France Telecom Accused Of Holding YouTube Videos Hostage Unless It Gets More Money

from the more-peering-disputes dept

An interesting post from broadband news reporter Dave Burstein argues that anti-trust regulators in France may have basically enabled France Telecom to hold YouTube videos hostage unless Google backbone partner, Cogent, pays more money:

Millions of French netizens discover their YouTube streams sputter and die or never begin in the first place. Other video services, including TF1, are also struggling. The effect varies, sometimes randomly and sometimes by time of day. Respected consumer organization UFC-Que Choisir found between 20% and 50% of users surveyed online had problems.

Again, the existing connection remains and much of the traffic gets through. But Net traffic always grows and without regularly adding additional capacity many - not all - streams are blocked. French networks, with France Telecom in the lead, are refusing to accept growing traffic from Cogent, a major backbone carrier that services Google. They demand payment to accept all the streams their customers request. The independent French competition authority (Autorite de la concurrence) on September 20 approved the charging plan, leaving no doubt this is neutrality dispute.

The details suggest that this isn't so much a "neutrality" issue as a peering dispute. In fact, it actually sounds somewhat similar to the Level 3 / Comcast dispute from a few years back. In that case, Level 3 was providing service to Netflix, and Comcast worried about the big influx of traffic. Comcast (like France Telecom) demanded that Level 3 pay up for delivering it extra traffic. The bit that's interesting here is that French regulators got involved and said that this was legal in this case, though they're worried about the lack of transparency.

Of course all this does is show, yet again, how the internet's interconnectivity through peering arrangements is increasingly under pressure as certain broadband players become more powerful. And, unfortunately, the public (and their YouTube videos) may be at risk.

Filed Under: content, disputes, france, net neutrality, payment, peering, youtube
Companies: cogent, france telecom, free, google, youtube

Senator Wyden Proposes Bill That Would Protect Users From Bogus Data Caps

from the would-be-useful dept

We've argued for years that broadband data caps are not -- as the industry would have you believe -- about stopping "data hogs" or making sure that people "pay their fair share," but rather about protecting provider revenue (or, really, secretly increasing fees without "increasing" fees). A recent study from the New America Foundation has now made it clear that broadband data caps are not at all about dealing with data hogs, but almost entirely about increasing revenue for the providers.

As this paper documents, data caps, especially on wireline networks, are hardly a necessity. Rather, they are motivated by a desire to further increase revenues from existing subscribers and protect legacy services such as cable television from competing Internet services. Although traffic on U.S. broadband networks is increasing at a steady rate, the costs to provide broadband service are also declining, including the cost of Internet connectivity or IP transit as well as equipment and other operational costs. The result is that broadband is an incredibly profitable business, particularly for cable ISPs. Tiered pricing and data caps have also become a cash cow for the two largest mobile providers, Verizon and AT&T, who already were making impressive margins on their mobile data service before abandoning unlimited plans.

The paper goes on to debunk the usual arguments in favor of broadband caps. Beyond noting that the cost to providing broadband by the big guys has gone down significantly (while cost to consumers has stayed steady or gone up), they also point out that the "congestion" argument doesn't make sense. They note that even if there was congestion, a data cap would not be the best way to deal with it.

An analogy to rush hour traffic is useful here. Rush hour delays are generally caused by a spike in simultaneous demand for road access. Local governments often respond to this traffic congestion by instituting carpool lanes during certain hours, or introducing variable peak pricing for tolls, where prices are higher during the traditional workday commute than at other times. Both of these examples are methods to reduce demand during the time it is highest. It would make little sense to try and limit the total miles residents drive in a month as a means to solve rush hour congestion. Such monthly mile limits would needlessly impact residents who drive when the road is empty late at night and do not contribute to traffic congestion. Yet this is logic being employed when instituting monthly data caps.Monthly data caps are a tool that decreases consumption at all hours of the day.

