open internet
Latest
House of Representatives passes bill to restore net neutrality
The House of Representatives has passed a bill which would restore net neutrality rules the Federal Communications Commission repealed in 2017. Representatives approved the bill by 232-190 (with a sole Republican voting in favor), but the legislation still seems doomed.
Democrats move closer to passing the 'Save the Internet' Act
Democrats have just made significant progress in restoring net neutrality rules in the US. The "Save the Internet Act" unveiled last month has now been approved by the House Energy and Commerce Committee, which means it can now be considered by the full House of Representatives.
Democrats introduce bill to restore net neutrality
Democrats have revealed a bill that aims to restore net neutrality rules. Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer were among the senators and congresspeople who announced the Save the Internet Act Wednesday. It's being introduced in both the House and the Senate and aims to codify the previous protections in law. Schumer called it a "real bipartisan effort," and hearings on the legislation are set to begin next week.
FCC shoots down petitions to delay open internet rules
Remember when a wolfpack of cable companies and telecoms -- including AT&T, CenturyLink, the American Cable Association, USTelecom and more -- filed motions to delay the FCC from enacting parts of its open internet order? Well, the Commission was having none of that. Late in the day this past Friday, Wireless Competition Bureau chief Julie Veach and Wireless Telecommunications Bureau chief Roger Sherman handed down an order dismissing those petitions, pointing out that additional protection for the internet as we know it is crucial and that the petitioners' cases aren't as strong as they think.
Here's how far we've come with net neutrality
The FCC's ruling on net neutrality yesterday was the agency's most significant action in decades -- but it didn't come easy. It's something that's been discussed ever since Columbia Law professor Tim Wu coined the term net neutrality 2003, which, at its most basic level, refers to treating all web traffic equally. But the idea goes back to the age of the telegram, when the US government committed to treating all of those messages the same. As broadband access became more commonplace and the internet economy recovered from the dot-com bust of the '90s, Wu's net neutrality paper was a warning against the increasing power of ISPs. Now that we finally have a decent set of net neutrality rules, it's worth taking a look back to see how we got here.
FCC approves net neutrality rules, reclassifies broadband as a utility
It's a good day for proponents of an open internet: The Federal Communications Commission just approved its long-awaited network neutrality plan, which reclassifies broadband internet as a Title II public utility and gives the agency more regulatory power in the process. And unlike the FCC's last stab at net neutrality in 2010, today's new rules also apply to mobile broadband. FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler laid out the basic gist of the plan earlier this month -- it'll ban things like paid prioritization, a tactic some ISPs used to get additional fees from bandwidth-heavy companies like Netflix, as well as the slowdown of "lawful content." But now Wheeler's vision is more than just rhetoric; it's something the FCC can actively enforce.
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.
Hackers planning homespun anti-censorship satellite internet
SOPA is making ordinary, decent internet users mad as hell, and they're not gonna take it anymore. Hacker attendees of Berlin's Chaos Communication Congress are cooking up a plan to launch a series of homemade satellites as the backbone of an "uncensorable (sic) internet in space." Like all good ideas, there's a few hurdles to overcome first: objects in lower-Earth orbit circle the earth every 90 minutes, useless for a broadband satellite that needs to remain geostationary. Instead, a terrestrial network of base stations will have to be installed in order to remain in constant contact as it spins past, at the cost of €100 ($130) per unit. The conference also stated a desire to get an amateur astronaut onto the moon within 23 years, which we'd love to see, assuming there's still a rocket fuel store on eBay.
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.
Telex anti-censorship system promises to leap over firewalls without getting burned
Human rights activists and free speech advocates have every reason to worry about the future of an open and uncensored internet, but researchers from the University of Michigan and the University of Waterloo have come up with a new tool that may help put their fears to rest. Their system, called Telex, proposes to circumvent government censors by using some clever cryptographic techniques. Unlike similar schemes, which typically require users to deploy secret IP addresses and encryption keys, Telex would only ask that they download a piece of software. With the program onboard, users in firewalled countries would then be able to visit blacklisted sites by establishing a decoy connection to any unblocked address. The software would automatically recognize this connection as a Telex request and tag it with a secret code visible only to participating ISPs, which could then divert these requests to banned sites. By essentially creating a proxy server without an IP address, the concept could make verboten connections more difficult to trace, but it would still rely upon the cooperation of many ISPs stationed outside the country in question -- which could pose a significant obstacle to its realization. At this point, Telex is still in a proof-of-concept phase, but you can find out more in the full press release, after the break.
Google gives Georgia Tech $1 million to build a benchmark for the open internet
You can benchmark the cycles of your CPU, power of your GPU, speed of your internet connection, and a myriad of other seemingly important things. However, there's one missing benchmark that could make all those seem rather frivolous: the openness of your connection. Google wants one and has just awarded Georgia Tech a $1 million grant over two years (with a possible $500k bonus for a third year) to come up with a benchmark capable of detecting just how neutral your net is. When ready, it'll look for any artificial throttling that's been set in place and will also check for evidence of digital censorship. No word on when an early version might see release, but hopefully it comes before we need to start paying extra for the ability to download non-ISP-approved content.
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.
