Calm Down Reddit: No, Mignon Clyburn Is NOT Trying To Undermine Net Neutrality Rules

from the don't-always-believe-what-you-read dept

A reminder: you can't always believe what you read on these here interwebs. Yesterday, an article appeared on The Hill which was originally titled "Democratic FCC commissioner balks at net neutrality rules" and claimed that one of the other FCC commissioners was looking to "water down" Tom Wheeler's net neutrality plans. Cue a total freakout -- especially on Reddit, where people started weaving complex conspiracy theories about how Clyburn was bought and paid for by Time Warner (which is, um, somewhat laughable if you know much about Clyburn). The piece on the Hill, by reporter Julian Hattem, appears to have totally misread what is actually happening, leading to totally unnecessary freakouts. In fact, after many people pointed this out, it appears that The Hill has changed its original headline so that it now reads "Eleventh-hour drama for net neutrality." And it's not even that dramatic. So, hey, Reddit, calm down!

What's actually happening is a bit complex, but Clyburn's concern is not just a reasonable one, it's one that's actually being raised by just about everyone on all sides of the debate. Believe it or not, Clyburn's suggestion is actually supported by everyone from Free Press to Google to AT&T. So calm down.

Remember that old "hybrid plan" that Tom Wheeler had experimentally floated a few months ago? The one that created an entirely new class of services, in which he tried to divide broadband providers into a new classification known as "sender side" so that he could issue rules for that new class of services, rather than having to "reclassify" broadband under Title II? Those rules that everyone hated? Well, it appears that after being convinced to actually go to full reclassification, Wheeler left in a bit of those rules as a sort of "in the alternative" justification for his new rules. However, just as pretty much everyone argued when the hybrid plan was floated, this attempt to create a new classification for "sender side" providers is fraught with serious legal problems, and would create a huge headache.

A few weeks ago, Free Press raised these concerns with the FCC. And last week, Google also raised similar concerns, pointing out that trying to split the baby in this way would also lead some ISPs to believing they could switch to a "sender pays" model of service, which would actually undermine net neutrality in very serious ways. And, just in case you thought this was only a concern from net neutrality supporters, AT&T raised the same concern just last week as well, listing out four separate reasons why the FCC couldn't magically create this newly defined service.

From what nearly everyone has been saying, Clyburn's request to Wheeler is to fix this, and get rid of the remnants of his bad hybrid rules, and keep the rules much more cleanly focused on reclassification. I've spoken with numerous folks in and around the FCC about all of this and they all note that this should actually make the net neutrality rules better and less susceptible to a legal challenge. In fact, many are claiming this makes the rules stronger when it comes to preventing interconnection disputes, which is where many of the big net neutrality fights have migrated.

So, to everyone freaking out that Clyburn is trying to weaken the rules: calm down. It doesn't appear to be happening. In fact, it's the opposite. You can't always believe what you read on the internet, especially when it comes to telco policy.

Filed Under: hybrid plan, mignon clyburn, net neutrality, open internet, rules, sender sides, title ii, tom wheeler

Wireless Usage Caps (And Creative Abuses Of Them) Are The New Global Net Neutrality Battlefield

from the this-blog-post-will-not-count-against-your-data-usage-allotment dept

After having their wrists slapped for more ham-fisted neutrality abuses like throttling and blocking, ISPs have been increasingly clever when it comes to ways to abuse their stranglehold over the uncompetitive broadband last mile. On the fixed-line broadband front the major net neutrality battlefield is currently interconnection, with ISPs accused of allowing their peering points to tier 1 operators and content companies to deteriorate in order to glean new direct interconnection payments. This effectively has shifted one major portion of the neutrality debate from the user's connection to the edge of the network.

In mobile, the current net neutrality hotbed is usage caps and so-called "zero rated" apps. In developing countries the practice of zero rating apps is quite common, with major companies like Facebook and Google (see Facebook Zero or Google Free Zone) offering low-income developing nations access to select Internet services. Except we've discussed how an ad-laden, walled garden, corporation-curated version of the Internet isn't always doing these countries much of a favor, and you have to wonder what that vision of the "Internet" evolves into.

