video chat tool. There appears to be no restrictions on Skype, Google+, ooVoo, Yahoo Messenger, IM+, Fring, etc. Why? Because none of those apps are pre-installed on your iPhone, whereas FaceTime is. You see, after AT&T was called to the mat over net neutrality (which would mandate AT&T treat FaceTime data the same as all those other apps which will work just fine on my unlimited data plan), it cleverly pointed out that net neutrality doesn't apply because FaceTime is not only pre-installed, but is obviously "subject to some reasonable restrictions." AT&T goes even further, in my opinion. Not content to flick customers with their white glove, they add a little spit by informing us irate customers that AT&T is not legally obligated to allow your iPhone to have any preloaded apps at all. From AT&T's statement: "Indeed, the rules do not require that providers make available any preloaded apps. Rather, they address whether customers are able to download apps that compete with our voice or video telephony services." In the next paragraph they point out how lucky we all are! "Although the rules don't require it, some preloaded apps are available without charge on phones sold by AT&T, including FaceTime, but subject to some reasonable restrictions." See, we poor stupid iPhone owners are just lucky that we're even able to walk into an Apple Store and buy an AT&T phone with any apps on it at all. I mean, it's not like we have a choice in carrier these days. Can you imagine this being said while Steve Jobs was alive? Can you imagine how customers would respond if AT&T iPhones had no pre-installed apps? You can make your own joke about the efficacy of the Phone app on AT&T's network, I'll just be over here making sure no one tells them about Mobile Safari. By the way, FaceTime was downloaded after I signed up for AT&T service, although it obviously only started working once I moved from a 3GS to an iPhone 4. I'm not sure if AT&T counts this download since it was part of an OS update. Look, it's obviously what's going on here. Bean counters at AT&T decided the churn from lost customers was worth the added cost of lingering unlimited data customers like me. I've already been denied tethering (don't worry, I bought a Verizon iPad), and this is the last straw for me. AT&T clearly needs to bolster its network, and is happy to do that on the backs of clueless customers who are content to lump all their data needs together and be nickel-and-dimed over niceties like texting. As a divorced dad, my son likes to call me to chat every night he's not with me. He prefers FaceTime (he has an iPod touch), and is bummed when we have to use Skype. Now I get to tell him (after telling him FaceTime would work over cellular) that because daddy is an AT&T customer, he can't use FaceTime over cellular still. Oh wait, that won't happen because I'm switching to Verizon.
Could AT&T's blockage of FaceTime be an FCC violation?
Yesterday, TUAW noted that AT&T is planning on blocking Apple's iOS 6 FaceTime video calling app over cellular service except for those individuals who have signed up for one of the company's new "Mobile Share" plans. A few websites are now wondering aloud if AT&T's plans to proceed in that direction could be in violation of the Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) rules on network neutrality. According to a USA Today Technology Live post, those rules say that "Internet providers may not block content, applications or sites that compete with their services." In that post, John Bergmayer of Public Knowledge stated that "Although carriers are permitted to engage in 'reasonable network management,' there is no technical reason why one data plan should be able to access FaceTime, and another not." Not surprisingly, one group is already taking action by publishing an online petition that it hopes will force the FCC to look into AT&T's FaceTime plans. The petition created by Free Press states, among other things, that "customers will be forced to pay extra for something they won't use -- minutes and texts -- just to access FaceTime over the mobile Internet." AT&T is sticking to its guns, telling Ars Technica blogger Jacqui Cheng that "FaceTime is available to all of our customers today over Wi-Fi. And we're now expanding its availability even further as an added benefit of our new Mobile Share data plans." What's your personal opinion of AT&T requiring a Mobile Share data plan in order to access FaceTime? Leave your comments below.
