AT&T Argues Net Neutrality Violates Its First Amendment Rights

from the up-is-down,-black-is-white dept

Back when Verizon sued to overturn the FCC's 2010 net neutrality rules, the telco argued that the FCC was aggressively and capriciously violating the company's First and Fifth Amendment rights. According to Verizon's argument at the time, broadband networks "are the modern-day microphone by which their owners engage in First Amendment speech." Verizon also tried to claim that neutrality rules were a sort of "permanent easement on private broadband networks for the use of others without just compensation," and thereby violated the Fifth Amendment.

Granted, any well-caffeinated lawyer in a nice pair of tap dancing shoes can effectively argue anything, though in this case you'd obviously have to operate in a vacuum and ignore the history, context and definition of net neutrality to fully do so. Regardless, Verizon did manage to have those original, flimsy rules thrown out, but it had nothing to do with the telco's Constitutional arguments. Verizon won because the FCC was trying to impose common carrier rules on ISPs without first declaring them as common carriers under Title II of the Communications Act, something the FCC tried to remedy with the latest rule incarnation.

Fast forward to 2015. AT&T's busy suing the FCC both as part of USTelecom, but also with a standalone lawsuit of its own. In a statement of issues (pdf) outlining its legal assault on the FCC's net neutrality rules, AT&T makes it clear that it too will try to claim the FCC is violating the company's First and Fifth Amendment rights:

"In a statement of issues that AT&T intends to raise when the case moves further into the court process, the company said last week that it plans on challenging whether the FCC’s net neutrality order "violates the terms of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and the First and Fifth Amendments to the US Constitution." The First and Fifth Amendment will be used to attack the FCC's decision to reclassify both fixed and mobile broadband as common carrier services, as well as the FCC's assertion of authority over how ISPs interconnect with other networks."

CenturyLink, wireless carriers (the CTIA) and major telcos (USTelecom) have stated they plan to argue the same point, though the precise legal approach obviously isn't being disclosed yet. Basically, AT&T and friends are throwing every legal claim they can possibly think of at the wall and hoping something sticks.

Leaning on the First Amendment when it's convenient has long been a telecom lawyer mainstay, logic be damned. Verizon tried to argue that its participation in the government's domestic surveillance efforts was protected by the First Amendment. Comcast has tried to argue that its right to bar competitors' TV channels from its lineup is similarly protected by the First Amendment. Charter Communications has hinted it believes its First Amendment rights mean it doesn't have to adhere to municipal franchise contracts. Of course, those of us here on planet Earth realize net neutrality is intended to protect the free speech rights of consumers and small business owners from the incumbent ISPs, and the only concept truly being explored here is irony.

Filed Under: fcc, first amendment, free speech, net neutrality
Companies: at&t

FCC Signals It's No Longer Going To Nap On Broadband Privacy Issues

from the selling-everything-that-isn't-nailed-down dept

The FCC this week informed broadband ISPs that the agency is no longer going to be napping at the wheel when it comes to broadband-related privacy enforcement. In a new enforcement advisory posted to the FCC website (pdf), the FCC said that with ISPs now classified as common carriers under the new Title II based net neutrality rules, the FCC's going to be taking a long hard look at improving broadband privacy protections. While the actual rulemaking process is still being worked on, the FCC will be leaning on Section 222 of the Communications Act, historically used to protect Customer Proprietary Network Information (CPNI) on phone networks.

ISPs have already started complaining the FCC's imposing draconian, ancient regulations on the modern Internet, and such rules will saddle them with all manner of new costs. Of course it should be noted that most of these privacy protections are fundamental common sense -- and in some cases things most ISPs are already doing. They range from from requiring that ISPs keep private consumer data encrypted when being stored on servers, to not sharing consumer data with third parties without the explicit consent of consumers. The FCC shockingly found that absent such protections, things don't work out well for consumers:

"The Commission has found that absent privacy protections, a broadband provider’s use of personal and proprietary information could be at odds with its customers’ interests and that if consumers have concerns about the protection of their privacy, their demand for broadband may decrease."

