Warnings Along F.C.C.’s Fast Lane

Original Story: NYTimes.com


The next time the loudmouth in the next cubicle interrupts you with yet another recap of his weekend, just start talking about “net neutrality.”

He will immediately bury his head back in his work, perhaps even lay it on the desk and begin napping.

But a topic that generally begets narcolepsy is about to become, well, interesting. The government is contemplating changing the rules for how content is delivered over the Internet, which could mess with people’s TV programming and web browsing, so there may soon be fire in those glazed-over eyes.

Wait, we’ve seen this before: Remember the Stop Online Piracy Act, or SOPA, the dispute two years ago in which the entertainment companies, backed by the government, took on Silicon Valley? It was the Little Big Horn. Time and again, when the government tries to insert itself between the Internet and its users, it gets clobbered. This could end up the same way. Here’s why:

This Thursday, the Federal Communications Commission will vote on whether to move forward with a proposal that would allow broadband providers to charge extra to content providers if they want their programming delivered in a fast lane so it streams reliably.

In a letter released on Friday, Tom Wheeler, the F.C.C. chairman, said he cared deeply about the principle of net neutrality, or the equal treatment of content on the Internet.

“My commitment to protect and preserve the open Internet remains steadfast,” he wrote. But regardless of how he spins it, Mr. Wheeler is really proposing two Internets: One slow, where most of the traffic lives, and one fast, for those who can afford it. On Sunday, The Wall Street Journal reported that Mr. Wheeler would propose new language, as soon as Monday, saying that the agency will not allow the web to be divided into fast and slow lanes.

Netflix already cut such a deal with Comcast, complained about it, and then turned around and struck essentially the same deal with Verizon, which is kind of a nifty trick when you think about it. Comcast and other broadband providers point out that Netflix sucks up about 30 percent of the system’s capacity, so that it should pay more than others only makes sense.

But why should you, as someone who just wants to use the web to surf or watch programming, care whether companies like Netflix and Hulu have to pay companies like Comcast and Verizon to ensure smooth feeds? Well, even though consumers won’t be charged directly for the faster service, we all know where those fee increases will end up landing. I just received a notice from Netflix that the price of a new membership is rising $1, to $8.99. It’s still small money and a bargain at that, but as its costs and that of other companies go up, what had been a cheap alternative for lots of programming could start to become costly.

The bifurcation of the Internet is a scary prospect and the F.C.C. itself is divided over the proposed rules: Jessica Rosenworcel, a commissioner, has called for a delay in any changes, and Mignon Clyburn, a fellow Democrat on the five-member panel, has joined her in pushing back against the aggressive plan that Mr. Wheeler has set out.

A potentially more threatening pushback arrived on Wednesday when a coalition of tech companies — Amazon, eBay, Facebook, Google, Twitter, Yahoo, and just about every other digital company you have ever heard of — registered their opposition to the changes in a letter to the F.C.C.

The signatories did not mince words, calling the proposal “a grave threat to the Internet.”

The letter goes on: “The commission’s longstanding commitment and actions undertaken to protect the open Internet are a central reason why the Internet remains an engine of entrepreneurship and economic growth,” it reads, continuing, “This commission should take the necessary steps to ensure that the Internet remains an open platform for speech and commerce so that America continues to lead the world in technology markets.”

Translation: You are about to break the Internet and you will be deeply sorry if you do.

In the debate between the Beltway vs. the Valley, my money is on the Valley. Remember in 2012 when a clueless Congress lumbered into Internet regulation by coming up with SOPA and a companion bill in the Senate (the Protect I.P. Act)? The entertainment companies that backed the legislation thought it was no big deal, but then a group of Silicon Valley players — many of the same ones who are now coalescing to oppose new Internet regulations — unleashed their user base and a huge wave of protest erupted. Both bills went down hard.

In the weeks after the SOPA debacle, I was at the Sundance Film Festival and then in Hollywood, talking with entertainment executives. They looked like extras from “The Walking Dead,” with bite marks all over them. They didn’t know what hit them because they did not understand the intimate relationship that the Valley has with its customers.

Google, Facebook, Twitter and the like offer you an endless array of useful products, many of them at a cost of absolutely nothing. (You actually trade oodles of privacy and data for the privilege, but that’s another column.) By contrast, cable companies, which provide most of the broadband, supply an endless array of entertainment, but at a very dear price that is not going to endear them to anyone. Add in the fact that broadband providers are the ones we call when the web isn’t working — have you ever contacted Netflix when your movie was endlessly buffering? — and you can see how they get the blame for everything and credit for nothing.

All this comes as Comcast, the No. 1 cable company, is also appearing before the F.C.C. and Congress seeking to acquire Time Warner Cable, the No. 2 cable company. Between looking for approval on the merger and greater flexibility in how it delivers web content, Comcast is asking for a great deal of permission and control, all at the same time.

The F.C.C. is in the position of proposing new rules because in January, a three-judge panel struck down the commission’s previous attempts to exercise control to ensure that all traffic is treated equally. So far, the commission has declined to treat the web as a public utility because it did not want to discourage investment by the big providers, but if it had the will and foresight, many believe it could exercise more authority in a way that would pass judicial muster. It would mean going back to the drawing board, and taking on some powerful interests, but it might be worth it.

The public has an expectation that the web will work like other utilities: When people turn on a light switch, the room lights up, and when they twist a faucet handle, water comes out. People expect the same of the Internet — always on, always working.

We don’t want two Internets — a good one and a bad. We want the money and investment to flow toward a single infrastructure that works rapidly and efficiently, as it does in so many other countries. It should be a medium in which videos of your niece dancing to Beyoncé, streaming coverage of Occupy Wall Street and “House of Cards” all play smoothly when you hit a button.

