The Internet - Net Neutrality is dead for Americans: Net Neutrality Repeal Is Official. Here’s How That Could Affect You - by Keith Collins

It’s official. The Federal Communications Commission’s repeal of net neutrality rules, which had required internet service providers to offer equal access to all web content, took effect on Monday.

The  rules, enacted by the administration of President Barack Obama in 2015 prohibited internet providers from charging more for certain content or from giving preferential treatment to certain websites.

After the commission voted to repeal the rules in December, it faced a public outcry, legal challenges from state attorneys general and public interest groups, and a push by Democratic lawmakers to overturn the decision. 

The opponents argued that the repeal would open the door for service providers to censor content online or charge additional fees for better service — something that could hurt small companies — and several states have taken steps to impose the rules on a local level.

Still,the repeal was a big win for Ajit Pai, the F.C.C.’s chairman, who has long opposed the regulations, saying they impeded innovation. He once said they were based on “hypothetical harms and hysterical prophecies of doom.”

Read more: Net Neutrality Repeal Is Official. Here’s How That Could Affect You. - The New YorkTimes

USA: Net Neutrality is Dead in the US: FCC Votes to Approve "Internet Freedom" Plan

The Federal Communications Commission just voted to approve a plan that effectively ends net neutrality. The culmination of months of work by FCC Chairman Ajit Pai, Thursday’s vote means the internet may never be the same again.

Net neutrality is the longstanding principle that internet service providers like AT&T, Comcast, and Verizon — where Pai previously worked as a lawyer before his career at the FCC — cannot play favorites over access to content, create a tiered internet where sites or users that pay more have access to a fast lane, or otherwise control how people get online. 

As expected, the vote was three in favor and two against, split along party lines. Chairman Ajit Pai received the support of both Republican commissioners for his plan, which he made public the week before Thanksgiving. Democratic commissioners Mignon Clyburn and Jessica Rosenworcel voted against the plan. The deliberations were interrupted for several minutes when, according to Pai, security advised them to take a recess.

Thursday’s vote reverses the 2015 decision of the Obama-era FCC, which reclassified ISPs as utilities instead of information services under what’s known as Title II regulations. That earlier move came in part because a 2014 court decision found the FCC could no longer impose net neutrality regulations on ISPs unless they were categorized as utilities.

Note EU-Digest: This actually means US internet providers can set pricing now for tall kinds of additional services including the speed you want your internet to connect and process information. It will have a huge impact on what people do online in America. 

In Europe during the summer 0f 2016 hundreds of thousands of Internet users banded together to keep the Internet open and free. Together, we sent a loud, clear message to BEREC, the Body of European Regulators of Electronic Communications: protect net neutrality. And it worked! BEREC’s final guidelines, which were published on 30 August 2016, offer some of the strongest net neutrality protections we could wish for. 

So long as these new rules are properly enforced by national telecom regulators, they represent a resounding victory for net neutrality. The European public has made clear that it will not leave the future of its digital public space to big telco lobbyists and multi national corporations , but wants to decide for itself. To that end, civil society has to stay watchful and observe that telecom operators don’t violate the new laws. Indeed Europeans are slowly understanding that united we win, and divided we fall.

Read more: Net Neutrality is Dead in the USA: FCC Votes to Approve "Internet Freedom" Plan | Inverse

Internet: Europe reverses course on net neutrality legislation

Less than a year after the European Parliament voted to enshrine net neutrality in law, the principle has come under attack by the European Commission.

A package of reforms put together by former Digital Agenda Commissioner Neelie Kroes was voted through parliament in March 2014. It included strong safeguards for net neutrality, banning service providers from blocking or slowing Internet services provided by competitors.

But a majority of the 28 EU member states in the European council have now voted in favor of changing the rules to bar discrimination in Internet access but allow the prioritization of some "specialized" services that required high quality Internet access to function.

The exact types of services were not defined, but it's possible they might include connected cars. The EU specified that if service providers did prioritize such services, they would have to ensure a good standard of Web access for consumers.

The proposals did not go unopposed. More than 100 MEPs signed a letter to the Telecoms council that accused it of "lacking ambition". "Weakened proposals on net neutrality go against the European Parliament's repeated calls for clear definitions," it read. "We call on you to have clearly defined net neutrality rules for Europe."

Marietje Schaake, the net neutrality spokesperson from the fourth largest group of MEPs, the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats in Europe, was even more scathing of the decision. "Current proposals are ambivalent, and can lead to commercial practices that go against consumer interests, against innovative startups, and against fair competition in the digital economy," she said. "The European Parliament has repeatedly called for strong net neutrality; the Council should show ambition in doing the same."

The proposals, which also include a postponement of the abolition of roaming charges across member states, have been sent from the European Commission to the European Parliament for consideration this week.

Read more: Europe reverses course on net neutrality legislation | Ars Technica

Net Neutrality: President Obama takes game changing stand on Net Neutrality

President Obama made good on his promise to stand up for the Internet. He called on the FCC in the strongest possible way to save the Internet by undoing a Bush-era deregulation scheme and reclassifying broadband as a public utility under Title II.

