Topic: Two tier Internet - Net Neutrality has been hoodwinked

[kat]

You didn't think it would happen right? That, although it was a tough battle, everyone saw the sense and merits of Net-Neutrality - a global internet that doesn't penalise websites or users based on content or content demands. Even some of the big corporate's were behind the push to make sure the 'Net stayed 'neutral', including the likes of Google, MSN, Yahoo, even British Telecom and Talk Talk had voiced concerns over the topic.

Well, turns out that Google knows best... for Google.

Google and Verizon^[alt] confirmed a partnership that's resulted in the Verizon-Google Legislative Framework Proposal^[alt] submitted to the FCC for consideration. The policy text sets itself up to act as a 'framework' that provides a minimum guaranty of sorts, one that would protect the Internet's 'neutrality' by establishing a set of core guidelines broadband providers would have to adhere to if they wanted to provide services, that they (to paraphrase)... would not prohibit its lawful use, that there would be a general policy of "non-discrimination" (although this can be vetoed), and that there would be a general policy of 'transparency'. Okay so far. Or not.

The trouble is the verbiage of the text pretty much 'locks' the Internet's development to where it is right now, i.e. it doesn't set out in black and white anything other than 'ensuring' standards and customer expectations are met, it's doesn't make any reference or commitments to future development of the Internet we currently have, instead they're obliged (as far as can be expected to) to just make sure it works and in such a way that providers can prioritise traffic, purely on a basis of congestion of course;

Network Management: ... to prioritize general classes or types of Internet traffic, based on latency...

And how are they going to do this? by developing a separate and distinct network, they call it a 'differentiated service', that would provide services based on content and traffic prioritisation;

Additional Online Services: A provider that offers a broadband Internet access service complying with the above principles could offer any other additional or differentiated services. Such other services would have to be distinguishable in scope and purpose from broadband Internet access service, but could make use of or access Internet content, applications or services and could include traffic prioritization.

The indirectly stated purpose of this, which is why the news posting is being made here on KatsBits, is that according to statement reported in the Daily Mail, Verizon's chief executive, Ivan Seidenberg, suggested that the service would probably have 3D video and gaming in its sights. So... using too much traffic play MMO's or online FPS games? You'll have the option of paying premium services for better connectivity. Not that that's a guaranty of course, but you can pay extra to find out anyway (subject to a minimum 18 or 24 month contract with early termination fees applicable).

Oh and, whilst the proposals give the FCC "exclusive authority to oversee" services, they shouldn't be permitted to have authority to "regulate" them. Meaning, the FCC sets the standards and compliance requirements but has no say in who is permitted to be a service provider(?), they would have no authority to regulate services offered or content provided. In other words, services providers would be in complete control of their networks and their content/service provision; where they can go, who can use and access them as well as the type of content available (normal 'free market' dynamics applicable).

[pazur]

In my opinion net-neutrality is absolutely essential for the internet (btw: i work at one of the big players mentioned above)... ISPs are what they are: they try to maximize their revenues are are looking for areas where they can differentiate from their competitors.

[kat]

From what I'm reading it's slightly more 'insidious' than providers wanting to find better revenue streams. As an article notes in MacPro, what's actually happening here is the potential 'abandonment' (for want of a better way of putting it) of wired networks, to which neutrality is inextricably linked, in favour of wireless networks over which the FCC would have no control what-so-ever except to ensure standards compliance. It means corporations and providers would then have free reign, and justification ("its a our network"/not in the public interest), to make all sorts of content deals that would have providers abandon Net 1.0 (the 'public Internet').

This may be a good thing (frees up traffic), but the issue is that even though the old net would still likely run, who would maintain and improve it when the money is in Net 2.0? It's an assumption on our behalf to think that a corporation would maintain a network as a loss-leader, it doesn't work like that; the moment something starts to lose money, they cut it loose.

But what's even more interesting is that they've made the deal sweeter by appealing to the Federal Governments needs to communicate over a network of their own. This is one of the reasoning's behind the whole Net 2.0 drive, it's not a 'public Internet', as the media pushes it, but one that's supposed to be used and funded by various Government departments and associated corporations only; you have access but at a big price. If it's cheaper for the Governments to rent a network instead of paying to build the infrastructure (which is what is happening at the mo in the States) then they'll likely go with that option; the Feds involvements would mean it would be more important for the network to be 'private' than public because of the traffic passing over it.

[ratty redemption]

very interesting, and although i don't understand all the implications it doesn't sound like the average user would be better off with net 2.0

[kat]

Bit of a necrobump for the below link. It's a 'Motion' published around the time the whole Net Neutrality thing hit the news in 2010 which lists members of the UK Parliament who support the principle. With this in the news this week where Vaizey again appears to be pandering to the Big ISPs (and playing games with consumers trust), it's worth linking to as an additional resource.

• UK Parliamentary Early day motion 1036 INTERNET NEUTRALITY PRINCIPLE

[kat]

Another Necro-bump (which shows just how slow policy and regulation can be at times). The EU Parliament recently ruled on a 'ban' (read that as 'limit' as some charges still apply) on mobile roaming charges (across Europe) which may have an unintended consequence on Net Neutrality - by mandating that roaming charges be removed it may force the hand on mobile providers to compensate by pushing 'premium' services (which is causing new outlets to say this could result in an end of Net Neutrality across Europe).

The new law will oblige firms offering internet access to treat all traffic equally, i.e. not to block or slow delivery of content, applications or services from selected senders or to selected receivers, unless this is necessary to obey court orders, comply with laws, prevent network congestion or combat cyber-attacks. If such traffic management measures are needed, they will have to be "transparent, non-discriminatory and proportionate" and may not last for longer than necessary.

An operator will nonetheless be able to offer specialized services (such as the improved internet quality needed for certain services), but only on condition that this does not have an impact on general internet quality

End in sight for mobile phone “roaming” fees and unequal internet access