Verizon At Least Shows It Has A Sense Of Humor About Net Neutrality, Even If It's Incapable Of Respecting It

from the look-ma-I-made-a-funny dept

Sure, Verizon may be endlessly misleading when it comes to everything from the spectrum crunch to network investment. And when it comes to anti-competitive telecom behavior it wrote the book. Hell, Verizon's even in many ways directly responsible for this week's net neutrality ruling by suing to overturn the original flimsy net neutrality rules -- rules every other ISP had absolutely no problem with. But while you can say a lot of things about Verizon, you can't say the company doesn't have a sense of humor.

As you might expect, Verizon took to the company's blog to protest the FCC's new TItle II based net neutrality rules. Amusingly however, it posted the entire thing in Morse code -- piggybacking on the oft-repeated ISP mantra that applying older Title II regulations to broadband is a dangerous and historically backwards proposition (because all old laws are automatically bad laws, get it?).

If you look for a translation, you're further directed to a press release (pdf) that appears to be written on an old typewriter. In that, Verizon trots out ye olde bogeyman that the FCC is using "antiquated regulations" for a modern era:

"Today’s decision by the FCC to encumber broadband Internet services with badly antiquated regulations is a radical step that presages a time of uncertainty for consumers, innovators and investors."

Of course if we were to stop using laws just because they smell like mothballs, we'd be in for quite an adventure. After all, the Constitution is pretty old, right? As is the Communications Act of 1934 and the revamped Telecommunications Act of 1996, which govern spectrum allocation and without which Verizon couldn't function as a company. Stupid old laws. So unnecessary! It's an overly-simplistic argument, made more so by the fact that Verizon's FiOS network -- and the voice component of their wireless network -- are governed by Title II in some instances to glean Verizon some lovely tax breaks.

Verizon stumbles forth unabated, insisting that it has your best interests at heart:

"What has been and will remain constant before, during and after the existence of any regulations is Verizon’s commitment to an open Internet that provides consumers with competitive broadband choices and Internet access when, where, and how they want."

Yes, so committed is Verizon to an open Internet, it has violated the principles of Internet and device neutrality more aggressively than perhaps any other company, whether that's trying to block GPS radio functionality unless you use their navigation software, or charging completely illogical fees to use basic functionality embedded in phones (like tethering, or Bluetooth). Verizon's also fairly insistent on ignoring the fact it was their lawsuit that pushed the FCC toward Title II in the first place, so if there's "regulatory uncertainty" at play, the lion's share of the blame belongs on Verizon's shoulders.

Still, you've got to hand it to Verizon for at least showing a sense of humor about the whole thing. That's more than Comcast or AT&T were capable of.

Filed Under: net neutrality, open internet, snark, telecom act, title ii
Companies: verizon

The FCC's Historic Day: Voting Yes For Net Neutrality, Voting No On Protectionist State Telecom Law

from the lobbyists-lose dept

Today was, no hyperbole intended, probably one of the more historic -- albeit at times one of the dullest -- days in FCC history. The agency, led by a former lobbyist for the cable and wireless industries few expected anything from, bucked a myriad of low expectations and voted 3-2 to approve Title II-based net neutrality rules after an unprecedented public-driven tech advocacy campaign. While net neutrality will likely get the lion's share of today's media attention, the FCC also today voted to begin a prolonged assault on ISP-driven, protectionist state telecom law.

First, it's important to note that despite a 3-2 vote approving the Title II-based rules, we won't get to see the actual rules today. Despite claims by neutrality opponents that this is some secret cabal specific to net neutrality, the agency historically has never released rules it votes on (pdf) until well after the actual vote. It's a dumb restriction that's absolutely deadly to open discourse, but it's not unique to one party or to this specific issue.

As for when we'll actually get to see and start dissecting the actual Title II rules ourselves, we may be waiting weeks -- in part, ironically, thanks to neutrality opponents on the Commission that spent the last few weeks professing to adore transparency:

"In fact, it could take weeks before the final rules are published, the official said. That’s because the two Republican commissioners, Ajit Pai and Mike O’Rielly—who oppose net neutrality of any sort—have refused to submit basic edits on the order. The FCC will not release the text of the order until edits from the offices of all five commissioners are incorporated, including dissenting opinions. This could take a few weeks, depending how long the GOP commissioners refuse to provide edits on the new rules."

