Wednesday, August 16, 2017
Activists claim Comcast, other telecomm in secret negotiations to subvert quasi net neutrality' billboard campaign fund sought; take with a grain of salt
I don’t normally get involved in one-sided campaigns to defeat very narrow bills or changes, but there is a big push to stop the FCC from gutting net neutrality as the second comment period ends. This seems to be designed to fund billboard ads, link here.
The email I got suggested that Comcast was in secret negotiations with Congress to gut net neutrality. I take this with a grain of salt personally.
Here's a galley of the photos:
Politico’s account is here.
Open Secrets is here.
Motherboard on Vice has a story here.
Wednesday, August 09, 2017
Jon Brodkin of Ars Technica reports that almost 200 ISP’s in the US still have data usage caps. A few of them are very low (like 3GB) but not regularly enforced. Larger ISP’s typically inforce 1TB to 3 TB. Comcast usually allows 1 TB per month and charges $10 for each 50 GB afterward. But it is very unlikely that a typical home user would reach 1 TB, unless a large household doing binge watching, or some sort of heavy duty P2P.
Comcast allows guest accounts (encourages the practice for Airbnb) for security (xfinitywifi), which would arguably count against the limit.
It’s arguable (in Ait Pai’s thinking) that looser network neutrality could give some ISP’s a motive to up the data limits.
Wednesday, July 12, 2017
I attended a small demonstration shortly after noon today for the Internet-Wide Day of Action to Save Network Neutrality.
The main argument offered was that if big telecom companies are allowed to set up fast lanes for other big businesses that they own or that pay them off, ordinary consumers will not find their competitors. So it sounds like an anti-trust argument, and similar arguments have been made against Google and search engine results. Speakers also noted that major Silicon Valley companies support neutrality and that major startups have developed during this period. Senator Ed Markey (D-MA) led the event. But then look at Timothy B. Lee’s recent Vox piece, “The End of the Internet Startup”.
Another major argument was that network neutrality helps minority voices (people of color, LGBT, and immigrant) voices be heard.
There are more videos from this event on my Wordpress "Media Reviews" blog here.
Tuesday, July 11, 2017
I have submitted my own comments to the FCC on net neutrality.
I follows the instructions exactly as published by "The Verge" here.
Here is the text of my comments:
"The biggest concern among many Internet users, especially small businesses or individuals running their own Internet domains, either on their own servers or with shared hosting services, is that, if network neutrality provisions are rolled back, then some or all telecommunications providers might start treating websites as if they were analogous to cable television channels and not offer access to all of them unless paid by content providers.
"But it does appear the NCTS-itv has promised that its members indeed will not do this, and will continue to allow lawful content to be accessed from the United States from their servers in the same manner as today.
"My own stake in this is as a political and social commentator who has very low costs in developing and posting content, but whose operations could not “pay their own way” in an environment if indeed telecom providers changed the “rules of the game” so to speak.
"I can understand the position that says, a telecom provider might want to provide a very low-cost service for some customers with very limited web access, in the same sense that I recall that ten years ago many cell phones did not yet offer web access at all. I also remember that in the earliest days of the public Internet, in the mid 1990s, “proprietary content” from big providers like AOL and Prodigy ruled the world until about 1997 or so, as it became more common for users to apply the html protocol on their own and expected to find any website this way. I also realize that over time, consumer modes of access change, as from the dialup (which in time became reasonably effective for text and smaller images, although not for video) of 20 years ago, to wireless mobile devices today, with a backbone in conventional PC or Mac or Linux computer and laptop access.
"My main expectation would be that telecom providers would facilitate or allow connection to my sites the same way as it happens today, for about the same cost, in both mobile and desktop or PC usage, in wireless, FIOS and conventional cable. If some users with very limited plans could not access my sites, that probably would not affect me, as such consumers are probably not interested in my kind of content anyway. But such a develop could seriously affect some kinds of small businesses, whose owners depend on inexpensive Internet web access from all potential consumers to make a living. And such a development could hamper some kinds of innovation.
"I don’t have a problem with the idea that, even in a reasonably regulated environment, some providers (such as those performing rescue or emergency medicine) have a legitimate need for fast lanes; this should not affect ordinary use. "
When you submit the comment the form removes the paragraphs, but the email confirmation restores themm.
