EU net neutrality and what it means for the U.S.

Jacob Donley 2014-04-08T14:00:00Z1 day ago

Jacob Donley

I'm not a developer or anything like that. I'm a consumer, just like you. I like to give my thoughts on Android products from the non-technical side. Yes, I do provide some of the technical specs and such, but really, I just want to give you the best news possible.

The European Union has begun the process of passing laws enforcing net neutrality across Europe. The law has another round of voting from the members of the EU before it becomes official.

© Shutterstock / Toria 

Recent rounds of votes in the EU have begun to pave the way for net neutrality to be the future in internet access. The recent vote, which still hasn’t become a full fledge law as there is more voting to be done, will pave the way for abolishing roaming charges for EU members while inside territories of the EU. It also will not allow restrictions to internet access based on who is trying to access the internet and the type of media trying to be accessed.

In short, this means that Netflix wouldn’t be forced to pay more for people to access their video content and users trying to access video content on YouTube wouldn’t see their download speeds bogging down. This is a big step toward an open internet. But, what does this mean for the U.S.? The European Union’s moves towards net neutrality proves that their is a desire for this and not only on the individual consumer level. Multi-country organizations such as the EU are deeming net neutrality essential for the future of internet access and consumer rights.

U.S. internet service providers and mobile communications organizations probably have raised their eyebrows a few times over this recent move by the EU. If it has happened in Europe, there is a possibility that the sentiment of open and fair-use internet could cross the Atlantic and take hold here in the States. Companies that control access to the internet are not going to be very happy about missing out on all the extra money they earn from internet access agreements like the one that Netflix recently made with Comcast. The kinds of deals where service companies, like Netflix or YouTube, pay more for the ability to access the internet would be deemed unfair by net neutrality laws.

Video streaming protected under EU net neutrality laws   © Leigh Prather / shutterstock.com

What does net neutrality in Europe have to do with the U.S.? It is a warning for mobile communication companies and internet service providers that change is coming. While in the U.S. mobile communications are not tied together with internet service providers, that could change with the addendums that have been added to the EU net neutrality law. No roaming in the European Union for EU citizens alongside laws about the internet. That very well could be a big neon sign to the U.S. and the FCC to change the guidelines since the world has changed since the internet has been developed and the rise of smartphones.

What do you think about net neutrality? Do you think that these types of changes are destined for the U.S.?

Via: Android Central Source: The Verge, Forbes

 Previous

How to tell if a Samsung Galaxy S5 is fake

 Next

5 best Android-only apps Apple can be jealous of

View the Original article

CrunchWeek: Airbnb’s $10B Valuation, Netflix And Net Neutrality, And Microsoft’s Email Brouhaha

• Facebook
• LinkedIn

Airbnb Funding, Net Neutrality And Microsoft Reading Your Email

It’s Friday, and that means its time for another episode of CrunchWeek. This time, sitting around the White Table with me were my two excellent colleagues Kim-Mai Cutler and Ryan Lawler.

We dug through Airbnb’s massive $10 billion valuation, Netflix and the latest net neutrality skirmishes, and Microsoft’s email foot-in-mouth moment. As an aside, this was the first time that I have ever hosted the show, so please be gentle with your humble servant.

AT&T Exec Calls Netflix’s Reed Hastings “Arrogant” For Net Neutrality Post

AT&T just turned the high-stakes debate between Netflix and telecommunications companies into a name-calling food fight. AT&T Senior Executive Vice President of Legislative Affairs, James Cicconi, slammed Netflix CEO Reed Hastings, as “arrogant” for his support of stronger net neutrality laws.

Earlier this week, Hastings penned a strongly worded post calling for stronger federal support of laws that prevent Internet service providers from charging more for high-bandwidth services.

“Netflix believes strong net neutrality is critical, but in the near term we will in cases pay the toll to the powerful ISPs to protect our consumer experience. When we do so, we don’t pay for priority access against competitors, just for interconnection,” he wrote, in relation to the ongoing debate over the future of net neutrality and paid agreements between Netflix and Comcast.

Hastings argued that Netflix is taking up more global Internet bandwidth because it’s popular. His service is “satisfying requests made by ISP customers who pay a lot of money for high-speed Internet. Netflix doesn’t send data unless members request a movie or TV show.” (Hastings also argued a few more other nuanced points, which we covered in more detail here.)

AT&T is, apparently, not happy with the opinion. “As we all know, there is no free lunch, and there’s also no cost-free delivery of streaming movies. Someone has to pay that cost. Mr. Hastings’ arrogant proposition is that everyone else should pay but Netflix. That may be a nice deal if he can get it,” wrote Cicconi [emphasis added].