Commissioners Ajit Pai and Michael O'Reilly voiced their opposition to the new Title II-based rules by not only voting against them, but by trying to bore meeting attendees to death. Pai, a former Verizon regulatory lawyer, offered a mammoth speech in which he ironically lamented "special interests" and claimed repeatedly to only be opposing net neutrality out of a concern for consumer wallets. O'Reilly tried to top Pai with an even longer, duller speech that continually insisted the FCC was trying to conduct a secret, regulatory takeover of the Internet. A visibly emotional Wheeler was having none of it:

"This proposal has been described by one opponent as, quote, a secret plan to regulate the Internet. Nonsense. This is no more a plan to regulate the Internet than the First Amendment is a plan to regulate free speech. They both stand for the same concepts: openness, expression, and an absence of gate keepers telling people what they can do, where they can go, and what they can think."

While the net neutrality rules are incredibly important, the FCC's decision on municipal broadband may actually wind up being more meaningful over the long run. As we've noted for years, neutrality violations are really just a symptom of a lack of competition. Around twenty states now have laws in place -- usually based entirely on ISP/ALEC model legislation -- that prohibit towns and cities from improving their own broadband infrastructure -- even in instances where nobody else will. In some cases these rules even go so far as to prohibit towns and cities from striking public/private partnerships to improve broadband service.

Specifically, the FCC voted 3-2 to approve petitions by EPB Broadband in Chattanooga, Tennessee, and Greenlight in Wilson, North Carolina. Those petitions requested that the FCC use its authority to ensure timely broadband deployment using "measures that promote competition in the local telecommunications market, or other regulating methods that remove barriers to infrastructure investment." While some politicians have lamented the FCC's move as a trampling of states' rights, these individuals ironically have had no problem with ISPs writing state telecom law that tramples those same rights. The justifications for these restrictions have never been coherently supported, and Wheeler was quick to highlight the hypocrisy of the position:

"You can’t say you’re for broadband and then turn around and endorse limits on who can offer it. You can’t say, ‘I want to follow the explicit instructions of Congress to remove barriers to infrastructure investment,' but endorse barriers on infrastructure investment. You can’t say you’re for competition but deny local elected officials the right to offer competitive choices."

Needless to say, this is likely only a new chapter in the debate over both issues, the precise wording of the neutrality wording will be debated for months if not years, and you can expect ISP legal action on both fronts aimed at protecting the uncompetitive status quo. It also probably goes without saying that opponents of net neutrality and those who like it when AT&T, Verizon and Comcast are allowed to write protectionist telecom law aren't taking the day's events very well. One of the best freakouts of the day belonged to Hal Singer, author of that misleading study we've previously debunked claiming that you'd face $15 billion in new taxes under Title II:

With today's @FCC vote on #NetNeutrality, millions of innovation angels will die. It's our job to document the loss. pic.twitter.com/XGxT8EDx7u

— Hal Singer (@HalSinger) February 26, 2015

While some grieve the death of imaginary "innovation angels," thousands of others are celebrating a rare instance where Internet activism was able to overcome lobbying cash and push a government mountain toward doing the right thing.

Filed Under: ajit pai, fcc, michael o'rielly, munibroadband, net neutrality, open internet, title ii, tom wheeler

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

FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai Is Leading An Incoherent, Facts-Optional Last Minute War On Net Neutrality...For The American People

from the revolving-door-dysfunction dept

Over the last few months we've discussed how FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai has been waging a one man war on net neutrality and Title II using what can only be described as an increasingly aggressive barrage of total nonsense. Back in January Pai tried to claim that Netflix was a horrible neutrality hypocrite because the company uses relatively ordinary content delivery networks. Earlier this month Pai one-upped himself by trying to claim that meaningful neutrality consumer protections would encourage countries like Iran and North Korea to censor the Internet.

