WebProNews

Tag: Open Internet

  • FCC Net Neutrality Rules Released, Blasted By Commissioners

    FCC Net Neutrality Rules Released, Blasted By Commissioners

    The Federal Communications Commission has released its new net neutrality rules after announcing them two weeks ago. The rules followed a call from President Obama in November to reclassify Internet service under Title II of the Telecommunications Act, which would make it a utility. The new rules call for broadband to be considered a telecommunications service, and providers are to be regulated.

    This prompted a wide array of responses from various parties of interest, including a press release written in morse code from Verizon.

    The new release caused the FCC site to crash, and as of the time of this writing, it’s displaying a message that says:

    The normal FCC website is temporarily unavailable due to technical difficulties. We are working to restore the full FCC website back to normal as soon as possible.

    Te PDF, however, is viewable here (via Re/code):

    FCC-15-24A1

    The site seems to be going on and off, so if you keep trying, you might be able to bring it up.

    Since the release of the document, a policy summary of FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai’s “statement dissenting from the FCC’s decision to adopt President Obama’s plan to regulate the Internet” has been released. Here’s what it says:

    For twenty years, there’s been a bipartisan consensus in favor of a free and open Internet—one unfettered by government regulation. So why is the FCC turning its back on Internet freedom? It is flip-flopping for one reason and one reason alone. President Obama told it to do so.

    The Commission’s decision to adopt President Obama’s plan marks a monumental shift toward government control of the Internet. It gives the FCC the power to micromanage virtually every aspect of how the Internet works. It’s an overreach that will let a Washington bureaucracy, and not the American people, decide the future of the online world.

    One facet of that control is rate regulation. For the first time, the FCC will regulate the rates that Internet service providers may charge and will set a price of zero for certain commercial agreements.

    The Commission can also outlaw pro-consumer service plans.If you like your current service plan, you should be able to keep your current service plan. The FCC shouldn’t take it away from you.

    Consumers should expect their broadband bills to go up. The plan explicitly opens the door to billions of dollars in new taxes on broadband. One estimate puts the total at $11 billion a year.

    Consumers’ broadband speeds will be slower. Compare the broadband market in the U.S. to that in Europe, where broadband is generally regulated as a public utility. Today, 82% of Americans have access to 25 Mbps broadband speeds. Only 54% of Europeans do. Moreover, in the U.S., average mobile speeds are 30% faster than they are in Western Europe.

    This plan will reduce competition and drive smaller broadband providers out of business. That’s why the plan is opposed by the country’s smallest private competitors and many municipal broadband providers. Monopoly rules from a monopoly era will move us toward a monopoly.

    The Internet is not broken. We do not need President Obama’s plan to “fix it.”

    The plan in front of us today was not formulated at the FCC through a transparent notice-and-comment rulemaking process. As The Wall Street Journal reports, it was developed through “an unusual, secretive effort inside the White House.” Indeed, White House officials, according to the Journal, functioned as a “parallel version of the FCC.” Their work led to the President’s announcement in November of his plan for Internet regulation, a plan which “blindsided” the FCC and “swept aside . . . months of work by [Chairman] Wheeler toward a compromise.”

    The plan has glaring legal flaws that are sure to keep the Commission mired in litigation for a long, long time.

    A legal summary of Pai’s statement has also been released. Here’s what that one says:

    In adopting President Obama’s plan to regulate the Internet, the FCC violated the procedural requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).

    The FCC never proposed the rules being adopted, violating the APA’s notice-and-comment requirement. In last year’s Notice, the FCC proposed rules under section 706 of the Telecommunications Act. Every single proposal and every single tentative conclusion in last year’s Notice was tailored to avoid reclassifying broadband as a Title II service. Yet that’s exactly what the FCC does in this Order.

    No one could have anticipated the number or nature of the hoops the Order would jump through to reclassify broadband. Nor could anyone have anticipated the Order’s 49 separate forbearance decisions; its decision to subject interconnection to Title II as a “component” of broadband Internet access service; its decision to amend agency rules regarding mobile broadband; or its adoption of an omnivorous “Internet conduct” standard, the scope of which remains uncertain.

    The FCC cannot rely on President Obama’s YouTube directive to the agency cure these deficiencies. The President’s video was not approved by FCC commissioners, published in the Federal Register, or subject to public comment.

    President Obama’s plan to regulate the Internet also violates the Communications Act.

    Neither the text of the Act nor FCC precedent allows the agency to reclassify broadband Internet access service as a Title II telecommunications service. In 1996, President Clinton and Congress decided that “any” service that “provides access to the Internet” would be an information service. In turn, the FCC has never classified an Internet Service Provider as a telecommunications carrier. Instead, the FCC has determined each and every time since the Clinton Administration’s Stevens Report that Internet access always involves more than meretransmission—and thus is an information service.