Of course ISPs have grown pretty comfortable with regulators that couldn't care less about (or lacked the authority to police) broadband privacy abuses. One case in point is Verizon's recent decision to manipulate wireless traffic to create new, undeletable super cookies. Despite the fact it took security researchers two years to find Verizon's zombie cookie and another six months for Verizon to even seriously acknowledge a problem, the telco has historically tried to argue greater privacy protections aren't needed for broadband and wireless because "public shame" will keep the company honest.

Many users also might recall how ISPs have long sold user clickstream data to third parties, but have historically denied that they collect any of this data whatsoever. Similarly, AT&T has been charging its gigabit fiber users a $44-$66 fee if they want to opt out of having their traffic snooped on via deep packet inspection. In both instances regulators simply couldn't have cared less. Obviously having regulators do absolutely anything at all to protect broadband user privacy is a pretty unsettling change for a industry awash in regulatory capture.

While the FCC hasn't yet solidified the rules for modern broadband networks, it is telling ISPs that it can reach out to the FCC if they have any questions about how the FCC intends to interpret the rules in the snoopvertising age moving forward:

"Although no broadband provider is in any way required to consult with the Enforcement Bureau, the existence of such a request for guidance will tend to show that the broadband provider is acting in good faith. The application of Section 222 offers an opportunity for broadband customers to increase their demand for broadband by knowing that their privacy is well-protected. In that goal, the Enforcement Bureau believes its interests and those of the great majority of broadband providers are firmly aligned."

While I know there's an amazing amount of cognitive dissonance (my own head included) forged by the idea that a government so horrible on surveillance issues could possibly do anything good on the privacy front, the FCC's recent track record of actually giving a damn about consumer issues is encouraging. It's as if the FCC has awoken form a long, deep slumber, and after fifteen years of being an empty-headed bobble head doll, has suddenly started caring about issues like broadband competition, massive, billion-dollar telecom industry scams and state protectionist telecom laws.

None of this is to suggest FCC over-reach on privacy is impossible, but based on Wheeler's behaviors of late it seems likely the FCC's just looking to impose some common sense ground rules. Still, there will certainly be no limit of handwringing among ISPs how some basic broadband privacy protections will destroy the Internet. You know, just like the net neutrality rules are obviously doing.

Filed Under: consumer protection, data breaches, fcc, privacy, section 222, title ii

Facebook's Plan To Be The Compuserve Of Developing Nations Faces Mounting Worldwide Criticism

from the altruism-incorporated dept

What began as some squabbling over the definition of net neutrality in India has evolved into a global public relations shit show for Facebook. As we've been discussing, India's government has been trying to define net neutrality ahead of the creation of new neutrality rules. Consumers and content companies have been making it very clear they believe Facebook's Internet.org initiative violates net neutrality because it offers free, walled-garden access to only some Facebook approved content partners, instead of giving developing nations access to the entire Internet.

Internet.org partners began dropping out of the initiative, arguing they don't like any model where Facebook gets to decide which content is accessed for free -- and which content remains stuck outside of Internet.org. Facebook so far has responded by trying to claim that if you oppose Internet.org you're the one hurting the poor, because a walled garden is better than no Internet at all. Of course that's a false choice; Facebook could simply provide subsidized access to the entire Internet, but that wouldn't provide them with a coordinated leg-up in the developing nation ad markets of tomorrow.

So far Facebook's defense of Internet.org's zero rating of some content has only made criticism louder. A coalition of sixty-seven different digital activism groups from thirty-one different countries this week penned an open letter to Facebook on Facebook, arguing that Internet.org will actually hurt the poor by cordoning off meaningful parts of the actual Internet. The groups, many of which have been pushing for increased broadband deployment far longer than Facebook has, are quick to point out that Facebook's injection of itself between users and the Internet doesn't just raise net neutrality concerns, but privacy and security issues as well:

The censorship capability of Internet gateways is well established — some governments require ISPs to block access to sites or services. Facebook appears to be putting itself in a position whereby governments could apply pressure to block certain content, or even, if users must log in for access, block individual users. Facebook would find itself mediating the real surveillance and censorship threats to politically active users in restrictive environments. The company should not take on this added responsibility and risk by creating a single centralized checkpoint for the free flow of information.

...We are very concerned about the privacy implications of Internet.org. Facebook’s privacy policy does not provide adequate protections for new Internet users, some of whom may not understand how their data will be used, or may not be able to properly give consent for certain practices. Given the lack of statements to the contrary, it is likely Internet.org collects user data via apps and services. There is a lack of transparency about how that data are used by Internet.org and its telco partners. Internet.org also provides only a handful of applications and services, making it easier for governments and malicious actors to surveil user traffic.