Sunday, July 02, 2017
I wanted to pass along the form where people can express their comments about the dissolution of network neutrality, to the FCC. It’s at this url. Deadline is July 17.
The latest Day of Action Event link for July 12 is here.
NCTA’s own voluntary promise not to interefere with normal website access is here.
Wednesday, June 07, 2017
ATT recently (May 31) published a blog post by Hank Hultquist, Chairman of “Federal Regulatory” offering the viewpoint that Obama’s net neutrality rules (FCC’s common carrier concept) are predicated on the idea that an ISP advertises itself as a “neutral conduit”, link here.
That is, there is nothing inherently illegal even now for a small ISP to deliver only carefully curated websites to, say, a religious consumer subset that wants only a limited Internet exposure.
That’s true, this wouldn’t matter as long as the major companies maintain their public posture as “public accommodations”, so to speak.
And none of the major ISP’s have indicated any interest in censoring or blocking content. They might have issues with, say, porn sites that use enormous bandwidth.
And today, Wednesday June 7, 2017, p. A14 of the Washington Post carries a story by Brian Fung, “Web companies plan July ‘day of action’ in push to protect net neutrality”, link here. The companies involved are Amazon, Reddit, Mozilla and Kickstarter, on Wednesday July 12, 2017. Fung reminds us of a similar day in January 2012 to protest SOPA when Wikipedia went dark. Fung still rehearses the idea that “neutral” ISP’s could throttle content they don’t like. I’m still getting lots of emails asking me to “join in” a hyped petition. The last day for comments is July 17, and I will probably submit one. Fung reiterates, however, that ISP’s still say they are committed to neutrality in practice.
Thursday, May 18, 2017
Well, the comment period on the rollback of Network Neutrality has started, by a 2-1 vote today, overlooked by the media given all of Trump’s antics. Arstechnica, normally level headed, seems to think that the sky is falling, as in “Chicken Little”
I think I may well make a formal comment during the open period, before July 17.
Arst Technica links to a list of some ISP violations over the years. In one case, a labor union’s site was reportedly blocked. Comcast apparently tried to interfere with user P2P, which is odd because Comcast doesn’t offer OpenDNS (I think Verizon does), which is how a host (like for Airbnb) could try to block anyone using his router from doing most possible illegal downloading for which the host could be liable.
This topic needs our continued attention to see what ISP’s really say they want to do.
Tuesday, May 09, 2017
Electronic Frontier Foundation's "DearFCC campaign": hints that small businesses could be completely cut off? Credible at all?
For what it’s worth, I’ll share Electronic Frontier Foundation’s “DearFCC” campaign. EFF is one of the organizations I support regularly.
I’m not confident that the childish tone of the suggested letter is effective, and I’m concerned about the hysterical tone of some of the hints – that big ISP’s will really block small websites that don’t pay them off (again, the idea of saying “what the Internet means to me”). I don’t know if that’s a credible threat, and in any case Pai says he has pledges that carriers will not discriminate outside of setting up fast lanes in very special circumstances that really warrant it. A text blog doesn’t need a fast lane; a movie streaming site would. (Usually Blogger content loads very quickly now; Wordpress domains are a little slower, sometimes. But is that because of net neutrality? Blogger was pretty fast even in 2008. So is my legacy DADT site.)
I’ll have to look further into how ISP’s really intend to behave. I think they would deny these ideas right now.
One remote idea is that “free” services like Blogger and Wordpress subdomains would have better access than paid-for domains. Maybe services like BlueHost would have to arrange access to the biggies in a future without net neutrality. But will these free services last forever? Do they really make money for their owners? Needs serious attention.
Saturday, May 06, 2017
Mike Snider had an article in USA Today May 5 in which he reports that Trump’s FCC Chairman Aji Pai still insists that Obama’s 2015 Net Neutrality rules have interfered with broadband investment in rural areas or certain low income neightborhoods. Indeed, on one day trip in the fall of 2015 I saw lots of road signs in a rural area in the Virginia Blue Ridge offering broadband.
The article goes on to criticize Pai’s claims, noting in particular that ATT’s acquisitions have skewed the results. And Pai has taken other actions which might have impeded some rural access.
But it is reasonable to think that neutrality rules could interfere with new hardware in some cases.