    Section 332 of the Communications Act independently bars the FCC from reclassifying mobile broadband Internet access service as a Title II telecommunications service.

    The text, structure, and Congressional intent all make clear that section 706 of the Telecommunications Act does not give the FCC any independent authority.

    The Order invents an entirely new method of forbearance analysis that doesn’t adhere to the forbearance criteria in the Act or the FCC’s precedents.

    Pai appeared on Fox business to talk about this more:

    The FCC has also released a dissenting statement from Commissioner Michael O’Reilly. HIs is seventeen pages long, so I’ll direct you to his tweets, which include a link.

    Some words from FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler:

    So what’s everybody else saying about it all? Here’s a quick glance at Twitter:




  • Etsy Applauds Obama’s FCC Request On Open Internet

    Etsy Applauds Obama’s FCC Request On Open Internet

    President Obama announced on Monday that he’s asking the FCC to reclassify the Internet under Title II of the Telecommunications Act, which would essentially render it a utility.

    “In plain English, I’m asking them to recognize that for most Americans, the Internet has become an essential part of everyday communication and everyday life,” he said, noting that the FCC is an independent agency, and that ultimately, it’s their decision.

    You can read his whole statement and view video of him talking about it here.

    Many people and companies are commenting on Obama’s move, and Etsy, which gives independent artists a means of selling their work, put out a blog post applauding the President’s “strong stance” on the issue of the open Internet. Etsy’s Althea Erickson writes:

    We applaud the President’s strong stance on this issue, and urge the FCC to take action this year to protect the Internet and the millions of micro-businesses who depend on it to reach consumers.

    This morning, the President said what the Etsy community has been saying for months: there should not be a two-tiered Internet, where big companies pay for fast lanes, leaving the rest of us in the slow lane. We want the Internet to continue to be a level playing field, where businesses succeed based on the value of their products, not the depths of their pockets.

    Etsy has been championing net neutrality since last spring, and has submitted formal comments, met with the FCC’s chairman, and participated in FCC roundtables. According to Erickson, over 30,000 members of the Etsy community contacted the FCC and Congress as part of the #InternetSlowDown campaign.

    There are even numerous items for sale that sellers have made, supporting an open Internet.

    CEO Chad Dickerson had this to say: “I’m thrilled to see President Obama stand with Etsy and our sellers in calling for strong net neutrality rules under Title II. The President has proved that he truly is a champion of the Internet. I urge Chairman Wheeler to follow suit.”

    Etsy is in the process of expanding its presence in the physical world, as it recently began giving its sellers free card-readers to help them expand their Etsy-based businesses.

    Image via Etsy

  • Global Commission on Internet Governance Announced

    A new Global Commission on Internet Governance (GCIG) was announced today at the World Economic Forum Annual Meeting in Davos, Switzerland. Swedish Minister of Foreign Affairs Carl Bildt has been named as chair for the GCIG.

    The GCIG has been founded by the Centre for International Governance Innovation and the Royal Institute of International Affairs as a two-year initiative to “produce a comprehensive stand on the future of multi-stakeholder internet governance.” The organization will have at least 25 members from around the world who are experts in the fields such as government policy and academia.

    The idea behind the GCIG is that it will promote debate about the future of global internet governance while also laying out a “strategic vision” for the future and a framework for such policies. The organization also hopes to “act as a rallying point for states that are striving for a continued free and open Internet.” The GCIG’s current four stated themes are improving the legitimacy of internet governance, stimulating innovation, ensuring online human rights, and avoiding systematic risks to the internet.

    “In most countries, increased attention is being given to all the issues of net freedom, net security and net governance,” said Bildt. “And they are, in my view, closely related to each other. The rapid evolution of the net has been made possible by the open and flexible model by which it has evolved and been governed. But increasingly this is coming under attack. And this is happening as issues of net freedom, net security and net surveillance are increasingly debated. Net freedom is as fundamental as freedom of information and freedom of speech in our societies.”

  • Reddit’s Alexis Ohanian Talks Open Internet with Stephen Colbert

    Reddit’s Alexis Ohanian Talks Open Internet with Stephen Colbert

    Last night, Stephen Colbert’s guest on The Colbert Report was reddit co-founder and open internet advocate Alexis Ohanian. Ohanian is promoting his new book, Without Their Permission, where he explores “the future of the internet for fun, profit, and the good of humankind.”