Facebook tried to ease concerns by recently including more content partners, but there's still an absurd number of restrictions. Content can't integrate video, VoIP, Flash, Javascript or Java applets. Internet.org is also blocking any and all encrypted sites at a point in time when encryption is more important than ever, for developed and developing nations alike. The EFF was quick to point this out in a statement of its own issued this week opposing the initiative:

Even if Facebook were able to figure out a way to support HTTPS proxying on feature phones, its position as Internet gatekeepers remains more broadly troublesome. By setting themselves up as gatekeepers for free access to (portions of) the global Internet, Facebook and its partners have issued an open invitation for governments and special interest groups to lobby, cajole or threaten them to withhold particular content from their service. In other words, Internet.org would be much easier to censor than a true global Internet.

Still, so far there's every indication that Facebook either doesn't understand, or doesn't want to understand, what critics are saying. The company recently posted a new myths versus facts release on the Internet.org site that somehow manages to talk over, under and around most of the points critics have been making. There's also this gem, in which Facebook actually denies that Internet.org has anything to do with making money:

MYTH: Facebook has launched Internet.org to help drive its own growth and revenue opportunities within developing countries.

FACT: There are no ads within the Facebook experience on Internet.org. If revenue were the goal, Facebook would have focused resources on markets where online advertising is already thriving."

This pretense on Facebook's part that Internet.org is solely about altruism is adorable, but it's not clear who, if anyone, actually believes that. To most, it's obvious Facebook wants in at the ground floor in order to dominate the ad markets of tomorrow, and what better way to do that than to position yourself as the walled-garden Compuserve of developing nations. Facebook could nip this entire problem in the bud in two simple steps. One, Facebook needs to stop acting like everyone is too stupid to see its real motives. And two, if Facebook is so very concerned about the poor, it should put its money where its mouth is and shift to a subsidized model that gets Facebook out of the way and provides access to the real Internet, free from obvious interference, censorship, privacy and neutrality concerns.

Filed Under: criticism, internet.org, net neutrality
Companies: eff, facebook, internet.org, mozilla

Net Neutrality Rules Are Already Forcing Companies To Play Fair, And The Giant ISPs Absolutely Hate It

from the please-stop-doing-your-job dept

The FCC's net neutrality rules don't even go into effect until June 12, but they're already benefiting consumers. You'll recall that the last year or so has been filled with ugly squabbling over interconnection issues, with Level 3 accusing ISPs like Verizon of letting peering points congest to kill settlement-free peering and drive Netflix toward paying for direct interconnection. But with Level 3 and Cogent hinting they'd be using the FCC's new complaint process to file grievances about anti-competitive behavior, magically Verizon has now quickly struck deals with Level 3 and Cogent that everybody on board appears to be happy with.

And it's not just Verizon; Level 3 also quickly managed to strike a new interconnection deal with AT&T, and Cogent CEO Dave Schaeffer recently proclaimed Comcast has also become suddenly more amicable of late, turning on ports for capacity quickly and when needed. Comcast, like AT&T and Verizon, has also suddenly announced a new interconnection deal with Level 3 Comcast says it was "delighted" to sign.

That players in the transit and ISP space are suddenly getting along so wonderfully when ISPs insisted net neutrality rules would result in the destruction of the Internet is nothing short of miraculous. It's almost as if the FCC's new net neutrality rules are already benefiting consumers, companies and a healthy internet alike!

Obviously the threat of having a regulator that actually polices anti-competitive behavior instead of playing deaf, dumb, and blind is going to require an adjustment period for everyone involved. Still, despite evidence the FCC's neutrality rules are working as an anti-competitive deterrent, carriers are still busy claiming the agency is causing "irreparable harm" on the interconnection front. From a joint filing (pdf) from all the major ISP trade groups, including USTelecom, the NCTA and the CTIA:

"Until now, a variety of voluntarily negotiated, individualized arrangements have been used to exchange traffic between networks. But, under the Order, these arrangements are now part of the “telecommunications service” that broadband Internet access providers offer their retail customers, and thus broadband providers—but not their interconnecting counter-parties—are subject to the requirements of Title II. Yet again, however, the FCC did not explain what that means or how broadband providers must act."