In fact, the report even points out that Comcast has quietly admitted to the FCC that it's caps have nothing to do with network congestion... even as it has argued in favor of them publicly by using the "congestion" argument. As we've pointed out over and over again, if you talk to the tech people at broadband companies, they admit that the best way to deal with congestion is to simply upgrade capacity, not try to choke off usage. And this report shows that, rather than do that, telcos have been going in the other direction:

The best way to resolve chronic network congestion in the long term is to invest and expand capacity. Yet, a review of the publicly available financial document for some of the largest ISPs in the country shows a decline in capital expenditures—the costs associated with building, upgrading and maintaining a network, such as construction, repairs, and equipment purchases—for their wireline networks.Many ISPs are spending less money on capital expenditures now, both as a ratio to revenue but also even in raw dollars,than they have in years past.

Given all that, it's great to see that Senator Ron Wyden is introducing a new bill to protect consumers against data cap abuse. One of the many issues we've raised with data caps is that users have no idea how much broadband traffic they use, and related to that, broadband providers are notorious for either not providing meters for usage, or providing ones that just don't work very well (or give you some sort of arbitrary number when you check). The new bill, the Data Cap Integrity Act, would do two key things:

1. Require tools be available for users to really measure and manage their broadband usage
2. Have the FCC establish standards for ISPs to make sure that they only use data caps to manage network congestion, rather than as a way to "monetize data in ways that undermine innovation."

The bill literally has a section entitled: "SMART DATA CAPS INSTEAD OF DUMB ONES" which reads:

SMART DATA CAPS INSTEAD OF DUMB ONES.—The Commission shall evaluate a data cap proposed by an Internet service provider to determine whether the data cap functions to reasonably limit network congestion in a manner that does not unnecessarily discourage use of the Internet.

If we had a real competitive market for broadband, of course, this wouldn't matter. I'm still hesitant to support legislation telling companies how they can implement a business model. But, as we've been arguing for many, many years, there isn't real competition in the broadband space for most users, which is what allows broadband providers to get away with crap like using data caps to limit internet usage and increase revenue. Furthermore, given how much the industry has relied on government subsidies and rights of way, it seems only reasonable to think that some level of requirement to actually, you know, not screw over users, might be appropriate.

That said, the bill also has the following tidbit, which almost certainly dooms it from the start:

DISCRIMINATION OF CONTENT.—A covered Internet service provider may not, for purposes of measuring data usage or otherwise, provide preferential treatment of data that is based on the source or the content of the data.

That's going to be interpreted as a backdoor attempt to put in place a net neutrality rule, which is more or less guaranteed to freak out the wing of Congress who insists that net neutrality is an attempt to take over the internet.

Filed Under: broadband, data caps, meters, net neutrality, protection, ron wyden

Verizon's Bizarre Constitutional Argument: Net Neutrality Rules Violate Its First & Fifth Amendment Rights?

from the um,-no... dept

Verizon is continuing to fight back against the FCC's (relatively weak) net neutrality rules with a few different arguments. It has one key argument that I think is a relatively strong one: which is that the FCC probably does not have a mandate to regulate in this way. That's something that Congress could conceivably change, but it certainly does look like the FCC tried to overstep its bounds in putting out the rules that it did. That said, Verizon goes even further to make some bizarre constitutional claims, including that net neutrality rules violates its free speech (First Amendment) rights, as well as its Fifth Amendment rights by "taking" its property. Neither Constitutional argument should hold up.

The First Amendment argument is based on the idea that this somehow blocks Verizon's ability to communicate its ideas:

The First Amendment protects not only traditional speakers, but other participants in the “communication of ideas.”... For example, it protects those transmitting the speech of others, and those who “exercis[e] editorial discretion” in selecting which speech to transmit and how to transmit it.... Broadband providers engage in and transmit speech, and the rules—which limit broadband providers’ own speech and compel carriage of others’ speech—cannot survive scrutiny.

Broadband providers transmit their own speech both by developing their own content and by partnering with other content providers and adopting that speech as their own. For example, they develop video services, which draw information from, and are then made available over, the Internet. Many also select or create content for their own over-the-top video services or offer applications that provide access to particular content. They also transmit the speech of others: each day millions of individuals use the Internet to promote their own opinions and ideas and to explore those of others, and broadband providers convey those communications.