    What Colbert refers to as “cultural socialism” is actually the democratization of the internet, and more importantly, ideas – according to Ohanian. Check out the two discuss reddit, crowdfunding, and the free internet below. Also, bonus points to Colbert for bringing giant upvotes and downvotes to the party:

    Image via screencap, Comedy Central

  • An Internet Without Net Neutrality Looks Pretty Damn Scary

    An Internet Without Net Neutrality Looks Pretty Damn Scary

    Even though the network that gives life to the Internet is considered an interstate communications service, and therefore is under the regulatory watch of the FCC, companies like Verizon, AT&T, and Time Warner are trying their hardest to have these powers stripped in what some are calling a plan to “ruin the Internet.” While that may come across as misguided hyperbole to the ISPs and the kind of consumer who would openly praise AT&T’s 9/11 tweet as having nothing to do with advertising (yes, really) alike, after watching the lead video, if the ISPs gets their way, hyperbole could quickly become a hard, cold truth.

    Verizon is currently at the focal point of the net neutrality argument, and with good reason. A couple of days ago, Verizon’s lawsuit against the FCC’s net neutrality rules began its hearing phase in front of a three-judge panel of the Washington D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. One of Verizon’s main arguments revolves around the freedom of speech; however, this concern isn’t for their subscribers accessing their content on the best Internet network possible. Instead, Verizon’s position is net neutrality impedes on the company’s right to free speech, which can apparently manifest itself in the form of controlling the flow of information based on who pays for the best delivery pipe.

    Yes, really.

    Showing favoritism to one type of content over another is a free speech issue, and net neutrality infringes on that. With that in mind, who says patent attorneys are the only legal trolls out there?

    The video–which I urge you to watch–has a 30-minute run time. If, at any time, you’re confused about the message, or don’t quite get the concept of sarcasm and parody, the following quote from the supporting site’s Take Action page is quite revealing:

    If you agree that your Internet Service Provider should not be making decisions for you about the Internet you get access to, the most important thing you can do right now is share this film with everyone you know, and help raise mass awareness of the importance of the open Internet and broadband access.

    Vigilance on this issue, if you truly care about a neutral net, is constantly required.

  • CitizenWeb Project Is The Newest Internet Freedom Fighter On The Block

    In recent years, a number of digital rights advocacy groups have sprung up to fight against what they see as government and corporate interference into their private lives on the Internet. Today, we can add one more to the bunch with the CitizenWeb Project.

    So, what is the CitizenWeb Project? It’s a group founded by Jacob Cook that fights for a “free, open, and above all a decentralized Internet.” In short, the group wants to take back user data that has been collected by services like Facebook and put it back in the hands of the user. The project’s other goal is to protect the people – like journalists, activists, muckrakers and whistleblowers – that they feel are under threat by massive data collection.

    The CitizenWeb project has three missions that are “focused on giving the tools to each individual user to become an independent “citizen” of the Web – to decentralize their social networks and platforms, to become the TRUE owners of their data, and to communicate and network in security.” These three missions are:

    Agitate – The CitizenWeb Project is dedicated to spreading the word about the practices of the large and centralized web services industries, and exactly how they are dangerous for security, privacy, freedom of speech and freedom of ownership. It aims to reinforce the importance of online privacy to the general public, because you never know who could be watching or profiting off of your actions online.

    Educate – It is important to bring these issues to light, but it is equally important to provide individuals with the keys to help fix the problem. The proliferation of free, open source and federated alternatives for the closed and centralized services we rely on is paramount. With proper education and access to the resources they need, users will have all they need to stand up for their digital rights and for a decentralized Internet.

    Organize – The information and resources that we provide would be nothing without a strong and supportive community. We seek to bring like-minded individuals together to spread the word about the tools we provide and to help add and edit information based on the skills they have. We will work to provide technical support when possible for those who wish to reclaim their digital sovereignty. CitizenWeb also seeks to highlight and support independent developers that create open source tools that help build a decentralized web.

    Other digital rights advocacy groups fight for many of the same things that CitizenWeb stands for, but this one may be a little more interesting. You see, the other groups call on Google, Facebook or other services to change their ways, but CitizenWeb is all about ditching those services. It’s working to provide open source alternatives to the Internet services you use everyday.

    Will it be easy to convince people to stop using Facebook or Google? Of course not, but it’s a challenge that could very well produce some very interesting results in the coming year.

  • Google Wants You To Protect Internet Freedom

    Earlier this year, Google and other Internet companies mobilized people to take down SOPA and PIPA. It worked pretty well back then, and now Google is back at it again targeting the next threat to the Internet – the UN.