Internet Association to lobby Washington, may tout Amazon, Facebook, Google among its ranks
Political lobbying is often a mixed bag at best. Still, there's a cautious amount of optimism surrounding the Internet Association, a soon-to-start lobbying group that plans to advocate for an "open, innovative and free" internet among US politicians. The unsurprising (if well-intentioned) aim is to prevent another SOPA or PIPA with more formal opposition than even the Internet Defense League can manage. Who'll be pulling the strings is nebulous -- officially, the Association will only say that former Congressional staff director Michael Beckerman is at the helm until a formal September 19th launch. That internet openness must extend to some very leaky representatives, however, as the National Journal, AFP and Reuters all claim that Amazon, eBay, Facebook and Google are charter members. None of them are talking on the record; we certainly wouldn't be shocked if the roster is real, knowing how much Google and other partners have fought takedown laws that would bypass much of the normal legal system. We're hoping that whatever manifests a genuinely rational counterbalance to media and telecom influences that often aren't very interested in protecting internet-only business models or due process.
DOJ looking into whether Comcast, other TV giants are unfairly (knee)capping Hulu, Netflix
The Department of Justice may have taken Netflix chief Reed Hastings' net neutrality complaints about Comcast as a lot more than just sour grapes. It's reportedly conducting an investigation into whether Comcast, AT&T and other TV providers are anti-competitive in their data restrictions. The Wall Street Journal cites primary concerns that Comcast's Xfinity TV cap exemption might unfairly punish competing services, but also claims that officials are worried the caps themselves steer viewers away from internet video, helping the incumbents cling to legacy TV for just a little while longer. On top of its cap anxiety, the DOJ may be looking into policies requiring traditional TV subscriptions just to watch online. None of the involved parties have commented on or confirmed the investigations, so there's no guarantee of any full-fledged lawsuit. Still, while TV operators insist they're being fair and need to keep data use in check, that might not deter legal action when the DOJ has supposedly questioned Hulu, Netflix and other relative newcomers who feel they're being squeezed. When Sony postpones its IPTV goals after fretting over US data caps, it's hard to imagine that there aren't at least a few raised eyebrows in Washington.
'Facebook tax' could make web companies pay for usage outside the US
Leaked documents purportedly from the ITU reveal that the body is considering a levy on content-heavy services like Facebook and Netflix to pay for the bandwidth they use outside of the US. Tabled by lobbyists representing Europe's biggest cellphone networks, the proposal suggests that Google and others should shoulder some of the cost of bringing their services to customers in the rest of the world. In response, Cisco VP Robert Pepper has argued that any such charge could cause web services to block queries from developing nations, "effectively cutting them off from the internet." The motion will be discussed at a December meeting of the ITU council, where all 193 member countries will be allowed to vote. [Image Credit: Wikimedia Commons]
Outspoken Harvard professor Jonathan Zittrain to head FCC's open internet advisory panel
The FCC has created a new forum for corporations, experts and activists to scrap over web laws: The Net Neutrality Advisory Committee. Members have been tasked with "tracking and evaluating the effects of the FCC's Open Internet rules," as well as making policy recommendations. The new group is to be led by Harvard professor and long-time defender of an open internet, Jonathan Zittrain, whose appointment echoes that of Tim Wu -- another expert in a senior advisory position over at the FTC. Harvard University is no stranger to what can go wrong when open access is stifled, so perhaps the good professor can shake things up a bit.
Comcast rethinks bandwidth caps, trials two new policies that involve higher 300GB monthly limits
Comcast's bandwidth policy has come under fire from several directions lately, and today it's announced plans to test two new systems for managing capacity. In a company blog post, VP Cathy Avgiris describes the new "flexible" approaches it will be testing out in certain markets that start off by raising the limit to 300GB (from 250GB where it's been since 2008) per month. One of the plans involves offering 300GB as a base on its Essentials, Economy, and Performance internet packages, and higher limits on its Blast and Extreme tiers, with extra data available as an add-on, possibly $10 for 50GB or so. The other plan simply bumps all tiers to 300GB per month and offers the additional blocks of data as needed. For markets where it's not testing the new plans, it's suspending enforcement of the 250GB cap entirely for now, although it says it will still contact "excessive" users about their usage. We're currently on a conference call concerning the changes and Comcast is reaffirming its belief that the FCC has decided it can "manage" data usage on its network, and that it will continue to do so in a "non-discriminatory" way. Particularly since the launch of its Xfinity TV Xbox 360 app others like Netflix and some consumer and networking watchdogs would beg to differ, it will be interesting to see if these approaches change anything. Executives on the call noted "noise" around the Xbox 360 app in making the change, but also pointed to an "ongoing internal discussion" and simply that times have changed from four years ago. The words that keep coming up so far are choice and flexibility, as well as mentioning that even today, very few customers approach the previous 250GB limit. In response to a question, Avgiris indicated the median usage for customers is still around 8-10GB per month.We'll find out more like where the test markets are later, for now hit the source link for all the information currently available. Update: Netflix has responded to the move, and it's about what you'd expect. In other words, it appreciates the notion, but it's still mad.
