<div align="center"><img src="http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/wp-content/themes/ipw/images/logo_print.gif" title="" border="0"></div>
<p style="text-align: center;"><span dir="ltr"><a href="http://www.ip-watch.org/">http://www.ip-watch.org/</a></span></p>
<div class="Center">
<div id="Outline">
<p id="BlogTitle">US Internet Neutrality Flare-Up Resonates Across International Front</p>
<p id="BlogDate">By Liza Porteus Viana on 23 August 2010 @ 6:18 pm <br></p><p id="BlogDate"><a href="http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/2010/08/23/us-internet-neutrality-flare-up-resonates-across-international-front/print/">http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/2010/08/23/us-internet-neutrality-flare-up-resonates-across-international-front/print/</a><br>
</p>
<div id="BlogContent"><p>A network neutrality policy
proposed recently by industry giants Google and Verizon not only sparked
controversy here in the United States, but the news is making waves
internationally as well.<br>
<span id="more-12133"></span><br>
The proposal aims to ensure network (or “Net”) neutrality for wireline
internet services but not for rapidly growing wireless ones. It also
calls for “full transparency” across both wireline and wireless
broadband platforms, and calls for the FCC to have authority to
adjudicate user complaints and impose injunctions and penalties against
bad actors. </p>
<p>Pro-neutrality groups such as Public Knowledge, Open Internet
Coalition, and members of the SavetheInternet.com Coalition, blasted the
proposal as one that would only benefit industry behemoths and would be
a detriment to startups, consumers, and others. They argue in favour of
neutrality for all parts of the internet and against allowing service
providers to block or restrict certain users over others. Some also
oppose the FCC allowing industry to take the lead in proposing such
policies, and say the FCC would not have enough enforcement power under
the proposal. Opponents also fear this proposal would result in a tiered
system where those entities with the deepest pockets would enjoy faster
internet, thereby discriminating against others. </p>
<p>“It should not be the policy of Federal Communications Commission nor
Congress to allow the largest telecom and internet companies to write
the regulations that determine the future of the internet,” said
Benjamin Lennett, policy analyst for the New America Foundation’s Open
Technology Initiative. “If we have learned anything from the failures of
financial deregulation or the past administration allowing Big Oil to
write our nation’s energy policy. We cannot leave it to the market to
regulate itself.”</p>
<p>On 18 August, the Information Technology Industry Council (ITI) held
the first of a series of new Net neutrality discussions in their offices
with various stakeholders; neither Google nor the FCC are involved.
These talks are “aimed at developing internet openness principles that
can achieve broad cross-sector support,” said ITI President Dean
Garfield. “Over the last few months, much work has been directed at
developing such a solution – including by Google – with significant
positive steps forward. This new effort will build on that work to
arrive at something that can achieve both public and private sector
support and strike the balance of encouraging continued innovation and
investment in the internet.”</p>
<p>But some neutrality advocates call these talks yet another “backroom corporate deal.”</p>
<p>“Industry deal-making is no substitute for responsible policymaking,”
said Free Press Policy Counsel Aparna Sridhar. “This latest effort by a
few large companies to dictate the rules behind closed doors will not
protect internet users. Industry titans will propose rules that serve
only their own interests.”</p>
<p>Many groups are particularly upset with Google, which has been a
staunch advocate of neutrality both here and abroad, in countries such
as India. The Open Internet Coalition – of which companies and groups
such as Facebook, Amazon, eBay and Google are a part – opposes Google’s
move.</p>
<p>“Google has always presented itself as a different kind of corporate
entity,” said Justin Ruben, executive director of MoveOn.org. “The fact
that they are involved in a deal that would kill internet freedom
directly contradicts this image. We hope that Google will reconsider
before they are seen as just another giant corporation out to make a
buck regardless of the consequence.”</p>
<p>Facebook said it continues to support neutrality for landline and wireless services.</p>
<p>“Preserving an open internet that is accessible to innovators –
regardless of their size or wealth – will promote a vibrant and
competitive marketplace where consumers have ultimate control over the
content and services delivered through their internet connections,”
Facebook said in a statement. </p>
<p>Google denies it has “sold out” on Net neutrality, calling the
proposal the “best policy solution we could devise together.” “Given
political realities,” the company said, “this particular issue has been
intractable in Washington for several years now. At this time there are
no enforceable protections … against even the worst forms of carrier
discrimination against internet traffic.” </p>
<p>Verizon <a href="http://policyblog.verizon.com/BlogPost/745/USATodayOp-EdGetsitWrong.aspx" rel="external">defended itself</a> <sup>[1]</sup>
against one media characterisation of the deal, pointing out on 18
August that the proposal includes: “Prohibitions on blocking or
degrading, enforcement of a non-discrimination requirement and a
presumption against all prioritization on Internet connections …
stronger than what the FCC could obtain through its threatened
imposition of old-world telecom regulations” on broadband networks. </p>
<p>AT&T argued <a href="http://attpublicpolicy.com/government-policy/wireless-is-different/" rel="external">in its policy blog</a> <sup>[2]</sup>
that, “wireless is different” and that it should not be subjected to
the same regulatory framework as wired services. The company noted the
“ever-constant struggle between capacity and demand” for wireless
services and calling on policymakers to reallocate more spectrum for
Commercial Mobile Radio Services use and to protect wireless broadband
networks from “onerous new net neutrality regulations.” </p>