    In December, nations around the world will be meeting in Dubai to discuss proposed changes to how the Internet is operated. Currently, much of the Internet is operated by ICANN, a neutral NGO. Some nations in the UN want to transfer its power to the ITU so that member nations in the UN can have more of a say in how the Internet works.

    Open Web proponents immediately decried the idea, and the US has been investigating the potential harm such a change would cause. For their part, Google has started another “Take Action” campaign that asks citizens from around the world to demand a free and open Internet.

    Going off of precedent alone, Google may very well be successful with its latest campaign. The search giant, along with other Internet companies, were instrumental in mobilizing US citizens against SOPA and PIPA in January.

    Of course, there are some key differences between the SOPA blackout and now that could swing the campaign in either direction. For one, trusted brands and companies like Google, Facebook and Wikipedia all came out against the legislation with blackouts and other extreme visual messages. The proposed changes in the UN have had no such campaign yet, and prolific Internet figures like Mark Zuckerberg and Jimmy Wales have yet to issue strong statements against it.

    Google’s campaign, however, could make all the difference. The company could inspire the same amount of fervor if it were to lay a doodle over its homepage again. The company hasn’t done that just yet, but we could see more action on the part of Google as we move closer to the UN gathering.

  • Reddit Launches Bus Tour to “Promote the Open Internet”

    Reddit Launches Bus Tour to “Promote the Open Internet”

    Emboldened by the part it played in combating the SOPA legislation earlier this year with an “internet blackout,” Reddit has officially announced that it is taking to the road with a bus tour in support of the open internet.

    In a post over at the Reddit blog, Reddit GM Erik Martin today announced the Internet 2012 Bus Tour. Martin, Reddit co-founder Alexis Ohanian, and other Reddit staff will board a half red, half blue bus and tour across the Midwestern U.S. From the blog post:

    This isn’t just about Silicon Valley and big web companies. Start-ups, local governments, small businesses and web savvy individuals across the country are using the platform of the Open Internet to start new businesses, learn new skills, earn extra income, and make their budgets go further. If you have a story like this, please post it to /r/Internet2012. The Internet 2012 Bus Tour will collect, document and share these stories from the American heartland. We will have 10 journalists from major outlets on the bus, as well as our own documentary crew to capture and tell these stories.

    In order to finance the tour, a fundraiser has been started on IndieGoGo. Perks for the fundraiser include a DRM-free download of the documentary, posters & stickers, a phone call/drunk dial from the tour, having your name on the bus, a ride on the bus, or your very own tour stop (for $36,000).

    A partial itinerary of the tour is already complete, and it starts on October 3 at the Presidential Debate in Denver, CO. From there the bus will make a stop each day, going to Boulder, Co; Lincoln, NE; Des Moines, IA; Iowa City, IA; Kansas City, MO; and Lexington, KY, where an event will take place on “The Future of Local Communities” with Drew Curtis‘ FARK. The last currently scheduled day will see the tour stop in Danville, KY, where the Vice Presidential debate will take place.

    The tour organizers are currently collecting stories of how the open internet has helped local communities over on the tour’s main subreddit. One of the first posts to that subreddit happens to be the trailer for the bus tour, seen below, which includes more details about the tour.

  • Vint Cerf Fears Internet Regulation from the UN

    Google’s Chief Internet Evangelist and one of the “fathers of the internet,” Vint Cerf, spoke before Congress last month to express his concern about some countries and government entities’ attempts to exert an authority over the internet.

    Testifying as part of a panel before the House Energy and Commerce CommitteeSubcommittee on Communications and Technology, Cerf told Congress he fears that the International Telecommunication Union, an agency of the United Nations, could exert regulations that would potentially undermine the openness of the global internet. Cerf went on to describe how the success of the internet is perceived as a potential threat by some countries, prompting those governments “to create new international rules that would jeopardize the network’s innovative evolution and its multi-faceted success.”

    Among the culprits, Cerf listed Russia, China, Brazil, India, and other countries that have attempted to influence the ITU to increase the amount of control it has over internet governance. He went on to warn against a government-endorsed centralized entity charged with regulating the internet.

    Such a move holds profound – and I believe potentially hazardous – implications for the future of the Internet and all of its users. If all of us do not pay attention to what is going on, users worldwide will be at risk of losing the open and free Internet that has brought so much to so many.

    […]

    As a result of these efforts, there is a strong possibility that this December the ITU will significantly amend the International Telecommunication Regulations – a multilateral treaty last revised in 1988 – in a way that authorizes increased ITU and member state control over the Internet. These proposals, if implemented, would change the foundational structure of the Internet that has historically led to unprecedented worldwide innovation and economic growth.