In performing these functions, broadband providers possess “editorial discretion.” Just as a newspaper is entitled to decide which content to publish and where, broadband providers may feature some content over others. Although broadband providers have generally exercised their discretion to allow all content in an undifferentiated manner... they nonetheless possess discretion that these rules preclude them from exercising. For example, they could distinguish their own content from that of other speakers or offer that capability to others. In fact, some types of speech, such as live streaming high-definition video, could benefit from (or may only be available with) differential treatment, such as prioritization. Broadband providers could also give differential pricing or priority access to their over-the-top video services or other applications they provide, or otherwise feature that content.... Indeed, the FCC’s concern that broadband providers will differentiate among various content presumes that they will exercise editorial discretion.

The Order’s broad “prophylactic rules” infringe broadband providers’ protected speech rights. They strip providers of control over which speech they transmit and how they transmit it, and they compel the carriage of others’ speech. They also limit the means by which providers can secure additional revenue, which impairs their ability to deploy new networks and capabilities (or to expand the size of existing ones), thereby limiting their ability to speak and deliver speech. And they make clear that even “specialized services,” such as video services, will be subject to the Order’s restrictions if the FCC decides that such services are “retarding the growth of ... broadband Internet access service,” or if broadband providers merely “advertis[e]” these services to consumers as “Internet” services, ... thus constraining their marketing speech as well.

This is, to put it mildly, a silly argument. Telling Verizon that it can't hinder certain services from working online is not a free speech issue. Verizon is both overclaiming its own abilities as an internet service provider and twisting the First Amendment in a bizarre way. As Stacey Higginbotham noted, this argument "ignores the fact that under net neutrality mandated non-discrimination Verizon’s packets and speech are just as likely to reach the end user as Netflix’s or Google’s." But it's even worse than that. Verizon is effectively arguing that if it chooses not to allow a certain service to exist online that is a form of expression. Think of it this way: say Verizon decided to block Skype, because Skype is eating into its local telephone business. According to Verizon, that decision is a form of expression and the government can't block that, since that "expression" is protected. The "newspaper" analogy that Verizon offers is completely specious, because the internet isn't a newspaper where there's a single publisher who chooses what goes in. The whole argument is ludicrous.

The second argument -- that this is somehow against the "takings clause" of the Fifth Amendment (blocking the government "taking" property without compensation) -- is equally bizarre. It involves Verizon claiming that the government would be "invading" its network and "taking" property without compensation:

The Order also violates the Fifth Amendment. It grants the equivalent of a permanent easement on private broadband networks for the use of others without just compensation—a per se taking.... “In essence,” edge providers “receive an unlimited, continuous right of access to broadband providers’ private property for free,” which “allows them to physically invade broadband networks with their electronic signals and permanently occupy portions of network capacity.” D. Lyons, Virtual Takings: The Coming Fifth Amendment Challenge to Net Neutrality Regulation.... The resulting occupation is physical, for increases in network traffic consume available capacity and ultimately require the acquisition or construction of additional capacity.

Even without a physical occupation, the rules constitute a regulatory taking because they “interfere[] with [broadband providers’] distinct investment-backed expectations.”.... Providers have invested billions in broadband infrastructure on the understanding that they can manage access to network facilities and use those facilities to offer the products that their customers want. These rules sharply curb providers’ ability to do so, thereby frustrating their substantial and reasonable investment-backed expectations.

Once again, this argument seems disconnected from reality. Considering that much more aggressive "must carry" rules have been deemed Constitutional, it's hard to see how this argument makes any sense at all. Also, just from a common sense perspective, it fails on a few fronts. First, there's nothing being "taken" here. There is no "easement," just a restriction on how Verizon could run the network. If Verizon's argument here prevailed, you could potentially argue that any regulation that restricted how a company acted was a form of a "taking." But that's silly.

Even more to the point: while Verizon likes to go on and on about how these are its private networks that it spent so much time and money installing, what it conveniently leaves out are all of the massive government subsidies and rights-of-way that were provided. In some cases, Verizon received massive public gifts in terms of subsidies to build this network. One could easily make the argument that those entitle the government to place a few requirements on the network, considering that the network likely wouldn't exist without those subsidies and rights-of-way.

That said, I still agree that the FCC's mandate likely does not allow the kind of regulations it put forth here. But that doesn't make the Constitutional arguments any less silly.

