Net Neutrality and you

[HenryBHough]

So far only one major internet service provider has announced it will take full advantage of the court ruling that allows them to sell fast service to some and relegate others to s-l-o-w service. That one is already making big bucks off it and one streaming video outfit is enjoying a big competitive advantage.

Now, if you don't believe that then do your own web search 'cause I'm not your slave and I'm not your doting parent.

With Net Neutrality a thing of the past have you noticed the difference of loading times for sites you regularly use? For example, are some taking an eternity to load - to the point where your browser times out?

Thank the Net Neutrality court decision.

But to make the cheese more binding......

Now folks like George Soros and, of course The Brothers Koch, have nothing to stop them from donating to websites the vast amounts some ISPs will charge to ensure those sites move quickly while others are slowed by the "premium traffic".

Remember that when things slow down.........

Not to say it's happening; just to point that out if/when it does (or has) then that's just tough 'cause the courts say so.

 

[waltky]

IGF takin' a look at internet surveillance...

Surveillance Software Key Concern at Internet Governance Meeting
September 05, 2014 — In the wake of major whistleblower scandals—from the emergence of WikiLeaks to Edward Snowden's revealations about mass state surveillance operations conducted by the United States—concerns over increasing national and international surveillance is dominating the dialogue of several round-table talks at this year's U.N.-sponsored Internet Governance Forum in Istanbul.

At the heart of the debate: the rapid growth of companies selling powerful Internet surveillance software in a lucrative international market that remains largely unregulated and, some say, unregulable. While UNESCO has proposed measures to protect journalists and bloggers from surveillance, the specter of an unregulated multi-billion dollar, privately-run surveillance software industry has been, for some, one of the most alarming concerns. "It's sold all over the world ... and what we have to do—since journalists and bloggers and net citizens can be spied on by this kind of surveillance technology, which its extremely powerful—is try to regulate the export," said Gregoire Pouget of Reporters Without Borders.

Laura Tresca, Brazilian representative for the anti-censorship group Article 19, says Latin America is also becoming a big market for the new software industry. "Brazil in the last four years spent nearly $200 million on software and technology for surveillance in Brazil. The excuse was the World Cup, but we have several evidence that this software was used to monitor activists to avoid protests," she said. Scott Busby of the U.S. State Department says it is using current regulations used to control the weapons industry to try to monitor the distribution of surveillance software. "It’s an issue of great concern to us, not only because some of the companies doing this are American companies," he said. "I would point out is being addressed under the VASNA arrangement, for the non-proliferation of dangerous items. It formally dealt with weapons and now looking at surveillance technologies."

An illustration picture shows a man using a computer keyboard to enter data in Warsaw, Poland.

But experts and activists say surveillance software is very different from weapons and that the industry will need specific regulations. Silvia Grundmann, head of the media division of the Council of Europe, says European companies are among the leaders in the surveillance software industry. She says finding the balance between human rights, the Internet and trade is invariably a time-consuming process. "If you go into new regulation, new laws either on the domestic level or the international level—notably international level—it takes a long period time," she said. "And during this period of time journalists get surveilled and they might even lose their lives as a result of it. So I think time is crucial factor there, and my call is to use [less time-consuming] domestic laws."

Pouget agrees. "There is a really new market, which is around $5 billion .... so more and more companies will invest in that, so we need to regulate," he said. "Otherwise, every state—democracy or not—will use this technology, and these technologies will [become] less and less expensive and more widely used." For now, Pouget says, the prohibitive cost of the software means only nation-states can afford it. But as the cost of the declines, large companies and even wealthy individuals may be able to purchase it, at which point the power of surveillance enjoyed by a few nation-states could finds its way to the mass market.

Surveillance Software Key Concern at Internet Governance Meeting

 

[waltky]

China the biggest culprit...

Global internet surveillance, censorship rising, report finds
Oct 28, 2015 - China, Syria and Iran curtail internet freedom the most

Governments around the world are expanding censorship and surveillance of the Internet as overall online freedom declined for the fifth consecutive year, according to a report from a group that tracks democracy and human rights. Nearly half of 65 countries examined have seen online freedom weaken since June 2014, Freedom House said in an annual survey released on Wednesday. One of the steepest declines occurred in France, which passed a law that many observers likened to the U.S. Patriot Act in the wake of the Charlie Hebdo terrorist attacks earlier this year, according to the report.

Nearly half of 65 countries examined have seen online freedom weaken since June 2014, Freedom House said in an annual survey released on Wednesday.​

Ukraine, mired in a territorial conflict with Russia, and Libya also experienced sharp drops. The report highlighted China as the country with the most severe restrictions on internet freedom, followed by Syria and Iran. Sri Lanka and Zambia, both of which recently underwent changes in government leadership, were credited with making the biggest improvements in overall online freedom.

