Total Pageviews

Friday, December 15, 2017

Why is Disney buying Fox? - BBC News does not realize it has biggest net neutrality story in UK

Why is Disney buying Fox? - BBC News: "For Disney, the acquisition of 21st Century Fox is a key moment in a pivot towards streaming premium content directly into people's living rooms.
Disney has been focused on acquiring content, buying Pixar and Lucasfilm for example, and this deal helps beef up the distribution.
The stake in Sky gives it nearly 50 million European subscribers.
It also adds the Star India network with 58 channels in eight languages, reaching 650 million customers.

In addition, Disney will acquire a majority stake in the streaming service Hulu.

Add all that up and you have a potentially powerful future competitor to Netflix and Amazon Prime - who at the moment are streets ahead." 'via Blog this'

Thursday, December 14, 2017

18 attorneys general ask FCC to delay net neutrality vote for fake comments investigation | TheHill

18 attorneys general ask FCC to delay net neutrality vote for fake comments investigation | TheHill: "The letter is signed by attorneys general from Virginia, the District of Columbia, Delaware, Hawaii, California, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Iowa, Illinois, Maryland, Maine, Mississippi, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Rhode Island, Washington and Vermont.

“It is essential that the Commission gets a full and accurate picture of how changes to net neutrality will affect the everyday lives of Americans before they can act on such sweeping policy changes,” the attorneys general write.

 The letter comes after a separate letter from the office of New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman said as many as 2 million comments regarding net neutrality filed to the commission were falsified.

“But, if the well of public comment has been poisoned by falsified submissions, the Commission may be unable to rely on public comments that would help it reach a legitimate conclusion to the Page 2 rulemaking process,” the 18 attorneys write." 'via Blog this'

Wednesday, December 13, 2017

France’s top internet regulator, Sébastien Soriano, has a message for Americans on net neutrality.

France’s top internet regulator, Sébastien Soriano, has a message for Americans on net neutrality.: "Another point made by critics of net neutrality is that the internet developed just fine without open-internet protections in place. But it is not fair to argue that because the “internet as we know it” grew with no net neutrality rules, we do not need these rules today. Gutenberg did not benefit from any declaration of rights to invent the printing press. Nevertheless, we codified freedom of speech to keep using it.

 In today’s digital world, the main challenge is to make sure that startups, entrepreneurs, and all innovators still have the ability to reinvent our world. Big companies now in place—telecom, cable, media companies, tech giants—have been doing well in recent years, and the issue is not to fight against them. But we know from history that disruptive and game-changing ideas often come from the margins. More than ever, our duty is to give a chance to a future Magellan or Columbus to forge a way in the unknown." 'via Blog this'

Tuesday, December 12, 2017

TeleFrieden: “Restoring” Internet Freedom for Whom?

TeleFrieden: “Restoring” Internet Freedom for Whom?: "To answer my colleague’s question, I believe one has to consider ISPs as platform intermediaries who have an impact both downstream on end users and upstream on other carriers, content distributors and content creators. My research agenda has pivoted to the law, economics and social impact of platforms; see https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2935292.

           

Using the employment, innovation and investment criteria, the FCC also should have considered the current and prospective freedom quotient for upstream players.  Does nearly unfettered price and quality of service discrimination options for ISPs impact upstream ventures’ ability to employ, innovate and invest more?

           

Assume for the sake of discussion that ISPs can block, throttle, drop and prioritize packets.  A plausible, worst case scenario has an innovative market entrant with a new content-based business plan less able to achieve the Commission’s freedom goals.  Regardless whether you call it artificial congestion, the potential exists for an ISP to prevent traffic of the content market entrant from seamless transit.  The ISP could create congestion with an eye toward demanding a surcharge payment, even though the market entrant’s traffic had no possibility of itself creating congestion.  The ISP also might throttle traffic of the innovative newcomer if its market entry might adversely impact the content market share and profitability of the ISP, its affiliates and its upstream content providers that previously agreed to pay a surcharge.

           

Of course network neutrality opponents would object to this scenario based on the summary conclusion that an ISP would never degrade network performance, or reduce the value proposition of its service.  The airlines do this and so would an ISP if it thought it could extract more revenues given the lack of competition and the inability of consumers on both sides of its platform to shift carriers.   

ISPs do not operate as charities." 'via Blog this'

Pioneers for Net Neutrality

Pioneers for Net Neutrality: "It is important to understand that the FCC’s proposed Order is based on a flawed and factually inaccurate understanding of Internet technology. These flaws and inaccuracies were documented in detail in a 43-page-long joint comment signed by over 200 of the most prominent Internet pioneers and engineers and submitted to the FCC on July 17, 2017.

 Despite this comment, the FCC did not correct its misunderstandings, but instead premised the proposed Order on the very technical flaws the comment explained. The technically-incorrect proposed Order dismantles 15 years of targeted oversight from both Republican and Democratic FCC chairs, who understood the threats that Internet access providers could pose to open markets on the Internet.

 The experts’ comment was not the only one the FCC ignored. Over 23 million comments have been submitted by a public that is clearly passionate about protecting the Internet. The FCC could not possibly have considered these adequately.

 Indeed, breaking with established practice, the FCC has not held a single open public meeting to hear from citizens and experts about the proposed Order.

Furthermore, the FCC’s online comment system has been plagued by major problems that the FCC has not had time to investigate. " 'via Blog this'

Friday, December 08, 2017

The Demise of Net Neutrality Will Harm Innovation in America - MIT Technology Review

The Demise of Net Neutrality Will Harm Innovation in America - MIT Technology Review: "Even the very biggest startups could suffer. In an IPO filing published earlier this year, Snap warned that weakening or ending net neutrality would hurt its business if ISPs limited access to it or favored its rivals (see “Why Snap Is Worried About Net Neutrality”). Young companies that pay up for higher speeds would have to pass those costs on to consumers, making it harder to compete with bigger players.

 Big ISPs say they’re committed to keeping a level playing field, but history and economic realism suggest they won’t. AT&T, for instance, blocked Skype and other Internet calling services on iPhones on its network until 2009. In many markets in America, there are still only one or two high-speed broadband providers. " 'via Blog this'

The FCC Still Doesn’t Know How the Internet Works | Electronic Frontier Foundation

The FCC Still Doesn’t Know How the Internet Works | Electronic Frontier Foundation: "Since the FCC cites them, it clearly read the multiple comments stating that over 50% of Web traffic is now encrypted. Yet, it sticks to the assertion that “truly pervasive encryption on the Internet is still a long way off, and that many sites still do not encrypt,” and use that to dismiss “assertions in record that suggest that ISP-provided caching is not a vital part of broadband Internet access service offerings, as it may be stymied by the use of HTTPS encryption.”

 Although the FCC tries to claim that offering web caching is an integral part of the functionality that ISPs provide, this is not the case. In fact, Sonic, a San Francisco-based ISP, does not run web caching equipment for its customers (although they do host a number of boxes from non-affiliated CDN platforms, including the Google Global Cache, Netflix OpenConnect, and Akamai—but they don't operate those boxes).

 And if the FCC doesn’t understand the Internet in general, it understands mobile telephony and broadband Internet access even less." 'via Blog this'