Specifically, he argues that users are being forced to pay for the infrastructure necessary to carry all the media-heavy bandwidth. In the current structure, the increased cost of building that capacity is ultimately borne by ISP subscribers. “It is a cost of doing business that gets incorporated into Netflix’s subscription rate. In Netflix’s view, that’s unfair,” explained Cicconi. “In its view, those additional costs, caused by Netflix’s increasing subscriber counts and service usage, should be borne by all broadband subscribers – not just those who sign up for and use Netflix service,” concluded Cicconi.

The FCC is currently seeking comment on a new path forward for net neutrality. In the meantime, we expect Netflix will be responding to AT&T soon. And it’ll be up to Netflix whether the debate becomes a name-calling arms race, or whether it goes in a different direction. Your move, Mr. Hastings.

Netflix Blasts ISPs, Calls For “Strong” Net Neutrality And Explains Why It Pays Comcast

When Netflix agreed to pay Comcast as part of a peering agreement in the wake of the legal demise of net neutrality, the landscape of the Internet changed.

Netflix CEO Reed Hastings today published an extensive blog post explaining his and his company’s views on net neutrality and why it now pays an ISP that it feels should be better regulated. The reason? Because it has to:

Netflix believes strong net neutrality is critical, but in the near term we will in cases pay the toll to the powerful ISPs to protect our consumer experience. When we do so, we don’t pay for priority access against competitors, just for interconnection.

How does Netflix define strong net neutrality? Here’s its definition of “weak” net neutrality, to begin:

The essence of net neutrality is that ISPs such as AT&T and Comcast don’t restrict, influence or otherwise meddle with the choices consumers make. The traditional form of net neutrality which was recently overturned by a Verizon lawsuit is important, but insufficient.

Strong net neutrality is sterner stuff, according to Hastings:

Strong net neutrality additionally prevents ISPs from charging a toll for interconnection to services like Netflix, YouTube, or Skype, or intermediaries such as Cogent, Akamai or Level 3, to deliver the services and data requested by ISP residential subscribers. Instead, they must provide sufficient access to their network without charge.

So Netflix wants to take things further and demand that peering agreements akin to what it signed with Comcast to be unnecessary. That’s sensible, given that it’s a growing cost source for the media company.

Quo warranto, you might ask; it’s a fair question. The foundation that Netflix leans upon to dispute the fact that peering agreements are a bad idea is twofold. First, that if Netflix had to fold under pressure and pay up, “imagine the plight of smaller services today and in the future.” This is a rebuttal of the idea that since Netflix can afford the fees, the situation must be just fine. YouTube would have been killed in its crib, I think, under the terms of Netflix’s current reality.

The second part of Hastings’ argument against peering is more complex:

Some ISPs say that Netflix is unilaterally “dumping as much volume” (Verizon CFO) as it wants onto their networks. Netflix isn’t “dumping” data; it’s satisfying requests made by ISP customers who pay a lot of money for high speed Internet. Netflix doesn’t send data unless members request a movie or TV show.

Interestingly, there is one special case where no-fee interconnection is embraced by the big ISPs — when they are connecting among themselves. They argue this is because roughly the same amount of data comes and goes between their networks. But when we ask them if we too would qualify for no-fee interconnect if we changed our service to upload as much data as we download** [** in other words, moving to peer-to-peer content delivery] – thus filling their upstream networks and nearly doubling our total traffic — there is an uncomfortable silence. That’s because the ISP argument isn’t sensible. Big ISPs aren’t paying money to services like online backup that generate more upstream than downstream traffic. Data direction, in other words, has nothing to do with costs.

Netflix here is being impish. The first paragraph above shifts the onus, I think fairly, on Netflix’s traffic quantity from itself to paying customers of the ISP. If those customers didn’t want Netflix, it wouldn’t comprise so much bandwidth. And as the customers are paying the ISP for Internet access, having them turn around and bill Netflix for what they already sold is an odd setup indeed.

The second paragraph is more of a middle finger in print, as you can see. The bit concerning ISPs peering amongst themselves is only applicable to a point.

Comcast released a stern but polite response:

“There has been no company that has had a stronger commitment to openness of the Internet than Comcast. We supported the FCC’s Open Internet rules because they struck the appropriate balance between consumer protection and reasonable network management rights for ISPs. We are now the only ISP in the country that is bound by them.

“The Open Internet rules never were designed to deal with peering and Internet interconnection, which have been an essential part of the growth of the Internet for two decades. Edge providers like Netflix have always paid for their interconnection to the Internet and have always had ample options to ensure that their customers receive an optimal performance through all ISPs. We are happy that Comcast and Netflix were able to reach an amicable, market-based solution to our interconnection issues and believe that our agreement demonstrates the effectiveness of the market as a mechanism to deal with these matters.”

Its point on peering is worth pondering.

I doubt that Netflix will get what it wants in regards to peering, given a lack of precedent for that sort of regulation. But its so-called “weak” net neutrality? That we need very much.

IMAGE BY FLICKR USER Marit & Toomas Hinnosaar UNDER CC BY 2.0 LICENSE (IMAGE HAS BEEN CROPPED)