    Some have interpreted Cerf’s comments as an alarm against a potential insurrection of the internet by Communist interests while others have perceived his statements more generally as a defense for the open nature of the internet, the latter being a cause that Cerf has never hesitated to champion. Regardless of which yard you stand in, Cerf maintains the position that an internet that has to answer to any form of government is vulnerable to specific interests that could potentially diminish the unmitigated freedom of communication afforded by the internet.

    Cerf has previously spoken out against proposed regulation of the internet by the European Union as well as any manner of closed-circuit internet business that prohibits the free-flowing stream of information on the internet.

    In other words, don’t tread on Mr. Cerf’s open internet. You wouldn’t like him when he’s angry.

    Cerf’s full testimony to Congress can be found… here.

  • Are Facebook and Apple Really a Threat to the Open Net?

    Are Facebook and Apple Really a Threat to the Open Net?

    Google co-founder Sergey Brin recently made some mildly incendiary comments to The Guardian about how companies like Facebook and Apple are a threat to the openness of the internet. In the interview, Brin denounced the highly protected practices by the companies, which is commonly known throughout the tech industry as a walled garden, and said, “The kind of environment that we developed Google in, the reason that we were able to develop a search engine, is the web was so open. Once you get too many rules, that will stifle innovation.”

    Commenters and other reporters across the net decried Brin’s perceived hypocrisy, saying that Google was as guilty for depressing the same openness of the internet that it has both championed and used to become the juggernaut that it is today. Brin responded to the criticism with a post on his Google+ page, saying that, while Facebook isn’t anywhere near as threatening to digital ecosystems as “government filtering of political dissent,” he does believe that starting a new online business like eBay or Amazon or even Google in today’s environment “would entail navigating a number of new tollbooths and gatekeepers” that could potentially hinder the ability for that site to flourish. Tollbooths and gatekeepers, that is, like Facebook and Apple.

    Now that the dust has begun to settle around Brin’s statements, one of the most revered figureheads in the tech industry, Sir Tim Berners-Lee, one of the forefathers of the internet, gave a separate interview to The Guardian (both interviews are a part of a larger series the paper’s been doing recently called “Battle for the internet”) where he seemed to echo Brin’s sentiment that walled garden-policies are a serious threat to the openness and fluidity of the internet.

    He specifically decried the habits of Apple and how only Apple-approved apps are allowed to run on iOS devices (yes, yes, there’s always jailbreaking), saying, “I should be able to pick which applications I use for managing my life, I should be able to pick which content I look at, and I should be able to pick which device I use, which company I use for supplying my internet, and I’d like those to be independent choices.” Ultimately, Berners-Lee says that the reason this practice is bad is because when those apps are walled off (as they currently are on iOS devices), they’re not searchable.

    Brin said something similar in his Guardian interview, describing how there is a lot of information that is lost due to those types of apps. “All the information in apps – that data is not crawlable by web crawlers,” he explained. “You can’t search it.”

    Berners-Lee reiterated his comments about the exclusionary behaviors of Facebook and Apple from an article he penned for Scientific American in 2010 when he called for a pledge to preserve open standards and neutrality on the internet. In it, Berners-Lee expressed concern over the danger that a single “social-networking site gets so big that it becomes a monopoly, which tends to limit innovation.” Yet even in the shadow of Facebook, he acknowledged that sites like Diaspora and identi.ca have managed to capture the interest of internet users by offering features slightly different and more desirable than what Facebook has to offer. If innovation has still found a way to seep through the cracks of Facebook’s wall, why does the site continue to get this very unearned and undeserved clout that it is some kind of internet sun-eater that will cast innovation into an endless night.

    Facebook and Apple’s respective walled gardens are, at the very least, a measure of self-preservation. It’s possible to argue that the only way a company could possibly compete with Google on the internet is by protecting itself and secluding all of its information from getting into Google’s clutches. If Facebook had not walled away the information it collects to users and kept it from being crawled by Google, then Facebook would never have achieved anything close to the success it has. Facebook had to play by a different set of rules to survive. By now, it should be clear to anyone that it’s enjoyed a bountiful survival.

    Apple, at least, is able to rely on its hardware innovation to stay competitive in the tech industry, so it forged its name via different means than Facebook did. Still, Apple’s walled garden is as barbed and rigid as they come.

    What is all that locked away information really worth, though? Why shouldn’t it be locked away? That Facebook keeps users’ information tightly sealed off from the rest of the internet is, for most intents, a good thing. My information on Facebook is a source of revenue for the site, so they’re not really likely to allow anybody else to profit off of it. It irks me that they’re profiting from the sentimental value I place in keeping up on my friends and acquaintances, but at least I know Facebook isn’t going to let go of my information all that easily, either. Ironically, Facebook protecting my information from Google is just as good for Facebook as it is for me. (Well, until the subpoenas come along, but that’s a different article for a different time.)