Comcast fires back over Xfinity TV on Xbox 360, says no way, no how it's violating net neutrality
Complaints by Netflix's Reed Hastings and a handful of politicians must have rankled Comcast CTO Tony Werner, as he just posted a particularly detailed explanation of why Comcast believes the Xfinity TV app on the Xbox 360 isn't violating net neutrality. We'd previously heard the argument that the Xfinity app's traffic is simply being routed through Comcast's internal network and isn't the same as the Internet data of Netflix, but Werner now contends that the Differentiated Services Code Point (DSCP) tags that some think are breaking FCC rules by favoring Xfinity video are really just necessary switches. They're not prioritizing traffic, they're setting it aside, the claim goes. Of course, Hastings and others believe that setting Xfinity video aside is prioritizing, and Comcast's point of view sidesteps the practical reality that watching Netflix, Amazon Instant Video or iTunes will lead you closer to that ever-present 250GB cap while Xfinity doesn't. The FCC during its rulemaking warned against special private services being used as end-runs around neutrality concerns; it's up to the agency to decide whether or not that's true here, or whether Comcast is just offering its usual service in a new way.
AT&T stockholders vote down net neutrality proposal
AT&T stockholders took to the ballot box today at their annual meeting and voted not only to reelect the entire board of directors, but also on a number of measures concerning how the company should conduct business. Chief amongst them was a provision that would have required the carrier to operate its network according to the tenets of net neutrality. Unfortunately for you (unless you're an AT&T exec), the proposal was voted down by a pretty stunning margin. 94.1 percent of shareholders opposed, with only 5.9 casting their voice in favor of true network neutrality. For more info check out the PR after the break.
Reed Hastings takes Comcast to task for skirting net neutrality
Netflix CEO Reed Hastings let loose a mini rant on Facebook Sunday, setting his sites squarely on Comcast and its data accounting practices. Highlighting one of the arguments for net neutrality, Hastings pointed out that viewing streaming videos using the Comcast Xfinity app on his Xbox doesn't count against his monthly cap, but other services do. "If I watch last night's SNL episode on my Xbox through the Hulu app, it eats up about one gigabyte of my cap, but if I watch that same episode through the Xfinity Xbox app, it doesn't use up my cap at all." It's slightly odd that different rules would apply to the same device using the same connection to stream the same content from different sources -- and exactly the sort of preferential and self-promoting behavior that net neutrality advocates are afraid will become the norm in an unregulated market. Of course, Hastings is also irate because his own company would love the same preferential treatment, but hasn't been able to close any deals. For the full rant hit up the source link.