Here in the States, the practice of zero rating is rather more nefarious and complicated, but again is presented under the pretense of doing the consumer a favor. AT&T's Sponsored Data, for example, allows deeper-pocketed companies to pay AT&T an additional toll to have their content exempt from user usage caps, something that automatically puts smaller companies at a disadvantage. T-Mobile has similarly experimented with exempting only the biggest music services from user caps, similarly creating an unlevel playing field for smaller companies, independent operations or nonprofits. The real trick of these efforts is that many consumers wind up applauding them not understanding they're supporting an erosion of a healthy, balanced Internet.

Obviously the most ham-fisted abuse of usage caps is simply having your own services exempt from the cap while competing services incur data costs. That's something the Canadian government last week slammed the door on when the CRTC ruled that Canadian providers Bell and Videotron (which we've noted have been exploring this idea for a while) can't exempt their own video content from usage caps. Canadian law Professor Michael Geist notes the government didn't actually use Canadian net neutrality rules to support the decision, CRTC chairman Jean-Pierre Blais simply declared the practice a core market abuse:

"At its core, this decision isn’t so much about Bell or Videotron. It’s about all of us and our ability to access content equally and fairly, in an open market that favours innovation and choice,” CRTC chairman Jean-Pierre Blais said in a speech delivered Thursday morning in London, Ont. "It may be tempting for large, vertically integrated companies to offer certain perks to their customers, and innovation in its purest form is to be applauded,” Mr. Blais said, adding the CRTC wants to see broadcasters create “new and exciting ways to view content." "But when the impetus to innovate steps on the toes of the principle of fair and open access to content, we will intervene,” he said. "We’ve got to keep the lanes of our bridges unobstructed so that everyone can cross."

Except when faced with such restrictions here in the States, companies like AT&T usually just get more clever about it. AT&T doesn't exempt their content from usage caps, for example, but the practice of letting large companies pay to bypass AT&T's caps is nearly as bad (the CRTC decision didn't address this evolution of the issue, just as the FCC has remained mute on the subject). In other words, we're seeing time and time again that it's easy to violate neutrality even with rules in place. You just have to be a good tap dancer and lobby for neutrality rules with truck sized-loopholes (like the proposal currently being pushed by Thune and Upton here in the States that's most likely co-written by AT&T and Comcast lawyers).

That's of course why you need a flexible, objective regulator and intelligent neutrality protections that can adapt to what's literally going to be decades of net neutrality cat and mouse (and again, it's worth noting the Thune proposal also hamstrings FCC flexibility). Instead what we often see in the States are regulators that have largely laughed off the threat posed by both usage caps and zero rating efforts, not to mention willfully ignored that wired and wireless usage meters often aren't reliable. ISPs want to bill like utilities, but refuse to be regulated as such.

Many regulators seem to recognize that abuse of usage caps is a core part of the neutrality battle. In fact, the Netherlands, Slovenia, Norway, Chile and now Canada have all now made it clear that carriers can't use their arbitrary usage caps to gain unfair market advantages. As the European Union bickers over its possible rules, Internet grandpappy Tim Berners-Lee penned a guest blog entry this week for EU Digital Single Market Commissioner Andrus Ansip, highlighting that as countries craft net neutrality rules, they have to understand that the conversation doesn't magically stop with prohibiting throttling and blocking:

"Of course, it is not just about blocking and throttling. It is also about stopping 'positive discrimination', such as when one internet operator favours one particular service over another. If we don’t explicitly outlaw this, we hand immense power to telcos and online service operators. In effect, they can become gatekeepers - able to handpick winners and the losers in the market and to favour their own sites, services and platforms over those of others. This would crowd out competition and snuff out innovative new services before they even see the light of day. Imagine if a new start-up or service provider had to ask permission from or pay a fee to a competitor before they could attract customers? This sounds a lot like bribery or market abuse - but it is exactly the type of scenario we would see if we depart from net neutrality."

So while neutrality supporters here in the States are generally pleased to see that FCC boss Tom Wheeler is embracing Title II based rules, the discussion doesn't end there. In fact, it's only just beginning. Regulators truly interested in protecting net neutrality need to be every bit as tenacious, clever and intelligent as carrier executives who tirelessly look for creative new ways to abuse their uncompetitive telecom fiefdoms. Given the regulatory quality in most countries, that's a damn tall order, but in the all-too-common absence of truly healthy and competitive broadband markets, there's really no other choice.

Filed Under: data caps, interconnection, net neutrality, peering, zero rating