New laws expand surveillance

Overall, 14 countries adopted laws in the past year to expand government surveillance, the report found. Bucking that trend, the United States passed legislation in June that effectively terminates the National Security Agency's controversial bulk collection of U.S. phone metadata, a program exposed in 2013 by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden.

The new law was an "incremental step" toward digital surveillance reform, according to the report's authors. The report also found that critical comments about government authorities were most likely to prompt censorship, and that private companies in 42 of the 65 countries were forced to delete or restrict online content. In addition, many governments took more aggressive stances against encryption and online anonymity technologies this year.

Global internet surveillance, censorship rising, report finds

 

[waltky]

Trump tryin' to get internet back under U.S. control...

Trump's FCC may try to roll back net neutrality. Here's why that matters
January 24, 2017: Ajit Pai may not be a household name, but he could end up changing the Internet for American households.

President Trump officially picked Pai on Monday to serve as the next chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, the agency that reviews media mergers and broadcast licenses. But it's Pai's opposition to existing net neutrality rules that worries many in tech and media most. The net neutrality rules, approved by the FCC in 2015 amid an outpouring of online support, are intended to keep the Internet open and fair. As written, the rules prevent Internet providers like Comcast (CCV) and AT&T (T, Tech30) from deliberately speeding up or slowing down traffic from specific websites and apps. In short, they're intended to prevent providers from playing favorites.

When the rules were first approved, Pai criticized it by quoting Emperor Palpatine from Star Wars. After Trump's victory, Pai said he believed a change was finally coming. "On the day that the [rules were] adopted, I said that 'I don't know whether this plan will be vacated by a court, reversed by Congress, or overturned by a future Commission. But I do believe that its days are numbered," Pai said in a speech last month. "Today, I am more confident than ever that this prediction will come true." For those who take for granted that the Internet just works, all the fuss around this issue may be confusing. But longtime net neutrality advocates warn of dire consequences for businesses and consumers if net neutrality is weakened or overturned.

Ajit Pai, Trump's pick for chairman of the Federal Communications Commission​

It's about "allowing consumers to pick the winners and losers and not [having] the cable companies make those decisions for them," says Michael Cheah, general counsel at video site Vimeo. If net neutrality is walked back, an Internet service provider like Comcast could potentially allow its own video content to load faster than competing content on a service like Vimeo. Alternatively, it could force Vimeo to pay more to get its content into the Internet's fast lane. "[Imagine] sitting home on a Friday night and planning to stream a movie or a television show and then to have that buffer or not work," Cheah says. "When you don't know why that's happening, you blame the service -- the Netflix or YouTube or Vimeo. If it's not caused by them, that's a problem."

Even with the rules in place, telecoms have been accused of flouting the spirit of net neutrality. AT&T, for example, unveiled a streaming video service through DirecTV that doesn't count against the customer's data limits. The FCC accused AT&T of giving itself an unfair advantage over streaming rivals, which will effectively be viewed as more costly to consumers in comparison. Under Pai, a former lawyer for Verizon (VZ, Tech30), the FCC is less likely to push back. (AT&T "applauded" Trump for picking Pai.) Disclosure: AT&T has agreed to acquire Time Warner, the parent company of CNN. The deal is pending regulatory approval.

MORE

 

[waltky]

What comes next?...

What Happens Once 'Net Neutrality' Rules Bite the Dust?
November 23, 2017 — The Federal Communications Commission formally released a draft of its plan to kill net-neutrality rules, which equalized access to the internet and prevented broadband providers from favoring their own apps and services. Now the question is: What comes next?

'Radical departure'

The FCC's move will allow companies like Comcast, AT&T and Verizon to charge internet companies for speedier access to consumers and to block outside services they don't like. The change also axes a host of consumer protections, including privacy requirements and rules barring unfair practices that gave consumers an avenue to pursue complaints about price gouging. FCC Chairman Ajit Pai says his plan eliminates unnecessary regulation. But many worry that his proposal will stifle small tech firms and leave ordinary citizens more at the mercy of cable and wireless companies. "It would be a radical departure from what previous (FCC) chairs, of both parties, have done," said Gigi Sohn, a former adviser to Tom Wheeler, the Obama-era FCC chairman who enacted the net neutrality rules now being overturned. "It would leave consumers and competition completely unprotected."

Federal Communication Commission Commissioner Ajit Pai speaks during a hearing in Washington.​

During the last Republican administration, that of George W. Bush, FCC policy held that people should be able to see what they want on the internet and to use the services they preferred. But attempts to enshrine that net-neutrality principle in regulation never held up in court - at least until Wheeler pushed through the current rules now slated for termination. Pai's proposals stand a good chance of enactment at the next FCC meeting in December. But there will be lawsuits to challenge them.

