NNSquad - Network Neutrality Squad

NNSquad Home Page

NNSquad Mailing List Information

 


[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[ NNSquad ] Re: FCC Republican says net neutrality rules too onerous for ISPs


For "evidence of a problem" I suggest O'Reilly -- and all others who use
this oh-so-tiresome industry talking point -- read Marvin Ammori's Foreign
Affairs article, "The Case for Net Neutrality."

http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/141536/marvin-ammori/the-case-for-ne
t-neutrality


In it Marvin extensively documents the problem that Net Neutrality is
designed to addresses. Clipped:

=   =    =
All this innovation has taken place without the permission of ISPs. But
that could change as net neutrality comes under threat. ISPs have
consistently maintained that net neutrality is a solution in search of a
problem, but this often-repeated phrase is simply wrong. In the United
States, both small and large providers have already violated the very
principles that net neutrality is designed to protect. Ever since 2005,
the FCC has pursued a policy that resembles net neutrality but that allows
enough room for interpretation for firms to find ways to undermine it.

>From 2005 to 2008, the largest ISP in the United States, Comcast, used
technologies that monitor all the data coming from users to secretly block
so-called peer-to-peer technologies, such as BitTorrent and Gnutella.
These tools are popular for streaming online TV (sometimes illegally),
using cloud-based storage and sharing services such as those provided by
Amazon, and communicating through online phone services such as Skype. In
2005, a small ISP in North Carolina called Madison River Communications
blocked Vonage, a company that allows customers to make cheap domestic and
international telephone calls over the Internet. From 2007 to 2009, AT&T¹s
contract with Apple required the latter to block Skype and other competing
phone services on the iPhone, so that customers could not use them when
connected to a cellular network. From 2011 to 2013, AT&T, Sprint, and
Verizon blocked all the functionality of Google Wallet, a mobile payment
system, on Google Nexus smartphones, likely because all three providers
are part of a competing joint venture called Isis.

In the EU, widespread violations of net neutrality affect at least one in
five users, according to a 2012 report from the Body of European
Regulators for Electronic Communications. Restrictions affect everything
from online phone services and peer-to-peer technologies to gaming
applications and e-mail. In 2011, the Netherlands¹ dominant mobile
carrier, KPN, saw that its text-messaging revenue was plummeting and made
moves to block applications such as WhatsApp and Skype, which allow users
to send free texts. Across the Atlantic, in 2005, the Canadian
telecommunications company Telus used its control of the wires to block
the website of a union member taking part in a strike against the company.

Opponents of net neutrality insist that efforts to enforce it are
unnecessary, because market competition will ensure that companies act in
their customers¹ best interests. But true competition doesn¹t exist among
ISPs. In the United States, local cable monopolies are often the only game
in town when it comes to high-speed access and usually control over
two-thirds of the market. In places where there are real options, users
rarely switch services because of the penalties that providers charge them
for terminating their contracts early.

Some skeptics of strong regulation have proposed rules requiring companies
merely to disclose their technical discrimination policies, but those
wouldn¹t solve the problem either. Even in the United Kingdom, which
boasts both healthy competition among ISPs and robust disclosure laws,
companies still frequently discriminate against various types of Internet
traffic. Indeed, wherever you look, the absence of rules enforcing net
neutrality virtually guarantees that someone will violate the principle.
As it stands now, after the FCC¹s rules were struck down in January, U.S.
law does little to protect net neutrality. As companies push the
boundaries, violations will become more common -- and not just in the
United States.
=   =   =
  





On 7/10/14 12:54 PM, "Lauren Weinstein" <lauren@vortex.com> wrote:

>
>FCC Republican says net neutrality rules too onerous for ISPs
>
>(Ars Technica): 
>http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/07/fcc-republican-says-net-neutral
>ity-rules-too-onerous-for-isps/
>
>     FCC Commissioner Michael ORielly today blasted the commission's net
>     neutrality proposal, calling it too "onerous" for Internet service
>     providers and saying there should be no net neutrality rules until
>     "theres evidence of an actual problem it would address."
>
> - - -
>
>Too onerous! Oh my! Those poor dominant ISPs, hardly hanging onto all
>those monopoly billions. [Insert world's smallest violin here.]
>
>--Lauren--
>Lauren Weinstein (lauren@vortex.com): http://www.vortex.com/lauren
>Founder:
> - Network Neutrality Squad: http://www.nnsquad.org
> - PRIVACY Forum: http://www.vortex.com/privacy-info
>Co-Founder: People For Internet Responsibility:
>http://www.pfir.org/pfir-info
>Member: ACM Committee on Computers and Public Policy
>I am a consultant to Google -- I speak only for myself, not for them.
>Lauren's Blog: http://lauren.vortex.com
>Google+: http://google.com/+LaurenWeinstein
>Twitter: http://twitter.com/laurenweinstein
>Tel: +1 (818) 225-2800 / Skype: vortex.com
>_______________________________________________
>nnsquad mailing list
>http://lists.nnsquad.org/mailman/listinfo/nnsquad


_______________________________________________
nnsquad mailing list
http://lists.nnsquad.org/mailman/listinfo/nnsquad