SEC sides with Beastie Boys' Mike D, says AT&T must allow shareholder vote on net neutrality
Michael Diamond may be best known as Mike D of the Beastie Boys, but he's also an AT&T shareholder, and he's now played a central role in forcing a shareholder vote on net neutrality. He, along with his wife Tamra Davis and John P. Silva of Silva Artist Management previously submitted a proposal to AT&T arguing that shareholders should be allowed to vote a resolution that recommended the company "publicly commit to operate its wireless broadband network consistent with network neutrality principles." AT&T unsurprisingly rejected that proposal, stating that it would "directly interfere with its network management practices," but the SEC has now stepped in and said that net neutrality has become a "significant policy consideration," and that it can no longer be excluded from shareholder ballots. As Bloomberg Businessweek notes, companies can challenge the SEC's findings in court, although it remains to be seen if AT&T or other carriers will take that step. No further word from Mike D on the matter, so we'll take this opportunity to share another important message of his after the break.[Image credit: Fabio Venni / Wikimedia Commons]
Rogers Communications violates Canadian net neutrality rules over WoW bandwidth throttling
The Canadian Radio-television Telecommunications Commission recently ruled that Rogers Communications, one of the largest internet service providers in Canada, has violated federal net neutrality rules. Last year, I wrote a few Lawbringers about the subject, which discussed what Rogers had to actually do to escape violation of certain internet traffic throttling complaints. Basically, Rogers was making WoW players' internet access slower because WoW looked like peer-to-peer traffic on their network. Rogers is finally going to have to answer for the throttling issues, even after all of the requests and demands to change their packet inspection protocols. The communications company has until Feb. 3 at noon to respond to the complaints about internet throttling or face a hearing with the CRTC board. Hopefully, the same type of rules can make their way to America, where internet service is abysmally slow and throttled like crazy. Prior to the Cataclysm launch, Blizzard released the new WoW client, which used a peer-to-peer system to upload and download information, patches, data, and all that jazz. This data accidentally triggered internet service providers' bandwidth alerts for torrent traffic and was subsequently throttled to lower speeds. After realizing that many users were experiencing lag issues with the new launcher and their ISPs, Blizzard began its outreach to ISPs in order to work together to fix the problem. A year later, people are still having problems, and Rogers in Canada has admitted to throttling WoW bandwidth.
Belarus limits use of 'foreign' websites, while Kuala Lumpur mandates WiFi in eateries
Talk about polar opposites. In an update posted to the Library of Congress, we're told that the Republic of Belarus will begin fining citizens that host domestic sites on "foreign" domains. Crazy? Definitely, but no less true. Starting later this week, any Belarusian not registered as an entrepreneur may use "only domestic internet domains for providing online services, conducting sales, or exchanging email messages." According to the interpretation, it "appears that business requests from Belarus cannot be served over the internet if the service provider is using online services located outside of the country," and police (as well as the secret police) are authorized to "initiate, investigate, and prosecute such violations." Wilder still, owners of internet cafes could have their entire business shut down if users are found to be accessing external sites on those networks, and for those curious, the law "may" extend to browsing within one's private home. In a land a bit closer to the equator, it seems as if officials have their heads in a far more sensible place. Kuala Lumpur -- already home to one of the world's most lust-worthy airports and some of the most accessible / affordable mobile data plans -- will soon mandate that all new restaurants provide WiFi to their customers. And by "WiFi," we mean "access to the entire internet." According to the New Strait Times, the rule will be enforced as early as April, applying to eatery owners operating on premises larger than 120 square meters. We're told that existing owners will be forced to comply when renewing their license, and while the waves won't have to be given away for free, they'll be encouraged to charge no more than a "reasonable fee." Furthermore, the government is considering dipping into its own pockets in order to extend gratis WiFi to public facilities in the city, likely as a follow-up plan to the expiring WirelessKL contract. As if going to wander through Batu Caves and the colorful streets shown above weren't enough reason to visit Malaysia...
Court holds European ISPs can't be forced to filter traffic, users free to fly the jolly roger
It's been a sliver under a month since UK ISP British Telecom was ordered to cut all ties to filesharing site Newzbin 2. Now, a European court decision deals a counter blow to media owners by denying their demands to hustle ISPs into tracking freeloading downloaders. Specifically, the court held that it was illegal to force an ISP to install and maintain a system filtering all of its traffic as it could infringe customer privacy rights. While the decision will prove unpopular in big-wig boardrooms, joe public will no doubt be pleased with the court's upholding of both net neutrality, and of course not having to shred quite as many strongly worded letters from his or her ISP.