Given the mounting opposition, the F.C.C. commissioners would be well advised to delay any changes this Thursday. And if they don’t, they may end up starring in a sequel: “SOPA II: When Nerds Bite Back.”

FUROR ERUPTS OVER NET NEUTRALITY RULES

Original Story:  USAToday.com

A battle has erupted over the Federal Communications Commission chairman's new proposal for net neutrality rules that would allow content providers to pay for Internet express lanes.

In the first formal step toward reinstating net neutrality, FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler presented a draft of the revised rules to his fellow commissioners Thursday. The rules would prevent Internet service providers from blocking or discriminating against lawful content.

But the proposal allows fast lanes to consumers' homes, the so-called "last mile," that content providers such as Netflix can purchase as long as the same opportunities are available to others on "commercially reasonable" terms. The new rules give the FCC the authority to review such arrangements to ensure that they don't harm consumers and competition.

Critics of the new approach immediately asserted that fast lanes are a form of discrimination that could leave small businesses and entrepreneurs at a disadvantage. The FCC should include specific language to prevent such deals, or ISPs should be classified as public utilities that can be regulated more strictly, they say.

"Net neutrality prevents that overcharge, which gets passed along to consumers and stifles innovation," says Gabe Rottman of the American Civil Liberties Union.

Net neutrality proponents were also concerned that the new rules do not address traffic over the back-end Internet pipes used by content providers to send data to ISPs' front doors.

Netflix caused an industry furor earlier this year when it agreed, albeit reluctantly, to pay Comcast for a more direct connection between its servers and Comcast's network to provide faster delivery. "Where they are headed with this is down the wrong path, as ISPs get explicit legal permission to do deals with Internet companies," says Netflix spokesman Joris Evers.

The FCC's Open Internet rules were enacted in 2010 to ensure that Internet providers do not discriminate against lawful content. Following an industry challenge, a federal appeals court invalidated the rules earlier this year but allowed the FCC to recast them.

Wheeler said his goal is to enact rules similar to the earlier ones that pass muster with the court. The commission will vote on them at the agency's May 15 meeting. If they are approved, public comment will be taken before the rules go into effect, which Wheeler hopes will be by the end of the year.

Berlusconi Moves to Impose Internet Regulations

AP

Silvio Berlusconi is moving to extend his grip on Italy's media to the freewheeling Internet world of Google and YouTube.

Going beyond other European countries, the premier's government has drafted a decree that would mandate the vetting of videos for pornographic or violent content uploaded by users onto such sites as YouTube, owned by Google, and the France-based Dailymotion, as well as blogs and online newsmedia.

Google, press freedom watchdogs and telecom providers are among those pressing for changes in the draft to prevent the fast-track legislation from taking effect as early as Feb. 4. They say the decree would erode freedom of expression and mandate the technically burdensome - maybe even impossible - task of monitoring what individuals put on the Internet.

Reporters Without Borders Media says the measures could force Web sites to obtain licenses to operate in Italy.

The 34-page decree mandates vetting of any content harmful to minors, specifically pornography or excessive violence, and would require telecoms providers to shut down any Internet site not in compliance, or face fines ranging from euro150 to euro150,000 ($210 to $210,960).

The draft says it would be handled by "an authority," without elaborating, raising questions about among media freedom advocates about how it could be implemented.

Reporters Without Borders said in a statement this week that the draft proposal as written "pose yet another threat to freedom of expression in Italy."

The draft was written in mid-December, just around the same time the media empire founded by Berlusconi announced it was seeking at least euro500 million (US$779 million) in damages against YouTube and Google for allegedly misusing video it produced. The move is in response to a 2007 European Union directive to set up media rules, but only Italy has taken the directive to mean putting Internet companies in the hotseat.

The decree also inherently challenges the YouTube business model, shared by other hosting platforms, of allowing users to upload video without being controlled - the principle at the center of the Milan trial of four Google executives charged with defamation and violating privacy for allowing a video to be posted online showing an autistic youth being abused. Google says it removed the video as quickly as it could. A verdict is expected in the coming weeks, with the executives facing possible jail sentences.

The decree could also provide a tool to swiftly deal with hate groups, like those praising Berlusconi's attacker that mushroomed on Facebook after Berlusconi was struck by a man wielding a statue of Milan's cathedral.

Carlo Carnevale Maffe, an Internet economist at Milan's Bocconi University, argues that Internet must be regulated like other economic platforms or big companies will retain a monopolistic grip and keep getting bigger and more powerful.

"I cannot consider YouTube as a benefactor of mankind. I must consider YouTube as a company," Maffe said. "Google and the Internet live without regulation worldwide. This is impossible and we need to clear what are the limits of this new platform. We need to upgrade the legal platform to make sure the Internet is not blocked from innovation, but to give fair competition to the Internet."

Google's concern is that the decree takes aim at user-generated content, which drives YouTube seo,  that is by its nature not managed in the same way as TV network content is. That was not the intention, Google argues, of the EU directive that Italy has taken to include Internet controls.

"If I am the BBC and I am using the web to broadcast my IPTV (Internet protocol TV), I am in the scope of the directive. If I am a user posting on YouTube a video of my son's birthday, I am not under the scope of the directive," Marco Pancini, European senior policy counsel of Google Italia, said in an interview Friday before testifying on the decree before an Italian parliamentary committee.

Pancini was quoted earlier this week as telling Italian media that it would "destroy the Internet," but he said Friday that after meeting with drafters this week that he was convinced they were open to amending the decree.

Pancini was testifying along with the Italian associations for Internet and telecommunication providers as well as the national press and music federations. Pancini said he expected parliament to return the draft with changes next week, delaying implementation.