Now on the surface, it appears that Pai just doesn't understand technology very well. Of course, once you understand that he was once a regulatory lawyer for Verizon, you realize he's simply dressing broadband duopoly profit protection up as some kind of deeper, meaningful ethos. As such, lamenting that Title II is "Obamacare for the Internet," is just political theater designed to rile up the base to the benefit of the broadband industry.

With net neutrality set for a vote this week, Pai has accelerated his master plan to make the largest number of inaccurate net neutrality statements in the shortest amount of time possible. For example, Pai co-wrote an editorial in the Chicago Tribune last week that tries to use Obamacare fears to insist Americans will lose the right to choose their own wireless plans if Title II based rules come to pass:

"If you like your wireless plan, you should be able to keep it. But new federal regulations may take away your freedom to choose the best broadband plan for you. It's all part of the federal government's 332-page plan to regulate the Internet like a public utility...take T-Mobile's Music Freedom program, which the Internet conduct rule puts on the chopping block. The "Un-carrier" allows consumers to stream as much online music as they want without charging it against their monthly data allowance."

Except as we've noted recently, classifying ISPs as common carriers under Title II absolutely does not involve "regulating ISPs like utilities." In fact, Wheeler's stripping away many of the tougher aspects of Title II, something you'll see immeasurably annoy consumer advocates when the full rules are released later this week. And while I personally think zero rated apps like T-Mobile's Music Freedom plan set a horrible precedent and should be reined in by the rules, the FCC's made every indication that they see usage caps and zero rated apps as "creative" pricing models that won't be touched.

Meanwhile, both Sprint's and T-Mobile's COOs have said absolutely nothing should change with their wireless plans under the new rules. Are we noticing a disconnect between Pai's rhetoric and reality yet?

At the heart of Pai's assault on net neutrality has been an absolute flood of press releases and public speeches in which Pai insists that he's aggressively fighting consumer protections because he cares so very much about the little guy. His February 6 press release, for example, throws around his love of the "American People" and "small, independent businesses and entrepreneurs" like so much disingenuous digital confetti. Yet when you actually bother to ask said entrepreneurs -- like this letter (pdf) from 100 companies including Yelp, Etsy, Kickstarter, Tumblr and GitHub -- they unequivocally make it clear Commissioner Pai doesn't speak for them:

"We are the “small, independent businesses and entrepreneurs” that Commissioner Pai referenced in his February 6, 2015 press release about the FCC’s impending net neutrality rulemaking, and we write to say unequivocally that his release does not represent our views on net neutrality. Quite the opposite, entrepreneurs and startups throughout the country have consistently supported Chairman Wheeler’s call for strong net neutrality rules enacted through Title II."

One marginally clever thing Pai's been doing is that he's been raising an absolute hysterical media shitstorm for weeks over the fact the FCC hasn't released the proposed rules ahead of Thursday's vote. And it's impossible to claim he's wrong: FCC restrictions bar the agency from publicizing drafts ahead of a vote, no matter which party is in power. That's something that's been the bane of telecom reporters (and public discourse) for years.

That said, as a former Verizon lawyer, Pai doesn't really give a damn about transparency. Phone and cable companies absolutely adore the lack of transparency that allows them craft abysmal anti-consumer regulations on the state and federal level every day. Similarly, were Pai's party in office pushing an agenda he liked (like oh, letting Verizon do effectively whatever it likes, no matter how anti-competitive) you can be fairly sure his love of transparency would be notably absent from the conversation. Still, Pai's attempting a futile Hail Mary attempt to delay this week's vote because he just loves transparency so much it hurts.

In short, you've got a former Verizon regulatory lawyer claiming to represent the interests of everybody except the companies he's actually busy looking out for. Layered on to that is a media that pretends it's not just a little bit absurd that a living, breathing example of revolving door regulation is claiming to be a champion of the American public. Pai knows the rules will be approved on Thursday; he's just hoping his theatrical performance wins him a chance to lead the FCC (and the likely destruction of these very same rules) should we see a 2016 party shift.

If those ambitions are unattainable, perhaps Pai can rejoin Verizon and contribute to the industry's legal assault on consumers and the rules more directly -- to the great and immeasurable benefit of puppies and school children everywhere.