The video embedded with the article makes a disturbing speculation, that without net neutrality an ISP would slow down a “basement blog” in favor of Facebook. But of course, the basement blog might require relatively few resources (Wordpress can require more), where as an HD video streaming service legitimately could “need” more bandwidth, which could be paid for.
It’s interesting for me to remember that in the early days my own legacy sites always loaded very fast because they were straightline HTML and used few resources.
For example, this long chapter from my first DADT book (48000 words) on an old legacy site loads in less than one second on Xfinity right now. You can try it at home. But it took three seconds on my iPhone 6. It loaded fast before net neutrality, even in the early days of high speed.
Monday, May 01, 2017
Let’s make note of the New York Times editorial Sunday, “The F.C.C. Invokes Internet Freedom While Trying to Kill It”.
The editorial points out that Pai’s “voluntary” compliance from telecom companies could be “enforced” by fines or litigation, but sounds facetious. It also points out that ATT, Comcast, and Verizon are already treating the content of companies they own more favorably than those of competitors of non-affiliated providers. That may refer to zero-rating, allowing subscribers free or preferred use of subsidiaries (as in the example involving DirectTV).
One could imagine a world where shared hosting companies have to negotiate with all the major telecom companies to give their clients faster speeds (or someday, access at all).
Update: May 3
Electronic Frontier Foundation also has a similar reaction by Corynne McSherry along with a petition, here. That refers to an article on the Verge ("nonsense"?) that lays out the ways ISP's could play cat and mouse. By the way, I've talked with Gigi Sohn before, back in the days of "don't ask don't tell".
Thursday, April 27, 2017
Timothy B. Lee has an article on Vox describing how new FCC Chairman Ajit Pai wants to deconstruct FCC regulation of the Internet (to borrow a verb from my own DADT-1 book), that is, roll back Obama’s Network Neutrality regulations and the classification of telecom companies as utilities. The Vox story is here.
Lee notes that the telecom companies have been on good behavior since 2008, because they expected regulation.
Since ISP’s sometimes own content companies, there is fear that they could manipulate traffic to shut out competition. This fear is reflect in past regulation of broadcast TV, which limited the number of television stations a network could own (to 5).
Still, Internet service providers today say they have no plans to throttle smaller companies, but they want very larger content providers like Netflix to be able to pay for special hardware farms (like around Charlotte or around Ashburn VA) or routers to carry their traffic more efficiently. Pai claims that regulations against pay for fast lanes (like toll lanes on Interstates) prey on a phantom problem that does not exist, and regulations could prevent new Internet technologies from coming on line (from entrepreneurs) or even hamper grid resilience.
Android Headlines had another account here. Here is the text of his remarks April 26 (PDF) The FCC votes on these May 18 and then there is a comment period to follow.
Thursday, April 13, 2017
Trump's FCC chairman seems to press for "voluntary" compliance with no-throttle expectations from telecom companies
Silicon valley companies that provide social networking or publication services are still pressuring the FCC to preserve network neutrality rules established during the Obama administration, according to a story on p. A14 of the Washington Post today.
Trump’s FCC Chairman Ajit Pai has been contacting telecom providers (the natural antagonists of service companies) to get “voluntary promises” not to throttle or block sites, in exchange for dispensing with formal rules. The intention is to provide telecom companies with incentive to improve broadband in rural areas or for specific kinds of customers where there is real economic justification.
But a story by John D. McKinnon in the Wall Street Journal on the Technology Page, B4 today (good reading when at a Starbucks) says “Web firms defend net neutrality as GOP takes aim”. This story refers to Mr. Pai’s apparent intention to “preserve basic elements of net neutrality, such as no blocking or throttling” and an intention to turn over supervision to the Federal Trade Commission (as part of Trump’s federal government streamlining).s
Tuesday, April 04, 2017
Trump promises to bridge the digital divide between rich and poor, but Ajit seems to counter him; Time Magazine issue on infrastructure
Karl Vick has an important story in Time, April 10, “Internet for All”, link. It's part of an issue dedicated to rebuilding national infrastructure, Steve Bannon's pet priority.
Still, a quarter of the nation does not have broadband (Internet connection capable of watching video) . Trump has said that he wants to close the communications gap in between the haves and have-nots in rebuilding infrastructure. But so far Ajit Pai, the new FCC Chairman, seems to want to dismantle rules that might help poor people get broadband.