    Some have gone so far to argue that because Facebook does keep its users’ information behind a walled garden is why the site was such a vital communication device for opposition groups during last year’s Arab Spring. While it certainly wasn’t the only online utility to be used by protesters across various countries during the year of revolutions, Facebook was a vital one. If that content had been searchable via Google, you can hedge your bets that the oppressive regimes of Egypt and Libya would have definitely been combing through Facebook to attempt to halt the protesters’ organizing. The ending of the Arab Spring could have been delayed or, worse, altogether different.

    Google might not be able to crawl comments left on private Facebook pages – and it shouldn’t, either, since they’re presumedly private for a reason – but comments left on a page that uses the Facebook form are still able to be indexed by Google. So it’s not like Facebook isn’t sharing anything at all; it’s just choosy about what it lets go of. A little piece there, a little piece here – but Facebook isn’t going to give away the whole pie, or else what would it have for dessert?

    In the Scientific American piece, Berners-Lee ominously predicted that, should seclusionist practices embraced by sites like Facebook continue, the internet could be “broken into fragmented islands.” But why is an internet archipelago such a bad thing?

    Berners-Lee has said that he envisioned the internet as a medium through which anybody anywhere could share and access information, but in this period of what could arguably be described as an era of over-sharing, the nature of the internet has changed. True, if we’re to consider patents as part of walled gardens, then yes, I whole-heartedly concur that the practice is detrimental to the continuing human process and need to innovate new technology. Walled-garden practices are vexing for a number of reasons, but are they a risk to the openness of the net? Are they really killing innovation? Yes, if you ascribe to what Brin and Breners-Lee define as an open net. But what they’ve failed to describe is why a truly unmitigated flow of all information, all the time is still such a good thing, especially in this current incarnation of the internet when anonymity is a thing of the past.

    Another internet forefather, Vint Cerf, has previously predicted that the walled garden model is not a sustainable business model. Likening Facebook to AOL and IBM, according to CNET, Cerf has said that eventually the users’ demand to share information across services will become impossible for the social networking site to ignore, causing the company to eventually fail.

    If that happens, that happens. It becomes a natural response to Brin and Berners-Lee’s plea for a more open internet and disproves the business model of walled gardens. But Facebook just acquired Instagram, the most popular photo-sharing app, and is set for one of the most lucrative initial public offerings in history later this spring. Additionally, criticize Apple’s walled garden policy all you want, but it’s obviously working for them – the company’s on its way to becoming the most valuable business in the world. In other words, the walled garden model may no longer be the kiss of death that it once was.

    If that’s the case, are Facebook and Apple really hindering the internet and innovation by refusing to grant companies like Google access to the information of their users? With the Instagram acquisition and the continued development of apps for its OpenGraph, Facebook’s sharing a lot with other companies – just not with Google.

    Only time will tell if companies like Apple and Facebook spell the demise of a truly open internet. If that does happen, then what? Will that really be such an impossible future to deal with? Why should the internet stay so open? You should probably share your comments below.

  • Is Net Neutrality Being Misrepresented?

    Is Net Neutrality Being Misrepresented?

    Net neutrality is in the spotlight once again after Comcast’s recent announcement about its Xfinity video streaming service. The cable giant said that it would not count the television programming users access through Microsoft’s Xbox against their 250-gigabyte monthly data cap.

    On a FAQs page Comcast set up for the use of Xfinity on the Xbox 360, it states:

    Comcast Xfinity FAQs

    While the announcement is good news for many consumers, some media activists are raising concerns over the implications of the move. Public advocacy groups including Public Knowledge and Free Press fear that it threatens the Open Internet and that it would give Comcast an unfair advantage over other video streaming services.

    Does Comcast’s plan put net neutrality at risk? Please share your thoughts.

    Tim Wu, who first coined the term net neutrality, is also against Comcast’s announcement and spoke out about it in a recent interview with Marketplace Tech Report. According to him, this move will be detrimental to services such as Netflix.

    “The whole idea of net neutrality is to try and guarantee that similar content gets treated similarly,” Wu said to Marketplace Tech Report, “and if you think about it for a second, if something doesn’t count against your cap, obviously it’s getting a preferential treatment. You’re more likely to stream that instead of someone else’s.”

    If you remember, the FCC passed the Open Internet Order in late 2010, which is a set of rules intended to preserve net neutrality. At that time, many of these same public interest groups spoke out about the “potential loopholes” that could result if Internet service providers tried to get around the “spirit of the rules.”