While the FCC's rules on interconnection are a bit vague, the agency has made it clear they'll be looking at complaints on a "case by case basis" to ensure deals are "just and reasonable." Since this is new territory, the FCC thought this would be wiser than penning draconian rules that either overreach or contain too many loopholes. This ambiguity obviously has ISPs erring on the side of caution when it comes to bad behavior, which is likely precisely what the FCC intended. Still, companies with a generation of history at being bullies complain this ambiguity lets others...bully them:

"Providers are thus left to negotiate contracts subject to sweeping statutory mandates without knowing what decisions could lead to enforcement action. Already, providers face demands for significant changes to interconnection agreements. The parties making those demands are threatening to file enforcement actions if their demands are not met. This distortion in what had been a well-functioning private negotiation process is irreparable harm."

And by "well functioning private negotiation process," the ISPs clearly mean one in which they were able to hold their massive customer bases hostage in order to strong arm companies like Netflix into paying direct interconnection fees. One in which regulators were seen but not heard, while giant monopolies and duopolies abused the lack of last mile competition. Yes, the FCC's actions have been so brutish and aggressive, they've resulted in a cease fire across the interconnection front to the benefit of video customers and internet users everywhere. Will the nightmare ever end?

Filed Under: fcc, interconnection, net neutrality
Companies: at&t, cogent, comcast, level 3, verizon

Before Freaking Out About The FCC's New Neutrality Rules, Perhaps You Could Be Bothered To Actually Read Them

from the pay-attention,-chicken-little dept

While there's been no limit of hand-wringing over the new net neutrality rules, much of this has been either hyberbole by giant ISPs that don't like having their anti-competitive pipe dreams quashed, or by folks who don't actually understand what the rules actually do. There are a number of smaller ISPs, partisans and tech execs that exist in the second camp, assuming in kneejerk fashion that the FCC's new rules saddle them with all manner of burdensome regulations. In reality, as we've noted several times, not much changes under the new rules -- provided you don't intend to engage in anti-competitive behavior.

Former Verizon regulatory lawyer turned FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai voted down the rules, and has been waging a bizarre, facts-optional assault on neutrality supporters like Netflix ever since. Last week Pai managed to drum up a little extra hysteria on this front by proclaiming that the new rules were crushing small ISPs with all manner of new costs. Pai trots out several small ISPs that, in filings to the FCC, take a page out of the AT&T pouting playbook and say they're freezing investment in broadband because the rules are just too damn onerous:

"KWISP President Kenneth Hohhof told Ars that his two-person company makes revenue of $250,000 to $300,000 per year, and he estimates that he’ll have to pay $20,000 in legal costs because he intends to hire a lawyer to review his business practices. Hohhof admits that he “pulled that [number] out of the air,” but given the hourly rates charged by telecom lawyers, he expects the bill to be substantial for such a small company.

...Another wireless ISP Pai described is SCS Broadband in rural Virginia, which serves 800 customers and “has already stopped investing in new rural areas because of the FCC’s decision, and it won’t resume until it can ‘determine if the additional cost in legal fees warrant such investments,’” Pai said. “And investors have already told SCS Broadband that ‘projects that were viable investments under the regime that existed before the Order will no longer provide the necessary returns to justify the investment.’"

Yes, like with any regulations, investors will need to do due diligence, and businesses need to occasionally consult attorneys to understand the market landscape in which they operate. Also, shockingly, lawyers do indeed tend to take extra advantage of people who can't be bothered to understand when their services are or aren't needed. And while it's clear the FCC could do a better job communicating the rules' impact, these problems aren't the fault of the rules themselves.

Rather amusingly, Ars Technica then proceeds to dissect most of these concerns point by point, suggesting that most of the small ISPs engaged in hysterics over the rules appear to not understand them in the slightest. As Ars notes, most of the onerous portions of Title II (rate regulation, local loop unbundling) aren't included in the rules, and most smaller ISPs are exempted from new transparency requirements. Indeed, most of the non-blocking, non-throttling, and "reasonable network management" requirements are the same, relatively-generous ones these ISPs lived under with the original net neutrality rules, which they didn't need lawyers to understand and comply with.