Vick discusses rural areas where satellite dishes are the only source of Internet. They are slower and less reliable and consumers run out of data limits.
Vick says we need a “unity of purpose” the way we had with rural electrification and then with phone service. Right now, it isn’t profitable enough to serve some remote areas with typical business thinking.
And then there are the cell free zones by deliberate choice, like around Green Bank. W Va.
Monday, March 20, 2017
Laptops cannot be taken on flights (at least in cabins) on direct flights from some less stable countries, dangerous implications for staying connected during travel
The ability to carry electronics when traveling long distances may have been slightly more compromised today, as the US banned carryon laptops and most electronics (although it allowed cellphones) on direct flights to the US from 12 or more countries in the Middle East and Africa.
The ban, announced suddenly (and coming to light on a tweet from Jordanian Airlines, later deleted) seems to be based on intelligence that Al Qaeda could come up with undetectable bombs in laptops (which was attempted in Somalia a year ago).
Here is the Foreign Policy story. I had tweeted the CNN story, and it was liked immediately by an Arab source, odd.
So far, the ban does not affect any US carriers, or domestic flights. Travelers from those countries might avoid the ban by changing in another European airport, or European countries could institute the policy.
The TSA today warns travelers the opposite: don’t put laptops in checked bags, since they are likely to be damaged. Travelers may arrive without usable laptops in the US.
A few years ago, Internet cafes offering widespread relatively secure computer time were common.
Now they are not since people normally carry their own electronics as they travel. When you combine this with the concern over battery safety, we could have a new problem for travelers coming, especially business.
Possibly people could reasonably ship laptops in original packing by UPS to destinations.
It has been difficult to safely carry drug-store photo packs (to be developed), but I’ve actually mailed those home (USPS) before taking flights before.
The Washington Post added more details early March 21 here.
Update: March 24
Aviation Weekly has a podcast on he issue of lithium ion batteries in the cargo hold vs, cabin, as well as on the security issues, link.
Wednesday, March 15, 2017
Headphones fire on a Chinese flight draws more attention to worldwide safety problem with lithium batteries in any carry-on electronics
A woman wearing lithium-battery powered headphones experienced a fire in the batteries, burning her face, on a flight from Beijing to Melbourne, forcing an emergency landing in Japan.
CNN has the story here.
But the incident calls attention to the rise in fire and smoke incidents in planes from many devices (not just Samsung Galazy smartphones). There were only three such incidents in 2011, but 106 in 2015.
Stanford researchers seem to be making major progress with aluminum ion batteries that could make a safer product for millions of users. One problem is that with so many millions of users, even a very low incident rate creates safety and liability problems.
Travelers need to be able to carry their electronics safely to conduct business normally when on the road.
Monday, February 27, 2017
WJLA-7 aired a report “Warning: Exploding Lithium” on the increasing attention to the remote but possibly catastrophic results from lithium battery explosions and fires, especially in electronics. In the past, entire brands of smartphones (in Samsung's lines) were banned from planes because of this problem.
And a very few lithium battery laptop fires have been reported, although these may be from a known manufacturing issue in the mid 2000’s.
The way travel works, it is critical that people be able to bring their devices (phones, tablets and laptops) on planes and have them fully usable when they arrive.
One tip is not to leave unattended devices plugged in.
Overseas manufacture, especially in China, contributes to the problem. Donald Trump could be right that some things would be better and safer if we made them at home.
Monday, February 13, 2017
Verizon has now offered unlimited data plans, both at the family level and individual. For me it is $80 a month, and I just converted a few moments ago online. (Yes, the site was slow and busy.) My own bill increases $16 a month. NBC Nightly News has a typical video covering the story.
Monday, February 06, 2017
Trump FCC appointee starts to dissolve network neutrality rules, but maybe without much practical effect
Ajit Pai, Trump’s new FCC chairman, is starting to erode the previous administration’s network neutrality rules, according to a story by Cecilia Kang on Feb. 5.
Nine companies were prevented from offering Internet basics to low-income consumers, although no consumers had started the programs yet. Ajit also believes that zero-rating practices of some providers regarding data limits will help consumers and not unduly affect fair competition.