Filed Under: ajit pai, fcc, net neutrality, open internet

No, 'App Neutrality' Is Not A Thing

from the misdirection dept

Last month, BlackBerry CEO John Chen tried to kiss up to major wireless carriers on the issue of net neutrality with a truly bizarre missive that received ample mockery in the technology press. Basically, Chen tried to argue that we don't need tough neutrality rules -- but we really should consider rules that force app developers to make content for unpopular mobile platforms. Like oh, BlackBerry, which after endless missteps now controls just 2% of the smartphone market. This was, to hear Chen tell it, because when companies refuse to make apps for unpopular platforms they're violating something Chen called "app neutrality":

"Netflix, which has forcefully advocated for carrier neutrality, has discriminated against BlackBerry customers by refusing to make its streaming movie service available to them. Many other applications providers similarly offer service only to iPhone and Android users. This dynamic has created a two-tiered wireless broadband ecosystem, in which iPhone and Android users are able to access far more content and applications than customers using devices running other operating systems. These are precisely the sort of discriminatory practices that neutrality advocates have criticized at the carrier level."

Of course, as we pointed out at the time, Netflix isn't discriminating against anybody. If BlackBerry wasn't currently a train wreck and had a big enough market share to justify their time, Netflix would surely develop an app for BlackBerry users as well. As most of you know, net neutrality is about protecting the Internet from the bad behavior of companies that have built massive last-mile broadband monopolies courtesy of regulatory capture. In contrast, developers aren't making apps for BlackBerry simply because people aren't using BlackBerry's products. And while Google and Apple do dominate the smartphone market, the primary reason is because they offer a good product. That's in contrast to say, AT&T or Comcast, which offer a crap product because they have a government-protected monopoly over the last mile and have no incentive to improve.

I have no idea from the bowels of which ISP think tank or telco meeting room this "app neutrality" talking point originated; Chen and BlackBerry's incoherent tirade dominates the search results for the term. But it's worth noting that Mark Cuban actually argued a very similar point two days earlier, but, fortunately for Cuban, the media was too busy mocking BlackBerry to notice. Here's a snippet of Cuban's insight on the issue of app neutrality:

"There are basically 2 doors that control the availability of apps to the vast majority of smart phones in this country. They are owned and controlled by 2 of the largest tech companies in the world, Apple and Google. If you want your app to reach any type of audience (yes there are other app platforms supporting phones on the margin, but they are tiny by comparison), you have to make Google and Apple happy."

Again, this ignores that Apple and Google have come to dominate the smartphone market because they make a kickass product. Not to say either of those companies doesn't engage in anti-competitive behavior, and I don't think anybody would argue Apple's app approval process isn't bizarre. But that has nothing to do with net neutrality, and Apple and Google are a far, far cry from government-pampered duopolists like AT&T and Comcast. Still, Cuban proceeds to insist that net neutrality rules need to ensure Apple and Google play nice too:

"The mobile app economy is far from open. It’s dominated by two companies. It is in the best interest of the entire mobile eco-system to address this duopoly while we are re-examining net neutrality. We should seriously consider requiring Apple to to allow and support 3rd party app stores and to require that Google continues to support and enable 3rd party stores and more importantly to integrate them into the Play Store, much as Amazon does with Marketplace integration."

Cuban is again showing he doesn't quite understand how the broadband industry works or what net neutrality actually is. Consumers actually do have a choice of what kind of smartphone to buy or what apps to install. While there are some smartphone freedom constraints (usually imposed by the aforementioned carriers, mind you), users still can buy a Windows phone, or a BlackBerry phone, or some offshoot hackable Android ROM that provides greater application freedom and allows them to install whatever unsigned applications they'd like. They can also access something called the Internet for even greater freedom. That's in contrast to a Comcast customer who, if they want decent broadband, usually doesn't have any other choice. The two discussions are nothing alike, and I don't think that's a particularly complicated point to understand.

