European Telcos Threaten To Withhold Next Gen Wireless Upgrades If Net Neutrality Rules Passed
from the chicken-little's-manifesto dept
Tell me if you've heard this one before: broadband carriers are once again claiming that if regulators pass net neutrality rules, their ability to invest in next-generation networks will somehow be severely hindered, causing no limit of damage to consumers, puppies, and the time-space continuum. That's basically the line U.S. broadband providers tried to feed the FCC in the States. But no matter how many industry-tried, cherry picking think tank studies have tried to claim that net neutrality hurts broadband investment, real world data and ongoing deployment show that just isn't true.As we noted last October, Europe passed net neutrality rules that not only don't really protect net neutrality, but actually give ISPs across the EU's 28 member countries the green light to violate net neutrality consistently -- just as long as ISPs provide a few flimsy, faux-technical justifications. The rules are so filled with loopholes as to be useless, and while they technically took effect on April 30, the European Union's Body of European Regulators of Electronic Communications (BEREC) has been cooking up new guidelines to help European countries interpret and adopt the new rules.
With BEREC's public comment period set to end on July 18, European net neutrality advocates are giving it one last shot to toughen up the shoddy rules. Fearing they might succeed, a coalition of twenty European telcos (and the hardware vendors that feed at their collective trough) have taped together something they're calling their "5G Manifesto," (pdf) which trots out some pretty familiar fear mongering for those who've remotely followed the last fifteen years of net neutrality debate.
Among them is the continued, not so veiled threat that technological progress will stop dead in its tracks if these companies don't get the kind of consumer net neutrality protections they want (namely, none):
"The EU and Member States must reconcile the need for Open Internet with pragmatic rules that foster innovation. The telecom Industry warns that the current Net Neutrality guidelines, as put forward by BEREC, create significant uncertainties around 5G return on investment. Investments are therefore likely to be delayed unless regulators take a positive stance on innovation and stick to it."And the threat doesn't just involve next-gen wireless. The carriers also proceed to effectively argue that unless they're allowed to include huge gaping loopholes (like the existing exemption of "specialized services"), other technologies like VR, smart cars and smart cities will all be hurt (much like ISPs here in the States tried to argue that net neutrality rules would somehow hurt medical technology unless ISPs were allowed to discriminate):
"In this context we must highlight the danger of restrictive Net Neutrality rules, in the context of 5G technologies, business applications and beyond. 5G introduces the concept of “Network Slicing” to accommodate a wide-variety of industry verticals’ business models on a common platform, at scale and with services guarantees. Automated driving, smart grid control, virtual reality and public safety services are examples of usecases with distinguished characteristics which call for a flexible and elastic configuration of resources in networks and platforms, on a continuous basis, depending on demand, context and the nature of the service."This is all, for lack of a more scientific term, unequivocal and total crap. The argument that "net neutrality rules will stop us from keeping your pace maker from working" is fear-based prattle with no foundation in reality. If anything, the EU's rules go well out of their way to ensure traffic can be treated differently (to an extreme fault). As for 5G, these upgrades are a necessary part of doing business, and carriers will invest in networks whether or not there's some flimsy net neutrality rules governing their behavior. Realize too that the "manifesto" is talking about rules as currently written that effectively say it's ok to violate net neutrality provided you support your anti-competitive behavior in veiled, faux technical justifications (see comments made by Sir Tim Berners-Lee).
In short, people should understand these European companies' lawyers and lobbyists directly wrote net neutrality rules pretty much ensuring they can do whatever they like -- about as "certain" as things are going to get -- yet they're still god-damned complaining.
When it isn't busy making empty threats, the manifesto trots out some similarly-meaningless promises, such as claims that the "right" net neutrality rules will result in scheduled large-scale 5G demonstrations by 2018, and the launch of 5G commercially in at least one city in every EU country by 2020. Again though, this was already happening with or without net neutrality rules. Tying the success or failure of network investment to net neutrality is a hollow bogeyman, one we've seen used repeatedly in countries where carrier executives twitch at the faintest specter of a regulator actually doing its job and protecting consumers from the aggressive abuse of uncompetitive telecom markets.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: broadband, eu, europe, net neutrality, telcos, upgrades, wireless
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Said an industry with one of the thickest patent thickets going, and which uses it patents to prevent innovators coming into their market.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No 5G
It's lame how many populated areas have no 3G coverage, and even 2G can be shonky. It's not like we're a huge country with vast wilderness areas.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Either way, the earliest deployment of 5G is going to be expensive to use. I bet that for about 90+% of the market it will not be an option for a long while, so nothing lost. It was that way with 3G and 4G.
We still have stupid prices for really low usage caps (2GB and below).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The problem? The government loves to swing the big axe by imposing new rules and regulations that impact our enjoyment of life, such as the internet. But, it's the tech companies who have the resources to decide on what they will invest in.
The United States loves to swing the big axe on encryption and net neutrality but they have nothing to back it up. This is why anti-encryption has continued to fail in congress and why net neutrality keeps failing.