<p>Although Microsoft has not publicly commented on the proposal, it has
voiced support for Net neutrality and is reportedly involved in the ITI
talks. On the policy issues section of its website, the company said:
“It is also important that broadband users continue to enjoy basic
Internet ‘freedoms,’ such as the ability to access any site and use any
lawful application or device. These Internet freedoms further fuel
innovation.”</p>
<p>On 16 August, a group of congressional Democrats <a href="http://markey.house.gov/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=4086&Itemid=125" rel="external">wrote a letter</a> <sup>[3]</sup>
to FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski, blasting the “industry-centered”
policy, and calling for formal FCC action “rather than expansion upon a
proposal by two large communications companies with a vested financial
interest in the outcome.” That letter also voices support for the FCC’s
“third way” proposal – a response to the Comcast court decision that
would reclassify data transmission as a telecommunications service that
could be directly regulated. This method would also give the FCC clearer
oversight in this area. </p>
<p>The Recording Industry Association of America and 12 other groups also <a href="http://76.74.24.142/5BD037EE-12AA-97BA-C80E-3296D483BD34.pdf" rel="external">sent a letter</a> <sup>[4]</sup>
[pdf] to Google encouraging internet service providers (ISPs) and other
intermediaries “to take measures to deter unlawful activity such as
copyright infringement and child pornography.” </p>
<p>International Level</p>
<p>The result of the net neutrality debate does not just affect the
United States. Other countries are watching as they form their own
policies on the issue.</p>
<p>Luis Villarroel, director of investigations for the Latin American
Corporation for Research of Intellectual Property for Development, or
Corporación Innovarte, in Chile, fears that whatever model of neutrality
is adopted in the United States will later be “exported to the rest of
the world” via free trade agreements – the mode in which he says America
has been pushing other solutions to issues such as domain-name
resolution and internet service provider (ISP) liability. </p>
<p>“So certainly [it] is very important for all that US get it right on
this, and certainly there are many good reasons to ensure network
neutrality for wireless services, where more should be done,” Villarroel
said.</p>
<p>In July, Chile adopted an amendment that mandates net neutrality for
legal activities and requires ISPs to provide users information on what
broadband speeds they offer. Ronaldo Lemos thinks Chile’s law can also
serve as a model to be adopted by other Latin American countries. Lemos,
the director of the Center for Technology and Society at Fundaçao
Getulio Vargas (FGV), a think-tank and law school in Brazil, stressed
that in developing countries, portions of the network infrastructure
were built with the help of government. Brazil’s National Broadband Plan
(Plano Nacional de Banda Larga), is one example of where government
dollars are helping roll out universal broadband throughout the country.
</p>
<p>“It is hard to argue against net neutrality in such cases,” Lemos
told Intellectual Property Watch. “These networks must be neutral, and
regarded as ‘common carriers’.”</p>
<p>Brazil is drafting <a href="http://www.ip-watch.org/weblogwww.culturadigital.br/marcocivil" rel="external">new legislation </a> <sup>[5]</sup>encompassing
net neutrality called “Marco Civil” (Civil Rights Framework for the
Internet), spurred by the Ministry of Justice and the FGV’s Center for
Technology and Society. Lemos explained that during the drafting
process, telecommunications companies protested against neutrality in
Brazil while public interest groups rallied for it. The final draft
should be completed this year. </p>
<p>“Because of its timing, the Google/Verizon deal has the potential of
stirring up more controversy, creating incentives for the different
views to become even more extreme,” Lemos added. The Brazilian
legislation “will certainly take into account the issues raised by the
Google/Verizon deal.”</p>
<p>The European Union has launched a consultation on key net neutrality
questions, including whether providers should be able to regulate
internet traffic and prioritise some traffic over others, and whether
there is sufficient competition and transparency among providers.
France-based neutrality advocacy group La Quadrature du Net (LQDN) is
one entity that will provide input to that process early next month. </p>
<p>“The Google/Verizon could have a lasting impact on the Net neutrality
debate everywhere, especially if it is followed by [legislation], in
the US and beyond,” said LQDN spokesman Jérémie Zimmerman. “The lobbying
power of these two companies combined with the one of [sic] other
telcos agreeing with their position – AT&T, etcetera – is huge.”</p>
<p>Zimmerman added that the Google/Verizon proposal’s “lawful content”
language implies that it should be excluded from net neutrality rules.</p>
<p>“This is wrong, and we greatly opposed this in the European
Parliament in the Telecoms Package debate: a given content is not lawful
or unlawful, it is the usage that is done with it (accessing it,
copying it, etc.) that could be declared unlawful… after a decision of
the judicial authority,” he added. “The notion of ‘lawful content’ put
into the definition of network policies could lead to “automated
justice” being handled by machines (deep packet inspection, filtering,
etc.), under supervision of private actors.”</p>
<p>Pieter Hintjens, CEO of the Brussels-based iMatix Corporation, which
develops software that makes it possible for others to create
distributed computer applications, told Intellectual Property Watch that
not only is extending network neutrality to wireless networks is
“fundamental,” but so is reducing wireless data costs both domestically
and when roaming. </p>
<p>“Without network neutrality, a mobile operator can forbid competing
applications, e.g. VoIP [voice over internet protocol], and in many
countries without network neutrality legislation, this is what happens,”
Hintjens said. “Clearly this is not in the interests of an efficient,
open, competitive economy.” </p>
<p>“Economic growth depends on competition, not cartels,” he added.