Still, like "search neutrality" before it, somebody somewhere pretty clearly hopes that the idea of "app neutrality" will shift people's attention away from what the net neutrality conversation is actually about: highly-tactical telecom carrier abuse of an uncompetitive broadband market. Fred Campbell of the Center for Boundless Innovation in Technology (a policy group dedicated to "liberate the ingenuity and creative spirit of America’s high-tech entrepreneurs and enterprises through market-oriented government policies") also rushed to the "app neutrality" argument when the group recently suffered a small stroke over the FCC's Title II plans:

"Chairman Wheeler’s description of his plan in Wired is disingenuous. His proposal will not ‘ensure the rights of innovators to introduce new products without asking anyone’s permission.’ Some of the biggest gatekeepers on the mobile Internet today are using their power over mobile operating systems to deny access to application developers, yet these behemoths are exempted from the FCC proposal. The fact is, application developers will still have to ask someone for permission before they can access the mobile Internet.

The Chairman’s plan is also discriminatory. He is proposing to apply privacy limitations on Internet service providers through ‘Section 222′ while exempting Internet ‘edge’ companies whose fundamental business model is to profit from collecting and selling personal information about consumers. The Chairman’s discriminatory decision to exempt the Internet’s biggest data collectors from this privacy provision appears designed to protect the Administration’s political allies in Silicon Valley, not consumer privacy."

You see, Google, Apple and Netflix's domination of the smartphone and streaming video market is bad, even though consumers still actually have an organic market choice when it comes to those services. AT&T, Comcast and Verizon's stranglehold on the broadband market is to be ignored -- even praised -- because, uh, well, I'm not sure. You'd think those endlessly espousing the value of "free markets" would find the latter situation equally untenable, since it often involves companies literally writing state telecom law to further insulate government-protected duopolies from said market freedom. Unless of course it's not really about loving free markets or meaningful personal values at all, and it's really just about offering any old flimsy, inconsistent argument to help carriers protect the revenues received from uncompetitive (and certainly not free) markets?

Filed Under: app neutrality, fcc, fred campbell, john chen, mark cuban, mobile ecosystem, net neutrality, open internet

Former FCC Boss Turned Top Cable Lobbyist Michael Powell Blames Everyone But Himself For Current Net Neutrality Mess

from the some-of-us-remember dept

You might recall that top cable industry lobbyist Michael Powell, formerly head of the FCC, got much of the current Title II debate rolling back in 2002 when he reclassified cable broadband as an "information service." This effectively opened the door to a massive era of broadband deregulation Powell and friends at the time insisted would usher forth an immense new wave of broadband competition. If you've checked your broadband bill or oh, stepped outside lately, you may have noticed that this utopian broadband landscape never materialized.

A huge part of Powell's justification for rampant deregulation (or really, the need for any meaningful regulators whatsoever) was that broadband over powerline was going to make the market so damn competitive that regulators really wouldn't be needed. Powell repeatedly ignored engineers who stated broadband over powerline caused massive radio interference in trial markets, and wasn't suitable for even a niche broadband deployment technology. As such, Powell's "great broadband hope" never took flight, and what we wound up with was a more potent and uncompetitive broadband duopoly than ever before.

Now heading the cable industry's biggest lobbying operation, the NCTA, Powell has popped up with a little bit of revisionist history, as he heavily criticizes the current FCC's shift back to Title II. According to Powell, the cable industry will most certainly sue over the FCC's new rules, and he blames everybody but himself for turning net neutrality into a "partisan issue":

"He suggested that after the principles became a declaratory ruling under the chairmanship of his successor, Kevin Martin, it they were probably applied in a "reckless way" [the Comcast/BitTorrent decision] that led to being overturned in court," which he said put a bigger spotlight on it, after which it became a 2008 campaign issue for Obama, then was promulgated as a rule and political imperative, and that is where he thinks the issue "got off the rail."

Of course Powell ignores the fact that if he hadn't massively deregulated the broadband industry in the first place based on flimsy justifications and bad data, we likely wouldn't be having this conversation. Powell then continues with the idea that it's everybody else's fault for net neutrality becoming a partisan issue (like oh, claiming neutrality is "Obamacare for the Internet"):

"Asked to make the "Republican" case for network neutrality, Powell said Republicans are "no different from Democrats in that they want their messages to be heard," and Republican kids want to go to Nickelodeon, and everybody wants to use their iPhone. These services and apps are not partisan, he said. It was the President's "interjection" into the issue that turned it into "party political partisanship," Powell said.