Filed Under: congress, fcc, fifth amendment, first amendment, net neutrality
Companies: verizon

Ron And Rand Paul: Net Neutrality And The Public Domain Are Really Evil Collectivist Plots

from the seriously,-now? dept

I tend to be a pretty big supporter of free market capitalism and the importance of real property rights (not imaginary property rights). As such, I've always been intrigued by Ron Paul's libertarian stance against big government and excessive regulation. I think that position is pretty clearly staked out in my writing over the years. However, I'm perplexed by the new "internet freedom" manifesto from Ron Paul and Rand Paul, which seems like a hodgepodge of poorly thought out concepts -- some of which make sense, and some of which do not. While I agree about keeping the government out of internet regulations, the document seems to attack many of those who actually agree with the Pauls by setting up ridiculous strawmen. In particular, the Pauls come out vehemently against both net neutrality as a concept and any effort to expand the public domain -- even though both are really about limiting big government.

In fact, in a bizarre twist, the Pauls seem to be supporting massive government subsidies and handouts in this document, even as they insist they're not.

Now, I agree that the whole "net neutrality" debate has been muddled over the years, but it is entirely possible to be for the end-to-end principles of the internet (which is what most people mean by net neutrality) and against bad regulations trying to "force" neutrality on the internet. But not in the world of the Pauls. To them, any support of a neutral internet must be about "coercive state actions" and "collective rule" over "privately owned broadband high-speed infrastructure." This makes me curious if the Pauls spoke out against the billions and billions in subsidies and rights of way grants that the government provided the telcos and cable providers to build their networks. Once again, I am against regulating net neutrality -- because it's obvious that the telcos will control that process and the regulations will favor them against the public -- but pretending that broadband infrastructure is really "privately owned" when so much of it involved tax-payer-funded subsidies and rights of way is being in denial.

Then there's the following, where they claim that these evil "collectivists" want to limit "private property rights on the internet" and are saying that "what is considered to be in the public domain should be greatly expanded." Considering the Pauls were both instrumental in the fight against SOPA and PIPA, you would think that the two of them understood how copyright law is massively abused and how beneficial the public domain is. But apparently not. To them it's all part of this "collectivist" plot. Earth to the Pauls: copyright is a massive government-granted monopoly privilege. That's the kind of thing we thought you were against, not for. In this document, you seem to be arguing for one of the largest programs in the world of a centralized government handing out private monopoly privileges.

There are a few other whoppers in there, including the claim that the groups talking about a "right to privacy" rarely care about it when it comes to government snooping -- and, in fact, support government surveillance and collection of private citizens' internet data. That's funny, because the very groups that the Pauls appear to be slamming... happen to be the same ones who were central in the fight against CISPA, which was all about the government snooping on our internet activity.

Frankly, this document is a joke from two people who should know better. There are some good points in there about limiting government regulation of innovative companies, but when they're supportive of two of the biggest government handouts around -- telco subsidies and copyright -- it's hard to take them seriously when they claim they're for smaller government and about getting the government out of the internet.

Filed Under: net neutrality, privacy, public domain, rand paul, regulation, ron paul, telco subsidies

The Battle For Net Neutrality Flares Up Again: But Which Countries Still Have It?

from the time-to-check dept

Net Neutrality has suddenly become a hot topic again. Partly, that's thanks to some awful ideas about regulating the Internet coming from the International Telecommunication Union, notably those proposed by the ETNO -- the European Telecommunications Network Operators Association -- discussed recently on Techdirt. New information from WCITLeaks Wikileaks (found via the Net neutrality in Europe site) provides us with the following details (pdf):

To ensure more efficient use of networks and to allow for new business models better reflecting future demand, Member States should support a new IP interconnection ecosystem that provides both, best effort delivery and end-to-end Quality of Service delivery. Delivery based on QoS allows for management of the IP traffic according to its characteristics (i.e. delivery requirements and acknowledged value) thus supporting innovation to provide a value-added service, making better use of the assets of telecommunications operators.

That may sound innocuous enough, but "supporting innovation to provide a value-added service" is a coded way of saying that the telcos should be allowed to abandon net neutrality, something confirmed in one of the accompanying proposals, which reads:

Art. 4
International Telecommunication Services
4.4 Operating Agencies shall cooperate in the development of international IP interconnections providing both, best effort delivery and end to end quality of service delivery. Best effort delivery should continue to form the basis of international IP traffic exchange. Nothing shall preclude commercial agreements with differentiated quality of service delivery to develop.

