openinternet
Latest
Sir Tim Berners-Lee signs up to verily protect UK net neutrality
Here in the US we're still looking for a knight in shining armor to protect our free and open internet, but in the UK they've found their guy. Now they just need some plate mail. It's Sir Timothy John Berners-Lee, the man who first proposed the World Wide Web to the World Wide World in 1989. He'll be working with the UK's Broadband Stakeholder Group to ensure that any traffic management policies that go into effect are done with transparency and within a set of defined best practices. That is to say: corporations will still have an opportunity to address threats to the overall health of their networks, but they'll need to do so in an open way. Communications Minister Ed Vaizey summarized it thusly: That agreement should be guided by three simple principles. The first is users should be able to access all legal content. Second, there should be no discrimination against content providers on the basis of commercial rivalry and finally traffic management policies should be clear and transparent. So, that's good news for those across the pond. Here in the US, well, we'll just keep braiding our hair and singing out the tower window as loudly as possible. Or maybe it's time to give Tim Wu a sword. [Photo credit: Paul Clarke]
Comcast, Level 3 Communications square off over video streaming, network neutrality principles
According to networking company Level 3 Communications, Comcast just couldn't wait for its NBC deal to go through before getting all jerky with the access to online video, telling Level 3 on November 19th that it would need to pay a fee to deliver video to Comcast customers. Level 3 delivers videos from many companies over its networks, but the timing is particularly notable since on November 11th it signed up bandwidth-chewing Netflix as a major customer. While this sounds like exactly the kind of anti-net neutrality nonsense that makes us want to crank some OK Go, Comcast has responded saying it's doing no such thing, and it's actually Level 3 seeking a competitive advantage by suddenly sending far more information onto Comcast's network than it accepts. The cable company goes on to claim this situation is no different than its existing deals with Level 3's competitors, and that as long as traffic remains in balance it is willing to allow access settlement free, but if they want to push their growth (read: Netflix) onto Comcast's pipes, they'll have to pay up. We'll wait and see if this is all just a simple negotiating ploy or a true strike in the battle over net neutrality, but you may still want to get a refresher course on exactly what net neutrality is all about from our friend Tim Wu just in case.
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.
AT&T, Google trade barbs over Google Voice while FCC listens in
AT&T filed a scathing letter with the FCC earlier today complaining that Google's exhibiting a blatant double standard with Google Voice by blocking customers' access to numbers hosted by carriers that charge higher interconnect fees -- something that's specifically forbidden for traditional telephone carriers under so-called common carrier laws. The argument essentially revolves around the fact that Google's move helps it compete unfairly against AT&T and others by arbitrarily blocking calls to numbers that'd cost it too much to connect, which AT&T says puts Google in an "intellectual contradiction" given its "noisome trumpeting" (ouch!) of support for net neutrality. It is pretty interesting that Google wants a free, open internet with the left hand while it's blocking certain telephone calls with the other, but Mountain View wasted no time in responding to the communication, posting an quick blog piece where it says there are "many significant differences" that should exempt it from common carrier legislation (some sound reasonable, though the argument that "Google Voice is currently invitation-only, serving a limited number of users" makes us think they're digging pretty deep to come up with reasons they shouldn't have to pony up the cash to get these calls connected). If there's a bright side to the bickering, it's that both AT&T and Google can agree on one thing: rural carriers' continued ability to charge high connection fees hurts everyone -- it's a "badly flawed" system, in Google's words, and it'd be great if the FCC would do something about it. Whether this whole spat ultimately influenced the outcome of the Google Voice iPhone app debacle is unclear, but it's obvious that AT&T's been stewing about this for a while -- so let it all out, guys, mommy FCC's here for you, and one way or another we suspect GV's going to have to end up going legit if it wants to grow its user base by any significant measure. Check out the gallery for AT&T's letter and follow the read link for Google's shorter, slightly less aggressive response.