When it comes to Net Neutrality, President Obama just proved whose side he is on–that of the American people and an open and equal Internet.

In the wake of an election that put Republicans in control of the Senate, what happens in the next two years depends a lot on what President Obama is willing to stand up for. Yesterday, President Obama made it very clear that he will stand up for an open and equal Internet.

The president’s statement is a bold repudiation of FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler’s dangerous “hybrid” plan, which would allow for the creation of fast lanes and slow lanes on the Internet.

His statement was immediately attacked by AT&T and Verizon, and by Republicans like Senator Ted Cruz who has received campaign donations from–you guessed it–AT&T and Verizon!

It's now up to President Obama’s FCC Chair Tom Wheeler and the two other Democratic commissioners serving on the commission that regulates the telecom industry. We don’t yet know if the Democratic majority on the FCC will join President Obama in standing with the American people or if they will cave to Comcast, AT&T and Verizon. But we do know that CREDO and our allies will bring the full force of our activism to the FCC.

Read more: Huge news: President Obama takes game changing stand on Net Neutrality | CREDO Action

Internet: The Debate Over Net Neutrality Has Its Roots in the Fight Over Radio Freedom

t’s almost hard to remember now, but the early years of the Internet were a carnival of crazy, chaotic amateurs.

When the web first went mainstream in the mid-’90s, the early sites weren’t big, glossy ones created by corporations. They were strange, offbeat ones crafted by individuals: diarists posting diaries, video-game fans creating encyclopedias of old arcade titles and discussion boards teeming with “X-Files” arguments.

Indeed, commercial activity was suspect, and anyone trying to make a buck online was shunned. When the lawyers Laurence Canter and Martha Siegel spammed newsgroups with a text-only ad for their green-card services, the outcry was so loud their Internet provider canceled their connection. The Internet, aficionados proclaimed, would always be a Wild West—amateur and proudly uncommercial.

This was naive, of course. By the early 2000s, commercial activity and huge firms boomed, as retailers like Amazon exploded in size and “netizens” began streaming video from services like YouTube and eventually Netflix and Hulu.

Today, it’s the little guy who looks to be in danger. The Internet service providers—like Comcast, Verizon and AT&T—have long pushed to create “speed lanes” online. If you run a website and want to make sure your connection moves swiftly to the end user, you’d need to pay these companies an extra fee.

If you don’t pay? Your signal might not move as fast as you’d like. The Federal Communications Commission this spring drafted rules that would allow for fast and slow lanes. If they take effect, it would be the end of “net neutrality,” and critics worry it would spell doom for amateurs online. Sure, established sites like YouTube or Facebook could pay those fees. But quirky little upstart websites—or even nonprofits like Wikipedia—couldn’t.

If amateurs really do get squeezed out, it wouldn’t be the first time we’ve seen this happen. Precisely the same thing happened a century ago to the original “people’s medium”: radio.

The idea of transmitting sound waves through the air caught on especially after the experiments of the Italian inventor Guglielmo Marconi in the late 19th century. The technology wasn’t complicated, and by the first decade of the 20th century, American tinkerers began building their own sets to transmit and receive radio signals. With relatively small amounts of power, someone at home could broadcast for dozens of miles.

Magazines printed schematics. “Any boy can own a real wireless station, if he really wants to,” urged The Book of Wireless.

Stations popped up everywhere—run in churches, fire departments and even businesses, when the owner bought a transmitter and started talking into the ether. Much like the first bloggers, early radio adopters were thrilled that they could reach a distant audience. They needed a new word for this; as Columbia law professor Tim Wu notes, they settled on “broadcasting,” which originally meant casting seeds in a field. “This was the first time in the history of mankind that people in different places heard the same thing at the same time,” notes Anthony Rudel, author of Hello, Everybody! The Dawn of American Radio.

Read more: The Debate Over Net Neutrality Has Its Roots in the Fight Over Radio Freedom | Innovation | Smithsonian

Technology: What does the new EU Parliament mean for tech? - by Jennifer Baker

As the tally for the European Parliament election draws to a close, dozens of candidates pledging to support data privacy and net neutrality initiatives appear to have been elected.

Voting for representatives to the 766-member European Parliament took place from Thursday to Sunday, in conjunction with local and national elections across the 28-nation European Union. For the first time, digital issues were at the forefront of candidates’ election campaigns.

More than 400 candidates to the Parliament pledged to defend net neutrality and data privacy, signing a 10-point digital rights charter called WePromiseEU. Votes were still being counted Monday, but by late afternoon, 55 candidates for Pariament who had signed WePromiseEU were confirmed as elected.

“It’s great to see that so many candidates and citizens consider their digital civil rights worth defending, and were ready to commit to the principles of the charter,” said Joe McNamee, director of digital rights group EDRi. “It is now up to us all to make sure that the elected members of European Parliament (MEPs) stand behind their promise and spread these values among their colleagues,” he continued.

