NNSquad - Network Neutrality Squad
[ NNSquad ] Re: FCC Republican says net neutrality rules too onerous for ISPs
For "evidence of a problem" I suggest O'Reilly -- and all others who use this oh-so-tiresome industry talking point -- read Marvin Ammori's Foreign Affairs article, "The Case for Net Neutrality." http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/141536/marvin-ammori/the-case-for-ne t-neutrality In it Marvin extensively documents the problem that Net Neutrality is designed to addresses. Clipped: = = = All this innovation has taken place without the permission of ISPs. But that could change as net neutrality comes under threat. ISPs have consistently maintained that net neutrality is a solution in search of a problem, but this often-repeated phrase is simply wrong. In the United States, both small and large providers have already violated the very principles that net neutrality is designed to protect. Ever since 2005, the FCC has pursued a policy that resembles net neutrality but that allows enough room for interpretation for firms to find ways to undermine it. >From 2005 to 2008, the largest ISP in the United States, Comcast, used technologies that monitor all the data coming from users to secretly block so-called peer-to-peer technologies, such as BitTorrent and Gnutella. These tools are popular for streaming online TV (sometimes illegally), using cloud-based storage and sharing services such as those provided by Amazon, and communicating through online phone services such as Skype. In 2005, a small ISP in North Carolina called Madison River Communications blocked Vonage, a company that allows customers to make cheap domestic and international telephone calls over the Internet. From 2007 to 2009, AT&T¹s contract with Apple required the latter to block Skype and other competing phone services on the iPhone, so that customers could not use them when connected to a cellular network. From 2011 to 2013, AT&T, Sprint, and Verizon blocked all the functionality of Google Wallet, a mobile payment system, on Google Nexus smartphones, likely because all three providers are part of a competing joint venture called Isis. In the EU, widespread violations of net neutrality affect at least one in five users, according to a 2012 report from the Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications. Restrictions affect everything from online phone services and peer-to-peer technologies to gaming applications and e-mail. In 2011, the Netherlands¹ dominant mobile carrier, KPN, saw that its text-messaging revenue was plummeting and made moves to block applications such as WhatsApp and Skype, which allow users to send free texts. Across the Atlantic, in 2005, the Canadian telecommunications company Telus used its control of the wires to block the website of a union member taking part in a strike against the company. Opponents of net neutrality insist that efforts to enforce it are unnecessary, because market competition will ensure that companies act in their customers¹ best interests. But true competition doesn¹t exist among ISPs. In the United States, local cable monopolies are often the only game in town when it comes to high-speed access and usually control over two-thirds of the market. In places where there are real options, users rarely switch services because of the penalties that providers charge them for terminating their contracts early. Some skeptics of strong regulation have proposed rules requiring companies merely to disclose their technical discrimination policies, but those wouldn¹t solve the problem either. Even in the United Kingdom, which boasts both healthy competition among ISPs and robust disclosure laws, companies still frequently discriminate against various types of Internet traffic. Indeed, wherever you look, the absence of rules enforcing net neutrality virtually guarantees that someone will violate the principle. As it stands now, after the FCC¹s rules were struck down in January, U.S. law does little to protect net neutrality. As companies push the boundaries, violations will become more common -- and not just in the United States. = = = On 7/10/14 12:54 PM, "Lauren Weinstein" <lauren@vortex.com> wrote: > >FCC Republican says net neutrality rules too onerous for ISPs > >(Ars Technica): >http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/07/fcc-republican-says-net-neutral >ity-rules-too-onerous-for-isps/ > > FCC Commissioner Michael ORielly today blasted the commission's net > neutrality proposal, calling it too "onerous" for Internet service > providers and saying there should be no net neutrality rules until > "theres evidence of an actual problem it would address." > > - - - > >Too onerous! Oh my! Those poor dominant ISPs, hardly hanging onto all >those monopoly billions. [Insert world's smallest violin here.] > >--Lauren-- >Lauren Weinstein (lauren@vortex.com): http://www.vortex.com/lauren >Founder: > - Network Neutrality Squad: http://www.nnsquad.org > - PRIVACY Forum: http://www.vortex.com/privacy-info >Co-Founder: People For Internet Responsibility: >http://www.pfir.org/pfir-info >Member: ACM Committee on Computers and Public Policy >I am a consultant to Google -- I speak only for myself, not for them. >Lauren's Blog: http://lauren.vortex.com >Google+: http://google.com/+LaurenWeinstein >Twitter: http://twitter.com/laurenweinstein >Tel: +1 (818) 225-2800 / Skype: vortex.com >_______________________________________________ >nnsquad mailing list >http://lists.nnsquad.org/mailman/listinfo/nnsquad _______________________________________________ nnsquad mailing list http://lists.nnsquad.org/mailman/listinfo/nnsquad