Senate to vote on net neutrality repeal today, Obama counters with a veto threat (update: 52-46 vote in favor of net neutrality)
The US Senate is slated to vote on a repeal of the FCC's controversial net neutrality regulations today, just a few days before they're scheduled to go into effect. Today's vote, like most these days, is expected to be divided along party lines, with most Democrats standing in favor of the rules, and Republicans calling for them to be overturned. Texas Republican Senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson, who sponsored the resolution, claims that the FCC's regulations would obstruct innovation and investment by jeopardizing the openness upon which the web has thrived, thus far. "The internet and technology have produced more jobs in this country than just about any other sector," Hutchinson argued. "It has been the cradle of innovation, it does not have a problem, and it does not need fixing." Senate Republicans aren't the only ones taking issue with the rules, either. Both Verizon and MetroPCS have already publicly aired their grievances, with the former filing a formal appeal in late September. But Senate Commerce Chairman Jay Rockefeller believes the GOP-led opposition won't be strong enough to overcome his Democratic majority. "There's still 53 of us, and if we stay together we'll win," Rockefeller said. "I think we're going to prevail." Even if they don't, they'll still have the backing of the White House, which has already threatened to veto the resolution, should it survive past the Senate floor. "It would be ill-advised to threaten the very foundations of innovation in the Internet economy and the democratic spirit that has made the Internet a force for social progress around the world," the White House said in a statement, adding that the FCC's rules provide an "effective but flexible" means of preserving the web's intrinsically wild, wild west nature. Rockefeller, however, certainly isn't banking on a presidential veto to bail his party out. "You can take the cheap way out and just say, 'What if we fail, then Obama will veto it,'" he explained. "But that speaks so badly of us." All told, it's shaping up to be another net neutrality showdown on the Hill, but we'll keep you updated on the latest developments. Update: It wasn't an overwhelming victory, but the Senate today rejected the attempt to repeal the FCC's net neutrality rules in a 52 to 46 vote that fell largely along party lines.
Verizon appeals net neutrality rules, let the legal wrangling begin
We told you it was only a matter of time and, honestly, it took a bit longer than expected. Verizon has officially filed an appeal to the FCC's net neutrality rules, which are set to take effect on Novemeber 20th. It wasn't until the regulations were published in the Federal Register on September 23rd that they became fair game for legal challenges -- a technicality that resulted in Verizon's previous attempt to block the rules being tossed out by the US Court of Appeals in April. While Verizon senior vice president and deputy general counsel, Michael E. Glover, assures netizens that the company is "fully committed to an open Internet," it none-the-less takes issue with the FCC's attempt to institute new "broad" and "sweeping" regulations on the telecommunications industry. We're sure this is only the first of several cases that will be brought before the courts challenging the commission's authority. Stayed tuned to see if and when MetroPCS re-enters the fray, and to find out the ultimate fate of net neutrality here in the US. Check out the brief statement from Verizon after the break.
America may join the net neutrality parade on November 20th, if the courts let it
Well America, on November 20th you too will finally have net neutrality regulations all your own... provided the anticipated pile of lawsuits don't derail the process. The FCC will publish its "open internet rules" in the Federal Register tomorrow, making the regulations official. These are the same fairly modest proposals that were passed nearly a year ago over Republican opposition and, on that fateful day in November, they're scheduled to take effect. The rules have already faced challenges from Congress, Verizon and MetroPCS, but those suits were dismissed since the regulations technically didn't exist. After tomorrow though, any and all legal challenges will be fair game. Since the FCC is relying on its ancillary powers instead of reclassifying broadband as a Tier II service (similar to telephone landlines), those challenges could actually meet with success. If you need a refresher, just check out or guide to net neutrality as well as our interview with advocate and law professor Tim Wu. Now, we just have to wait and see what tomorrow will bring.
Shaw Cable's Netflix competitor bypasses bandwidth caps on its way to the TV
While US residents seethe over increases in Netflix's pricing, our neighbors in Canada are upset by the competing Movie Club package Shaw Cable is offering. The $12 per month service offers unlimited access to "hundreds of the best Hollywood movies" and plans to have high definition feeds later this summer for an additional $5 (cable companies in the US have a similar scheme under the name Vutopia.) Causing the issue are promises that "the only limit is the number of hours in your day" unlike bandwidth capped streaming from unnamed services like Netflix. While Movie Club viewing over the internet on a PC, tablet or other device is capped just like any other service, access via the cable box is not metered. That distinction doesn't sit well with subscribers and consumer groups arguing for net neutrality, particularly as the CRTC is in the midst of hearings over usage-based internet billing. While that case hasn't been decided, our own ruling is already in and is firmly against Shaw, or anyone else, advertising based on advantages that exist only due to policies it created in the first place.