The WePromiseEU pledge includes a commitment to fight against the idea of service providers being held accountable for monitoring illegal downloads, and against blanket, unchecked surveillance measures. It also includes a pledge to try to ensure that European surveillance technology is not sold to despotic regimes.

“I think more of the newly elected members will be switched on technology issues and I am happy that there are efforts being made to curb the export of surveillance tech so I will continue with that,” said Maritje Schaake, re-elected MEP for The Netherlands associated with the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe Party (ALDE).

Schaake is calling for a new digital committee to be set up in the European Parliament. The system of drawing up EU legislation requires that different committees in the Parliament scrutinize proposed laws. Currently although there are committees on trade, justice and home affairs, there is none devoted entirely to technology.


Read more: What does the new EU Parliament mean for tech? | PCWorld

Internet: The Netherlands becomes first in Europe to pass net neutrality law - by Lee Kaelin

The Netherlands has become the first EU member country to pass into law new net neutrality regulations, following in the footsteps of Chile, which became the first country in the world to make net neutrality laws back in July 2010. The new Telecom Law was approved unanimously by the Dutch Senate and is set to ensure that access to the internet remains neutral and unfiltered.

The move follows plans announced last year by Dutch telecoms provider KPN to increase mobile broadband prices and make allowance changes in the wake of increased data consumption for certain services over 3G, such as Skype and Whatsapp. KPN noted that the increased usage of these apps was reducing their average revenue per user and hurting profits.

Passing net neutrality regulations into law will mean that wireless operators will not be allowed to throttle or block any individual's internet services or price them differently according their internet usage. ISPs will still be allowed to throttle traffic in order to reduce congestion or protect their network, but they will be required to treat all traffic equally. Also, traffic can no longer be blocked unless it's absolutely necessary in order to protect the integrity and security of the network or users' computers.

Read more: The Netherlands becomes first in Europe to pass net neutrality law - TechSpot News

Netherlands first European Country to make Net Neutrality Legal

The Netherlands is on its way to become the first European country to pass a legislation on Net neutrality. Responding to an ever-increasing practice by telecommunications companies of charging their customers for services like Skype and other applications, the Netherlands is set to enact net neutrality laws forcing carriers to guarantee access to all web content and equally.
The legislation is expected to be approved of by the Dutch government next Tuesday, following a vote.

Net neutrality is a principle which advocates no restrictions by Internet service providers or governments on consumers' access to networks that participate in and on the Internet. Specifically, network neutrality would prevent restrictions on content, sites, platforms, the kinds of equipment that may be attached, or the modes of communication.

Net neutrality advocates have been calling for a law that would ensure that people get access to all Web content equally without additional surcharges, while many Internet service providers (ISPs) prefer a two-tier model.

The two-tiered approach has various forms in different parts of the world. In the industrialized world, where there is now frequently limited telecommunications competition as a result of cartel forming (AT&T and T-Mobile in the US) or Government intervention (most Middle East countries), these countries have begun blocking internet telephony services like Skype, Fring and other applications or charge extra fees for using these and other applications. Obviously the telecommunications industry wants to further monetize and monopolize the surge in online activity. They are saying that over the top players like Facebook and Youtube have done well in providing their services on the mobile networks, without investing in their own ISP infrastructure, even though mobile and internet providers (ISP's) are already charging customers extensive fees just to connect to the Internet.

Unfortunately even as the legislation was moving through the pipeline and gaining momentum with lawmakers, telecommunications providers were making attempts to bypass the proposed new rules. KPN, a Dutch telecommunications company, competing with Facebook, Twitter, and Instant Messaging, moved forward with a plan to charge its customers extra for using VoIP, streaming video, and sending instant messages. KPN admitted it was using deep packet inspection to monitor all Internet activity, and then classify it by application so as to make the charge-for-service scheme work. Vodaphone has admitted to using deep packet inspection as well.

European Commissioner Neelie Kroes (from the Netherlands) has spearheaded the European movement against Internet providers who want to charge more for using particular applications or services which compete with their offerings. More EU countries are expected to follow suit.

EU-Digest

Freedom of Expression and the Internet: Free Press, Others Hold Rally to Protest Google-Verizon Deal

Free Press, ColorofChange.org, and other consumer groups held a rally at Google headquarters on Friday, protesting the company's proposed net neutrality plan with Verizon.

The proposal, protesters claimed, will create a two- or multi-tier Internet, which would favor established media giants, freezing out startups and the average consumer.

Protesters submitted a list of what organizers said was 300,000 signatures of people opposed to the proposed arrangement, which would allow Google and Verizon the freedom to add new services on the Internet that would not be constrained by network neutrality policies. The wireless industry would also be exempt from net neutrality, a term used to describe a world in which every Internet service and Web site is given equal weight and equal priority over the others.

Note EU-Digest: For Google, which used to be the worlds friendly efficient search engine, the saying: "Power corrupts" fits the picture completely.

For more: Freedom of Expression and the Internet: Free Press, Others Hold Rally to Protest Google-Verizon Deal | News & Opinion | PCMag.com "