“Europe especially risks being left with serious damage to its economy
as European firms find themselves unable to compete in an increasingly
one-sided” market.</p>
<div class="related"><h3>Related Articles:</h3><ul><li><a href="http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/2009/09/24/us-acts-to-preserve-internet-neutrality-european-debate-heats-up/" rel="external">US Acts To Preserve Internet Neutrality; European Debate Heats Up</a> <sup>[6]</sup></li>
<li><a href="http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/2010/05/29/us-advisory-group-looks-at-fcc-net-neutrality-principles-as-decision-looms/" rel="external">US Advisory Group Looks At FCC Net Neutrality Principles As Decision Looms</a> <sup>[7]</sup></li>
<li><a href="http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/2009/11/04/mpaa-on-broadband-net-neutrality-regulation-good-not-good/" rel="external">MPAA On Broadband, Net Neutrality: Regulation Good, Not Good</a> <sup>[8]</sup></li></ul></div>
</div>
Categories: English, Information and Communications Technology/
Broadcasting, Language, Lobbying, News, Themes, US Policy, Venues <hr class="Divider" style="text-align: center;">
<p>Article printed from Intellectual Property Watch: <strong dir="ltr"><a href="http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog">http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog</a></strong></p>
<p>URL to article: <strong dir="ltr"><a href="http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/2010/08/23/us-internet-neutrality-flare-up-resonates-across-international-front/">http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/2010/08/23/us-internet-neutrality-flare-up-resonates-across-international-front/</a></strong></p>
<p>URLs in this post:</p><p style="margin: 2px 0pt;">[1] defended itself: <b><span dir="ltr"><a href="http://policyblog.verizon.com/BlogPost/745/USATodayOp-EdGetsitWrong.aspx">http://policyblog.verizon.com/BlogPost/745/USATodayOp-EdGetsitWrong.aspx</a></span></b></p>
<p style="margin: 2px 0pt;">[2] in its policy blog: <b><span dir="ltr"><a href="http://attpublicpolicy.com/government-policy/wireless-is-different/">http://attpublicpolicy.com/government-policy/wireless-is-different/</a></span></b></p>
<p style="margin: 2px 0pt;">[3] wrote a letter: <b><span dir="ltr"><a href="http://markey.house.gov/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=4086&Itemid=125">http://markey.house.gov/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=4086&Itemid=125</a></span></b></p>
<p style="margin: 2px 0pt;">[4] sent a letter: <b><span dir="ltr"><a href="http://76.74.24.142/5BD037EE-12AA-97BA-C80E-3296D483BD34.pdf">http://76.74.24.142/5BD037EE-12AA-97BA-C80E-3296D483BD34.pdf</a></span></b></p><p style="margin: 2px 0pt;">
[5] new legislation : <b><span dir="ltr"><a href="http://www.ip-watch.org/weblogwww.culturadigital.br/marcocivil">http://www.ip-watch.org/weblogwww.culturadigital.br/marcocivil</a></span></b></p><p style="margin: 2px 0pt;">
[6] US Acts To Preserve Internet Neutrality; European Debate Heats Up: <b><span dir="ltr"><a href="http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/2009/09/24/us-acts-to-preserve-internet-neutrality-european-debate-heats-up/">http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/2009/09/24/us-acts-to-preserve-internet-neutrality-european-debate-heats-up/</a></span></b></p>
<p style="margin: 2px 0pt;">[7] US Advisory Group Looks At FCC Net Neutrality Principles As Decision Looms: <b><span dir="ltr"><a href="http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/2010/05/29/us-advisory-group-looks-at-fcc-net-neutrality-principles-as-decision-looms/">http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/2010/05/29/us-advisory-group-looks-at-fcc-net-neutrality-principles-as-decision-looms/</a></span></b></p>
<p style="margin: 2px 0pt;">[8] MPAA On Broadband, Net Neutrality: Regulation Good, Not Good: <b><span dir="ltr"><a href="http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/2009/11/04/mpaa-on-broadband-net-neutrality-regulation-good-not-good/">http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/2009/11/04/mpaa-on-broadband-net-neutrality-regulation-good-not-good/</a></span></b></p>
<p style="text-align: right;" id="print-link">Click <a href="http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/2010/08/23/us-internet-neutrality-flare-up-resonates-across-international-front/print/#Print" onclick="window.print(); return false;" title="Click here to print.">here</a> to print.</p>
</div>
</div>