More details

The formal proposal reveals more details of the plan than were in the FCC's Tuesday press release. For instance, if companies like Comcast, AT&T and Verizon decide to block a particular app, throttle data speeds for a rival service or offer faster speeds to companies who pay for it, they merely need to disclose their policies for doing so. The FCC also says it will pre-empt state rules on privacy and net neutrality that contradict its approach. Verizon has noted that New York has several privacy bills pending, and that the California legislature has suggested coming up with its own version of net neutrality rules should the federal versions perish. The plan would leave complaints about deceptive behavior and monitor privacy to the Federal Trade Commission, which already regulates privacy for internet companies like Google and Facebook.

Best behavior

Broadband providers are promising to be on their best behavior. Comcast said it doesn't and won't block, throttle or discriminate against lawful content. AT&T said that "all major ISPs have publicly committed to preserving an open internet" and that any ISP "foolish" enough to manipulate what's available online for customers will be "quickly and decisively called out." Verizon said that "users should be able to access the internet when, where, and how they choose." Some critics don't put much weight on those promises, noting that many providers have previously used their networks to disadvantage rivals. For example, the Associated Press in 2007 found Comcast was blocking some file-sharing. AT&T blocked Skype and other internet calling services on its network on the iPhone until 2009. But others suggest fear of a public uproar will help restrain egregious practices such as blocking and throttling. "I'm not sure there's any benefit to them doing that," said Sohn. "It's just going to get people angry at them for no good reason. They don't monetize that."

Fast lanes, slow lanes

 

[waltky]

Uncle Ferd says it'd be cheaper to keep net neutrality neutral...

21 States Sue to Keep Net Neutrality as Senate Democrats Reach 50 Votes
January 16, 2018 - A group of 21 U.S. state attorneys general filed suit to challenge the Federal Communications Commission's decision to do away with net neutrality on Tuesday, while Democrats said they needed just one more vote in the Senate to repeal the FCC ruling.

The attorneys general filed a petition with a federal appeals court in Washington, D.C., to challenge the action, calling it "arbitrary, capricious and an abuse of discretion" and saying that it violated federal laws and regulations. The petition was filed as Senate Democrats said they had the backing of 50 members of the 100-person chamber for repeal.

Senator Ed Markey, a Massachusetts Democrat, said in a statement that all 49 Democrats in the upper chamber backed the repeal. Earlier this month, Republican Senator Susan Collins of Maine said she would back the effort to overturn the FCC's move. Democrats need 51 votes to win any proposal in the Republican-controlled Senate because Vice President Mike Pence can break any tie.

Override would be difficult

Trump backed the FCC action, the White House said last month, and overturning a presidential veto requires a two-thirds vote of both chambers. A two-thirds vote would be much harder for Democrats in the House, where Republicans hold a greater majority. States said the lawsuit was filed in an abundance of caution because, typically, a petition to challenge would not be filed until the rules legally take effect, which is expected later this year. Internet advocacy group Free Press, the Open Technology Institute and Mozilla Corp. filed similar protective petitions Tuesday. The FCC voted in December along party lines to reverse rules introduced in 2015 that barred internet service providers from blocking or throttling traffic or offering paid fast lanes, also known as paid prioritization.

After a meeting voting to end net neutrality, Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai answers a question from a reporter, Dec. 14, 2017, in Washington.​

Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer of New York said the issue would be a major motivating factor for the young voters the party is courting. A trade group representing major tech companies including Facebook, Alphabet and Amazon said it would support legal challenges to the reversal. The FCC vote in December marked a victory for AT&T, Comcast and Verizon Communications and handed them power over what content consumers can access on the internet. It was the biggest win for FCC Chairman Ajit Pai in his sweeping effort to undo many telecommunications regulations.

Disclosure required

While the FCC order grants internet providers sweeping new powers, it does require public disclosure of any blocking practices. Internet providers have vowed not to change how consumers obtain online content. House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Greg Walden, an Oregon Republican, said in an interview Tuesday that he planned to hold a hearing on paid prioritization. He has urged Democrats to work constructively on a legislative solution to net neutrality "to bring certainty and clarity going forward and ban behaviors like blocking and throttling."

He said he did not believe a vote to overturn the FCC decision would get a majority in the U.S. House. Representative Mike Doyle, a Pennsylvania Democrat, said Tuesday that his bill to reverse the FCC decision had 80 co-sponsors. Paid prioritization is part of American life, Walden said. "Where do you want to sit on the airplane? Where do you want to sit on Amtrak?" he said.

21 States Sue to Keep Net Neutrality as Senate Democrats Reach 50 Votes