NNSquad - Network Neutrality Squad
[ NNSquad ] Re: How to regulate the internet tap is largely misleading
----- Forwarded message from Kevin Coates <kevin.coates@europemail.org> ----- Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2010 13:20:59 -0400 From: Kevin Coates <kevin.coates@europemail.org> Subject: Re: [ NNSquad ] Re: How to regulate the internet tap is largely misleading In addition to Chris's point - which is spot on - there's also the more general point that the EU enforces open network access, a policy that the US abandoned five years ago. A competitive ISP market mitigates - even if it doesn't wholly remove - concerns about net neutrality. That the article mentions the supposed lack of net neutrality regulation without mentioning open access is a bit disingenuous. On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 12:18 AM, Lauren Weinstein <lauren@vortex.com>wrote: > > ----- Forwarded message from "Marsden, Christopher" <cmars@essex.ac.uk> > ----- > > Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2010 04:47:33 +0100 > From: "Marsden, Christopher" <cmars@essex.ac.uk> > Subject: RE: [ NNSquad ] How to regulate the internet tap is largely > misleading > To: Lauren Weinstein <lauren@vortex.com>, > "dave@farber.net" <dave@farber.net> > CC: "dana@nycwireless.net" <dana@nycwireless.net> > Accept-Language: en-US, en-GB > acceptlanguage: en-US, en-GB > > I wrote a letter to the NYTimes explaining that their op-ed was rather > misleading. > Full disclosure, here it is: > Sent: 21 April 2010 17:47 > To: letters@nytimes.com > Subject: Re Op-Ed 20 April: Europe has passed new network neutrality > legislation > > Dear sir > I read with interest your guest op-ed 'How to Regulate the Internet Tap' > April 20, 2010. > > These eminent economists draw useful lessons in trying to achieve > transparency and consumer information. However, they miss the essential > regulatory message. > > Europe's ISPs are now subject to new laws (Directives EC/2009/136 and > EC/2009/140) that enforce transparency, force them to inform consumers and > prevent their blocking Voice over Internet Protocol. > > Your 'take-away' from the European experience should be that legislation at > federal level backed by rigorous federal level oversight of state law > enforcement is required to cope with ISP discriminatory and obfuscatory > activities, even in the more competitive European market. > > That this is to be achieved by what we in Europe call 'co-regulation' does > not hide the hard law and harder regulatory will to enforce these measures > in the consumer's best interest. > > Sincerely > Christopher T. Marsden > Senior Lecturer in Communications Law > University of Essex > > See: > http://chrismarsden.blogspot.com/2010/04/danger-policy-transfer-in-action-part-2.html > ________________________________________ > From: Lauren Weinstein [lauren@vortex.com] > Sent: 25 April 2010 19:29 > To: nnsquad@nnsquad.org > Subject: [ NNSquad ] How to regulate the internet tap > > ----- Forwarded message from Dave Farber <dave@farber.net> ----- > > Date: Sun, 25 Apr 2010 14:18:08 -0400 > From: Dave Farber <dave@farber.net> > Subject: [IP] How to regulate the internet tap > Reply-To: dave@farber.net > To: ip <ip@v2.listbox.com> > > > > > > Begin forwarded message: > > > From: Dana Spiegel <dana@nycwireless.net> > > Date: April 25, 2010 1:55:46 PM EDT > > To: dave@farber.net > > Cc: ip <ip@v2.listbox.com> > > Subject: Re: [IP] How to regulate the internet tap > > > > > John Mayo is certainly an accomplished professor and author, but I'm > > frustrated by his (and his coauthor's) apparent glossing over of one > > critical difference between "the EU" and the US. > > > > Since the EU relies upon and assumes a secondary level of > > government--the individual country governments of its members--any > > regulation by the EU must take such national governments into account. > > It seems that the EU's need to acknowledge and defer to member > > governments for more specific regulations is the primary driver for its > > decision to regulate lightly. Indeed, the language seems to indicate > > that since each country is different, each country needs to enact is own > > relevant regulation. > > > > This is in stark contrast to the US government. The FCC cannot rely on > > "member governments" to enact their own regulation. Indeed, state and > > local government are specifically limited in the forms of telecom > > regulation that they can enact. As a result, however the FCC decides to > > regulate, that's that. > > > > While light-touch regulation is a good and noble theory, this important > > difference between the US and EU in terms of how and where such > > regulations should be imposed is something that must be taken into > > consideration. If the FCC were to enact the same regulations that the EU > > enacted, it would be by definition deficient with respect to the level > > of citizen protection that each EU nation provides, since the FCC would > > not have state-level regulations to rely upon as the EU does for > > national regulations. > > > > -- > > Dana Spiegel > > Executive Director, NYCwireless > > dana@nycwireless.net > > +1 917 402 0422 > > > > ------------------- > > NYCwireless is a non-profit organization that advocates for, and > > enables the growth of free, public wireless networks > > ------------------- > > > > > > > > > > > > On Apr 25, 2010, at 1:14 PM, David Farber wrote: > > > >> > >> > >> Begin forwarded message: > >> > >> From: dewayne@warpspeed.com (Dewayne Hendricks) > >> Date: April 21, 2010 4:15:18 PM EDT > >> To: Dewayne-Net Technology List <xyzzy@warpspeed.com> > >> Subject: [Dewayne-Net] How to regulate the internet tap > >> > >> How to regulate the internet tap > >> NY Times > >> Op Ed > >> By John Mayo, Marius Schwartz, Bruce Owen, Robert Shapiro, Lawrence > >> J. White, and Glenn Woroch > >> > >> “TRANSPARENCY is non-negotiable,” declared Europe’s new commissioner > >> for digital issues, Neelie Kroes, in a speech last week laying out her > >> thoughts on net neutrality. “In a complex system like the Internet, it > >> must be crystal-clear what the practices of operators controlling the > >> network mean for all users.” > >> > >> Ms. Kroes’s comments reflect the decision made by the European Union > >> in November to avoid any of the more extreme regulations that could > >> stifle the innovation that has been the hallmark of the Internet. > >> Instead, the union chose a more measured approach that emphasizes > >> transparency. > >> > > >> < > http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/21/opinion/21mayo.html?ref=opinion&pagewanted=print > >> >RSS Feed: <http://www.warpspeed.com/wordpress> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> ------------------------------------------- > >> Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now > >> RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/ > >> Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------- > Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now > RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/ > Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com > > ----- End forwarded message ----- > > ----- End forwarded message ----- > -- Kevin Coates Visiting Fellow, NYU Law Head of Unit, DG Competition, European Commission Website: www.technologyandregulation.com Email: kevin.coates@europemail.org Skype: kevin_coates US mobile: 1.917.975.3552 ----- End forwarded message -----