He's half right. As we've noted countless times, Democrats and Republicans alike support net neutrality, and a growing number of conservatives are supporting Title II because they realize it's the best available option in a market that's simply not going to be competitive any time soon. The difference is, if you back away from partisan pattycake for a moment, you'll notice that Powell's a huge part of the reason that competition doesn't exist. And as cable's top lobbyist he's still busy pretending the industry's hyper competitive while defending practices like unnecessary usage caps -- directly aimed at abusing the lack of competition he helped facilitate.

Republican, Democrat or aardvark, it's unfortunate that nobody in this country appears particularly interested in somehow documenting and remembering what people have previously said and done; it might just come in handy sometime when trying to determine credibility.

Filed Under: blame, competition, deregulation, michael powell, net neutrality, open internet, partisan, politics
Companies: ncta

French Minister Thinks Netflix Needs To Pay ISPs A 'Bandwidth Tax' To 'Level The Playing Field'

from the ain't-gonna-ride-our-pipes-for-free dept

If you've followed the net neutrality discussion here in the U.S. since the beginning, you'll recall the debate began in earnest back in 2005 when then AT&T CEO Ed Whitacre declared that Google should pay an extra, arbitrary toll simply for using the AT&T network. By Whitacre's government-pampered, duopolist logic, any content company that so much as touches an ISP's network should pay a levy to offset infrastructure costs -- well -- just because. Soon, a seemingly endless array of hired telco flacks started telling anybody who'd listen that content companies were getting a "free ride" and really needed to start paying their "fair share."

As we've repeatedly explained (perhaps unnecessarily if you have anything resembling critical thinking skills), this reasoning is incoherent and stupid, since customers and content companies alike already pay plenty for bandwidth and infrastructure. Still, somehow Whitacre's absurd attempt to try and offload network operation costs to others went viral globally, and we've repeatedly seen overseas telcos trying to argue the same point ever since. Of course, whereas Google used to be the global telco whipping boy, we're increasingly seeing Netflix playing that role given its more vocal support of net neutrality.

It's the painfully dumb idea that just won't die. French Minister of Culture and Communication Fleur Pellerin has spent the last few years with an incumbent telco bug in her ear, demanding that she force Google, Netflix and other content companies to pay some kind of a "bandwidth tax." As we've seen here in the States, Google appeared willing to (at least temporarily) go mute on net neutrality, and as Glyn has noted previously, Google France appeared willing to trample neutrality principles, allowing some degree of ISP double dipping to protect mobile handset market share.

Apparently feeling encouraged, Pellerin has ramped up her efforts for this new content company tax in order to "level the playing field" for French TV and filmmakers (read: incumbent French phone company Orange):

"France's culture minister is as keen as ever to tax tech behemoths to "level the playing field" for French TV and filmmakers. According to news reports, Fleur Pellerin plans to introduce a new tax on "the use of bandwidth", although exactly how this will be calculated is not clear...In January, the minister said she wanted a "level playing field "for French broadcasters alongside the likes of Netflix. The news was welcomed by some ISPs who want to offer so-called specialised services – basically incorporating lots more speed and bandwidth."

As a general rule of thumb, I've found that almost anytime somebody claims to be interested in "leveling the playing field," they're usually busy trying to do the exact opposite. There's still no details on precisely how Pellerin's plan would work, but it's likely going to run face-first into the EU's looming net neutrality rules, which, if they're worth anything, will at the very least ban these kinds of ridiculous "troll tolls." Here in the States, most phone companies have been forced to shift their attention from ham-fisted troll tolls to more subtle, clever ways of abusing market power, whether that's interconnection, usage caps or zero rated apps.

Still, Ed Whitacre's viral meme that phone companies have the inherent, god-given right to double or triple dip is the gift that just keeps on giving.

Filed Under: broadband, broadband tax, double dip, fleur pellerin, france, google tax, net neutrality, netflix tax
Companies: google, netflix, orange