The bottom line: a lot of confusion and fear on the part of hysterical anti-Title II folks could be eliminated by actually reading the rules (pdf), instead of listening to incumbent ISP lawyers, former incumbent ISP lawyers like Ajit Pai, or execs like Mark Cuban. Again, many folks who actually run ISPs for a living (like Sonic.net CEO Dane Jasper) note it's only ISPs that engage in anti-competitive behavior that should worry. That's not hard to realize if you've paid attention to the FCC's recent, totally out of character, shift toward notably more consumer and competition-friendly telecom policies that are already benefiting consumers and companies alike.

Even the major ISPs that hate the idea of having their anti-competitive shenanigans policed have repeatedly and quietly admitted the rules don't impact their day-to-day business operations much. While their lawyers and lobbyists have been busy predicting business Armageddon, dozens of ISP execs have gone on record in recent months to admit the rules don't change much of anything for them operationally. And indeed, small ISPs that have bothered to pay attention to this bizarre new about-face at the FCC (like Joshua Montgomery of Wicked Broadband in Kansas) appear to understand this:

"If you're behaving in your customers' best interests and operating above the board, I don't think you have anything to be concerned about,” he said. “If you're advertising a $19 rate and then jacking people's bills up to $125 with fees and other things after six months and claiming some kind of long-term deal, yeah you're probably going to have trouble. [The FCC] made it very clear that their goal is to encourage competition, and I don't think they have their eyes on small players."

At the heart of the net neutrality opposition are very wealthy companies immeasurably angry that somebody is finally trying to stop them from aggressively cashing in on the lack of competition over the broadband last mile. At the periphery are many satellite opponents who just oppose the new rules because (certainly not without some valid historic justification) they believe all regulation is always bad, and you don't need to have an intelligent, nuanced debate on the merits of individual proposals because the fact that regulation is always, automatically bad is always true and la la la I can't hear you. The former have a pretty easy time riling up the latter, but you can go a long way toward avoiding this kind of confusion by actually reading and understanding the regulations you're busy claiming will destroy the business universe as we know it.

Filed Under: ajit pai, fcc, net neutrality, rules, small isps
Companies: at&t, kwisp, scs broadband, verizon, wicked broadband

North Carolina's Broadband Policy: Wasting Tax Dollars Pretending To Care About Wasting Tax Dollars

from the dynamic-duopoly-defenders dept

We've long argued that one way to help improve broadband competition is to stop letting incumbent ISPs write protectionist state telecom law. For decades now, these laws have been rushed through campaign-contribution-soaked state legislatures. With ALEC's help, these laws usually encode restrictions that prevent towns and cities from improving their own broadband infrastructure, even if nobody in the private sector wants to (aka market failure). It's the epitome of protectionist drivel; in some cases even preventing towns and cities from striking public/private partnerships to improve telecom and municipal services.

So it was refreshing (and a little bit shocking) when the FCC earlier this year woke up from a fifteen-year slumber on this issue. The agency declared it would be using its authority under Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act to pre-empt the more idiotic portions of these laws. Responding to complaints from municipal broadband operators and utilities trying to get into the broadband business, the FCC initially took aim at just two of the worst states: North Carolina and Tennessee, where companies like AT&T have been literally writing laws ensuring their duopoly power remains unchallenged indefinitely.

It's hoped the success of the FCC's work in these two states will slowly expand to the eighteen other states that have passed similar mega-ISP-friendly laws.

Not too surprisingly, politicians loyal to incumbent ISPs cried foul, and immediately started working on drumming up partisan division. It's not working: most municipal broadband networks see broad, bi-partisan community support -- and most municipal networks have been built with Conservative approval in more Conservative-leaning cities and states (whether that's Lafayette, Louisiana, or Chattanooga, Tennessee). ISP-loyal politicians like Tennessee's Martha Blackburn have expressed outrage that the FCC would dare to trample local rights -- something that is, apparently, the sole responsibility of companies like AT&T, CenturyLink, Time Warner Cable and Comcast.