    These groups and Wu are now saying that Comcast’s latest move does this. In a post on Public Knowledge’s Policy Blog, staff attorney Michael Weinberg wrote:

    “This decision is a perfect example of the behavior that net neutrality rules were designed to prevent AND raised additional questions about the true motivation behind data caps… Today’s announcement turns these concerns from theoretical to concrete. Comcast has transformed the competitive online video marketplace into a two-tiered world, where its own online video doesn’t have to play by the same rules as everyone else’s. This is pretty bad–the internet should reward the best services, not the ones with the right corporate owners.”

    Larry Downes, Senior Adjunct Fellow at Tech Freedom Not everyone, however, believes this is true. WebProNews spoke with Larry Downes, a senior adjunct fellow at Tech Freedom, who told us that Comcast is not violating the FCC’s rules from both a legal and technical standpoint.

    As he explained, all cable programming is exempt from the rules because it is already heavily regulated by the FCC and on the state and local level.

    “Since these services are already highly regulated, the FCC decided when it passed its Open Internet rules to exempt from them any programming that happens to come down the cable that isn’t actually Internet content,” he said.

    “From a strictly legal sense, the Open Internet rules explicitly exempt any television programming from the rules, so no matter what Comcast is doing here, it’s not gonna violate the letter of the net neutrality rules.”

    Downes also told us the claims based on the “spirit of the rules” were also overblown. According to him, television programming, even though it uses the same “last mile” that Internet services do, does not apply to the rules.

    “From a technical standpoint, it’s very different in terms of how that data stream is handled [and] how it’s compressed,” he said.

    In a piece Downes wrote on CNET called “No, Comcast Is Not Breaking the Internet…Again,” he said:

    “If the Xbox service unreasonably discriminates against over-the-top services, then all cable TV unfairly competes with Internet video. That, however, is not the view of the FCC’s Open Internet rules, nor its extensive regulations of cable TV providers. Nor should it be.”

    It appears that a large part of the concern that media activists have against Comcast’s plan is based on the issue of capping data. Public Knowledge, for example, has filed multiple requests with the FCC asking more information on data caps.

    Downes told us that while he would prefer not to have data caps, he understands why some cable companies are implementing them. He explained to us that the cable infrastructure wasn’t built for the Internet or digital programming. Although cable companies have already invested billions of dollars in order to handle digital services, he said they currently have to make do with what they have until more efficient systems are established.

    He, however, pointed out that the claims that equate these issues with net neutrality risks are wrong.

    “The advocates believe any new service that is not really clear from a competitor’s standpoint… they kind of like to just paste it with the phrase net neutrality,” said Downes.

    “It’s extremely misleading and very unhelpful to try to figure out what is best for customers if we just kind of paste everything with net neutrality,” he added.

    According to him, this misrepresentation of net neutrality takes the focus off of finding the real issues. If the programs are given the chance to work, he believes the market will determine if any anticompetitive concerns exist.

    In a statement released to WebProNews regarding the opposition to its new policy, Comcast told us:

    “Our treatment of the Xfinity services being delivered through an Xbox is wholly consistent with our commitment to maintaining an open Internet and with the FCC’s Open Internet Order.  Our standard is clear. If we are delivering a traditional cable service on a Title VI basis, where the customer is already paying us for that service, and all we are doing is delivering it in IP over our managed network through a different device that effectively serves as an additional outlet in the house, then we don’t believe it should count against their data usage threshold.  There is no ‘discrimination’ here – remember, we do count customer use of XfinityTV.com, the Xfinity TV app and nbc.com against data usage threshold standards (because that’s not a Title VI service being delivered only in the home).”

    As for what happens next, Public Knowledge is currently examining Comcast’s new policy to see if it wants to file a formal complaint with the FCC.

    Is the future of net neutrality in danger, or are the recent claims distorting the true meaning behind keeping the Internet open? We’d love to hear your thoughts in the comments.

  • FCC Launches App Challenge For Internet Openness

    The Federal Communications Commission has announced a challenge for software developers to create apps that help people monitor Internet openness.

    The FCC says its Open Internet Challenge is about the development of apps that provide users with information about  the extent to which their fixed or mobile broadband Internet services are consistent with the open Internet. These software tools could, for example, detect whether a broadband provider is interfering with DNS responses, application packet headers, or content.

    FCC-App-Challenge “This challenge is about using the open Internet to protect the open Internet,” said FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski.