The European Union is going to find out that they also do not have any influence or power over tech companies. If they pass net neutrality rules in the E.U., they're going to find out just how difficult it is to pass their own silly rules.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Infra-structure services inherently lead to monopolies or at most a few very powerful players dominating the market. What the regulators tried to do was to limit how these providers can (and do) abuse their natural monopolies by setting up net neutrality rules. Sure the bigger players will be able to deal with the garbage that was produced and called net neutrality rules but what about the small player? And this will inevitably lead to more monopoly, this time by the services favored by their own deep pockets (read Facebooks of the life) further locking us in our 'enjoyment'.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
1. Make net neutrality the law
2. Open the markets to competition, no more monopolies, so that everyone will get fast internet at the best prices where the providers can still make a profit
The real problem is that monopoly providers simply do not know how to operate as a real business and compete. They couldn't compete their way out of a paper bag. Witness what happened in the early '80's when long distance was opened to other players: lower prices, more choices, and better quality. It was good for everyone, except AT&T's over priced monopoly.
(oh wait, I forgot to write something cynical or sarcastic here.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
They're ALREADY being paid to provide services, but now they're threatening to cut people off from the services they are already paying (often exorbitantly) for if they aren't paid twice. IF they get it enshrined in law that they must be paid twice, what's to stop them from wanting to be paid three times? Four? Fifty? Greed is endless.
If they were using new technology to provide a faster channel for premium content, that would be one thing -- I'd pay more for that myself. But that's not what they're doing. What the companies was to do is slow down everybody's connection unless they get paid extra for the NORMAL SPEEDS they are already providing. Net Neutrality is simply saying that people should get what they have already paid for, without having to pay multiple times for a single product.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It doesn't hurt dreaming a bit, eh?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's easy to sit behind a computer screen and go off on your silly little rants.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If there were competition, then wireless providers would find it in their highest interests to invest in tech in order to either beat the competition to market, or to not fall too far behind the competition. The government would not have to do anything.
Threats to withhold 5G simply show how they are willing to misuse monopoly power to harm consumers. Yes harm. Being able to violate net neutrality hurts everyone. The fact that they want to do so says a lot. It's not only that they want to overcharge for service, its that they want to interfere, manipulate, and spy on your traffic. And advantage and disadvantage various internet sites who all pay their own bandwidth bills on their end of the connection.
If this is about Netflix, then here is a free clue. If Netflix is using too much bandwidth from my home, then CHARGE ME FOR THAT. It's not Netflix using that much bandwidth. It's ME. It's not my neighbor who doesn't use Netflix. And it's not Netflix either. Netflix doesn't just force a large bandwidth stream into my house unbidden. And Netflix pays handsomely for their own end of the connection, just as I should pay for my end of the connection. Somebody has to pay for my end of the connection. Being able to violate net neutrality is just a way to distort these costs so that some providers have to subsidize my end of the connection, while others don't, so that the mobile provider's service falsely appears to be cheaper than it would be.
It's easy to sit behind a computer screen and defend monopolists and suggest they should be able to get away what whatever outrageous behavior they want to.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The government does not need to bargain with people to get them to obey the law.
Tech companies don't need to be sovereign states to make a profit, nor do they need to be sovereign to innovate. If they don't want to innovate or make new profits, someone else will and then the old dinosaur telecom companies will be just a footnote in history.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Here a few facts about cellular networks in europe.
1: Many places still only get GSM coverage 3G does still not have the coverage promised years ago.
2: 4G (LTE) is available almost exclusively in bigger cities and a few smaller outliers with no rhyme or reason.
3: with the current contracts you get here it is effectively irrelevant if you get 3G, 4G or eventually 5G since it is impossible to get contracts that exceed about 10GB volume per month.
So, Instead of making empty threads how about you finish building up the networks you have promised already? And how about offering contracts with actually usable data Volumes or, god forbid, actual flatrates? That would be great.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Check if any executive or politician has a home in these outliers, and you may find your reason.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Simple fix to call their bluff
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Options
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This way, Google and other disruptive companies can get in there first and fuck their shit right up.
let's here a big YAY! for the existing telco's crashing and burning like a North Korean missile test.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Technically, North Korean missile tests don't crash and burn.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
wow..
Then let the Gov, install it and CHARGE the Corps to use it..
99% of the internet, and BACKBONE in the USA was setup by our gov...then GIVEN to the corps..
LETS make money from them NOT GIVE them anything..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Didn't you realize we have a petition website?
if you are nice people you can also add this info in your article
Greets
@Sonstwer
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Since you won't be using that spectrum you acquired we can reassign it to some upstart with a system better than yours.
I'm sure that a windfall to a competitor who will honor net neutrality will leave them as handicapped as you claim it will leave you so it'll work out as being fair.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And seriously, screw smart cars, and smart TVs, and the whole IoT. No security at all. And there has been ample opportunity and time, and so far there is nothing good going over the network, just another way to commoditize consumers (and sometimes not even a clear plan to do that, just store the data on servers with tissue-paper thin security).
So... what is that threat all about?
And the dumbest thing is that QoS provisions are perfectly normal. They just want to conflate that with monopoly prioritization that has no technical basis whatsoever.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Because the manufaturers do not want you to actually own anything that you buy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
EU MEP for Informatics
https://twitter.com/GOettingerEU/status/751299158590550017
Glad to see @Siemens, @deutschetelekom & other industr players contributing to #5G Manifesto http://bit.ly/29oSHxH
And before you assume anything, I am sure that no suitcases changed hand before this happened! Well, to be fair, even if they did it wouldn't be a bribe because it happened before the vote(real rules!). Anyway... guesstimate the chance for the "manifesto" to fail? My guess: 0.00%
You got to admire the determination in the EU to keep innovation down. You're welcome USA! Keep going as #1 in innovative internet services. The EU people who got their job without a single vote by the public do their damnedest to keep you at #1
[ link to this | view in chronology ]