The key sentence is the last one: "differentiated quality of service delivery" means ignoring net neutrality.

That proposal to move away from net neutrality contrasts with the Netherlands' decision to enshrine it in law:

The net neutrality law prohibits internet providers from interfering with the traffic of their users. The law allows for traffic management in case of congestion and for network security, as long as these measures serve the interests of the internet user. A technical error in the law might still be corrected in a vote on 15 May. [It was.]

In addition, the law includes an anti-wiretapping provision, restricting internetproviders from using invasive wiretapping technologies, such as deep packet inspection (DPI). They may only do so under limited circumstances, or with explicit consent of the user, which the user may withdraw at any time. The use of DPI gained much attention when KPN admitted that it analysed the traffic of its users to gather information on the use of certain apps. The law allows for wiretapping with a warrant.

DPI is one of the most intrusive ways of undermining net neutrality, since it involves looking inside the data part of an IP packet, not just the header, which contains basic information such as source and destination IP addresses. A recent study from a team at the Syracuse University School of Information Studies has explored the use of DPI to throttle BitTorrent connections:

In order to better understand DPI use and the scope of its deployment, the project makes use of crowdsourced data from a network monitoring test known as Glasnost. An Internet user who runs the Glasnost test can see whether BitTorrent is completely blocked by their ISP, slowed down (throttled), or running normally.

The results for various countries are available as graphs of ISP throttling against time, and show the wide variation in BitTorrent throttling -- and hence the extent to which net neutrality is preserved around the world and by different Internet service providers.

The good news:

BitTorrent throttling by most US ISPs ceased after an FCC ruling in August 2008 that declared Comcast’s actions to be against its 2005 Internet Policy Statement. Only wireless ISPs Clearwire and Hughes showed high levels of BitTorrent manipulation after August 2008, but Clearwire substantially reduced it in 2009. But the Comcast Order was reversed by the courts in April 2010. This data shows that no US ISPs have increased their use of DPI-based throttling since April 2010, despite the absence of any network neutrality regulation in the US.

And the bad news:

The UK is one of the few countries where BitTorrent manipulation appears to be on the rise. DPI measurements for the BT Group in particular increased progressively throughout the 3-year period. Talk Talk’s use of it seems to have declined, but it is still consistently above the threshold indicating some form of manipulation. Test results for O2 UK move erratically slightly above and below the error threshold, making any conclusion difficult. Virgin Media, on the other hand, seems to have altered its policy and increased DPI-based intervention in the 4th quarter of 2010.

At a time when much of the debate about net neutrality is driven by dogma, it's particularly valuable to have some objective data on what's really happening. It's worrying that it turns out that net neutrality has been under assault in some countries for a while -- and disturbing that ETNO wants to intensify that attack still further.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+

Filed Under: deep packet inspection, etno, europe, itu, net neutrality, united nations

Is Comcast Thumbing Its Nose At FCC's Open Internet Rules By Exempting Xbox VOD From Data Cap?

from the sure-seems-that-way dept

As was somewhat expected, this week Comcast announced its plans to offer Xfinity video on demand via the Xbox 360... which will require customers to subscribe to both Xfinity TV and the broadband service, meaning that this isn't a solution for getting around your cable subscription (of course, because Comcast doesn't want you ditching your cable TV). But what's getting much more attention is the announcement that such streaming video won't count against Comcasts' broadband caps, raising some significant questions concerning whether or not Comcast is following the FCC's open internet rules -- the same rules that were put in place to stop Comcast from degrading certain services in favor of others. Comcast, for it part, insists that the rules don't apply to this VOD service, since it's coming over its private network, rather than the public internet, but it's certainly tiptoeing along a fairly fine line. I think the bigger issue is why the cap exists in the first place. But, in the long run, Comcast is definitely trying to back its way into being able set up "most favored nation" status with certain providers, which really does impinge on the internet's basic end-to-end principles.

Filed Under: bandwidth caps, broadband, fcc, net neutrality, vod, xbox
Companies: comcast