The pretense behind the opposition to municipal broadband has always been that these laws are necessary to protect taxpayers from themselves, since sometimes (like any business model) municipal broadband doesn't work out. Of course some projects have worked well and others haven't, but the decision to travel this path is something that should be left up to the towns and cities themselves, not AT&T lawyers. However, North Carolina has joined Tennessee in suing the FCC over its latest push, claiming the state has been "aggrieved" by the FCC's attempt to remove state barriers to broadband expansion:

"North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper has filed a lawsuit in federal court against the Federal Communications Commission seeking to overturn the FCC's decision to allow the City of Wilson to expand its community broadband network service known as Greenlight. The state has been "aggrieved," according to Cooper. But a broadband group labeled the suit a "waste" of taxpayer money. Cooper stated in the suit that the FCC "unlawfully inserted itself" between the state and "political subdivisions" such as communities."

The problem is the FCC is Congressionally mandated to ensure the "timely and reasonable" deployment of broadband services, and it's pretty hard to argue you're helping that goal by letting AT&T lawyers and lobbyists write state law that does the exact opposite. It's not like this influence resides in shadow, ALEC's draft legislation sits on the outfit's website for anyone to read. The irony of using taxpayer money under the pretense of protecting taxpayer money didn't escape municipal broadband groups commenting on the case:

"Attorney General Cooper must not realize the irony of using state taxpayer dollars to ensure less money is invested in rural broadband, but we certainly do," says Christopher Mitchell with the Institute for Local Self-Reliance. "State leaders should stand up for their citizens' interests and demand good broadband for them, rather than fighting alongside paid lobbyists to take away those opportunities."

It's worth reiterating that these towns and cities wouldn't be getting into the broadband business if they were happy with the service provided by regional monopolies and duopolies. The real absurdity of it is this: municipalities, companies and consumers alike benefit immeasurably from expanded broadband in a state, regardless of how it's provided. That Tennessee and North Carolina are willing to throw all of this potential growth away just to protect the campaign cash contributions of big telecom operators speaks volumes about the quality of Tennessee and North Carolina state legislators, and the stranglehold companies like AT&T, CenturyLink and Comcast have over the state legislative process.

Filed Under: broadband, fcc, municipal broadband, north carolina, state's rights

AT&T Stops Pouting Over Net Neutrality, Backs Off Network Investment 'Freeze' That Never Was

from the you-are-painfully-transparent dept

That broadband investment will suffer because of net neutrality has been the rallying cry of the broadband industry for much of the last year, despite the fact that hard evidence and public executive statements repeatedly show this claim to be nonsense. You might recall that back when the President issued his surprise support of Title II-based net neutrality rules last November, AT&T responded in typical AT&T fashion: by pouting. The company quickly proclaimed it would be taking its ball and going home, "freezing" the company's plans to deploy fiber to the home to up to 100 cities nationwide:

"We can't go out and invest that kind of money deploying fiber to 100 cities not knowing under what rules those investments will be governed...We think it is prudent to just pause and make sure we have line of sight and understanding as to what those rules would look like," added the CEO."

Of course, as we noted at the time, this 100-city deployment claim was a ridiculous bluff to begin with; AT&T was simply offering gigabit speeds to a limited number of housing developments where fiber already exists, then dressing it up as a massive deployment to save face in the Google Fiber age (aka "fiber to the press release"). In reality, AT&T's been cutting fixed-line investment hand over fist for years, and had announced yet another $3 billion fixed-line CAPEX investment cut just three days before announcing its supposed "investment freeze." In other words, it was all political theater.

And it wasn't even good political theater. When the FCC pressed AT&T to show hard numbers, the company had to notably walk back its claims in a highly-redacted filing. AT&T effectively admitted the entire thing was basically a bluff, and the company's plans to offer gigabit service to a few high-end housing developments was absolutely unchanged by net neutrality.

So it's pretty amusing to see AT&T CEO Randall Stephenson ignore this entire backstory and proudly announce this week that the company will be formally unfreezing the network investment freeze that never was as it pushes regulators to sign off on its $49 billion acquisition of DirecTV:

"We have seen the way the rules came out, ... and as we read those rules we do believe they are subject to modification by the courts" or by Congress, Stephenson said on CNBC's "Squawk Box." "So we've said we're going to invest around $18 billion this year. That will allow us to deploy a wireless broadband solution to 13 million homes around the U.S.," he said. "That compares to about $22 billion last year."