    “Our goal is to foster user-developed applications that shine light on any practice that might be inconsistent with the free and open Internet.  Empowering consumers with information about their own connections will promote a vibrant, innovative, world-leading broadband ecosystem.”

    The winners of the Open Internet Challenge will be invited to FCC headquarters in Washington, D.C., to present their work to the Commission and be honored with an FCC Chairman’s reception.  Winners will have their apps and research featured on the FCC’s website and social media outlets.  Winners will be reimbursed for authorized travel expenses.

    The submission deadline for the challenge is June 1, 2011, and a public voting period will run from June 15, 2011 through July 15, 2011. Winners will be announced in August 2011.
     

  • Google Talks Open Internet Goals, Files FCC Submission

    Google Talks Open Internet Goals, Files FCC Submission

    Google filed a submission on its own and one jointly with Verizon to the FCC for its proposed rulemaking docket. Google says its goal is "to keep the Internet awesome for everybody."

    "There’s a lot of awesome stuff on the Internet: Cats talking LOLspeak. Iranian dissidents tweeting. Live traffic updates. Science experiments," says Rick Whitt, Washington Telecom and Media Counsel on Google’s Public Policy Blog. "All of these things, and so much more, are possible because of the openness of the Internet. Any entrepreneur with an idea has always been able to create a website and share their ideas globally – without paying extra tolls to have their content seen by other users. An open Internet made Google possible eleven years ago, and it’s going to make the next Google possible."

    Whitt outlined what Google supports in its FCC filing:

    – Adding a nondiscrimination principle that bans prioritizing Internet traffic based on the ownership (the who), the source (the what) of the content or application;

    – Adding a transparency principle that ensures all users have clear information about broadband providers’ offerings;

    – Providing a carefully-defined "reasonable network management" exception so that broadband providers are empowered to address genuine congestion issues and protect against hazards like malware and spamming;

    – Applying general openness protections to both wireline and wireless broadband infrastructure; and

    – Creating better enforcement mechanisms at the FCC, and introducing the concept of technical advisory groups (TAGs) to potentially provide expert advice and resolve disputes.

    Here is Google’s submission:

    01-14-10 Google Net Neutrality Comments

    Here’s Google and Verizon’s joint submission:

    Google and Verizon Joint Submission on the Open Internet

    The FCC’s OpenInternet.gov has numerous posts up liveblogging the recent "Innovation, Investment, and the Open Internet" workshop, which featured discussion from an interesting mix of people on the subject of the Open Internet.

    Related Articles:

    > Open Internet Heavily Promoted at CES

    > Internet’s Possible Future in the US Gets Ready to Be Decided

    > FCC’s Net Neutrality Site Gets a Blog

  • Open Internet Heavily Promoted at CES

    The Open Internet Coalition launched a new "Protect the Net" campaign at the Consumer Electronics Show (CES) in Las Vegas. The idea is to build on growing support among technology innovators for protecting the open Internet, the coalition says.

    "Many of the hottest new technologies showcased at the CES are only possible because the open nature of the Internet enables innovation without permission," said Markham Erickson, Coalition Executive Director. "The Federal Communication Commission’s effort to ensure the Internet remains open is critical for consumers, and for entrepreneurs whose new products and services will unleash the next wave of investment and economic growth."

    The Coalition is distributing buttons and laptop stickers throughout the CES event, with a quick response code. When captured by a reader on a mobile device, the QR code will launch a webpage, which allows users to add their names to a petition supporting the FCC’s proposed rules for maintaining an open Internet.

    Protect the Net

    The Coalition has provided steps for those using iPhone, Android, and BlackBerry devices:

    iPhone

    1. Click the App Store on your iPhone

    2. Search for "QR Code Reader"

    3. Select an app and install. We recommend QuickMark, but all QR Code Reader apps should work

    Android OS

    1. Find the Android Market icon on your Android Phone

    2. Search for "QR Code Reader"

    3. Select an app and install. We recommend the free "BarCode Scanner", but all QR Code Reader apps should work

    BlackBerry OS

    1. Go to the BlackBerry App World icon on your Blackberry or go to www.blackberry.com/appworld and download "BlackBerry App World"

    2. Select the "top free" icon, then select BlackBerry Messenger and install

    3. Once installed, open the BlackBerry Messenger app, choose "Scan a Group Barcode" in the main menu and hold your phone over the code.

    More about the FCC’s proposed rules can be read here.

    Watch for more WebProNews coverage of CES, with exclusive video interviews coming soon.

    Related Articles:

    > CES: Opera Releases New SDKs and New Browser

    > Cisco Leaving a Big Mark on Consumer Electronics Show

    > HP Unveils New Touch Notebook and Some New Minis at CES