Pai has said he disagrees with the idea that Internet service providers are “utilities”, but he has not said how he will challenge the finding.
Friday, January 27, 2017
Thune (R-SD) wants to provide bipartisan compromise and stability on net neutrality, regardless of Trump or any other president
Senator John Thune (R-SD) wants to pass a “moderate” bill on network neutrality so that the Internet is not subject to whims of extremes on other side, something strong enough to prevent overly monopolistic or anti-competitive behavior, writes Tim Lee in Vox now.
Amir Nasr has a shorter but similar article on Morning Consult here.
Update: Feb. 24
Thune gave the New York Times an interview on his proposals here.
Tuesday, January 24, 2017
Trump names network neutrality foe to head FCC, but it's much less clear how important this really will be
Donald Trump has named a “network neutrality foe” Ajit Pai to head the Federal Communications Commission.
Timothy B. Lee has a detailed article on the possible significance of his appointment on Vox here. He also refers to a speech given by Pai to the FCC in December 2016 here.
Let’s cut to the chase. Have telecommunications companies ever charged new content providers with the right to be “hooked up” to their Internet services and be found? I’ve never heard of that. Brain Fung had mentioned the idea last fall in the Washington Post. Lee mentions that when Facebook got started, Mark Zuckerberg didn’t have to worry about this, but Zuckerberg got Facebook started long before there was meaningful network neutrality regulation anyway. Lee also says that it could take over a year for the undoing of Net Neutrality to occur, and that litigation would follow. (Private contract agreements also come into play.)
It does sound logical that telecom companies could be concerned about very high volume sites (and these might include porn sites), that could mean the need for more servers or hardware or routers in various locations.
Theoretically, if telecom companies started behaving this way when allowed to, small business people or bloggers could not longer have their own public domains, as we have become accustomed.
They could use free services like Blogger or Automattic Wordpress, at the whim of being pulled at any time. And I’m not sure that the business model for these free services is sustainable forever, especially in a Trump climate with new concerns about hidden national security threats (and with Trump’s dislike of “computers” as not “safe”).
Perhaps, though, shared hosting companies (like Bluehost, Godaddy) would take care of the hookup access, but would have to pass the costs along to website owners. Setting up new domains (except for popular names people want) has been very cheap.
On the other hand, a Comcast or a Verizon has every “free market” reason to offer consumers access to everything lawful and accessible by normal Internet protocols, because consumer should expect it.
I don’t think that allowing a Netflix to have a “fast lane” (rather like an EZPass toll lane) for consumer convenience (when consumers will pay more for premium speed service) or to a faster streaming service that a telecom company owns, though should logically need to compromise consumer access to normal “small’ websites (like mine, for example).
Net neutrality rules could have some impact on other services that consumers want to use for protecting kids or for limiting liability from guest use (like OpenDNS or guest hotspots).
Update: CNN has a story this evening by Seth Fiergerman.
Sunday, January 15, 2017
The latest on Donald Trump and net neutrality seems to be an article Jan. 2 in Wired by Klint Finley, “This is the year Donald Trump kills net neutrality”.
But private contracts would require Comcast to honor it until 2018 and Charter until 2020+.
The biggest practical issue, according to Wired, is the interest in telecomm companies in offered “zero rated” services to consumers (no data charges) to content providers who negotiate big deals with them. In the video streaming area, this encourages big companies to bully small ones out of existence, and seems monopolistic. But for non-video content, or for consumers whose video use is more moderate, it probably doesn’t matter. Zero-rating can help consumers living in large family households with only one connection. It probably means very little to singles.
Sunday, January 01, 2017
Russell Brandon has a detailed article in the Verge explaining why Congress is likely to “go easy” (Giuoco Piano or maybe “pianissimo”, by analogy to chess) on upending the FCC’s legal authority for network neutrality. There is mention that providers are likely to be allowed to offer more of the “basic” services to low-end consumers without data charges, but that wouldn’t affect things a lot.
Karl Bode has an article in TechDirt from Nov. 9 that vaguely lays out ISP preparations for Trump’s probable gradual gutting of net neutrality. Bode seems to think that without regulation, telecom companies have little incentive to meet competition and will tend to get away with weak or bad customer service. Tech dirt has another article noting that European and Asian governments tend to see zero-rating as a strategy to eliminate competition.