Basically, Stephenson's pretending that the broadband industry's just so damn confident it will be victorious in court, AT&T's going to boldly shake off reservations and sally forth with network investment. Of course Stephenson knows the press won't notice or care he's conflating wireless and wired network investment (when his original freeze claim was clearly regarding wired), overall investment is still dropping, AT&T's actually hanging up on millions of DSL users it no longer wants all over the country, or the fact that AT&T already admitted in filings the entire argument was a fraud in the first place. With a press too lazy to fact check him, Stephenson still conveniently trots out the investment bogeyman when convenient, even after AT&T's admitted such worries are little more than factually-unsupported, politically useful phantoms.

Filed Under: broadband, broadband investment, lawsuits, net neutrality
Companies: at&t

Mozilla: If Facebook Really Wants To Help Developing Nations, It Should Ignore Zero Rating And Fund Real Internet Access

from the get-the-hell-out-of-the-way dept

Facebook's been taking a lot of heat lately for failing to understand (or pretending to fail to understand) how its Internet.org initiative spells trouble for net neutrality. As noted previously, Facebook's vision has been to deploy a "free" walled-garden service like AOL to developing nations. Critics have been dropping out of Internet.org, stating they don't like Facebook picking which companies get included in the walled garden. Things have gotten particularly heated in India, where neutrality advocates have made it very clear they think Facebook's vision hurts the open Internet long term.

Zuckerberg's response so far? You're hurting the poor if you don't like the way we're doing things, because a walled garden is better than no Internet at all. Of course that's a false choice: Facebook could offer subsidized access to the real Internet, it just wouldn't get pole position in delivering ads to billions of new users in dozens of developing nations. It's a mammoth advertising play dressed up as utterly-selfless altruism, with a dash of indignant at suggestions there's a better way.

Mozilla recently decided to jump into the conversation with a series of blog posts offering a much more intelligent, nuanced take on the problem with zero rated apps. In one post, Mozilla notes how if you let Facebook create a new definition of the Internet today, you're setting the stage for notable problems down the road:

"We understand the temptation to say “some content is better than no content,” choosing a lesser degree of inclusion over openness and equality of opportunity. But it shouldn’t be a binary choice; technology and innovation can create a better way, even though these new models may take some time to develop. Furthermore, choosing limited inclusion today, even though it offers short-term benefits, poses significant risk to the emergence of an open, competitive platform that will ultimately stifle inclusion and economic development."

That mirrors concerns by folks like Stanford Professor Susan Crawford, who have lambasted such models for "entrenching and amplifying existing inequalities and contributing to poverty of imagination." Mozilla notes there's plenty of ways to help fund Internet access to developing nations that doesn't involve building walls and cherry picking program participants. For example the company has struck a partnership with Orange to provide $40 Firefox OS smartphones with 6 free months of voice, text, and up to 500 MB per month of data. Another effort offers a small allotment of free data for watching an ad.

In short, there are options that don't turn the Internet into a glorified version of CompuServe. But rushing toward walled gardens again isn't just about today, it's about what these ideas mutate into over the longer haul. Mozilla Foundation Chair Mitchell Baker took this idea further in a second blog post:

"Selective zero-rating is unquestionably bad for the long term opportunities and inclusion for the people it is designed to serve. It pre-selects what’s available, directing people to where others want them to go. It is bad for economic inclusion. It is bad for the ability of new entrepreneurs to grow onto the global scale. It is bad for the long term health of the Internet. Zero-rating as practiced today is “selective zero-rating for a few apps and websites; exclusion for the rest of the Internet."

The correct answer is that all data is transmitted at the same price, whether that price is "zero" or anything else. This way, consumers pick the content they choose to access based on the quality of that content, not the financial power and business partnerships of the provider. This way, new entrepreneurs can still reach any and all users on the Internet, even if they are a few people working in a co-working space with no ability to subsidize data charges."

In other words, if Facebook really wants to help the poor, it can do so by using Internet.org to fund access to the "real Internet," not some bastardized version of the Internet that lets Facebook and select ISP partners play god. The conversation in India mirrors the conversation we've been having about systems like AT&T's Sponsored Data here in the States; opposition to zero rating is simply about getting massive gatekeepers out of the way and ensuring equal access to the purest version of the 'Net possible.

Filed Under: broadband access, developing nations, internet access, net neutrality, zero rating
Companies: facebook, mozilla